Ok, well the whole protecting children from images that may have negative consequences isn't too bad of a stance to have. However, this does invite a question as to when a person should be held accountable. By refusing to classify L4D2, they have effectively banned the game from being sold within the borders of Australia. However, if they're worried that children may be getting ahold of this game and would then go about shooting up their neighbors with assault weapons, isn't there a bigger issue at hand here? The first issue would be: WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEIR PARENTS DOING WHEN THEY'RE BUYING AND PLAYING THIS GAME? The second issue would be: HOW THE FUCK ARE THEY GETTING ASSAULT WEAPONS AS MINORS? These two questions are just starters as to the irrational nature of this ban. If minors are openly gunning down fellow citizens in the street, then Australia is in a state of disarray so grand that the banning of a single violent video game seems more like an attempt to cover up the fact that the country is already fucked up to the point of irreparability. I, however, doubt that this is the case with Australia.
As an American, I find this ban to be unfair and stupid. Unfair due to the fact that a majority population of gamers are being denied to enjoyment of one of their favorite pasttimes, due to the negligence of some outraged parents or whatnot. Stupid, because this could be damaging to business relations with video game companies and Australia. If there's one thing that should be avoided during times of economic stress, it would be bad business relations. To protest this ban would be intelligent on these grounds alone: the dissatisfaction of a large population and the dissatisfaction of businesses in relation to Australia.
This also brings in the point of accountability for actions. If these games are being obtained by minors, then that means someone has provided them with the game. There are several possibilities as to who is doing so: Video Game Retailers, Parents, Older Friends, or Shifty Men on Street Corners. This means that there has been an act of negligence somewhere in this chain. If friends are giving friends the game, then there should be no reason why parents cannot step in and halt this from continuing to playing the game. If Video Game Retailers are providing the game, again parents could step in when the game comes home, and also, there should be a government crackdown on retailers instead of on the product. If parents are giving the game, then there is an obvious lack of interest in the argument that the ban is for "the welfare of the children" in these adults. This would be a judgment call by the guardian figures that the game is appropriate for their children. If shifty men on street corners are giving the game, then your police department sucks because this is the preliminaries to a full-scale drug ring operation. In all these cases, the product would not be the problem, but the accountability of the providers.
The accountability issue further continues if/when the child commits an act of violence outside of the video game. If the person is in their teens, do we hold them accountable as freethinkers? What about a person aged 20? How about a 40 year old man? At about 14 or 15, people can start to make their own decisions as to how they want their lives to go and can be self-sufficient, so why not start holding them accountable for their actions at this instead of providing an excuse for them to use against you later? How many murderers down the line will begin to use "It was the video games that did it" as a valid reason for how their behaviors were shaped if you don't start holding people accountable for their choices as teenagers?
This ban is just another way for parents, retailers, the government,etc. to place blame on something other than themselves or the individuals that engage in violent actions. In the end, it's really just a way to avoid being held accountable.
