Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AU R18+ Rating Plans Put On Hold Due To "Interest Groups"

Posted by Soulskill on from the grasping-at-straws dept.

Dexter Herbivore writes "Australian gamers are yet again left disappointed by their government's response to a lack of an R18+ rating for games. Gamespot reports that Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor has blamed 'interest groups' for swamping the public consultation with pro-R18+ submissions. From the article: 'A strong response from gamer groups in the Australian Federal Government's R18+ public consultation has led Censorship Ministers to claim that more views from the community are needed before a decision into the introduction of an R18+ classification for video games can be reached.'" Reader UgLyPuNk adds that support for the new rating is coming from unexpected places.

15 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. Oh for the love of.. by kirbysuperstar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I feel like this is never going to go through. One hurdle after another, it seems.

    1. Re:Oh for the love of.. by sortius_nod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately gamers aren't the right "interest groups". The christian lobby is by the seems of things...

    2. Re:Oh for the love of.. by shooteur · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please we're the most subdued and docile population in the world. Other countries riot and go to the streets for less than what's been pulled on the Australian population in the past. Sure we'll be outraged for about 24 hours then back to business as usual.

    3. Re:Oh for the love of.. by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      58,589 people submitted their say to this thing... this ars*hole politician is proclaiming them as a "special interest group" because it doesn't fit with HIS ideas.

      Not really he's proclaiming EB Games, and activist groups, including conservative Christian anti-gaming groups to be "special interest groups" and bemoaning the fact that so many individual submissions merely aped the arguments put forward by those groups.

      Remember this isn't a popularity contest or a referendum. It's a process by which the government aims to garner as wide a range of views as possible from disparate sources. If one submissions says nothing different from another it's just a waste of everyone's time, and taxpayer money.

      The reason to encourage people to submit prepared submissions en masse is two-fold. Firstly to drown out alternative views, which is in the interest both of the games industry and the anti-games lobby. And secondly, since theoretically each submission must be read in its entirety, to delay any decision by clogging up the system. On the face of it this would appear to be in the interests of the conservative Christian opponents only. That it is the pro-gamers who have done this seems, at least on the face of it, to be a monumental act of stupidity.

      As a practical matter, if it is obvious that the vast bulk of submissions are mere dupes, I would think the bureaucrats could treat them as read. As I wrote below, if 86% of them are dupes, then really 86% if the reading has already been done. We really shouldn't let the ... ahem ... gaming of the consultation system by either side lead to inaction.

      I suspect that the truth is as AC wrote below, that they want an excuse to shelve it until after the election. That the fully intend to introduce a R18+ classification, but they are worried about pissing off the Christian vote Rudd has been so careful to cultivate.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  2. "interest Groups" by mr_mischief · · Score: 4, Informative
    • hypocrites running a nanny state because "think of the children" usually works at the polls
    • puritan hypocrites who want to live in a "free" country but who don't want people with different tastes to really be free
    • regulators and bureaucrats who really like high-paying government jobs and the ability to push people around with the support of elected bodies
    • crooks who don't think their bribes from the game lobby are big enough yet
    • a few lazy parents who don't want to keep track of what their kids bring home for themselves

    Yeah, I can imagine there are a few "interest groups" involved.

    1. Re:"interest Groups" by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      puritan hypocrites who want to live in a "free" country but who don't want people with different tastes to really be free

      This group includes everyone. Go on, browse the Net; you'll eventually find something that offends you so much you want it banned. Child porn, animal porn, Dissected-chan, Pain series, snuff films, real rape films... If you can imagine something, it's there, and someone's getting off on it; that's the dark side of Rule 34. And you, no matter what you believe, will eventually find your personal limits to what kind of tastes you can tolerate.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:"interest Groups" by Trogre · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lazy parents huh?

      And how, exactly, is a parent supposed to know whether a given game is safe for little Jimmy to play? Play the first two levels themselves? Perhaps it's not until the fourth level that the dismemberment and graphic porn starts.

      One rather simplified example of violent BS in a kid-appealing wrapper: Happy Tree Friends.

      I fail to see how anyone could regard R18+ labels as anything other than a _good_ thing. If people want gore and smut, they can hunt those labels out. The rest of us can avoid them. Sounds like win-win.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    3. Re:"interest Groups" by Chowderbags · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference is that for some people their level of tolerance ends at exactly the point where their personal tastes are offended. A puritanical person might see gay porn and say "eww... now ban it for corrupting morals!" A reasonable person sees gay porn and says "eww... I'd better not go to that website again."

  3. Just a little bias from the minister by John+Saffran · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the article this says it best:

    "I’m not sure how the [Home Affairs] minister pigeonholes them as an 'interest group' because gamers cover all facets of society. If consultations, by their nature, attract submissions from people who are passionate about an issue--and I assume passionate in both opposition and support--then why bother? Surely the government asked for submissions to gauge the feeling of the wider community, of which gamers make up 68 percent,"

    It sounds like the submissions didn't agree with the minister's pre-determined outcome .. just keep trying until you get what you want to hear.

    1. Re:Just a little bias from the minister by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's called policy based evidence.

  4. The government only likes certain interest groups by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 4, Informative

    The ACL(Australian Christian Lobby) jumps up and down and pretty much every politician is falling over themselves to appease them

    The lobby groups for Gaming launch an incredibly successful campaign for R18+ gaming to the point they manage to get 85 000 people to fill a survey out for the government, and the government calls it rigged.

    The ACL claims to be a representative of Australian Christians, but every Christian I know thinks they are a bunch of ultra-conservative bastards who want to force the entire country to adhere to their very narrow view on what is and is not ok.

  5. No suprise here by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's see, the government is blaming people that are IN FAVOR of the 18+ rating for the government's lack of action regarding implementing the said rating.

    The government is telling people that by voicing their opinions they are actually harming their own cause. I can't imagine a greater way of suppressing political dissent. I'd be surprised if this had anything to do with video games at all. More likely it's the government using this as an issue that many people are passionate about to try and start discouraging people from expressing their opinions.

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  6. Re:We have the numbers. by jonwil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is that the "yes" camp may have the raw numbers but those who are in "no" camp are a lot more politically important to the government (I dont know the views of Family First Senator Steve Fielding on this issue but given his religious views and his views on other issues, he almost certainly falls into the "no" camp)

    Also, because most of the "yes" responses came from people at the extreme "yes" end of the scale (and so few came from more moderate people) the government is likely thinking that just because a bunch of gamers want R18+ doesn't mean that regular people support it.

    Its an election year here in Australia, if the government goes ahead with something like R18+ without knowing which way the vast majority of the population leans on the issue, it could hit him at the next election.

  7. Re:the submission process != a survey by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was a fairly cynical manipulation to generate nothing but numbers of responses in favour, rather than actually arguing for the R18+ rating. It was a submission process, not a survey.

    If they hadn't responded in such numbers, then they would have dismissed it as a niche issue without support. If they groups do respond, then they abuse the system. Either way, it's the gamer's fault.

    Gamers should have used the process in the way it was intended and the outcomes for them would have been better. Before the submission process was announced there simply was no debate, rather than get involved in the debate process that they asked for, they've ruined it by flooding it with worthless submissions.

    They demonstrated that there is a real issue. All gamers are for it and almost 70% of Australians are gamers. You say the submissions are worthless. I'm curious how many of them you read. Odd that your complaint doesn't even match the complaints of those involved. They didn't complain about the quality of the submissions one bit. They asserted that because so many came from "gamer" organizations that the process may have left out other groups. Why do your complaints not match theirs? Is the article about it wrong, and you have all the right information? How is that? Or are you making up things?

    "Consultations, by their nature, attract submissions from people who are passionate about the issue. Ministers would like to consider other legitimate views from as wide a cross section of the community as possible." That doesn't sound like they didn't like the quality of the submissions. But that they are worried that the vast majority of the people liking something wouldn't properly represent the issues of the tiny minority opposed (especially when it comes close to election time).

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  8. Interest Groups by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A strong response from gamer groups in the Australian Federal Government's R18+ public consultation has led Censorship Ministers to claim that more views from the community are needed before a decision into the introduction of an R18+ classification for video games can be reached.

    Who the fuck did the government THINK was going to respond? And what the fuck did they expect them to say?

    OF COURSE gamers are an "interest group" when it comes to legislation that relates to gaming. It is in their interest. By definition.

    This is like putting legislation allowing gay marriage on hold because you suspect that it is being promoted too strongly by the "special interest group" of gay people who want to get married.