Australia Has Banned Over 200 Games in Four Months

[Gorrath]

I think I'm honestly as disturbed to discover that Australia is banning ANYTHING. Australia is a First World "Democracy" as the term is used, quite rich as these things go, and hardly isolated by modern standards. It's surprising to me, but I understand that it's not actually surprising.

Never heard of a country that -doesn't- ban stuff. Every single one of them is at least banning -something- as far as I know.

Comments like the one you responded to are often made by Americans who don't tend to realize that most western democracies do not have a constitution with free speech guarantees built in. You are quite right in pointing out that most western democracies do indeed ban things, it's just that we ban nearly nothing as far as speech in the U.S., so our citizens assume this is true of most places that share similar cultural values in the west.

As a non-American who works with NGO's in and around Western "Democracies" I take issue with what you've said. It's possible to not agree with your perception of a system, and still be aware of its details. That said, I have discovered that an assurance in their systems, is a hallmark of those same Western "Democracies", even when their police are murdering people on the streets.

Or to relate it to AU, relocating people to hell, or stuffing them in camps.

I'm not sure I understand your response at all. The two claims I made are that most western democracies do not have the same kind of free speech constitutional guarantee that the U.S. does and that most Americans are not aware of this fact. I'm not sure what police murders have to do with that and I wouldn't contest that you can disagree with a system and be aware of its details. Which of the two claims I made did you take issue with?

Edit: I think I may have deduced the problem. I was not clear in stating that the free speech guarantees that other countries do have are not the same as in the U.S. I can see how my comment might convey that I was saying that other western democracies had no free speech provisions at all. Some do in their constitutions but often are more restricted than the U.S. guarantee (eg. Deutschland) and some have free speech provisions that aren't in their constitution but are a part of common law (eg. the U.K.) This was my intended meaning.

 

[sleekie]

Games/movies etc that encourage illegal things (eg: child porn, drug abuse etc) should be prohibited from sale as it's encouraging illegal behavior.

Illegal things like carjacking and shooting people, GTA V style?

 

[Gorrath]

I think I'm honestly as disturbed to discover that Australia is banning ANYTHING. Australia is a First World "Democracy" as the term is used, quite rich as these things go, and hardly isolated by modern standards. It's surprising to me, but I understand that it's not actually surprising.

As an Australian I actually like the system, that said there are still some flaws as Zachary has pointed out. While in general I agree that art should be left alone and censorship is bad there are times when a ban is appropriate. Games/movies etc that encourage illegal things (eg: child porn, drug abuse etc) should be prohibited from sale as it's encouraging illegal behavior.

Does this mean I agree with every choice they have made, no, but I much prefer some level of control over the US system of letting the cat guard the cage. The idea of leaving the system where places that sell the games are responsible for enforcing ratings with no legal requirement to follow them is stupid (conflict of interest), what's the point of the ratings if their ignored anyway? Atleast here little Tom cannot go and buy GTA V behind his parents back as the store is responsible if they sell him a R18+ game. That does not stop his parents from buying him the game if they decide he can handle it (as my parents did while I was young with M15+ games). This puts the power of what kids can watch in the parents hands, where it belongs.

I would also like to remind people that it's the sale and public broadcasting etc of the RC items that's illegal, I can legally own an RC game (assuming it isn't illegal for other reasons).

The point of the ratings are informational; they aren't required by law to be enforced because that would be a violation of freedom of speech under the American constitution. It's not just that they don't bother making laws for these ratings, it's that they can't without a constitutional amendment. It is left to the industry because the government can't practically intervene and the industry does have a vested interest in applying the ratings, which is exactly why they do.

Also, media that encourages illegal activity is not protected under free speech even in the U.S. But I imagine you and I have very different concepts of what, "encourages illegal behavior" actually means. GTA does not encourage any illegal behavior, since pixels doing things to pixels is all it encourages and pixels don't need to be protected. If you want to claim that a specific game/movies/book encourages illegal activity, you'd need to show that the game/movie/book was actually encouraging people to go out and do something in the real world. For instance, printing a pamphlet and spreading it around directly telling people to burn people of other religions to death in the street is actually encouraging illegal activity. Making/distributing even the most gore-infused, offensive portrayal of burning people to death in a game is not the same as encouraging someone to do it in real life.

 

[K12]

Are burping and vomiting more or less acceptable if they're done for non-humourous purposes?

 

[Gorrath]

I think I'm honestly as disturbed to discover that Australia is banning ANYTHING. Australia is a First World "Democracy" as the term is used, quite rich as these things go, and hardly isolated by modern standards. It's surprising to me, but I understand that it's not actually surprising.

Never heard of a country that -doesn't- ban stuff. Every single one of them is at least banning -something- as far as I know.

Comments like the one you responded to are often made by Americans who don't tend to realize that most western democracies do not have a constitution with free speech guarantees built in. You are quite right in pointing out that most western democracies do indeed ban things, it's just that we ban nearly nothing as far as speech in the U.S., so our citizens assume this is true of most places that share similar cultural values in the west.

As a non-American who works with NGO's in and around Western "Democracies" I take issue with what you've said. It's possible to not agree with your perception of a system, and still be aware of its details. That said, I have discovered that an assurance in their systems, is a hallmark of those same Western "Democracies", even when their police are murdering people on the streets.

Or to relate it to AU, relocating people to hell, or stuffing them in camps.

I'm not sure I understand your response at all. The two claims I made are that most western democracies do not have the same kind of free speech constitutional guarantee that the U.S. does and that most Americans are not aware of this fact. I'm not sure what police murders have to do with that and I wouldn't contest that you can disagree with a system and be aware of its details. Which of the two claims I made did you take issue with?

The, "Comments like the one you responded to are often made by Americans who don't tend to realize that most western democracies do not have a constitution with free speech guarantees built in."

as it related to my, "As a non-American..." bit. For one.

For another as I said, my perspective on Australia is clearly very different from Australia's perception of Australia. My point was that the idea of protecting its people seems to be part of a pattern of something that takes a more violent and sinister tone with those who are not white Australians. I suppose it strikes me as extraordinarily hypocritical on the part of the AU government, and those who freely support their policies.

Well I was not asserting that you were American yourself, that's why I specified "comments like the one" instead of directly attributing your comment to mean that you were American yourself. I see comments like yours oft said by my own countrymen, and for those people, it comes from a place of not understanding Australian law much of the time. I feel I was quite specific about the people I was talking about and why they held their view, none of which is applicable to you.

I did not know your perspective and so declined to comment on it. Now that I do know your perspective, I would be more inclined to agree.

 

[Gorrath]

I think I'm honestly as disturbed to discover that Australia is banning ANYTHING. Australia is a First World "Democracy" as the term is used, quite rich as these things go, and hardly isolated by modern standards. It's surprising to me, but I understand that it's not actually surprising.

Never heard of a country that -doesn't- ban stuff. Every single one of them is at least banning -something- as far as I know.

That's a really solid argument for not replacing words like "Games" with "Stuff" in an attempt to make a point so broad that it can't be wrong, or useful.

Then why did you say "ANYTHING" and not "Games"?

I think I'm honestly as disturbed to discover that Australia is banning ANYTHING. Australia is a First World "Democracy" as the term is used, quite rich as these things go, and hardly isolated by modern standards. It's surprising to me, but I understand that it's not actually surprising.

Seems very clear to me, sorry about confusing you, it wasn't my intent. I didn't expect that within the context of this thread and my post, that someone would be so disturbed by my choice of words.

Ah just a misunderstanding then. Nothing to worry about.

Though incase of games then yeah I don't think outright banning games, I'm not sure how common it actually is as I don't know if the list on wikipedia is complete or not.

Thanks for understanding! Yes, I understand this isn't a ban now, just a restriction on sale I guess? I don't like it, but I don't see it as sinister either, just mistaken.

Considering the state things used to be in one can at least comfort oneself with the fact that things are improving over there if I understand everything correctly. So there's that.

I think we've already established that most understandings of AU beat mine, so I'll take your word for it.

I think I'm honestly as disturbed to discover that Australia is banning ANYTHING. Australia is a First World "Democracy" as the term is used, quite rich as these things go, and hardly isolated by modern standards. It's surprising to me, but I understand that it's not actually surprising.

Never heard of a country that -doesn't- ban stuff. Every single one of them is at least banning -something- as far as I know.

Comments like the one you responded to are often made by Americans who don't tend to realize that most western democracies do not have a constitution with free speech guarantees built in. You are quite right in pointing out that most western democracies do indeed ban things, it's just that we ban nearly nothing as far as speech in the U.S., so our citizens assume this is true of most places that share similar cultural values in the west.

As a non-American who works with NGO's in and around Western "Democracies" I take issue with what you've said. It's possible to not agree with your perception of a system, and still be aware of its details. That said, I have discovered that an assurance in their systems, is a hallmark of those same Western "Democracies", even when their police are murdering people on the streets.

Or to relate it to AU, relocating people to hell, or stuffing them in camps.

I'm not sure I understand your response at all. The two claims I made are that most western democracies do not have the same kind of free speech constitutional guarantee that the U.S. does and that most Americans are not aware of this fact. I'm not sure what police murders have to do with that and I wouldn't contest that you can disagree with a system and be aware of its details. Which of the two claims I made did you take issue with?

The, "Comments like the one you responded to are often made by Americans who don't tend to realize that most western democracies do not have a constitution with free speech guarantees built in."

as it related to my, "As a non-American..." bit. For one.

For another as I said, my perspective on Australia is clearly very different from Australia's perception of Australia. My point was that the idea of protecting its people seems to be part of a pattern of something that takes a more violent and sinister tone with those who are not white Australians. I suppose it strikes me as extraordinarily hypocritical on the part of the AU government, and those who freely support their policies.

Well I was not asserting that you were American yourself, that's why I specified "comments like the one" instead of directly attributing your comment to mean that you were American yourself. I see comments like yours oft said by my own countrymen, and for those people, it comes from a place of not understanding Australian law much of the time. I feel I was quite specific about the people I was talking about and why they held their view, none of which is applicable to you.

I did not know your perspective and so declined to comment on it. Now that I do know your perspective, I would be more inclined to agree.

I think I took offense where none was intended, sorry. I think I need to spend more time out of GID.

Oh no worries friend. Seeking clarity in conversation is a virtue! I appreciate you engaging with me and making your own perspective clear. Thank you, sincerely.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think I'm honestly as disturbed to discover that Australia is banning ANYTHING. Australia is a First World "Democracy" as the term is used, quite rich as these things go, and hardly isolated by modern standards. It's surprising to me, but I understand that it's not actually surprising.

Having been exposed to it for quite some time, my reaction is different. I can see where you're coming from with this, however. One of my first bits of exposure to Australian politics was a bunch of Australians screaming about how the Muslims were going to take over their country, too. I was already familiar with the UK's issue with Muslims and brown people, but Australia is almost literally the opposite side of the world, I wasn't quite as exposed. Thanks, Obama internet!

Considering I first became aware of this at at time where the US was trying to censor movies, music, and games, it didn't outright shock me that another country would.

As an Australian I actually like the system, that said there are still some flaws as Zachary has pointed out. While in general I agree that art should be left alone and censorship is bad there are times when a ban is appropriate. Games/movies etc that encourage illegal things (eg: child porn, drug abuse etc) should be prohibited from sale as it's encouraging illegal behavior.

Apologies if you've already answered this, but what constitutes encouragement in your eyes? The example I saw given was GTA, and I'm curious as to whether this is encouragement or not. I guess the distinction for me is that I spend a lot of time playing games where I do illegal things, but I don't feel encouraged to do them.

Though incase of games then yeah I don't think outright banning games, I'm not sure how common it actually is as I don't know if the list on wikipedia is complete or not.

When it comes to making illegal the sale of games without certification, I think that can be enough to count as a ban.

The point of the ratings are informational; they aren't required by law to be enforced because that would be a violation of freedom of speech under the American constitution. It's not just that they don't bother making laws for these ratings, it's that they can't without a constitutional amendment. It is left to the industry because the government can't practically intervene and the industry does have a vested interest in applying the ratings, which is exactly why they do.

The ruling on Brown v EMA was basically that California's law was too broad, not that games couldn't be restricted. Interestingly, this court ruling protects games on the expilicit grounds that they contain the same kind of social elements of other public works. Something to remember the next time someone wants to complain about criticism.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

I love all the knee jerk raging about Australia's classification system though. I bet if Steam refused to sell 'virtual weed smoker' or some of that crap the same people would be applauding it for implementing quality control.

It's worth noting that government censorship and a refusal of a specific platform to sell aren't really equivalent.

They aren't equivalent, that's exactly my point. What's funny about it is that the attitudes towards the same kind of game can vary so much depending upon what context it appears in.

As for Hotline Miami 2 being the only decent one, I'd probably agree but from an art philosophy perspective, it is up to each member of the audience to find their own value in a piece, not be beholden to what someone else thinks is garbage.[/quote]
No, they're beholden to what someone else thinks is not worthy of classification, which in this case coincidentally happens to be what a number of people think is garbage.

The strident reactions here are understandable; if someone tried to do this in the U.S., I would myself be blowing my top.

See, I don't want to imply that you're wrong to uphold a principle you clearly believe in regarding censorship. I think that's important.

What I find amusing is that a number of people reacted as though 220 games Australians actually have an interest in playing were banned. If you believe nothing should ever be censored, that's fine. But the number is not as significant as some are making it out to be. Australia is just another country with a ratings system that includes the option to refuse classification, and the advent of bedroom programming means they now have to rate so much more content than they otherwise would. Proportionally it's not an unreasonable amount, and only one game of merit or note has been refused classification (which is still BS, btw).

Captcha: slippery slope
Stay out of this, Captcha.

 

[Something Amyss]

They aren't equivalent, that's exactly my point. What's funny about it is that the attitudes towards the same kind of game can vary so much depending upon what context it appears in.

I'm confused. Your original comment appears to be trying to point out some sort of difference as though it's a double standard. But when it's demonstrated to not be equivolent, you say, basically, "that's my point."

What is your point? Because you would expect people to react differently to different things. In this contexct, your original comment appears to be the equivalent of "funny how people complain when you kick them in the groin. I bet if you were to pat them on the back, they'd react different."

Which leads me to ask "so what?" Of course you would expect a different reaction to different circumstances.

Could you clarify as to why you brought it up in the first place?

Your response would indicate you don't seem to actually take issue with a storefront's decisions on what to personally stock being different than a nation deciding what can and can't be stocked. I have a very low opinion of South Park, but Stick of Truth was originally refused certification and I don't know that I'd go so far as to prevent its sale just because I find it to be crude and without subtlety. Or humour.

No, they're beholden to what someone else thinks is not worthy of classification, which in this case coincidentally happens to be what a number of people think is garbage.

Not so much "worthy," but in line with guidelines for the classifications in the first place. Speaking as an American who should probably keep their nose out of Aussie politics but hell everybody's doing it, that seems like a dumb system when it comes to determining what can and can't be sold, but it's not quite the same as deeming it unworthy. Unfortunately, there's little room in this system for "worthiness" in the sense people generally mean it.

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that's going to be hard to classify with a flowchart or pass/fail system.