South Australia AG Backs R18+ For Games, But Not MA15+

dotarray writes "The Australian classification debate has just gotten a little more interesting, with South Australian Attorney-General John Rau announcing that he wants to go one step further than merely introducing an R18+ rating for video games. His proposed plan would change the system to include G, PG, M and R18+ classifications (while still allowing for games to be Refused Classification or effectively banned), making a 'clear difference' between what adults can play and what is available to children."

Comments

Renamed shit is still shit.

[Mountaineer1024]

Just taking the existing MA15+ bracket and renaming it to R18 will not do anything meaningful.
We have a system in this country (Australia) that claims to be about classification, but is actually about censorship!

I (and many others) want a uniform system across all media, and unless something is illegal to make, it shouldn't be illegal to buy!

Re:Renamed shit is still shit.

[Mountaineer1024]

I don't know if a voluntary system would give us anything different here, the problem is that the lack of a rating within the codified guidelines result in a title being illegal to buy locally or import.

According to the code by which these classifications are made:
The Code
Under the Code, classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles:
(a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want;
(b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them;
(c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive;
(d) the need to take account of community concerns about:
(i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and
(ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.

Look at A there and tell me how not allowing me (a 30 year old) to legally acquire something like Mortal Kombat or Left for Dead 2 is abiding by their own guidelines.

Re:Renamed shit is still shit.

[black3d]

Actually, it will make a difference. Almost every banned game would fall under the R18 classification if such a thing existed. As it doesn't, they're refused classification and banned. Bumping MA15+ games up to R18 means while those games fall under the adult category, games previously banned because they were refused classification could be revisited and almost all would fall under the R18 classification. The most recent Mortal Kombat, for instance, was just squeezed out of the MA15+ rating, which means it's banned outright. If an R18 classification existed, it would be allowed - with an R18 classification (Meaning, no children could buy it, etc).

You may be expressing that you believe that all games that have previously been refused classification would still be, but one of my professional acquaintances performs some of classifications. They have no hidden agenda whatsoever. They simply classify the content as they would any other content - to the best of their ability, of course. If they believe the media in a game exceeds the MA15+ classification, at present they're forced to simply refuse classification. With an R18 rating, they could slap R18 on it an be done with. As long as it's content which would get an R18 rating in any other medium, it will here. Sometimes they let games get through with the incorrect rating (they're only human, and don't play the entire games - publishers actually have to identify themselves which scenes they believe are the most violent, etc, and present those) and those get revisited and reclassified. The classifiers are not out to ban anything - they just use the classification tools available to them.

This doesn't mean X-rated content would be allowed, however. (In most of Aus, there's no X-rating, either). So no hardcore porn games would be allowed in. Excessive violence falls under R18, with the exception of snuff - except in games it's computer graphics and not considered snuff. Oh, also no beastiality or child porn, as they're illegal.

Very bad for children

[syousef]

We keep insisting in this society that children must be protected at all costs until some magic age, when we suddenly rip away all that protection. It's clearly easier to pretend children go from 8 to 18 in one giant step than to actually teach them responsibility slowly and gradually. And then we wonder why 8 to 18 year olds go stupid and make choices that have devastating consequences, or are selfish. They've not been taught responsibility in a calm and gradual fashion. They've been treated like infants for a decade instead. What do you expect!? It's like teaching someone primary school math for a decade then expecting them to jump to vector calculus literally overnight.

Re:Very bad for children

[Gadget_Guy]

What a time for me not to have mod points. This is absolutely, positively, 100% correct.

People always underestimate what children are capable of understanding. Children are naive and do not have fully developed decision making skills, but they do understand their limitations if you are honest with them. By attempting to hide everything from a child that you deem inappropriate, you lose valuable education opportunities for them.

For example, with sex you can say that their bodies will grow faster than their ability to handle the dangers of sexual relationships. If you tell them this too late (when they are teenagers) they will take offense at it - nobody teen likes to be told that they are not ready for some things. If you want to know how to deal with a rebellious teenager, just teach them how to be a teenager before it happens. Preparation is the key.