“Reid [the offender] was hardwired for violence and anti-social behaviour and programmed by his recreational pursuits” [involving the game Grand Theft Auto].

The Dominion Post Saturday, 31 May 2008

Like a character from Grand Theft Auto, the game he played compulsively, Tim Reid went on a rampage, stole a police car, and left a policeman unconscious and bleeding on the roadside.

Yesterday, his lawyer Chris Nicholls said Reid was remorseful for what happened to Sergeant Kevin Wellington in New Plymouth on December 29 last year, but he was a product of his upbringing.

He committed violent offences and compulsively played Grand Theft Auto.

Mr Nicholls said a video game that showed violence toward police was a public safety concern, with the game promoting the behaviour.

Tim Henare James Junior Reid, 25, of Mt Victoria, Wellington pleaded guilty to aggravated wounding, escaping custody, reckless driving, dangerous driving, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle and two charges of failing to stop, breach of supervision orders and being an unlicensed driver.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4566395a23955.html

Mr Nicholls said Reid began smoking cannabis at five, was sexually and physically abused, and now abused drugs and alcohol. He had met his co-offender in the cells at Lower Hutt District Court, and when they were both bailed they began a road trip to New Plymouth.

Sergeant Wellington clocked their car doing 143kmh and gave chase, but Reid kept going till he crashed. Reid ran off but returned as Mr Wellington tried to talk to his co-offender. Reid pushed the officer to the ground and began hitting him. As Reid was getting into the patrol car his co-offender came up behind Mr Wellington and knocked him out. The officer was hit several more times while he was on the ground.

Reid and the other man then sped off in the patrol car, and after another chase ran through a roadblock. Even with tyres blown by road spikes they kept going till the tyres peeled off the rims.

Both were arrested when the car stopped.

Wellington District Court judge Denys Barry jailed Reid for five years and ordered him to complete a minimum non-parole period lasting two thirds of the sentence. He also disqualified him from driving for two years.

He said Reid was hardwired for violence and anti-social behaviour and programmed by his recreational pursuits.

Judge Barry said the police sergeant’s resilience and courage was in stark contrast to the cowardice of Reid’s action. Mr Wellington had healed and gone back to work, but could no longer patrol by himself.

Reid has previous convictions for aggravated wounding, robbery and assault.

Judge Barry’s concerns were backed by Family First national director Bob McCoskrie, who said violent video games were of far greater concern than violent television programmes or films. “Rather than observing the law breaker you take on the role of the lawbreaker …we think it desensitises certain people.”

THE SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville

http://www.spcs.org.nz

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 21^st 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: http://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:

See: http://www.spcs.org.nz/2008/grand-theft-auto-iv-who-is-the-nz-distributor-profiting-from-this-offensive-crime-promoting-game/

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:

The computer game’s distributor, the applicant to the FVLB, recorded on the application form, its identity as “TAKE 2 INTERACTIVE”. All other details relating to the company were deleted from the form by the Chief Censor, Bill Hastings, when he provided the application form to the Society, in response to its Official Information Request (OIR). The applicant’s contact person, return street address for the publication and contact telephone number, were all deleted.

The Society Investigates……..

The Society has been calling for the Grand Theft Auto game series to be banned since an earlier version was released onto the NZ market (See article by Fran Tyler “Crime-Promoting Game Sells Fast, Dominion Post 17/11/02, A12). Lack of disclosure from the Chief Censor’s Office regarding the details of the game’s version 4 distributor, has prompted the Society to do some quick research on the company ………

Here are some initial findings.

The full Company name of the New Zealand distributor of the Grand Theft Auto IV is TAKE 2 INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE PTY LTD, New Zealand Branch. It is a branch of its overseas controlling company, one that is incorporated in Australia with an official name of TAKE 2 INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE PTY LTD. The latter is controlled by a Swiss Company that is itself controlled by the parent company based in the US (see details in Appendix below).

The New Zealand Companies Website (www.companies.govt.nz) indicates that the NZ distributor of Grand Theft Auto IV was registered as a Company (No. 1100292). in New Zealand on the 6^th of November 2000 and its principal place of business is listed as Unit M, 86 Bush Road, Albany, Auckland (website record entry dated 23 May 2007). The person authorised to “accept service” in New Zealand on behalf of the Australian-based company, is Mr John Gray C/- Ross Melville PKF, Level 5. 50 Anzac Ave, Auckland 1010. The current NZ Branch Directors are listed as Michael Chow of 18 Headland Road, Castle Cove NSW 2069, Australia and Daniel Emerson, 109 Puritan Drive, Port Chester NY 10573, United States and by law must also be directors of the Australian controlling company. Both were appointed as directors on the 8^th of September 2007 on the same day that former Company directors Emmanuel Bohlock and James Ellingford resigned.

On the 30^th of March 2007, Bohlock and Ellingford and the Company’s auditor, Margaget van Aanholt, signed the NZ Branch 2006 Financial Statements (covering the period 1 November 2005 to 31 August 2006). However, it was not until eight months later, on the 26th of November 2007, that the documents were finally filed with the Companies Office. The directors were obligated under the Financial Reporting Act 1993 to file them within 20 working days of signing them off. However, they were filed almost 7 months after the due date and two months AFTER Bohlock and Ellingford had resigned as directors on September 8th 2007 – replaced by new directors, Michael Chow and Daniel Emerson, were appointed.

Section 10 of the Financial Reporting Act 1993 required that the directors file these documents NO LATER than 5 months and 20 working days after the balance date of 31st October 2006 – that is NO LATER than the 3rd of May 2006 (see ref. 3).

In a letter to the Society dated 5 May 2008, in response to the Society’s OIR concerning Grand Theft Auto IV, the Chief Censor wrote:

“The Film and Video Labelling Body Inc also submitted to the Classification Office [to accompany the publication Grand Theft Auto IV] a copy of the submission made by the game’s Australian applicant to the Australian Government Classification Board. This submission relates “to the classification of this publication”. This submission is however marked “confidential” and contains commercially valuable information. Under section 18(a) of the Official Information Act 1882, I therefore refuse your request because the information requested is subject to an obligation of confidence where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that the information should continue to be supplied, and because the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the information. [Emphasis added]

“You have the right, by way of complaint to an Ombudsman under section 28(3) of the Official Information Act 1982 to seek an investigation and review of this refusal.”

The Society has lodged a formal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman over the refusal of Mr Bill Hastings to release this information to the Society. It contends that it is in the “public interest” for the submission on Grand Theft Auto IV received by the OFLC from the game’s Australian applicant to the Australian Government Classification Board, be released. Furthermore, it contends that any genuine commercially sensitive information, such as sales figures projections etc, could have easily been deleted by the applicant, prior to its release of the submission to the SPCS. Furthermore, it is asking that the Ombudsman investigate the nature of the so-called confidentiality agreement that Mr Hastings claims he has entered into with the game’s Australian applicant (and/or the New Zealand or Australian distributor).

The Society asks: Why is TAKE 2 INTERACTIVE so sensitive about the release of its New Zealand contact details, in view of the fact that Grand Theft Auto IV is advertised as being advertised in NZ as the Number 1 selling computer game in the world and the “coolest game ever made”.

Why would the Company distributing such a popular and commercially successful game request that Chief Censor Bill Hastings and Bill Hood, Executive Secretary of the FVLB, withhold its contact details from the SPCS?

As noted, TAKE INTERACTIVE last filed it audited Financial Statements with the New Zealand Companies Office on 26 November 2007 – LATE – and these were for the financial year 1 November 2005 to 31 October 2006. Its audited Financial Statements for the year ending 31 October 2007, that were required to be filed with the Companies Office NO LATER THAN the 29th of April 2007, have not yet been filed. Again Company Directors have a legal obligation to have these accounts filed by the due date (see ref. 3).

Audited Financial Accounts that have been filed show that that the New Zealand Branch of TAKE 2 INTERACTIVE had a sales revenue in the 2005/2006 financial year of $5,350.639 that together with interest revenue of $1,617, gave it a total yearly operating revenue of $5,352,256. Taking account of annual operating expenses of $5,287,737, this gave it an operating surplus before income tax of $64,519. Subtracting income tax of $27,797, gave it an operating surplus of $36,722.

The balance of the account at the beginning the year (1/11/05) was $237,209 and this amount combined with the net profit for 2006 (or operating surplus) of $36,722, gave an end of year (31/10/06) balance of the accounts of $273,931 (the latter figure derived from net profit of $36,722 + balance of $237,209 as at 1/11/05)

The only financial disclosures relating to the annual operating expenses of $5,352,256 that are provided in the 2005/2006 Financial Accounts are given in note 3: $29,023 (Cost of offering credit: bad and doubtful debts), $6,384 (Fees for audit services) and fees for taxation services ($13,186). The total amounts to only $48,593 – a mere 0.96% of total operating expenses. It appears that the NZ Branch directors of Take 2 Interactive have cited Section 211(3) of the Companies Act 1993 to justify the absence of financial disclosure with respect to $5,303,663 of operating costs. ALL Shareholders would have had to have formally agreed with such omissions from the Financial Statements for them to be legal under the Act. The Companies Office told the SPCS it was unable to disclose any information concerning this lack of financial disclosure.

http://www.companies.govt.nz/scanned-images/71/BC10054448471.pdf

Goods amounting to $4,568.795 (2005: $5,689,297) were purchased from the New Zealand Branch’s controlling company based in Australia – Take 2 International Software Pty Limited – during the financial year ending 31 October 2006. As that balance date the Branch owed the controlling company $806,383 for goods purchased (2005:$1,080,346).

The gross profit from sales by the Australian controlling company for the year ending 31 October 2006 was $10,453,067. Its net assets are recorded as $5,927,590 and total liabilities are $7,646,429. The total receipts from customers was $38,567,136 and the profits attributable to the entity after providing for income tax was $949,282.

These results contained in the Financial Statements for 2005/2006 were signed off by one director, Emmanuel Bohlock, and the auditor, Margaret van Aanhold, on the 1st of June 20007 and then filed with the NZ Companies Office on 26 November 2007, two months after Bohlock and fellow-director James Ellingford had resigned. Bohlock signed the Director’s report on behalf of his fellow directors Ellingford and Ashish Solanki. “Key Management Personnel Compensation” is given as $868,657 (2005:$827,868).

Appendix

A “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” contains Note 10 “Party Related Disclosures” to the NZ Branch’s Financial Accounts (2006), states:

“The controlling company of Take 2 Interactive Software Pty Limited, New Zealand Branch, is Take 2 Interactive Software Pty Ltd, a company incorporated in Australia.

“The immediate controlling company of Take 2 Interactive Software Pty Limited is Take-Two International SA, a company incorporated in Switzerland.

“The ultimate controlling company of Take 2 Interactive Software Pty Limited is Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. a company incorporated in the United States of America.”

Note 1 states:

“The [New Zealand] Branch is a qualifying entity within the Framework of Differential Reporting. The Branch qualifies on the basis that it is not publicly accountable and Take 2 Interactive Software Pty Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Take-Two International SA, (Company incorporated in Switzerland).”

1. US game sales rise 47PC in April on GTA4. ReutersFriday, 16 May 2008

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4550995a28.html

2. Grand Theft Auto hailed as ‘masteroiece’ Reuters 29 April 2008.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4501898a1860.html

3. Section 19 (3) of the Financial Reporting Act 1993 states:

 The directors of every company to which this section applies [Overseas Companies] must—

• (a) ensure that, within 20 working days after the financial statements of the company and any group financial statements in relation to a group comprising that company and its subsidiaries are required to be signed, copies of those statements, together with a copy of the auditor’s report on those statements, are delivered to the Registrar for registration; and

• (b) ensure that the company pays to the Registrar the prescribed registration fee at the same time.

David Walsh, Ph.D.

National Institute on Media and the Family

Concern about violent video and computer games is based on the assumption that they contribute to aggression and violence among young players. That conclusion was originally based on the extensive body of research about the effects of television violence on children’s behavior. Prominent organizations like the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association have all concluded that the scientific evidence shows a cause-effect relationship between television violence and aggression among the children and youth who watch it. Based on this research, many social scientists have hypothesized that we should expect video games to have an even greater impact for the following four reasons.

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

1. Children are more likely to imitate the actions of a character with whom they identify. In violent video games the player is often required to take the point of view of the shooter or perpetrator.
2. Video games by their very nature require active participation rather than passive observation.
3. Repetition increases learning. Video games involve a great deal of repetition. If the games are violent, then the effect is a behavioral rehearsal for violent activity.
4. Rewards increase learning, and video games are based on a reward system.

While the research base conducted on video games is small compared to that conducted on television, early results are showing that the concern is indeed warranted. Anderson & Bushman have conducted a meta-analysis of 35 different studies of violent video games (2001). A meta-analysis is a type of study in which researchers analyze the results of other studies to see if there are similar patterns of results; Anderson and Bushman showed that there is a consistent pattern of results in five areas.

For more go to:

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR DECISION

Under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (FVPC Act)

Type of Publication: Console Game

Title of Publication: Grand Theft Auto IV

Other known title: GTA 4

OFLC Publication Reference No: 800191

Decision: Objectionable except if the availability of the publication is restricted to persons who have attained the age of 18 years.

Display Conditions: Nil

Descriptive Note: Contains violence and offensive language

The publication is classified as objectionable except if the availability of the publication is restricted to persons who have attained the age of 18 years because of its treatment of violence, cruelty and crime

Description of Publication:

The publication 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 genres with strong elements of satire. 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. The game world is immersive and fully realised, with the changing of seasons, weather patterns, and time of day, all ticking over with a realistic attention to detail.

Subject Matter Gateway

Matters such as sex

Possibly the strongest in-game violence 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.

The scripted sequences also feature a range of violence, such as people being shot in the head. These are shown in a very cinematic way, utilising camera angles and sound effects one would expect to see in large budget films.

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 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 balanced to some extent by the positioning of Niko as a sympathetic, and flawed, character trying to find his way in Liberty City, and the power the police have to kill or arrest Niko when he commits wanton acts. Illegal drugs play a very minor part in the game and appear only in as far as some characters are shown snorting cocaine or discussing drug deals. Niko does not take drugs and there is no sense that drug use is ever glamourised.

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, and the word “cu#t”.

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 of an engaging third-person action drama set within an interactive game world.

s3(4)(b) The impact of the medium in which the publication is presented

The publication is an Xbox 369 console game, allowing for complex and sophisticated gameplay with realistic graphics and sound effects.

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 some merit in relation to social and cultural matters. The GTA series has attracted a dedicated following worldwide, across all gaming platforms, and this version is likely to be one of the most anticipated gaming releases of 2008. The game is one of the most complex soon to be available on the market in terms of narrative structure, characterisations, and a player’s freedom to explore enormous animated environments.

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 probably intended for an adult audience due to its depictions of violence and cruelty, low level sexual content, and anti-social elements.

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 violence, cruelty and crime, the classification imposed on this game 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. A limitation on the console game’s availability is the minimum restriction that can be applied in order to prevent injury to the public good.

Conclusion

Injury

The unrestricted availability of the publication would be injurious to the public good given the manner in which it deals with matters of violence, cruelty and crime. Weighting has been given to the potential for the player’s character to commit gratuitous acts of violence upon unsuspecting members of the public and the police, as well as frequently extreme acts of anti-social and illegal behaviour. This kind of content might be disturbing to younger viewers, however there is also the risk of children and young persons becoming desensitised or inured over the long term to this type of behaviour, and trivialising it through presenting it as amusing or exciting. Adults are more able to put this material in the context of an entertaining but violent console game. The likelihood of injury to the public good is avoided by restricting this publication to audiences that have attained the age of 18 years.

Source: All information supplied by Office of Film and Litersature Classification.

In 2000, Anderson and Dill found that violent video game play and aggressive personalities accounted for the majority of observed aggressive and delinquent behaviour.

In 2001, Anderson and Bushman conducted a meta-analytic review of violent video game research found that violent game play increased the aggressive thoughts in males and females across age ranges in both experimental and non-experimental situations. The research demonstrated an increase in short term aggression after playing violent video games.

In 2001, Anderson and Bartholow, studied the gender differences between aggressive actions after playing violent video games. The research found that male college age students demonstrated a significant increase in aggression immediately after playing a violent video game (Mortal Kombat) versus a nonviolent game (PGA Tournament Golf). Women studied showed a significantly smaller increase in aggression after playing the game. Two of the concerns of this study are the small sample size (43) and the analysis of short term effects on aggression

In 2005, Anderson and Carnagey found that “violence in a video game, regardless of whether it is rewarded or punished, can increase hostile affect.” Their research showed that rewarding violence in video games can increase aggressive thoughts and actions. The study used the same white noise punishment that was used in the 2001 study above.

These are just a sample of the many research studies conducted by Anderson over the last seven years. Anderson’s most conclusive evidence is an increase in short term aggressive thought.

Anderson, C. A. (2004). An update on the effects of playing violent video games. Journal of Adolescence, 27(1), 113.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12(5), 353.

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 78(4), 772-790.

Bartholow, B. D., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: Potential sex differences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(3), 283.

Carnagey, N. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2005). The effects of reward and punishment in violent video games on aggressive affect, cognition, and behavior. Psychological Science, 16(11), 882-889.

Image via Iowa State University Department of Psychology.

Source

http://researchquest.blogspot.com/2007/08/dr-craig-anderson-violent-video-games.html

Also see:

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE AGENDA
American Psychological Association APA Online

Volume 16: No. 5, October 2003

Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts,
and Unanswered Questions
by Craig A. Anderson

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html 

Craig A. Anderson received his PhD in psychology from Stanford University in 1980. He has been a faculty member at Rice University (1980-1988), Ohio State University (visiting,1984-1985), and the University of Missouri-Columbia (1988-1999). He joined Iowa State University in 1999 as Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology. He has received teaching awards at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, and has been awarded “Fellow” status by the American Psychological Society and the American Psychological Association. He is currently on the Executive Council of the International Society for Research on Aggression. His research on attribution theory, depression, social judgment, covariation detection, biases, and human aggression has been published in top social, personality, and cognitive, journals. His recent focus on violent video games has led to U.S. Senate testimony, addresses to and consultations with numerous scientific, governmental, and public policy groups worldwide, public policy research awards, and articles and stories in top science news outlets. His published works can be found at his web site.

After 40+ years of research, one might think that debate about media violence effects would be over. An historical examination of the research reveals that debate concerning whether such exposure is a significant risk factor for aggressive and violent behavior should have been over years ago (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Four types of media violence studies provide converging evidence of such effects: laboratory experiments, field experiments, cross-sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies (Anderson & Bushman, 2002a; Bushman & Huesmann, 2000). But the development of a new genre—electronic video games—reinvigorated the debate.

Two features of video games fuel renewed interest by researchers, public policy makers, and the general public. First, the active role required by video games is a double-edged sword. It helps educational video games be excellent teaching tools for motivational and learning process reasons. But, it also may make violent video games even more hazardous than violent television or cinema. Second, the arrival of a new generation of ultraviolent video games beginning in the early 1990s and continuing unabated to the present resulted in large numbers of children and youths actively participating in entertainment violence that went way beyond anything available to them on television or in movies. Recent video games reward players for killing innocent bystanders, police, and prostitutes, using a wide range of weapons including guns, knives, flame throwers, swords, baseball bats, cars, hands, and feet. Some include cut scenes (i.e., brief movie clips supposedly designed to move the story forward) of strippers. In some, the player assumes the role of hero, whereas in others the player is a criminal.

Two features of video games fuel renewed interest by researchers, public policy makers, and the general public. First, the active role required by video games is a double-edged sword. It helps educational video games be excellent teaching tools for motivational and learning process reasons. But, it also may make violent video games even more hazardous than violent television or cinema. Second, the arrival of a new generation of ultraviolent video games beginning in the early 1990s and continuing unabated to the present resulted in large numbers of children and youths actively participating in entertainment violence that went way beyond anything available to them on television or in movies. Recent video games reward players for killing innocent bystanders, police, and prostitutes, using a wide range of weapons including guns, knives, flame throwers, swords, baseball bats, cars, hands, and feet. Some include cut scenes (i.e., brief movie clips supposedly designed to move the story forward) of strippers. In some, the player assumes the role of hero, whereas in others the player is a criminal.

The new debate frequently generates more heat than light. Many criticisms are simply recycled myths from earlier media violence debates, myths that have been repeatedly debunked on theoretical and empirical grounds. Valid weaknesses have also been identified (and often corrected) by media violence researchers themselves. Although the violent video game literature is still relatively new and small, we have learned a lot about their effects and have successfully answered several key questions. So, what is myth and what do we know?

Myths and Facts

For complete article including 11 myths and unanswered questions see:

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

Description
Violent video games are successfully marketed to and easily obtained by children and adolescents. Even the U.S. government distributes one such game, America’s Army, through both the internet and its recruiting offices. Is there any scientific evidence to support the claims that violent games contribute to aggressive and violent behavior?

Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley first present an overview of empirical research on the effects of violent video games, and then add to this literature three new studies that fill the most important gaps. They update the traditional General Aggression Model to focus on both developmental processes and how media-violence exposure can increase the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both short- and long-term contexts. Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents also reviews the history of these games’ explosive growth, and explores the public policy options for controlling their distribution. Anderson et al. describe the reaction of the games industry to scientific findings that exposure to violent video games and other forms of media violence constitutes a significant risk factor for later aggressive and violent behavior. They argue that society should begin a more productive debate about whether to reduce the high rates of exposure to media violence, and delineate the public policy options that are likely be most effective.

As the first book to unite empirical research on and public policy options for violent video games, Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents will be an invaluable resource for student and professional researchers in social and developmental psychology and media studies.

For Reviews and details on how to purchase item see source:

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/Developmental/?view=usa&ci=9780195309836

About the Author(s)

Craig A. Anderson , Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Iowa State University, is widely regarded as the foremost expert on the effects of violent video games. His research on aggression, media violence, depression, and social judgment has had a profound influence on psychological theory and modern society. His tireless efforts to educate public policy-makers and the general public have earned him recognition as one of the most influential and respected social psychologists in the world.

Douglas A. Gentile is a developmental psychologist and is Assistant Professor of Psychology at Iowa State University and the Director of Research for the National Institute on Media and the Family. As one of the country’s leading media effects researchers, he conducts studies on the positive and negative effects of media on children and adults, including the effects of advertising, educational television, and video games. His studies provide valuable insights to parents, educators, pediatricians, and policy-makers about how to maximize the benefits of media usage while minimizing potential harms.

Katherine E. Buckley , who is completing her Ph.D. in Psychology at Iowa State University, has been researching aggression and media violence. Katherine received her M.A. from Wake Forest University in 2001. She is a member of the American Psychological Society as well as the Society for Personality and Social Psychology and the Society for Research in Child Development.

“Superintendent Bill Harrison, national manager of police youth services, says youth violence rates have jumped in the past two or three years throughout the Western world, coinciding with the rise of new products such as the Xbox.”

See full story: Video violence beyond a game: top cop
Wednesday November 28, 2007. By Simon Collins 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10478781&ref=rss