Slashdot Mirror
Australia Could Finally Get R18+ Games
angry tapir writes "Australia may finally get an adults only, R18+ classification for computer games, with the federal government releasing a discussion paper summarizing the key arguments for and against an R18+ classification. Submissions are currently being sought from the community on whether the Australian National Classification Scheme should include an R18+ category for computer and video games. In the past the board responsible for classifying games and movies has banned some titles outright because of the lack of an adults only classification — Aliens Vs. Predator is just the most recent in a long line. The Attorney-General's report on the issue is available online."
Aside from the usual arguments surrounding the average age of game players and my right to choose my entertainment (within reason), and shoehorning games into less restricted categories (GTA-IV, anyone?), I believe outright banning R18+ games probably increasing the availability of these games to minors.
For games that are available in stores, children are the least likely to be able to afford the games. Relative to adults, your average minor is probably going to pirate a game rather than buy it (regardless of legality and classification).
If you ban R18+ games, then adults are going to pirate the game too - if I want to play a game I can't buy in the store, I know I will. In the day of BitTorrent, more people downloading an item in a geographic area, the more accessible that item becomes in that area.
All they're doing by banning R18+ games, is giving minors more seeders when they go ahead and download it anyway.
Its about time the Australian government realized that games are not just for kids anymore. Its no more objectionable to have a game that is made for adults than it is to have a movie made for adults, yet some countries think there is a difference. I doubt Aliens v. Predator has anything I haven't seen before in my games that would otherwise scandalize me as a well-adjusted adult. We have had extreme violence in movies for years, there is nothing significantly different in games other than increased cathartic release.
...is when the people give one state AG the power to frustrate the wishes of all the other state AG's and the people who pay his wages.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Atkinson
This person has been the sole reason why Australia doesn't have a R18+ rating, and I highly doubt a discussion paper will change his mind.
Apparently the authors of paper believe that "Given the very low numbers of games that are affected by the absence of the classification category, the introduction of an R 18+ category is only an argument of principle." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games#Australia I'm think that its a little more than an argument of principle Also they are potentially ignoring the large number of games that have been forced to reevaluate their content ex: Left for Dead 2
Well I'm in two minds about this:
1. No amount of public support and public consultation is going to change Michael Atkinson's mind over this issue. Even very strong public support (91% of Australian adults support an R18+ rating for games, according to polling). Since Mr. Atkinson holds the power of veto for changing this law, even if the Federal Government STRONGLY URGES the introduction of an R18+ rating, he doesn't actually HAVE to give in to their demands (although there may be political consequences if he doesn't).
On the other hand...
2. It is great that this issue is finally being taken seriously by the general public, and is being given headlines in the major newspapers around the country today. This lends legitimacy to what gamers have been saying for ages - that game classification IS a serious issue and gamers are not kids. It's been pushed from a niche topic, to the mainstream, and that is how laws will get changed. So I'm quite encouraged by this. Michael Atkinson is unlikely to continue vetoing a change to the law if 90% of the public are behind it AND the Federal Government strongly recommends a R18+ rating in an official report ... like any other poltician, there is a point at which Mr. Atkinson will just have to bite the bullet and tow the party line. Woot :)
Mind you, the existing 'ban' (more accurately a lack of a classification preventing the sale of certain games ... you can still purchase them online and legally own and play them), isn't really a huge deal anyway. Ebay/overseas retailers are your friend.
... we get R18+ games.
Not a good trade in my opinion.
PS: If you don't know what I'm talking about, see the next Australia story coming soon on Slashdot (except maybe for Australian users).
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
Correct - public level consultation won't change anything.
The commonwealth still needs to get the unanimous approval of all states and territories and Atkinson has already started that he will never support the introduction of an R18+ classification.
He's made it an election promise and unfortunately it's almost certain that he will be re-elected (The seat of croydon is overwhelming in it's support for labor).
http://www.gamers4croydon.org/ are a group starting a party specifically to campaign on this issue - give them your support!
From the discussion paper: "An R 18+ for computer games would exacerbate problems associated with access to high level material in Indigenous communities and by other non-English speaking people."
Apparently classification is racially insensitive, but only for computer games.
The Federal Government plans to implement mandatory ISP filtering for "refused classification" websites, it was .
The government also released the report on the ISP filtering pilot, which was provided to the government by Enex Testlab in October, detailing the results of the blocking accuracy and performance of the filters.
Senator Conroy announced the new initiatives in a curiously scheduled press conference, with journalists only being notified 90 minutes prior to the start of proceedings.
"The Government will introduce legislative amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act to require all ISPs to block RC-rated material hosted on overseas servers", said the announcement.
"RC-rated material includes child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence including rape, and the detailed instruction of crime or drug use.
"The report into the pilot trial of ISP-level filtering demonstrates that blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100% accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed", said Conroy.
Conroy acknowledged that the filter would only block "inadvertent" exposure to R/C content, and the pilot report bluntly states that any technically competent user could circumvent the filtering.
The report also found that the filters on average "over-blocked" 3.4% of sites that were not intended to be filtered, and that high volume sites would likely cause the filters to fail.
Initial reactions to the pilot report have been mixed, with participating ISPs praising the results (in prepared press releases), while others such as Electronic Frontiers Australia stating that it "brings more questions than answers".
The DBCDE website is unavailable due to demand for the report, which we have mirrored here.
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
It doesn't matter if Michael Atkinson wins his seat of Croydon. It has to be a Labor government in South Australia or he will no longer be Attorney General.
It will be a Liberal party member who becomes Attorney General, so I'd be lobbying them.
Hooray, we go forward in one direction and backwards in another direction.
Today it was announced that the report on mandatory web filtering was a success, and so the government will be going ahead with the implementation of the Great Firewall of China.
http://whirlpool.net.au/news/?id=1852
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Probably the most shocking revelation about Australia for your average international Media Studies student is the deep reach censorship has in this country. I had heard news of an overregulated Australia before travelling to Melbourne, but those reports seemed like exaggeration. Having lived for a few months down under, overwhelming evidence defeats disbelief and sheer astonishment settles in. Why does a society that praises itself so highly for its openness, progressive achievements and multiculturalism allow crippling censorship legislation to evolve into such a pervasive and ubiquitous fog?
The latest case of ridiculous censorship in Australia is the banning and later un-banning of “Left 4 Dead 2”, a video game published by Electronic Arts. My concern about the banning of a game characterised as ‘violent’ is more about the value of freedom than a matter of personal interest. For the record, I don’t own a video game console, and, for the record, I would probably prefer spending my time and money in one of Melbourne’s many fine dining venues than playing video games. But the issue lies precisely in the importance of that choice. Should censors consider that sophisticated cuisine is wasteful, they couldn’t prevent me from enjoying it. Why can they then limit someone’s choice when it comes to videogames? It is the role of adult citizens, not the government, to decide whether they spend an evening beheading zombies or having seafood and wine. This choice has to be reclaimed as a citizen right beyond the reach of moral entrepreneurs.
Chronicles of this issue include episodes that are simultaneously sad and funny, like the classic movie “Salo” by Pier Paolo Passolini which was banned in Australia twice, or the video game “Marc Ecko” which was never sold here because of its depictions of the criminal horrors of graffiti art.
In September 15 2009, the Classification Board issued a report explaining that in this game “attacks cause copious amounts of blood spray and splatter, decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which may reveal skeletal bits and gore”. According to current legislation if the Board determines that a video game is unsuitable for persons under fifteen years old, it can not be sold in Australian territory.
In contrast to legislation regarding film, video games lack an R18+ classification. Why? Unbelievable as it may sound, this policy affecting all of Australian adult population is the decision of one individual. I am talking, of course, of Mr. Michael Atkinson, South Australian Attorney-General. Australian censorship parameters can only be modified by unanimous decisions taken by all Attorneys General, and Mr Atkinson alone has for years been blocking the creation of an R18+ category for video games.
Mr Atkinson argues that “an R18+ rating for electronic games will greatly increase the risk of children and vulnerable adults being exposed to damaging images and messages”.
What Mr Atkinson means by this so called ‘risk’ is that video game discs with violent content, belonging to the adults in the family, might be found in their houses by children who could then play these games. This is the argument used to support the need to ban all games with content considered unsuitable for children. The implication is that adults are not to be trusted, and the contradiction is that when it comes to pornographic DVDs the same consideration somehow does not apply. According to Atkinson’s logic kids are able to find games around the house, but not movies.
There is also an underlying problem with his argument: the way he presents the problem, in function of the ‘risk’, cleverly plants the assumption that video games are ‘damaging’ in a way that makes it seem beyond debate. A proper dissection of the idea that videogames are somehow negative to kids would fill the whole newspaper for yea
When does this shit stop?
Most human beings reach sexual maturity - that is, the age where their hormones are in full swing - somewhere between the ages of 8 and 14 as measured by earth's orbit around the sun.
At that point they are capable of producing offspring. At that point, their bodies have entered into the physical stages where producing offspring is a *physical imperative* - ie, the hormones that produce the desire to mate are in full swing.
Now this seems to have worked for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. After all, we are still around as a species. This is all very well established scientific biological, and realistic, fact.
So... this whole concept of offspring not being able to view other members of their species sans clothing, or in sexual congress, or to engage in said sexual congress themselves, surely must be a societal influence. Am I correct so far?
If so, then if one takes the view of many of those who feel that those members of society younger than a certain age (it differs in various societies, but let's take 18 orbits of the earth about it's star as the number here, because it's what's being bandied about) aren't "ready" to procreate, aren't "ready" to raise those offspring to be productive members of said society, where does the fault lie? Does it lie with the offspring having offspring, or a failure of the society to teach those humans how to raise their own offspring before and during the time when they become physically capable, indeed even when their bodies demand, that they produce offspring?
Put more simply, maybe instead of telling kids they can't have sex, maybe we as a society should be teaching them *before* puberty what it all means, that they will experience it, and when they do, to guide them thru the process, rather than telling them "Sorry, no, you can't do that. Because we say so."
Now, wait a minute. One of the driving beliefs amongst many of those in many societies which restrict the ages at which young human beings can procreate is a belief in a supernatural deity who, in the words of their own creed, once said "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth". Yet the same holders of that belief also tend to be in the forefront of those who tell young human beings that they cannot procreate, until they have reached some arbitrarily decided "age of reason"; which with some of them seems to be any age younger than they are, regardless of the age they have reached.
Not only that, but many members of that society seem to have reached the conclusion that viewing an unclothed member of their own species seems to fall within some concept called "evil" - which is apparently bad - and which makes one wonder how those members of the species seem to reproduce themselves in such great numbers. Perhaps they do it in the dark. ...
Does anyone else ever wonder whether or not human society is becoming more and more irrational? Nevermind, redundant question ;)
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
If you are about to point to Labor's pre-election policy paper you will note that the compulsory filter mentioned in it only applies to government computers (ie: schools, libraries, etc).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It doesn't matter if Michael Atkinson wins his seat of Croydon. It has to be a Labor government in South Australia or he will no longer be Attorney General.
It will be a Liberal party member who becomes Attorney General, so I'd be lobbying them.
Oh God , Buddha various Deities etc
you think
no gay marriage , lock up the boat people Liberal party
(Australia's right wing version of the Torys , Republicans )
is going to to be any better?
Liberal party really means no to fun.
I don't even dare to imagine where will they have to put the collectors edition.
Uranus? [rimshot] Thank you, I will be here all evening, try the veal!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Because people in Holland stopped speeding when the speed limit was raised to 120. Or people never speed in Germany where is parts where is makes sense, there is no speed limit.
Pot is legal in Holland, so people don't do hard-drugs.
People will break whatever laws there are, even the law of no-laws (which would be a law therefor against its own law).
I see many arguments against this idiotic ban, but respect for the law ain't one of them.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.