The Society has sought leave under s. 47(2)(e) of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (“the Act”), to apply to the Film and Literature Board of Review (“the Board”) for a review of the classification of the highly controversial console game Grand Theft Auto IV (unedited US version) [also known as or GTA 4]. As noted in our application for leave dated 27 May 2008, the unedited game was classified R18 by the Office of Film and Literature Classification (“the OFLC”) on the 21st May 2008.
THE SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.
P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville
Submission to:
Mr Brendan Boyle
Secretary of Internal Affairs
Department of Internal Affairs
Wellington
28 May 2008
Re: Grand Theft Auto IV (unedited US version) [also known as or GTA 4].
The Society has sought leave under s. 47(2)(e) of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (“the Act”), to apply to the Film and Literature Board of Review (“the Board”) for a review of the classification of the highly controversial console game Grand Theft Auto IV (unedited US version) [also known as or GTA 4]. As noted in our application for leave dated 27 May 2008, the unedited game was classified R18 by the Office of Film and Literature Classification (“the OFLC”) on the 21st May 2008.
An earlier version of this game was also classified R18 by the OFLC in a decision dated 27 February 2008 (OFLC 800191). The OFLC has chosen not to release that full decision on its website, as it has done for the controversial R18 book – The Peaceful Pill Handbook. However, the Society has obtained a copy of the OFLC decision for the edited GTA4 publication and has published it on its website so that the public can be alerted to the vile, toxic, pernicious and “crime-promoting” (to quote the Dominion Post) content in this game.
See: https://www.spcs.org.nz/2008/chief-censors-office-report-on-grand-theft-auto-2/
Take 2 Interactive Software distributes the edited version of the game in New Zealand:
The Society wishes to set out some of our reasons for seeking a reclassification of the unedited version of console game. In summary it contends that:
1) A prima facie case for a reclassification of the publication can be established,
2) Relief Sought by Society: The game should be classified “objectionable” under ss. 3(2)(f), 3(3)(a)(i), s3(3)(d) and 3(4)(a)-(f) of the Act.
3) Professional agencies and senior qualified experts working in the field of youth crime, “at-risk” youth (15-17) and young adults (18-24 years), mental health services and Police Legal Services and drug law enforcement, should be asked by the Board of Review to make submissions on the classification of this “crime-promoting” console game, in the light of the acknowledged potential of the book to influence vulnerable at-risk individuals to commit criminal acts. The New Zealand Prostitutes Collective should also be consulted with regard to the game’s treatment of prostitutes.
4) It is in the public interest for a thorough review of the classification of this game to take place.
Introduction:
GTA 4 is a console game formatted for play on the Xbox 360 console. The game is the latest instalment in a series of popular free roaming, or open-ended, games from the development company Rockstar Games. The game is plot-driven, broadly fitting into the action/drama. It tells the story of Nico Bellie, a fresh-off-the-boat Eastern European immigrant to Liberty City (modelled on the real New York city). Nico stays with his cousin Roman, a loser with dangerous levels of gambling debt, and begins to perform odd jobs to keep his head above water. Nico’s ulterior motive in visiting Liberty City is to try and find the man responsible for betraying his friends.
As with the previous versions of Grand Theft Auto the game utilises a third-person perspective. The storyline is progressed through cinematic scripted sequences, and supported by a wide range of mission objectives that draw the player into a vortex of criminal activity and morally repugnant corrupt activity. The game world is immersive and fully realised. It is deliberately designed to entice the player into deeper and deeper levels of criminal activity but does draw the line by not allowing the player to dismember his victim’s body, commit sexual acts on the body or sexually exploit young people. However, innocent victims can be incinerated, garrotted to death, repeatedly abused using vile obscenities, demeaned, degraded and dehumanised. The objectification of women as sexual objects to be used and degraded and disposed of is evident as a subtext, if not as a more overt message.
The unedited version of the Grand Theft Auto IV (GTA 4) game differs from the edited version in a number of features including the more explicit content contained in the sex scenes involving prostitutes. Players are able to manipulate the main character allowing him to visit brothels, etc. engage in sexual acts with prostitutes and then kill them using a range of techniques, including garrotting them. Innocent victims can be disposed of by incineration using a Molotov cocktail. The audio and visual presentation of the sex scenes are graphic and gratuitous – utilising camera angles and sound effects one would expect to see in large budget films. Some games experts, reporting in reviews on overseas websites, have described the visual quality, when using high definition screens, as better than large budget films.
It has been reported that the OFLC has expressed little concern over this gratuitous sexual content of the game, for the reason that “no genital contact” is actually portrayed. However, the Society asks the OFLC: Since when did genital content become the proverbial line-in-the-sand defining what is “objectionable” in sexual contact? Such content is a regular feature of the many hundreds of sexually explicit DVDs and videos that are classified as R18 by the OFLC for the home entertainment market. Such content is also found in films depicting sexual violence (rape) and sodomy, cleared for the cinema screen by Chief Censor, Mr Bill Hastings (e.g. the French film Baise-Moi, transl. Fu#k Me)
Subject Matter Gateway
Matters such as sex
One of the many strong in-game violence scenes occurs when a person is hit by a Molotov cocktail. The victim is shown running to and fro on fire before collapsing. The level of cruelty is stronger because of the length of time it takes for the person to die. This is clearly designed to titillate the gamer as the length of depiction is over-the-top (gratuitous). Liberal critics have called it sickening, lurid and pornographic.
The scripted sequences also feature a range of violence, such as people being shot in the head with the contents spewing our n all directions. These are shown in a very cinematic way, utilising camera angles and sound effects one would expect to see in large budget films that glamorise violence (eg. Kill Bill: Volume 1).
In terms of s3(2)(f) “…. infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty”…. the game rewards players for engaging in criminal activity that involves such extreme activities. The freedom players are given to repeat such atrocities and the nature of the reward system has the potential to promote sado-masochism, violence, sexual violence and perversions, the abuse of women etc.
In terms of s3(3)(d) the game contains the potential for anti-social and criminal behaviour through the freedom Niko has to hijack cars and kill civilians and police with an array of offensive weapons. The missions themselves also involve Niko performing criminal behaviour, such as shakedowns of business owners who refuse to pay protection money, and killing other criminals. The criminal behaviour is the main focus of the game.
The power the police have to kill or arrest is a legitimate power invested in them by the state, although it is subject to review processes etc. These are not unfettered powers and police are sworn members of an agency of government empowered to uphold the law in a democratic state. In contrast, the player is encouraged to wantonly breach the criminal law and commit acts that are crimes against persons and property. Furthermore, this is done to entertain, titillate and amuse the player.
3A Publication may be age-restricted if it contains highly offensive language likely to cause serious harm.
The publication contains frequent use of coarse language in keeping with the characters’ backgrounds. Examples include use of word “f#ck” and its derivatives (“mother-f#cker” etc), and the word “cu#t”. This constant stream of obscenities advances misogyny and demeans, degrades and dehumanises women in particular.
Section 3(4) Additional matters to be considered
s3(4)(a) The dominant effect of the publication as a whole
The dominant effect of the publication as a whole is to titillate, entertain and engage players within the mindset of an action drama that glamorises: criminal activities, the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty, drug-taking, the killing of law enforcement officers and innocent members of the public etc.
s3(4)(b) The impact of the medium in which the publication is presented
The highly interactive nature of a Xbox 369 console game, allowing for complex and sophisticated game-play with realistic graphics and sound effects, combined with its pernicious crime-promoting character – will impact significantly on the minds of young adults in particular, as well as adults, who have a propensity for criminal behaviour and enjoy engaging in anti-social behaviour.
s3(4)(c) The character of the publication, including any merit, value or importance it has in relation to literary, artistic, social, cultural, educational, scientific, or other matter.
The publication has no merit and is injurious to the public good.
s3(4)(d) The persons, classes of persons, or age groups of the persons to whom the publication is intended or is likely to be made available.
The publication is aimed at young adult gamers; in the sure knowledge of its makers that it will be accessed by many male youths below the age of 18 years. Its depictions of violence and cruelty, offensive and gratuitous sexual content, and criminal anti-social elements, are all designed to inject a high-level of excitement into the game programme that appeals, in particular to young men and boys.
s3(4)(e) The purpose for which the publication is to be used
The publication is intended as entertainment.
BILL OF RIGHTS CONSIDERATIONS
Discussion of Bill if Rights Consideration
Section 3(1) considerations have been weighed against relevant provisions of the NZBR Act. Given the manner in which the game treats matters of extreme violence, extreme cruelty and criminal activities, the classification imposed on this game – as objectionable – is a reasonable limitation on the freedom of expression contained in the Bill of Rights, and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Any limitation on the console game’s availability to minimum age restrictions would be pointless and largely ineffective. Research has shown that earlier versions of Grand Theft Auto that have been rated R18, have all been regularly played and accessed by tens of thousands of New Zealand young men, well under the age of 18 years. A total ban on GTA4 (unedited version) would prevent injury to the public good.
Conclusion
Injurious to the Public Good
The banning of this publication that is so injurious to the public good is well justified given the manner in which it deals with matters of violence, cruelty and crime. The potential for the player’s character to commit numerous gratuitous acts of violence upon unsuspecting members of the public and the police, as well as frequently engage in extreme acts of anti-social and illegal behaviour, demonstrates that it has no merit whatsoever in a democratic society. This kind of pernicious content would be welcomed by those seeking to train people in the mindset of criminal activity, but it has no redeeming value for New Zealand society. The game has the very real potential to desensitise or inure over the long term, vulnerable minds to this type of criminal and anti-social behaviour, and trivialises crime, promiscuity and perversions through presenting it them amusing, sexually titillating or exciting. The likelihood of injury to the public good is avoided by banning this game.
Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
Cc. Mr Owen Davie, Board of Review Secretary and Peter McKenzie QC
The classification decision Issued by the Office of Film and Literature Classification on GTA4 (unedited) can be viewed at:
Joshua Warren-Davis says
I don’t get why the Secretary has not issued a decision yet in relation to Grand Theft Auto IV (unedited version) leave was lodged on the 30th of May 2008, it is the 8th of July!
The 30 working day deadline for review expires on the 25th of July, so if he doesn’t hurry up and give a decision, you’ll end up being penalised for something that is not your fault!
SPCS says
Joshua thanks for your comments. The Society was today (Monday 21 July) granted leave by the Secretary of Internal Affairs, Mr Brendan Boyle, to apply to the Film and Literature Board of Review to review the classification of the computer game Grand Theft Auto IV (unedited US version).
The Secretary acknowledges in his decision that he received the Society’s application seeking leave, on 27 May 2008 and states in par 18-20:
“I found no evidence in the application to suggest that it was vexatious … I then considered whether the application for leave was frivolous (trivial, needless or unfounded, or so untenable that it could not succeed) under the Guidelines… I found that the application for leave from the SPCS appeared to be tenable in that it could possibly succeed. The application was therefre not frivolous. It is also my view that the SPCS has established an arguable prima facie case for the application to be considered by the Board.” (Full decision available http://www.dia.govt.nz).
SPCS Admin
Adrian says
“Some games experts, reporting in reviews on overseas websites, have described the visual quality, when using high definition screens, as better than large budget films”
That’s the most retarded quote I’ve ever read, get some glasses.
Mike says
Well done on this. How often has SPCS been successful in reviews? And if this fails, is there anything more you can do about it?