Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

San Andreas Banned In Australia

Posted by Zonk on from the who-needs-choice? dept.

UoNTidal writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that following the revelation that the 'Hot Coffee' sex minigame was included in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, the Office of Film & Literature Classification has revoked the game's classification, making it illegal for the game to be sold in its current form in Australia. As the highest classification available [PDF link] for computer games is MA15+ (as opposed to R18+ for films that can be sold in all states and territories), the sex scenes in 'Hot Coffee' pushed the game outside the permitted content for that rating, effectively banning the game."

9 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. But... Outlaw What? by Uber+Banker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm consistently confused.

    Why is blowing people's heads off considered less serious than sex? I San Andres I could conduct a drive-by shooting, or otherwise brutally murder someone. But having sex results in an older age limit?

    Even if this is sex with a prostitute, or going several steps further if it is rape, then surely that remains less serious than murder, or mass murder.

    It is said that murderous video games don't make murderers (on the whole, for the millions that play). Is the assumption different for other crimes, if so is there any evidence, and if not why restrict them?

    It could be said that minors (however defined) shouldn't be exposed to sex (or sex in a violent context), but then why is it more OK for them to be exposed to murder? Does anyone have a rational argument either way?

    1. Re:But... Outlaw What? by amliebsch · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Does anyone have a rational argument either way?

      Some feminists believe that it leads to objectification of women that while not criminal or even evidenced by a particular act, indelibly colors a persons attitudes and treatment of women and increases the likelihood of prejudice or violence against women. The upshot is that even while you know it's just a game, and still believe that murder is bad, etc., it has a subconscious effect.

      Just as an example.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    2. Re:But... Outlaw What? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One could argue that, I suppose...if one didn't mind being wrong.

      Death is rather permanent...its victims never 'recover' from it at all.

      If you're still alive, you still have the opportunity to try to move past your experience. When you're dead, that's it.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    3. Re:But... Outlaw What? by Txiasaeia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the other hand, looking at a rather brutal example, my wife's grandmother was raped when she was 11 or 12. Had she been insteaed killed, my mother-in-law, wife, and children would never have been born. Even though what she went through was terrible, I'm sure she'd agree that it would be worth it to see the smiling faces of her grand and great-grandchildren, especially if the alternative were death. I know that it's somewhat erroneous to try to prove a point with a single example, but IMHO being alive is infinitely better than being dead.

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    4. Re:But... Outlaw What? by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Why is blowing people's heads off considered less serious than sex? "

      How many people do you know that got pregnant in high school? How many people do you know from high school that were shot in the head or shot somebody in the head?

      It's more about perception than anything else. I'm not saying I agree that sexual content should be censored, but I can say that I'm far more worried about any kid of mine suffering negative consequences of sex than I am about them watching a violent video and killing people. It just feels a lot more likely to happen. Kids do stupid stuff with regards to having sex.

      That said, I don't think San Andreas is a worthy scapegoat, here. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the sexual content in the game is a bigger hot button to me than the violent content, but I think these peoples fuses are too short to begin with.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:But... Outlaw What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Interesting... however: objectification!=attraction

      Attraction goes; there's something about you that your partner finds interesting, enticing, exciting, and a whole bunch of other things that end in -ing. And the person being found attractive is _you_.

      Objectification goes; there's something about men/women's (delete as appropriate) bodies in general that your partner finds interesting. Yours are pretty much as good as anybody else's, so your partner is happy to f*** yours. Of course, anybody else with similar sexual characteristics would do just as well at this point, but you happen to be there at the time.

      To be found attractive is deeply personal and flattering. To be seen as a passable set of sexual characteristics is equal to the knowledge that you, the personality wearing those sexual characteristics, are essentially superfluous to the matter at hand; those inconvenient details can sod off as far as the partner in question is concerned. Generally, goes the argument, they're visualising someone else - usually someone with staples through his/her chest ;)

      This scenario I suspect is what feminists are referring to. You may indeed enjoy the sensation, you wouldn't be the first one, but it's reasonably easy to understand why it wouldn't be everybody's first choice.

  2. TO MODERATORS: by Boing · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, there have been like fifty stories about Hot Coffee on Slashdot, and yet each time the same comments get modded up:
    1. Violence and crime are worse than consentual sex.
    2. The sex minigame wasn't even accessible without modification/it's very difficult to access it.
    3. Parents who bought a game called "Grand Theft Auto" for young kids shouldn't be able to yell at other people about irresponsibility.
    4. It's much easier to get real porn than to get this mod.
    5. All this is just politicians trying to gain support among the "think of the children" crowd.
    6. (this one doesn't apply so much to Australia) The difference between its old rating and its new rating is only one year of age.

    So moderators: I'm only half kidding when I say that these posts should be marked "Redundant", not insightful or interesting. Not anymore.

  3. However by dtfinch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Selling hardcore pornography in Australia is still perfectly legal, even in the form of a game, so long as it's name is not GTA: San Andreas.

  4. Re:Good old Australia by GaryPatterson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can we assume you live in the "impeach the president because he got an illicit blowjob but don't worry about the current bozo launching a war based on lies and pushing the economy so far into the toilet that waste treatment plants will see it twelve months before any economists do" US of A?

    Or is it the "massive furore over a nipple shown on TV during a sports game that lead to huge penalties and red-faced hypocrites everywhere just about crapping their own pants in anger" US of A?

    Yes, in Australia we've banned guns without permits (that are hard to get) and some politicians have gone down the "porn is on the Internet therefore the Internet must be regulated here" path (and their attempts have been total and utter failures as anyone barely cognizant of technology could have told them before they wasted millions of tax dollars on their vote-buying furphies).

    Got any info on what we're banning first? Or is this just a knee-jerk reaction from an anonymous coward too gutless to bring their name to the table?