• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

UK bans "violent" advertisement

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
http://www.next-gen.biz/index....=view&id=8674&Itemid=2
Stranglehold TV Ad Banned
By Tom Ivan Print | Send to a friend | Email the editor
The Advertising Standards Authority has banned a UK TV advert for Midway?s John Woo Presents Stranglehold which it considered was ?likely to be seen as encouraging and condoning violence?.
The ad for the 18-rated third-person action game featured a prolonged shoot-out between four men. During the gunfight a voiceover stated, "Honour is his code. Vengeance is his mission. Violence is his only option. John Woo presents Stranglehold. The next generation of action gaming has arrived."

The ASA received complaints about the advertisement from at least two viewers. One argued that the commercial ?glorified violence and gun crime and that it was a dangerous incitement to susceptible people?, while another challenged whether it was acceptable for transmission before the 9pm watershed.

The agency responsible for the commercial, Picture Production Company, said that it had edited the footage to ensure bullets were seen to be fired into mid-air and did not result in any character or person being shot. It also argued that it was clear to viewers that the ad featured animated game play and not real-life violence.

In its assessment of the advert the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said that that the shooting was almost continuous throughout, and noted the realistic appearance of the violence, even though it was computer-generated.

?We considered the voice-over? suggested that it was honorable to seek revenge and that violence was an acceptable solution to a situation,? said the watchdog.

?We considered the ad was likely to be seen as encouraging and condoning violence. Because the issues raised by the ad could not be addressed with a timing restriction, we considered the only solution was to withdraw the ad from transmission completely.?

Next-Gen has contacted Midway for comment regarding the ban.
***********************

How long before the nightly news is prohibited from reporting murders, arsons, robberies or the war because it is seen as promoting violence? Do we really need a "don't try this at home" disclaimer on a video game advert?

2 people complained, one of whom said it is dangerous because it might incite violence in 'succeptable people.' Guess we'd better start burning books and banning movies like Fight Club, Rambo, Count of Monte Cristo or any other revenge themed media. You can't call yourselves a free society and have the government telling you what is acceptable to view and what isn't.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
The UK is going down the sh*ter as quickly as it can. I've posted several threads about this in the past. The government is running amok and has tacit if not outright blessing by many of the ignorant masses who don't see the thin ice on which they skate. Americans who have fears about Uncle Sam would be shocked if they lived in Britain to see where it's going. They better be careful voicing any inflammatory opinions though, lest they be legally held without charge for 28 days (efforts underway now to increase that by more than two fold, of course).
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,414
616
126
i say we ban nudity and sex on public tv because it will cause succeptable people to go out and commit rape.

oh wait....
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,187
3,879
126
You are what you eat. If all you ever see is shit you become shit. Is not a Nanny state that knows some differences between shit and wholesome better than a state which allows you to be stuffed with violence and shit in order to sell you what you don't need?

Give me freedom so I can have my mind polluted by every con artist psychometric focus group scum bag who wants to use my sick psychological needs against me or give me escape from my physic death.

We control our children, why not our adults who are mentally infantile in development?

In a free society of equals we must maintain the inequalities that lead some to fame and glory and the huge majority as sheep to be preyed on, damn it.

I don't need no fucking government to control my fucking ego. It's my right to suck the life created by other sewers.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: manowar821
The UK is a terrible nanny-state. I wonder if that's where we are headed?
I do think so. I believe that all western nations are headed that way, some faster than others. The UK happens to be a highly visible test bed of nannyism right now, though.

I think the US should offer to take any Brit citizens who want to renounce their citizenship and the nannyism and get free tickets to the US with new citizenship. They could be a check against some of the people here who endorse similar such nonsense.

 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: manowar821
The UK is a terrible nanny-state. I wonder if that's where we are headed?
I do think so. I believe that all western nations are headed that way, some faster than others. The UK happens to be a highly visible test bed of nannyism right now, though.

I think the US should offer to take any Brit citizens who want to renounce their citizenship and the nannyism and get free tickets to the US with new citizenship. They could be a check against some of the people here who endorse similar such nonsense.
Heeeey, good idea! :cool:
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
The UK is done. They've allowed the government to continually erode their liberties in the name of safety and now they have nothing left. They have no identity, so they are being assimilated by Islam. They have no right to speak because they might offend someone. They have no right to privacy because cameras watch them constantly to ensure their safety. They have no guns because the people were too stupid to be trusted with those dangerous things.

Once you give up all of your own liberty, power and rights to some bully in exchange for protection, you're left with no protection from the bully. They are truly and completely fucked, left without even the tools for a revolution to wipe clean their slate.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
0
0
It seems that they've also banned history since they don't teach the brutal truth about their "glorious" Empire.

The queen can ban anything, and the peasants must obey.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You are what you eat. If all you ever see is shit you become shit. Is not a Nanny state that knows some differences between shit and wholesome better than a state which allows you to be stuffed with violence and shit in order to sell you what you don't need?

Give me freedom so I can have my mind polluted by every con artist psychometric focus group scum bag who wants to use my sick psychological needs against me or give me escape from my physic death.

We control our children, why not our adults who are mentally infantile in development?

In a free society of equals we must maintain the inequalities that lead some to fame and glory and the huge majority as sheep to be preyed on, damn it.

I don't need no fucking government to control my fucking ego. It's my right to suck the life created by other sewers.
You seem to make several presumptions that I find questionable.

Can a government, amoral by definition, be a good arbiter of all that is good and proper?

These same people who cannot make a proper choice for themselves yet are assumed to make proper choices about who their leaders are? The leaders who will dictate their life choices.

Or, will the "cream rise to the top"? Some presumed superior humans to lord over others and their choices. A natural ruling class?

Can a government that starts out making moral type choices for it's people be trusted to never become corrupted or never start making "bad choices".

People are better left to make theri own choices. There will be the inevitable ying & yang of both good & bad results. IMHO, the USA has demonstrated that the net weighs out to a string positive.

Someone has suggested any Brit not liking nanny-stateism move here. I'll go one further and suggest any American craving it be moved over there.

Fern
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,187
3,879
126
Fern: You seem to make several presumptions that I find questionable.

Can a government, amoral by definition, be a good arbiter of all that is good and proper?

M: Who decided that government is amoral. Aren't we the government. Are we amoral?

F: These same people who cannot make a proper choice for themselves yet are assumed to make proper choices about who their leaders are? The leaders who will dictate their life choices.

M: Why not assume that the idiots who can't properly care for themselves can't get themselves to the poles?

F: Or, will the "cream rise to the top"? Some presumed superior humans to lord over others and their choices. A natural ruling class?

M: How about functional human beings will rise to the top and have some notion as to why they can function?

F: Can a government that starts out making moral type choices for it's people be trusted to never become corrupted or never start making "bad choices".

M: My dad used to say that nothing is idiot proof. Lord knows, sometime or another people are going to start thinking they don't need somebody better than they to advise them. Why people can get such big heads they'll roll over on them with their feet in the air.

F: People are better left to make their own choices. There will be the inevitable ying & yang of both good & bad results. IMHO, the USA has demonstrated that the net weighs out to a string positive.

M: It looks to me like we're going into the crapper. The child is spoiled by bad parents. Now we need some tough love, no?

F: Someone has suggested any Brit not liking nanny-stateism move here. I'll go one further and suggest any American craving it be moved over there.

M: Now there's some classic Nanny thinking. I'll make a note that when I get in control you're given a lobotomy. You might become a dangerous rebel. ;)
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: teclis1023
...I'm not altogether against the UK's actions here.
I find this comment offensive. Will someone in the UK government please have it removed from the internet as it may plant the wrong idea in people's minds about the propriety of censorship. :)
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You are what you eat. If all you ever see is shit you become shit. Is not a Nanny state that knows some differences between shit and wholesome better than a state which allows you to be stuffed with violence and shit in order to sell you what you don't need?

Give me freedom so I can have my mind polluted by every con artist psychometric focus group scum bag who wants to use my sick psychological needs against me or give me escape from my physic death.

We control our children, why not our adults who are mentally infantile in development?

In a free society of equals we must maintain the inequalities that lead some to fame and glory and the huge majority as sheep to be preyed on, damn it.

I don't need no fucking government to control my fucking ego. It's my right to suck the life created by other sewers.
Be careful what you wish for Moonie. If put to a vote, the majority would probably find you a mental infant and incapable of making your own choices. This country would force you into Christianity, for your own good of course.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
It looks to me like we're going into the crapper. The child is spoiled by bad parents. Now we need some tough love, no?
From a government made up of these bad children?
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
27,884
4,933
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
http://www.next-gen.biz/index....=view&id=8674&Itemid=2
Stranglehold TV Ad Banned
By Tom Ivan Print | Send to a friend | Email the editor
The Advertising Standards Authority has banned a UK TV advert for Midway?s John Woo Presents Stranglehold which it considered was ?likely to be seen as encouraging and condoning violence?.
The ad for the 18-rated third-person action game featured a prolonged shoot-out between four men. During the gunfight a voiceover stated, "Honour is his code. Vengeance is his mission. Violence is his only option. John Woo presents Stranglehold. The next generation of action gaming has arrived."

The ASA received complaints about the advertisement from at least two viewers. One argued that the commercial ?glorified violence and gun crime and that it was a dangerous incitement to susceptible people?, while another challenged whether it was acceptable for transmission before the 9pm watershed.

The agency responsible for the commercial, Picture Production Company, said that it had edited the footage to ensure bullets were seen to be fired into mid-air and did not result in any character or person being shot. It also argued that it was clear to viewers that the ad featured animated game play and not real-life violence.

In its assessment of the advert the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said that that the shooting was almost continuous throughout, and noted the realistic appearance of the violence, even though it was computer-generated.

?We considered the voice-over? suggested that it was honorable to seek revenge and that violence was an acceptable solution to a situation,? said the watchdog.

?We considered the ad was likely to be seen as encouraging and condoning violence. Because the issues raised by the ad could not be addressed with a timing restriction, we considered the only solution was to withdraw the ad from transmission completely.?

Next-Gen has contacted Midway for comment regarding the ban.
***********************

How long before the nightly news is prohibited from reporting murders, arsons, robberies or the war because it is seen as promoting violence? Do we really need a "don't try this at home" disclaimer on a video game advert?

2 people complained, one of whom said it is dangerous because it might incite violence in 'succeptable people.' Guess we'd better start burning books and banning movies like Fight Club, Rambo, Count of Monte Cristo or any other revenge themed media. You can't call yourselves a free society and have the government telling you what is acceptable to view and what isn't.

oooooookay you can be up in arms about a country you don't live in having regulations about when violent content can be shown on TV, but don't you come from the country that has a fit if boobies are shown?

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Originally posted by: sirjonk
2 people complained, one of whom said it is dangerous because it might incite violence in 'succeptable people.' Guess we'd better start burning books and banning movies like Fight Club, Rambo, Count of Monte Cristo or any other revenge themed media. You can't call yourselves a free society and have the government telling you what is acceptable to view and what isn't.

oooooookay you can be up in arms about a country you don't live in having regulations about when violent content can be shown on TV, but don't you come from the country that has a fit if boobies are shown?
The FCC fined CBS and CBS has appealed. It is still pending and they very well may win. The US government doesn't have the power to issue bans of movies, video games, books or commercials, except in the very limited circumstance of obscene material, i.e. child pornography. Apparently the British government does have that power.

And I'm not up in arms outraged over how the British government could do this. I raise it as a spectre of what we do not what our government to evolve into.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
27,884
4,933
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Originally posted by: sirjonk
2 people complained, one of whom said it is dangerous because it might incite violence in 'succeptable people.' Guess we'd better start burning books and banning movies like Fight Club, Rambo, Count of Monte Cristo or any other revenge themed media. You can't call yourselves a free society and have the government telling you what is acceptable to view and what isn't.

oooooookay you can be up in arms about a country you don't live in having regulations about when violent content can be shown on TV, but don't you come from the country that has a fit if boobies are shown?
The FCC fined CBS and CBS has appealed. It is still pending and they very well may win. The US government doesn't have the power to issue bans of movies, video games, books or commercials, except in the very limited circumstance of obscene material, i.e. child pornography. Apparently the British government does have that power.

And I'm not up in arms outraged over how the British government could do this. I raise it as a spectre of what we do not what our government to evolve into.
Its just the advert, and only before the watershed.

Are you saying you could show porn at midday on free to air US tv?

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Originally posted by: sirjonk
2 people complained, one of whom said it is dangerous because it might incite violence in 'succeptable people.' Guess we'd better start burning books and banning movies like Fight Club, Rambo, Count of Monte Cristo or any other revenge themed media. You can't call yourselves a free society and have the government telling you what is acceptable to view and what isn't.

oooooookay you can be up in arms about a country you don't live in having regulations about when violent content can be shown on TV, but don't you come from the country that has a fit if boobies are shown?
The FCC fined CBS and CBS has appealed. It is still pending and they very well may win. The US government doesn't have the power to issue bans of movies, video games, books or commercials, except in the very limited circumstance of obscene material, i.e. child pornography. Apparently the British government does have that power.

And I'm not up in arms outraged over how the British government could do this. I raise it as a spectre of what we do not what our government to evolve into.
Its just the advert, and only before the watershed.

Are you saying you could show porn at midday on free to air US tv?
Of course not. Free speech has limits, like everything else. It's where you draw the line that matters. UK banned a 30 second commercial because it made it sound like revenge was an admirable goal. That's beyond restrictive. It's vague, paternalistic, and presupposes citizens are braindead. It's also completely incorrect, since getting even is a perfectly good reason to do a lot of things.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
27,884
4,933
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Originally posted by: sirjonk
2 people complained, one of whom said it is dangerous because it might incite violence in 'succeptable people.' Guess we'd better start burning books and banning movies like Fight Club, Rambo, Count of Monte Cristo or any other revenge themed media. You can't call yourselves a free society and have the government telling you what is acceptable to view and what isn't.

oooooookay you can be up in arms about a country you don't live in having regulations about when violent content can be shown on TV, but don't you come from the country that has a fit if boobies are shown?
The FCC fined CBS and CBS has appealed. It is still pending and they very well may win. The US government doesn't have the power to issue bans of movies, video games, books or commercials, except in the very limited circumstance of obscene material, i.e. child pornography. Apparently the British government does have that power.

And I'm not up in arms outraged over how the British government could do this. I raise it as a spectre of what we do not what our government to evolve into.
Its just the advert, and only before the watershed.

Are you saying you could show porn at midday on free to air US tv?
Of course not. Free speech has limits, like everything else. It's where you draw the line that matters. UK banned a 30 second commercial because it made it sound like revenge was an admirable goal. That's beyond restrictive. It's vague, paternalistic, and presupposes citizens are braindead. It's also completely incorrect, since getting even is a perfectly good reason to do a lot of things.
You said 'The US government doesn't have the power to issue bans of movies, video games, books or commercials, except in the very limited circumstance of obscene material, i.e. child pornography'.

So could you show porn at midday?

That advert isn't b& they have just put restrictions on when it can be shown. As its an 18 rated game I don't see the problem.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
0
0
Is this even a British government authority? According to their website, they are an independent, non-governmental body.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
0
0
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Originally posted by: sirjonk
2 people complained, one of whom said it is dangerous because it might incite violence in 'succeptable people.' Guess we'd better start burning books and banning movies like Fight Club, Rambo, Count of Monte Cristo or any other revenge themed media. You can't call yourselves a free society and have the government telling you what is acceptable to view and what isn't.

oooooookay you can be up in arms about a country you don't live in having regulations about when violent content can be shown on TV, but don't you come from the country that has a fit if boobies are shown?
The FCC fined CBS and CBS has appealed. It is still pending and they very well may win. The US government doesn't have the power to issue bans of movies, video games, books or commercials, except in the very limited circumstance of obscene material, i.e. child pornography. Apparently the British government does have that power.

And I'm not up in arms outraged over how the British government could do this. I raise it as a spectre of what we do not what our government to evolve into.
Its just the advert, and only before the watershed.

Are you saying you could show porn at midday on free to air US tv?
Of course not. Free speech has limits, like everything else. It's where you draw the line that matters. UK banned a 30 second commercial because it made it sound like revenge was an admirable goal. That's beyond restrictive. It's vague, paternalistic, and presupposes citizens are braindead. It's also completely incorrect, since getting even is a perfectly good reason to do a lot of things.
You said 'The US government doesn't have the power to issue bans of movies, video games, books or commercials, except in the very limited circumstance of obscene material, i.e. child pornography'.

So could you show porn at midday?

That advert isn't b& they have just put restrictions on when it can be shown. As its an 18 rated game I don't see the problem.
There are actually channels dedicated to pornography, so yes, you can show porn at midday. Regulations only exist on broadcast stations, but not the hundreds of other stations.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Is this even a British government authority? According to their website, they are an independent, non-governmental body.
You are correct, which makes me wonder how they can enforce a ban?
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
27,884
4,933
126
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Originally posted by: sirjonk
2 people complained, one of whom said it is dangerous because it might incite violence in 'succeptable people.' Guess we'd better start burning books and banning movies like Fight Club, Rambo, Count of Monte Cristo or any other revenge themed media. You can't call yourselves a free society and have the government telling you what is acceptable to view and what isn't.

oooooookay you can be up in arms about a country you don't live in having regulations about when violent content can be shown on TV, but don't you come from the country that has a fit if boobies are shown?
The FCC fined CBS and CBS has appealed. It is still pending and they very well may win. The US government doesn't have the power to issue bans of movies, video games, books or commercials, except in the very limited circumstance of obscene material, i.e. child pornography. Apparently the British government does have that power.

And I'm not up in arms outraged over how the British government could do this. I raise it as a spectre of what we do not what our government to evolve into.
Its just the advert, and only before the watershed.

Are you saying you could show porn at midday on free to air US tv?
Of course not. Free speech has limits, like everything else. It's where you draw the line that matters. UK banned a 30 second commercial because it made it sound like revenge was an admirable goal. That's beyond restrictive. It's vague, paternalistic, and presupposes citizens are braindead. It's also completely incorrect, since getting even is a perfectly good reason to do a lot of things.
You said 'The US government doesn't have the power to issue bans of movies, video games, books or commercials, except in the very limited circumstance of obscene material, i.e. child pornography'.

So could you show porn at midday?

That advert isn't b& they have just put restrictions on when it can be shown. As its an 18 rated game I don't see the problem.
There are actually channels dedicated to pornography, so yes, you can show porn at midday. Regulations only exist on broadcast stations, but not the hundreds of other stations.
Those would be the stations we are talking about (in both cases).

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
That advert isn't b& they have just put restrictions on when it can be shown. As its an 18 rated game I don't see the problem.
Incorrect.
"Because the issues raised by the ad could not be addressed with a timing restriction, we considered the only solution was to withdraw the ad from transmission completely," a statement elaborated.

But as CoW pointed out, this is not in fact a government body. I guess it's similar to the MPAA, but even the MPAA can't ban a movie.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY