Yet more on Manhunt 2.
The BBFC have found a judge willing to let their ridiculous argument against personal responsibility justify a judicial review:
Now this is interesting. The BBFC's original decision to reject Manhunt 2 made clear that
The BBFC seems now to have abandoned their specious argument that its content could harm adults, and fell back on the always persuasive but bankrupt claim that even if the game was released at 18, it could still get into the hands of children. This is the exact same argument as used at the time of the video nasty moral panic: Mary Whitehouse and co didn't want to stop adults from choosing what to watch, they only wanted to protect the children, but to do so would involve err, stopping anyone from being able to make that choice. The compromise measure was the Video Recordings Act, but by then some of the "nasties" had already been prosecuted under the fundamentally illiberal Obscene Publications Act, where the jury only had to find that whatever was brought before the court had the potential to "deprave and corrupt", and in James Ferman, there was a censor who was more than prepared to cut and ban the "trash", but who came out in defense of "art", such as Crash.
While the BBFC should always consider whether films and video games that are made for adults have the potential to "harm" children, it should never be used as a reason for banning either from adult consumption. We don't ban alcohol or cigarettes because they're especially damaging to children; we age restrict them, and it's up to the retailers and parents to ensure that they don't get into their hands, not the manufacturers or in this case, the BBFC's. The BBFC's final comment on refusing Manhunt 2 a certificate is still telling:
The BBFC has of course no evidence whatsoever to prove this would be the case. It instead took into account the reaction it imagined that its certification would receive, especially considering the Daily Mail and certain politicians' opportunism following the Stefan Pakeerah murder. It would have never been so cowardly about almost any film: video games are however now subject to the same fallacious moral panic that horror films were in the early 80s.
There is one silver lining for Rockstar:
I still can't see any other decision than one against the BBFC in an actual review; Rockstar still might yet get its revenge.
British censors have won the right to fight the UK release of video game Manhunt 2 in the High Court.
A judge accepted the British Board of Film Classification's argument that the game had been approved for release on a misinterpretation of the law.
...
The BBFC said that the VAC had been guilty of "a very serious misdirection of law" on the question of harm.
The judge said: "I have taken into account the high public interest in the possibility of harm to children."
Mr Justice Wyn Williams ruled the Board had an arguable case that should go to a full hearing.
Both sides agreed that the game was not suitable for children, but the BBFC argued that if given a certificate for release, it could still end up in the hands of minors.
Now this is interesting. The BBFC's original decision to reject Manhunt 2 made clear that
to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors.
The BBFC seems now to have abandoned their specious argument that its content could harm adults, and fell back on the always persuasive but bankrupt claim that even if the game was released at 18, it could still get into the hands of children. This is the exact same argument as used at the time of the video nasty moral panic: Mary Whitehouse and co didn't want to stop adults from choosing what to watch, they only wanted to protect the children, but to do so would involve err, stopping anyone from being able to make that choice. The compromise measure was the Video Recordings Act, but by then some of the "nasties" had already been prosecuted under the fundamentally illiberal Obscene Publications Act, where the jury only had to find that whatever was brought before the court had the potential to "deprave and corrupt", and in James Ferman, there was a censor who was more than prepared to cut and ban the "trash", but who came out in defense of "art", such as Crash.
While the BBFC should always consider whether films and video games that are made for adults have the potential to "harm" children, it should never be used as a reason for banning either from adult consumption. We don't ban alcohol or cigarettes because they're especially damaging to children; we age restrict them, and it's up to the retailers and parents to ensure that they don't get into their hands, not the manufacturers or in this case, the BBFC's. The BBFC's final comment on refusing Manhunt 2 a certificate is still telling:
...and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public.”
The BBFC has of course no evidence whatsoever to prove this would be the case. It instead took into account the reaction it imagined that its certification would receive, especially considering the Daily Mail and certain politicians' opportunism following the Stefan Pakeerah murder. It would have never been so cowardly about almost any film: video games are however now subject to the same fallacious moral panic that horror films were in the early 80s.
There is one silver lining for Rockstar:
The BBFC said it would pay any damages that developer Rockstar might suffer as a result of the stay, if the Board loses its legal challenge.
I still can't see any other decision than one against the BBFC in an actual review; Rockstar still might yet get its revenge.
Labels: BBFC, censorship, judicial review, Manhunt 2, moral panics, Video Appeals Committee
| Permalink
Post a Comment