British Censors Seek Manhunt 2 Ban, Blame Game for Murder

Manhunt 2 has been the focus of much consternation in the UK for some time now, and we've discussed it here before. But I didn't realize this part of the story had unfolded beforehand:

In late July of 2004, a 14-year old boy, Stefan Pakeerah, was lured into a park and bludgeoned and stabbed to death by a 17-year old boy. The victim's parents claim they overheard the attacker's friends saying he was "obsessed" with the Adults Only video game and blame it for the murder.

As some of you know, this is a sticky issue for me: part of the reason I quit playing death metal was because of things like this. Most of my material was about murder - as you also know, I'm a steadfast splatterflick fan and the content was all gore, all the time - and even though I staunchly defend my right to create such material, and know that the material is really, really good, I had to admit that I didn't think I could live with myself should something like this happen and my art be part of the equation. It doesn't matter whether or not the music really had any part, and I refute the idea that it could ever be held solely responsible; the point is that you don't know who is going to act/react poorly to any sort of stimuli, and this is a really bad world environment. It was a personal decision I made (and this much of it was only one factor involved, but it was an important one): I felt it was more responsible not to test the waters; why tempt people? And like I say, it isn't a "cowardly" decision, because this was only one of the many reasons I quit playing, but the whole world is different today: people are increasingly angry and increasingly violent, and most of them are just looking for a reason to explode, so why give them one?

I don't believe Manhunt 2 can be held responsible for the murder, but I do believe that the boy's access to it may have influenced him - whether it compelled him to commit the murder or simply influenced his methods of attack, I do believe Manhunt 2 played a part in the events. But - and this is key - the game cannot be held responsible for this disturbed, or possibly simply Evil, boy's actions. The real motive of the crime was robbery, so you cannot say the kid became so obsessed with the game that he decided to go out and imitate it; this kid could just as easily have been influenced by a TV show or a horror movie or a music video or any number of other factors.

The victim's father brought suit against Rockstar games, but the verdict has not been reported on as yet (I am not sure the case has even gone to trial). In the meantime, the game was banned, but Rockstar won an appeal which lifted said ban. Today, it was reported that British censors are asking for a judicial review of that appeal.

When you get down to it, there really is a fine line between corporate responsibility and censorship. Rockstar games does not get a free pass from me for defending their right to make such a violent game simply because "people buy it" - neither does porn. People will buy lots of things - people try to put out hits on their spouses and bosses and etc. all the time, for example; just because there is a market for something doesn't mean you have a "right" to make it available. On the other hand, not everyone who enjoys that sort of fare is necessarily violent or disturbed. Look at it this way: I like playing The Sims, but if I angle to get a Sim married, it doesn't mean I am going to rush right out and do the same thing; my favorite movie is Evil Dead and I live in Tennessee, but I am not going to go out and read Latin daemon-summoning rituals in the woods.

Maybe Manhunt 2 should be banned, since British parents can't seem to do their job and keep it out of the hands of minors, but it certainly can't be held accountable for the actions of a kid who played it!