As frequent to heavy user of the internet since 1996, I have not seen a single site that might be illegal. Admittedly I have not been searching for them, but I am bemused as to what I am being protected against?

I have Windows 7 on my kids PCs and the safety settings have resulted in no contact with anything unsuitable. I have yet seen a need for even a net nanny.

I wonder if anyone on this site has accidently found oneself on an illegal site?

Is this the first step to a Net Nanny state?

For shame, Shane! you attempt to refute Prof Handsley's well argued piece opposing the legalisation of R18+ games, by use of name-calling ("moral do-gooders") and setting up straw men and knocking them down ("because it is [videogames] and them alone that cause our vulnerable children to suffer irreparable harm").

No such claim has been made by those opposing the introduction of more extreme games into our retail system. This opposition is based on the knowledge that is is impossible for even the most responsible parent to keep their child away from portable R18+ items (as experience with videos and DVDs has shown). The impacts of this exposure are well recognised and that's why we shouldn't be increasing the risks to children by adding more damaging material.
While Shane says he wouldn't be arguing that" legalisation would mean better protection for children", the pro-camp is arguing precisely that.

Perhaps some parents do need to be "parented".

Though relatively minor in the scale of things, what kind of a dim-witted parent would buy a bra for a four year old?

As was mentioned in an essay in the Age this morning.

Awesome, AWESOME article Shane!
A breath of sanity into the general media-sphere debate about games!

The problem is Beb is that the argument of 'children being safer with R18 games being banned' lazily tossed around by the pro-sensor lobby has just as much standing as an argument that R18 movies, cartoons, books, cigarrettes and alcohol- along with knives, garage appliances, cars etc must also be banned for the same reason to (assumably) fully prevent underage access- which is very little- as Shane was arguing.
Not to mention standing against the evidence of the social impact of the LEGAL adult-only material already in circulation- complete with youth crime and violence statistics to back them up.

The pro-sensor lobby has absolutely nothing that could stand alone to suggest R18 video games would have much impact- not even their vaguest hypothesis could stand up much.

Also, what HE (and WE in general) are arguing that preventing children from accessing illicit material should NOT trump the rights of adults in a supposedly free society, and could elaborate on how silly the precedent actually goes if followed logically through.

It really IS nothing but a 'shocking new thing' to get the wowsers in a knot as opposed to the numerous other things they really don't seem to care about (ignoring the fact that extremely violent video games have been around since the start of the 90s).

There's not even the premise that 'oh, people associate video games with kids'- hardly- R18+ cartoons and comics are, and have been for a LONG time, standard practice and easily extrapolated into our censorship system.

as if we have not got enough violence, perversion and immorality available already. Poor Shane wants more.

@runner: This is exactly the point. Why must the moral bar for video games for adults be set to that of 15 year olds? The average age of video gamers in Australia is 31. Every other type of media has classification that caters to my more mature tastes, yet video games don't?