Must...Move...Somewhere...Anywhere!
Must avoid the stupid!
Must avoid the stupid!
I'll second that.Straying Bullet said:
Australian Government Slows R18+ Rating Process
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I'm gonna laugh when they get those apathetic voters, and they all say "Well, I guess if they want a higher rating, good for them."
And this is what is so galling about the summary of findings report. As someone who made a written submission, I am personally offended that several organisations (which had no greater level of argument, analysis or depth than a standard submission) were accorded such proportionately greater weight.RhomCo said:
The majority of organisations opposing the classification clearly do not understand the current state of affairs. Interestingly, there is no comment from any opposed group concerning the relevance of the convergence of technology and forms of entertainment media in determining whether to introduce a classification. More than half of the opposed groups were religious organisations, while another three are from members of the Western Australian Parliament or from Commissioners for Children in various states of the country. Overwhelmingly, the arguments presented are couched in terms of the effects of violent/graphic media on children. That the report only provides detailed commentary based on group submissions (while ignoring EB and Grow Up Australia's submissions) misrepresents the extent of opposition and their level of knowledge on the relevant issues.
Games like Manhunter and the GTA series come in for serious criticism, yet there are no examples in the report of any such conduct based on gaming in Australia. Some groups try to make a spurious link between Martin Bryant (the gunman in the Port Arthur Massacre) and violent games - although at least some are honest enough to note that the analogy can only be sustained with reference to "violent media", rather than games. The same groups argue that the existence of an R18+ classification in other countries is no reason to implement one here, due to differing cultural and legal factors. This is inconsistent with their use of cases from other countries to "prove" the risk in Australia, yet this has not been critically considered in the report.
One group tries to argue that the video gaming lobby is using its economic clout to pressure the government into action, likening it to the organised gambling industry. For those who aren't aware of the situation in Australia: we spend roughly $1 billion on games annually, although this is rising (according to the industry website); we spend over $11 billion on gambling per year (according to a recent report by the Productivity Commission). The comparison of market power is inaccurate. The same organisation that makes this claim tries to rephrase the classification question in a ludicrously loaded fashion (and making assertions that are not supported by the research they present).
There is no proposal to allow children to purchase these games; indeed, the principal purpose of such a classification system would be to prevent them from accessing them. Short of massive invasions of civil liberties, you couldn't prevent someone from buying it and passing it along to a child - but the same is true of alcohol, cigarettes and pornography, and there are legislated penalties for doing so. The previous post by RhomCo shows why "Think of the children!" argument does not stack up, yet if you remove such arguments from the report and assert the importance of parental responsibility in what children consume, there are few opposing positions left standing.
The only anti-classification argument I find compelling is the one presented by several women's groups - that gaming actions which negatively reinforce gender stereotyping and specifically reward violent behaviour (including sexual violence) can be damaging. One only has to look at how women are treated in some sections of the online community in order to see how this could be unhelpful. However, this is a two-part problem. The first (gaming content) is a matter for proper classification systems - which an R18+ category would assist in providing. The second (gamer attitudes) is a wider issue encompassing areas of social policy, and cannot be limited to a single country. Thankfully, given that most people are more aware of this problem, there are more people who are less tolerant of sexist gamer behaviour than in the past. Anyone who remembers old MUD multi-player RPGs can attest to how far we've come.
So, in short - most of the counterarguments don't stack up; the ones that do have merit are arguably reasons themselves to introduce the classification so that such material can be better restricted; and a lot of people just want the government to fix what they see as being everyone else's problems. Oh, and the organisations opposed have been given a ludicrously greater level of significance in the "consultation" process than their numbers merit.
Way to go, Minster O'Connor. Thanks for making me consider voting for the jerks who introduced the worst industrial relations reforms in living memory, even briefly.
