Slashdot Mirror

Office of Film and Literature Classification

bah that'll teach me to hit submit before proofreading / posting at 2am.

on a further note this kind of reflects my point precisely

[...]feel free to fuck that hooker and then beat her to death with a baseball bat to get your cash back[...]

Therefore, requiring the board to play through all the games it rates to completion would likely do one thing: force it out of business. This is not an agency you can dictate to regarding their operations. It is a private organization.
 
Precisely for this reason the ESRB, as it stands, is inadequate to guarantee consumers, beauracrats, game developers and publishers are all catered for. The role of the ESRB should be a government body, with independent reviewers, for ALL consumer media (film, literature, games) released through legitimate retail channels (virtual or physical) that are governed by US law. Having a piece of media rated would be heavily subsidised by taxpayers, as it is in their interest. This is not about censorship, it's about a set standard of guidelines for what the recommended age for consumption. ie: Anthropomorphic cats in hats: 1+, Boobs and beheadings - 18+.
 
  You're basically talking about creating a new and massive government bureacracy for one thing - to rate video games. This is how you want your tax dollars spent? Because the ESRB is not going to spend this money, nor do they have to.
 
Nor should they. Take a look at the Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification. The only problem with their system is a lack of R18+ classification for videogames. This saw the banning from retail of Mark Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure, and Rockstar's Manhunt. The reluctance to provide an 18+ rating is constantly subject to debate and lobbying. It certainly seems to mimmick the US system "Oh games are for kids! Why would there be an R18+ game?" Certainly the .au system is not perfect but it is an indication that it can work. Also hidden hackable boobies should be exempt.
 
  GTA Vice City, to pick but one example, was more than 100 hours long if you played the "entire" thing through (including side missions). Multiply that by the number of games that come out every week and you tell me how many people would need to be on the ESRB payroll.
 
If it's in everyone's interest for fair and just ratings applied to media, it should be a government institution. It costs what it costs. No, it's not a slippery slope towards restricting freedom of expression, as it's all about everyone involved cooperating and seeing the mutual benefits of fair and just ratings. In Australia, if a sales clerk sells an MA15+ game to a 12 year old, by individual state law it is treated with the same impact as selling an MA15+ film to the same person. Each state has different penalties, and while it is not equivalent to selling cigarettes the classifications are respected by sales clerks. Majority of videogame sales occur in EBGames and similar stores. For more info on classification pricing: OFLC Classification Pricing Now if they can just allow R18+ games, I can have my murder simulators and play them too...

They are just plain ridiculous, and some of the detail they go into, e.g "Science Fiction Violence" or "Heavy Gore". A lot of the time even due to the size, they are not just stickered on so you can have clean game boxes either free of this rubbish. Compared to what we get here, ESRB doesn't deserve to be criticised.

They are just plain ridiculous, and some of the detail they go into, e.g "Science Fiction Violence" or "Heavy Gore". A lot of the time even due to the size, they are not just stickered on so you can have clean game boxes either free of this rubbish. Compared to what we get here, ESRB doesn't deserve to be criticised.

They are just plain ridiculous, and some of the detail they go into, e.g "Science Fiction Violence" or "Heavy Gore". A lot of the time even due to the size, they are not just stickered on so you can have clean game boxes either free of this rubbish. Compared to what we get here, ESRB doesn't deserve to be criticised.

They are just plain ridiculous, and some of the detail they go into, e.g "Science Fiction Violence" or "Heavy Gore". A lot of the time even due to the size, they are not just stickered on so you can have clean game boxes either free of this rubbish. Compared to what we get here, ESRB doesn't deserve to be criticised.

I work for a media organisation in Australia. I am required to possess certification from the Office of Film and Literature Classification (the government body at the centre of this controversy) attesting to the fact that I have been trained in and understand the application of the OFLC's classification criteria. I have a nice little certificate here with a government seal on it attesting to the fact that I am qualified to make judgements on the most appropriate classification for a piece of content.

There's no way this game should have been "Refused Classification" (ie, banned). No way. Hell, even Manhunt for PS2, featuring sadistic snuff-movie murders, did not get banned.

Now, video games can be banned from Australia they:

(a) depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified; or

(b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not); or

(c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence; or

(d) are unsuitable for a minor to see or play

The OFLC's own guidelines specify further that a game should be Refused Classification if it shows "Detailed instruction or promotion in matters of crime or violence".

BUT.

According to the OFLC "assessed titles" database, the game was examined and assessed back in November last year and given an MA-15 rating. Unless Ecko has released a patch in the past 60 days which makes the game more offensive, I think it's safe to assume some politician who wants his name in the papers for "THINKING ABOUT THE CHILDREN" has pulled strings to have the classification changed.

umm, yes we do. would you please stop commenting on something you know nothing about

http://www.oflc.gov.au/special.html?n=291&p=134#1

ummmm...where are you from exactly? What's the R rating for? (I'm from Brisbane, Australia)

http://www.oflc.gov.au/special.html?n=291&p=134#1

It turns out that under the Classification Act publishers of games must disclose all contentious material included with the game, regardless of whether it requires codes or modification to access. If the classification board determines that the publisher failed to do this, then it must by law revoke the classification.

As the game is now considered to have been Refused Classification by the OFLC, it cannot be legally sold, hired, advertised or exhibited. In addition, anyone who attempts to import the game from overseas could possibly have the game seized by Customs and face charges for importing prohibited material.

As GTA:SA most likely would not have been granted a classification in its original form had the OFLC been aware of Hot Coffee (since depictions of sex are not allowed under the MA15+ classification) it probably won't be classified again until Rockstar produces a version without Hot Coffee on the disc.

• Media release announcing review on July 11
• Media release announcing revocation of classifcation on July 29

It turns out that under the Classification Act publishers of games must disclose all contentious material included with the game, regardless of whether it requires codes or modification to access. If the classification board determines that the publisher failed to do this, then it must by law revoke the classification.

As the game is now considered to have been Refused Classification by the OFLC, it cannot be legally sold, hired, advertised or exhibited. In addition, anyone who attempts to import the game from overseas could possibly have the game seized by Customs and face charges for importing prohibited material.

As GTA:SA most likely would not have been granted a classification in its original form had the OFLC been aware of Hot Coffee (since depictions of sex are not allowed under the MA15+ classification) it probably won't be classified again until Rockstar produces a version without Hot Coffee on the disc.

• Media release announcing review on July 11
• Media release announcing revocation of classifcation on July 29

... the OFLC (Office of Film and Literature Classification) has just changed the classification markings system for games and movies - they now both use the same markings and have the same rating systems (though video games don't have a 'restricted' rating yet, which means anything harsher than an MA15+ gets refused classification - but that's a whole different kettle of fish).

Part of the reason for doing this was to make it more obvious for parents when buying games for their kids that they might not be suitable. I guess its for those stupid parents that don't actually excercise critical thinking when they pick up a box of Deathstalker V: The Bloodening. Now they can clearly see its got a red sticker on it and will (theoretically) be more inclined to realise that it is Bad For Kids, because they remember that the red sticker is for grown-ups, because they saw it at the movies.

I think its a good idea and hopefully those parents that would otherwise blindly buy their kids unsuitable titles will think about it a little bit more.

... the OFLC (Office of Film and Literature Classification) has just changed the classification markings system for games and movies - they now both use the same markings and have the same rating systems (though video games don't have a 'restricted' rating yet, which means anything harsher than an MA15+ gets refused classification - but that's a whole different kettle of fish).

Part of the reason for doing this was to make it more obvious for parents when buying games for their kids that they might not be suitable. I guess its for those stupid parents that don't actually excercise critical thinking when they pick up a box of Deathstalker V: The Bloodening. Now they can clearly see its got a red sticker on it and will (theoretically) be more inclined to realise that it is Bad For Kids, because they remember that the red sticker is for grown-ups, because they saw it at the movies.

I think its a good idea and hopefully those parents that would otherwise blindly buy their kids unsuitable titles will think about it a little bit more.

Yup, we know. The OFLC can refuse to classify Literature if it exceeds certain guidelines (PDF). Which includes child porn or explicit depictions of children, violent sex, incest, bestiality, the encouragement of violence or criminal activity, et cetera. Most people would call that acceptable. But of concern is that it can just refuse classification of a book because it thinks most adults would find it indecent.

In practice though, it's not that bad -- on the OFLC site you can search for those items which were refused classification, and most of the ones since 2000 were submitted by "AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE - OPERATION AUXIN", which was a big pedophile bust. We haven't banned James Joyce or Brave New World for over half a century.

Yup, we know. The OFLC can refuse to classify Literature if it exceeds certain guidelines (PDF). Which includes child porn or explicit depictions of children, violent sex, incest, bestiality, the encouragement of violence or criminal activity, et cetera. Most people would call that acceptable. But of concern is that it can just refuse classification of a book because it thinks most adults would find it indecent.

In practice though, it's not that bad -- on the OFLC site you can search for those items which were refused classification, and most of the ones since 2000 were submitted by "AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE - OPERATION AUXIN", which was a big pedophile bust. We haven't banned James Joyce or Brave New World for over half a century.

It makes me so angry when govenments censor games.

At 35 I can marry, have weird sex (if I choose), have kids, get into debt, take mind altering alcohol, pay taxes, watch contact sport (if i choose), watch horror films, read books and look at all manner of art.

I can make decisions, and am held resposible for my actions, it is assumed I know right from wrong.

Yet, the Australian government thinks I need my computer games censored.

The classification guidelines are supposed to allow me to make an informed choice, not to remove choice.

The situation sucks, I just hope it gets better as gamers get older.

Some links to explore.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/06/06/11179102 43491.html

http://www.oflc.gov.au/content.html?n=166&p=119

According to this page at the Australian Goverment Office of Film & Literature Classification GTA:SA will NOT be censored like GTA3 was and we Australians should get the original version like the rest of the world.

Possibly not true. Or rather possibly half true. OFLC gave the version of GTA:SA they recieved from Rockstar an MA rating. BUT the version they recieved may be a cut version. I assume that because Rockstar have been knocked back on the previous GTA3's and Manhunt, they know what will pass and won't pass.

OFLC states that the original version of Vice City was given an MA rating according to this page. The OFLC can't cut a game (or a movie), they can only ban them or approve them.

But certainly NZ e-tailers seem to be making a big deal of it, trying to get sales over in Australia.

According to this page at the Australian Goverment Office of Film & Literature Classification GTA:SA will NOT be censored like GTA3 was and we Australians should get the original version like the rest of the world.

The warnings on videogames are not meant for parents to keep children confined by having them not purchase such games

At least in this country that's not true, our Office of Film and Literature Classification intends the warnings to be used proactively by parents:

From OFLC:

"Consumer advice helps you decide what you and your family view and play. If you do not like your children to hear swear words then check for consumer advice that refers to coarse language. Perhaps you do not like your children to watch movies that have references to sex or sex scenes. The consumer advice may help you choose films that do not have sexual references or sex scenes."

I have a ten year old son, and I keep an eye on what he sees and hears. But not based on the warnings, they're quite vague and downright misleading at times. I take an interest in the things he does, I play console games with him, I watch movies with him, and we don't have a problem. He has an instinctive understanding of what he is allowed to watch, and what he's not, and he respects that, while I respect his right to access content marked 15+ (like some games) if the content is within the guidelines we have mutually agreed upon.

Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, but it's sure as hell better than the way my father tried to impose censorship on me. I wasn't even allowed to watch Doctor Who until I was 15 years old!!!!!!!!

Friggin' hillbillies.

MA-rated content (from the the Office of Film and Literature Classification's own guidelines):

• can only "imply" sexual activity
• can't include "gratuious" coarse language that is "very strong, aggressive or detailed"
• can't contain depictions of violence that are "high impact" unless they are infrequent and not "prolonged or gratuitous"
• can only treat "adult themes" (such as suicide and marital difficulties) if it's done discreetly or at low intensity.

Danny.

Rat Race M 15+ (SEXUAL REFERENCES, ADULT THEMES) Date of Classification 9 August 2001

OCEAN'S ELEVEN Film (35 mm) Classification M 15+ (LOW LEVEL COARSE LANGUAGE) Duration 116 minute(s) Date of Classification 27 November 2001

Both of which were found on the OFLC's ratings database

Point is still valid - even LOTR:FOTR wasn't given a classification the day I went to see it - the second day after it was released. Matter o fact, it's STILL not classified, if you believe their database. (Navigate from here for the IP-wary)

If an item is 'Refused Classification' in Australia this means that it is banned from sale to quote from the Guidelines for "Classification of Computer Games" (available online):

"Refused Classification. Material so classified may not be sold, hired, exhibited, displayed, demonstrated or advertised."

Notice that possession of the material is not itself an offence. This is different from Child Pornography where mere possession is an offence. In the case of games it would be interesting to see if playing a game in public (say at a LAN party) would fall into the exhibited, displayed, or demonstrated categories.

MA means nobody under 15 can buy or watch unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. Below MA there is no legal restriction. The full details are available if you're curious.

IMO the best feature about the Australian ratings system is "consumer advice". Anything rated over G for video and over PG for film or television must be accompanied by the reasons why it got that rating. So the South Park film is actually rated "MA; high level coarse language, sexual references". Particularly useful is the consumer advice "adult themes". That covers themes like marital breakup, suicidal feelings, racial prejudice and so on. These are themes which younger children may not be able to understand or which may require parental assistance in understanding. As I've said before, I don't mind my daughter (eventually; she's not even 2 yet) seeing nudity, but I'd be careful about letting her see depictions of racial hate groups before she's ready to understand it.

Yup, the ACT is a piece of federal land about half-way between Sydney and Melbourne, entirely surrounded by NSW. (Slight fudge: I think that the Jervis Bay naval base might technically be ACT land, but don't hold me to that.)

It's just a question of who censors what.

Compare movie ratings in the US and Australia. In the US, it's done by the film industry. In Australia, it's done by the govt. There's a huge difference between the two.

More important than the censorship itself is who controls it. If it's the industry itself, there's a built-in balance. An industry will tend to censor itself as little as possible (for obvious reasons). A govt. will try to censor as much as possible (for obvious reasons). There's also the philosophical question of the state controlling the citizenry's right to free expression.

The Aussies have a govt. body with the rather Orwellian name of The Office of Film and Literature Classification . It censors games as well (I'm not sure if they come under film or literature, though "Move every zig for great justice" is memorable prose indeed). Ignore the cute kangaroo and try looking up some names. A search on "quake" reveals that Quake (the game) is MA15+ rated for "high level violence", whereas Earthquake Girls (the movie) is rated X. Of course, books are rated too, and in some cases, prohibited. Games in arcades have big ratings signs posted. There was a news item a couple of years ago of the New Zealand govt. having difficulty rating video games because govt. bureaucrats were having difficulty going past the first few levels in violent games. The very image of buttoned-up, middle-aged officials getting paid to struggle through "Toxic Waste Dump" makes you wonder if society has better ways of spending tax dollars. Canada, you are next.

There are some ironies, however. I've lived in both Australia and the US. Inspite of Australia having a govt. censor, you can see breasts on TV all the time, even at 9 PM, and (irony of ironies) even on a news program re. censorship on ....state run TV. There is quite a bit of contrast in how the Land of the Free shudders in prude puritanical fear at the sight of nipples, while the laid-back Aussies appoint govt. censors and casually walk past pictures of bared breasts in malls and public places.

You can see movie posters with tits on full display. Sex and the City, which largely gets its high ratings on US cable from the shock that Americans feel at the sight of yuppie women baring breasts on a TV show and saying "fuck" several times, is regularly shown on open public broadcast in Australia. You can see breasts on the front pages of newspapers sometimes, lying there in a newstand stack as children walk past them to buy candies. Oddly, such obscenities haven't resulted in higher crime or moral turpitude.

OTOH, the problem with govt. censorship is just that - it's govt. censorship. They can ban movies if they don't feel the public should watch it. God forbid they should come across the old Mega TF mod that lets you shoot your opponent's head off and kick it around like a football....

w/m

www.oflc.com.au

The Office of Film and Literature Classification welcomes your feedback.

Help out a non-American not versed in US laws.

Is there some legal reason why a film must be rated, or why the MPAA must do it? Or is it just that the film distributors are MPAA members? I would think that there is scope here for someone else to break the monopoly on film ratings.

BTW, here in Australia, while our system is by no means perfect (in fact, there are serious problems with it) one feature that I like is that ratings are much more finely grained. In addition to the main categories (G, PG, M, MA, R, X, RC; see the guidelines if you want to know what they mean) there is always a list of what the OFLC calls "consumer advice", which is basically a list of reasons explaining why it attracted that rating. That way, if you don't mind sex but are squeamish at violence, you can easily tell if this is a film for you.

Consumer advice may include sex (e.g. "sexual references" or "sex scenes"), nudity (which is, naturally, treated differently from sex), drugs ("drug use"), "violence" (with some indication of how severe, such as "low-level violence"), "coarse language" (again with an indication of how severe), "horror", or what the OFLC calls "adult themes." "Adult themes", for those who are wondering, means that the film deals with things like mental illness, the supernatural or mild horror. All the things that children might not understand. This list of reasons is on all video boxes and movie posters, as well as read out by an announcer before most films or TV programmes which are rated above G. TV guides also put a summary in short form (for example, the repeat of South Park tonight is rated MA (A) where the (A) means it has adult themes). Some TV channels go even further, using their own consumer advice labels. For example, I remember one of Julian Clary's shows was rated M, with the consumer advice "strong innuendo".

The US could do with a more fine-grained system like this one, so we don't have to rely on spoiler reviews to decide whether or not we want to watch it.

Found it !

Try this or the PDF of the report is here

Found it !

Try this or the PDF of the report is here