Australia Bans CrimeCraft for Drug Use

[SantoUno]

This should be followed by an epic facepalm by every single gamer outside of Australia, and shotgun justice by the gamers who live in Australia.

Seriously, why this again? Poor Aussie gamers.

 

[Doug]

True! They are given alot of crap for some strange reason. Their policy, from what they've said and done is, "So long as it doesn't have something that would make a grown war criminal weep for no good reason, its ok to be released" ... so, basically, anything short of Manhunt 2

I think people got pissy because it's breaching freedom of speech or creative arts of something along those lines. I honestly don't see what is so artistic and creative about mutilated bodies but I guess someone thought it was and got an audience

Well, I sort of understand where they are coming from; but we aren't American's, and don't have a written constitution that says 'Freedom of speech no matter what!' - regardless, in both cases, freedom of speech is not universal (its illegal to shout FIRE in a crowd when there is no fire, for example).

I think Manhunt 2 is different because, as Yahtzee said, its abit hard to justify extreme close ups with alot of detail on how to murder with household objects. David Cooke, the Director of the BBFC said:

"Rejecting a work is a very serious action and one which we do not take lightly. Where possible we try to consider cuts or, in the case of games, modifications which remove the material which contravenes the Board?s published Guidelines. In the case of Manhunt 2 this has not been possible. Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing. There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.

?Although the difference should not be exaggerated the fact of the game?s unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer, together with the different overall narrative context, contribute towards differentiating this submission from the original Manhunt game. That work was classified ?18? in 2003, before the BBFC?s recent games research had been undertaken, but was already at the very top end of what the Board judged to be acceptable at that category.?

?Against this background, the Board?s carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public.? Under the terms of the Video Recordings Act distributors have the right to appeal the Board?s decision."

Which sounds fair enough actually; it reads that Manhunt 2's unstopping sadism is what got it banned in reality, compounded by its extreme detail and so forth.

 

[Carlston]

And in further news

The original Pac man was banned down under for over eatting, the power "pill" being a obvious drug and the eatting of ghost after a violent image that disturbed young wallabees.


Next in the news Assuies say no to space genocide and ban space invaders.

 

[Lt. Vinciti]

In Crimecraft's case, it's lucky it's not universally banned on the grounds of being a crappy pay-per-month Counterstrike clone slathered with sleazy ghetto dressing.

This.


Rejoice Aussie people as your govt has liberated you from horrid game

 

[Ericb]

cannabis or ecstasy in some hippie free-drug fantasy

Hum.

Yet respected scientists like David Nutt are censored and fired by MY government for daring to say we should be more worried about binge drinking than ecstasy pills. He was fired not for DOING something... merely for SAYING their own learned opinion. Thought crime.

After you cited this guy, I gave it a read about his dismissal.

Absurd hypocrisy, quite on the level of which conservative politicians usually partake in while defending their draconian stances on many kind of restrictions. Usually the ones which present personal benefits in the long run.

It is times like this that I seriously worry about Australia, the UK and other commonwealth countries that have come this far without a codified constitution or citizen's bill of rights, if can continue to remain "free democracies" in the coming decades.

Wait, what? No constitution?

 

[Treblaine]

cannabis or ecstasy in some hippie free-drug fantasy

Hum.

Yet respected scientists like David Nutt are censored and fired by MY government for daring to say we should be more worried about binge drinking than ecstasy pills. He was fired not for DOING something... merely for SAYING their own learned opinion. Thought crime.

After you cited this guy, I gave it a read about his dismissal.

Absurd hypocrisy, quite on the level of which conservative politicians usually partake in while defending their draconian stances on many kind of restrictions. Usually the ones which present personal benefits in the long run.

It is times like this that I seriously worry about Australia, the UK and other commonwealth countries that have come this far without a codified constitution or citizen's bill of rights, if can continue to remain "free democracies" in the coming decades.

Wait, what? No constitution?

Read it and weep... or more precisely discover there is nothing to read. Nothing notable since Magna Carta. Our government can do LITERALLY anything and there is not a SINGLE law that stops them doing it, if any law is in the way then they can just get rid of it. V for Vendetta, 1984... they are all set in Britain for a reason.

I find it disgusting that my fellow citizens (or should I say fellow subjects) view America's constitution and Bill of Rights with disdain... yet every day the complain about another oppressive law is passed without them even noticing.

And I got a kicker for you, you say firing that Dr David Nutt was an example of conservatism, well the current ruling government in the UK (Labour Party) are the more Left Wing of the other parties. The more "liberal" party.

The current Australian govt is also the "left wing" Labour Party.

Just goes to show, at the end of the day these old socialists are just the same old stuck up conservatives who cling so desperately to obsolete traditions and trample over the same freedoms.

 

[The Rockerfly]

Well, I sort of understand where they are coming from; but we aren't American's, and don't have a written constitution that says 'Freedom of speech no matter what!' - regardless, in both cases, freedom of speech is not universal (its illegal to shout FIRE in a crowd when there is no fire, for example).

I think Manhunt 2 is different because, as Yahtzee said, its abit hard to justify extreme close ups with alot of detail on how to murder with household objects. David Cooke, the Director of the BBFC said:

"Rejecting a work is a very serious action and one which we do not take lightly. Where possible we try to consider cuts or, in the case of games, modifications which remove the material which contravenes the Board?s published Guidelines. In the case of Manhunt 2 this has not been possible. Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing. There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.

?Although the difference should not be exaggerated the fact of the game?s unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer, together with the different overall narrative context, contribute towards differentiating this submission from the original Manhunt game. That work was classified ?18? in 2003, before the BBFC?s recent games research had been undertaken, but was already at the very top end of what the Board judged to be acceptable at that category.?

?Against this background, the Board?s carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public.? Under the terms of the Video Recordings Act distributors have the right to appeal the Board?s decision."

Which sounds fair enough actually; it reads that Manhunt 2's unstopping sadism is what got it banned in reality, compounded by its extreme detail and so forth.

I completely agree, there is nothing artistic about it, it exists purely for sadist pleasures, same with the Saw film series.
Actually now that you mentioned the constitution, I wonder how many American games have been banned or censored.

Plus Britain doesn't believe in freedom of speech, if you say anything along the lines of "I hate all X people" you will be arrested or at least held in custody and either you have the freedom to say whatever you want or you don't.
Though I think my last sentence is going very off topic.

 

[TechNoFear]

This is one state goverment member (not even a member of the federal senate or house) who has found himself with a veto power that gets him lots of publicity when he uses it.

His actions only hurts local game retailers, not gamers. I can import cheaper than I can buy locally (and this gives a reason to pirate).

Least they are not kicking us off the internet as per Mandy?s 3 strikes in the UK or banning gambling online because it might ?block the internet tubes?.

Read it and weep... or more precisely discover there is nothing to read.

Try reading the UDHR, signed by the Commonwealth in 1998.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Or the ICCPR, also ratified by Australia.

Though not yet written into the Australian Constitution, free speech has been upheld by the Australian courts on numerous occasions.

 

[Altorin]

I thought Bethesda refused to create a "drug free" Fallout 3 for Australia, and instead reverted the use of real world drug names in the original designed game to the drug names from the prior Fallout Games.

 

[Puzzles]

Oh Australia, what will you do next =(

Atleast none of the games I want to play have been banned yet.

 

[DarkPanda XIII]

After reading this, the only thing that comes to mind is "How were they surprised that there were drugs in a game called Crimecraft?" It's silly, I tell you

 

[Treblaine]

This is one state goverment member (not even a member of the federal senate or house) who has found himself with a veto power that gets him lots of publicity when he uses it.

His actions only hurts local game retailers, not gamers. I can import cheaper than I can buy locally (and this gives a reason to pirate).

Least they are not kicking us off the internet as per Mandy?s 3 strikes in the UK or banning gambling online because it might ?block the internet tubes?.

Read it and weep... or more precisely discover there is nothing to read.

Try reading the UDHR, signed by the Commonwealth in 1998.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Or the ICCPR, also ratified by Australia.

Though not yet written into the Australian Constitution, free speech has been upheld by the Australian courts on numerous occasions.

Unfortunately both of those UN agreements are virtually useless in comparison to the power of the parliament and lack virtually any legal power.

In other words if you sell crimecraft in Australia and you get sent to court, it would be utterly futile to try and cite the ICCPR or UDHR in your defence.

But in America, you can cite the Constitution as your defence no mater what law exist.

In the UK, the word "un-constitutional" simply odes not exist in the judicial or political language.

 

[quiet_samurai]

By Australia, you mean Michael Atkinson I presume? Seriously that guy needs to get off his high horse and realize that the rest of you folks down under might not share his same views of the world. Shit some of his collegues don't even share his views... you'd think he would take a hint.

Isn't he up for re-election or something soon?

 

[TechNoFear]

In other words if you sell crimecraft in Australia and you get sent to court, it would be utterly futile to try and cite the ICCPR or UDHR in your defence.

In other words if you sell crimecraft in Australia and you get sent to court, it would be utterly futile to try and cite the ICCPR or UDHR in your defence.

But in America, you can cite the Constitution as your defence no mater what law exist.

In Australia, as I stated, numerous court precidents can be cited in defense of free speech.

Selling an banned product in the US is a crime and claiming freedom of speech would not stop prosecution.

As an experiment I suggest you try selling copies of 'Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story' and see how limited your protections under the Bill of Rights are (*).

I also suggest you read the case of MacLibel. The European courts did eventually uphold the right to free speech.

[(*) Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story was banned because of copyright issues over the music used.]

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

I just can't understand Australia anymore. An R-18 rating would work so well. It would let 18 and older gamers to be able to play the games they like, and it would keep the little tikes out. (Of course, 13-17 would most likely still get it. But really, you're sending them to High School)

 

[Kajin]

This should be followed by an epic facepalm by every single gamer outside of Australia, and shotgun justice by the gamers who live in Australia.

Seriously, why this again? Poor Aussie gamers.

It's the exact thing you just said that Micheal Atkinson may be worried about. You should feel ashamed for giving him a reason to be right. DON'T ENCOURAGE HIM!

 

[Treblaine]

In other words if you sell crimecraft in Australia and you get sent to court, it would be utterly futile to try and cite the ICCPR or UDHR in your defence.

In other words if you sell crimecraft in Australia and you get sent to court, it would be utterly futile to try and cite the ICCPR or UDHR in your defence.

But in America, you can cite the Constitution as your defence no mater what law exist.

In Australia, as I stated, numerous court precidents can be cited in defense of free speech.

Selling an banned product in the US is a crime and claiming freedom of speech would not stop prosecution.

As an experiment I suggest you try selling copies of 'Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story' and see how limited your protections under the Bill of Rights are (*).

I also suggest you read the case of MacLibel. The European courts did eventually uphold the right to free speech.

[(*) Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story was banned because of copyright issues over the music used.]

Copyright law is QUITE a bit different from government censorship. Under copyright law ONLY the copyright holder can sell it or authorise its sale, but if a game is "banned" then NO-ONE can sell it.

It's like saying "you can't sell your newspaper" compared to "you can't sell newspapers that you have stolen"... the latter being equivalent to that "Superstar" game.

Not to say that copyright law is perfect, but that is getting into a separate issue of property and ownership. I am talking about free expression in games and all other media forms and also our rights to access those.

And as far as I know only a few small back-wood jerk-water towns in America have ever tried banning the sale of any media and 90% of the time they fail in any test case, like Jack Thompson's early and lame attempts at getting that "me so horny" song banned in Florida. American courts have even proven how immune works are from even obscenity laws.

I will have you know that libel laws over here are as strong and oppressive as ever. The whole point of the McLibel case was McDonald's KNEW their case would likely never be ruled in their favour... but they still won as they forced their critics to spend so much money just to defend themselves. The entire legal system is skewed in favour of the rich and powerful organisations to abuse the law to stifle criticism. The WORST part is the fear it induces in people, to the point where comedians are terrified of merely stating their opinion in case they get served with a letter and need to spend thousands and thousands of pounds on lawyers and solicitors. Try to go with a public defender is doomed to failure.

 

[TechNoFear]

You appear to have missed the point.

Freedom of Speech IS a right in the Commonwealth and that right can be legally enforced despite your claims it is not (even if the process is expensive).

MacLibel is an example of this right to free speech in the EU, which you incorrectly stated was not available under Commonwealth laws.

Also 'Freedom of Speech' is not a legal defense against selling a banned item in the US (no matter why the item has been banned) as you claim.

I suggest you research censorship in the US. ie Nintendo censoring games prior to release in the US.

It's like saying "you can't sell your newspaper" compared to "you can't sell newspapers that you have stolen"... the latter being equivalent to that "Superstar" game.

A very poor example, comparing a legal sale to thieft in no way releates to the situation.

More like; "you can't sell your terrorist instruction manual or child porn" [because the content is considered objectionable].

Freedom of speech will not protect you against this prosecution [even if only the government considers the material objectionable enough to ban].

 

[Treblaine]

You appear to have missed the point.

Freedom of Speech IS a right in the Commonwealth and that right can be legally enforced despite your claims it is not (even if the process is expensive).

MacLibel is an example of this right to free speech in the EU, which you incorrectly stated was not available under Commonwealth laws.

Also 'Freedom of Speech' is not a legal defense against selling a banned item in the US (no matter why the item has been banned) as you claim.

I suggest you research censorship in the US. ie Nintendo censoring games prior to release in the US.

It's like saying "you can't sell your newspaper" compared to "you can't sell newspapers that you have stolen"... the latter being equivalent to that "Superstar" game.

A very poor example, comparing a legal sale to thieft in no way releates to the situation.

More like; "you can't sell your terrorist instruction manual or child porn" [because the content is considered objectionable].

Freedom of speech will not protect you against this prosecution [even if only the government considers the material objectionable enough to ban].

OK, what the hell are you doing trolling this forum with bullshit comparisons of Crimecraft to terrorist manuals and CHILD PORN!!! I mean WTF!?!?!

Those are banned because it is participating in ACTUAL crimes, Australia have banned this game for objection to fictional and representative acts that have virtually ZERO relation to real life and overall is completely separate so DO NOT muddy this issue with hyperbole!

And even as you say that there have be

Also, how the hell did the plaintiff "win" the Mclibel case if they had to pay Sixty Thousand Pounds(!) and not to mention all the legal fees as they were refused legal aid?

http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/

No mention of any freedom of speech in the actual English Law case because they ONLY investigates the statements and punished them heavily for the slightest infraction.

And about that European Court verdict? Virtually diddly squat effect on the actual application of the law since at the end of the day the power of European Courts is extremely weak over English Law as is borne out if you watch any comedy panel in the UK, everyone taking are constantly squirming trying not to criticise the rich and powerful too much...

Since the European Court ruling the parliament has NOT eased libel laws and in fact there are a whole new load of laws that make it even WORSE. All our politicians have done an amazing job of ignoring this for the past 10 years.

I will spell it out to you: under English Law Freedom of speech does. not. exist.

If Freedom of speech is a legal right in the Commonwealth show me a test case that proves it. And if it is so expensive that it has only and can only be done once at a time then the law is as good as useless. If the law is not so clear that the judge would immediately throw out any case or even prevent the material being banned in the first place then - again - that "legal right" is as good as non-existent.

 

[Deleted]

Drugs are bad mmkay.

Hey funny thing, anyone know how Australia all started?