So it's all very unclear. However I hope in this post I've demonstrated that things are nowhere near as black and white as: 'stopping someone from buying a product they want is always an unacceptable violation of their liberties'. In reality, liberties are very fuzzy indeed.
I think the real question from the beginning is '
should that kind of precedent exist in a society that's very principles revolve around the free enterprise of ideas?'
Saying that a form of media would qualify as a kind of "public nuisance," which I think is what your post was trying to express in regards to government censorship, is tricky business. Trying to prove that any elements of media are harmful to society in general, is almost, if not entirely, impossible. In that right, its slippery slope and specious nature could be considered unconstitutional in the case of most countries in the UK.
CAN a piece of media inspire consistent and re-occuring episodes of civil unrest? I'm not particularly sure if the media in question could inspire that all on its own, but anyone who'd try to prove such a thing wouldn't get very far in the endeavor.
Even so however, in this context things need to be looked at on a case by case basis. The question is, "does anyone who is objective, and devoid the kind of watchdog eyes assigned to parents and censors, truly believe that this game has the ability to invoke civil dystopia?" Many many people assumed such a thing of the first game and they turned out to be wrong or just totally lacking in any sort of tangible evidence; has this situation been looked at fairly and objectively?
When I read the statements from the BBFC, they seemed more concerned about the contents of the game being a form of entertainment rather than a precipitator of civil unrest. They furthermore characterize the game as being too "bleak." This sends up warning signs in regards to the intent of the censors since such broad notions of inappropriate material could be policed with the same intensity in other various books and movies going in and out of the UK (plus the certain states where the game was banned). This verdict
can be fought.
Take-Two, for example, should petition Sony on the matter of whether or not this
particular AO would be acceptable to advocate running on their system. I find that the AO status and the knee-jerk reaction it causes retailers would pretty much offer the best scenario for keeping it out of kids' hands cnsidering all the red tape involved with mass mail-orders. The game has earned quite a name for itself, so I imagine the pre-order would be humongous if this drags on long enough--Giving the companies precedent of profit.
I, personally, am most angered by this matter due to the fact that I will have to play a butchered version of the previously developed art. I am a strong believer of the freedom that games are supposed to afford a developer in defining their vision(s). This hussle maneuver pulled by the government in the UK and the companies in tandem is so infuriating, that I'm just about ready to give up on consoles altogether.
I can't imagine how Rockstar feels. Their work being rejected must be extremely harsh for morale.
Anyway, I dont think not allowing AO is a new rule for nintendo and sony. Wouldnt be suprised if they got it since the rating system was introduced.
