Manhunt, Shmanhunt. You whippersnappers have it easy. Do you know how wimpy it sounds to us old-timers when you complain about your murder simulators being censored? When I was your age I had to walk barefoot two miles in the snow to play my censored games . . . and I enjoyed it.

Let me take you back to a mysterious age shrouded in darkness, filled with green tentacles, purple meteors, microwaved hamsters and a plant named Chuck. The good old days of Maniac Mansion for the NES, when the text, "For a good time call EDNA 3444", was censored in a videogame by Nintendo of America. Honestly.

Maniac Mansion debuted on the Commodore 64 and was instantly recognized for its innovative gameplay featuring multiple characters, branching story paths, and unique sense of humor. All this in 1987, when I swear to God, masterpieces like JAWS were forcing us to waste hours collecting virtual seashells, praying for some sweet random shark action.

However, it wasn't all sunshine and roses getting Maniac Mansion into the hands of NES owners. The Nintendo Nannies forced the LucasArts conversion team to jump through ridiculous hoops before they would agree to the game's release on their system. Thankfully, Douglas Crawford, a manager of the game's port to the NES, wrote a detailed and devestatingly hilarious description of the game's censorship travails. Follow the link:

The Expurgation of Maniac Mansion for the Nintendo Entertainment System

Nintendo seriously brought down the soldering iron of justice on Maniac Mansion and the game we received was far removed from the creators' original vision. What really irks me is that the game's sense of humor was attacked, but Nintendo remained oblivious to a lot of the morbid stuff bubbling under the surface.

We should count our lucky stars that the notorious exploding hamster trick slipped through the cracks into the American version of the game. That was our Hot Coffee! I must have blown that poor bastard up in the microwave at least ten times on my cartridge. Did it permanently alter me? Did I grow up to inflict cruelty on real life animals? Fuck no! I'm a vegetarian who still grins widely at the wonderful memories.

The petty quibbles Nintendo had with the game definitely demonstrate how much things have changed for creative freedom in electronic entertainment over the years.

All joking aside, we've gained a lot of ground over the years, and the recent Manhunt 2 battle serves to illustrate how our enemies are lashing out like wounded animals in a corner. The hounds of repression may have gotten a few sucker punches in this time, but I know we can win this, team!

Quick soapbox kickflip:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You don't really believe in freedom of speech unless you're willing to defend people's rights to express themselves in horrible ways that you disagree with. Freedom of speech isn't for the clean and pretty stuff. No one's gonna attack your right to say that flowers smell nice or that it was sad when Mother Theresa died. SAFE IDEAS DON'T NEED DEFENDING. Freedom of speech was designed to protect controversial ideas that people hate, and if you don't comprehend that then you have no business ever uttering the term "First Amendment".

I also think we need to move beyond the idea of governments being the only bad guy when it comes to censorship. We are quickly rushing toward an age where corporations are more powerful than any single nation's system of government. Do you think most of these guys are going to give a flying fuck about your right to publicly produce and consume ideas?

Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once wrote, "if the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man sitting in his own house what books he may read or what films he may watch."

If the state has no business telling you what media to consume, where the hell does the ESRB get off? You can bet your limited-edition-Akira-wall-scroll on the fact that the ESRB knew beforehand about Sony and Nintendo's stances for AO rated games. The ESRB has effectively done what our government is constitutionally forbidden to do: institute prior restraint. I know the paranoia's running high right now, but I seriously wonder if Nintendo or Sony had any influence in the ratings outcome. Do we know who the specially-trained (according to the ESRB's website) raters actually are? Could they be relatives, business partners, or friends to any of the big software or hardware publishers? Somebody in New York needs to do some street pounding and Philip Marlowe their asses.

For some super radical writings on media ownership and freedom of speech see Robert McChesney's Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times

Oh, and for the love of God, revisit Maniac Mansion. You've been meaning to.