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?

Runner:- "as if we have not got enough violence, perversion and immorality available already."

Lets limit it to the church

"It would be an intellectual dishonesty to argue..."

Actually I wouldn't say it IS an intellectual dishonesty, and here's why:

The fact is that without an R18 classification many games that are intended to fall under that category end up getting an MA15 rating after minor edits. A case in point is GTAIV, which was given an 18 rating in the UK but only made it onto Australian shelves after the removal of some minor sexual content and blood. Nevermind that the entire premise of the game is anti-social and extremely violent, encouraging the player to kill police, steal cars, and commit murder; it is now legally available to 15 year olds instead of the 18+ it was intended for. This is not a game that is intended for children; it's not even intended for teenagers. And yet due to a lack of R18 classification it is now under a classification that allows for its legal purchase by 15 year olds.

But the danger of this goes even further. Parents who know very little about these games or their context make decisions based on the rating. My stepmother bought the game for my two younger brothers, who were 12 and 14 at the time. She assumed that because of its MA rating it was suitable for 15 year olds, or 'mature' 12 year olds.

The simple fact is that it isn't. Not by a long shot, even after the edited content. And this coming from someone who is a big fan of the game. There should be a big stinking obnoxious R18+ sticker on the front warning parents that even though it's a 'computer game' that doesn't make it suitable for teenagers, the same way you would not buy porn for them.

The anti-R18+ crowd don't seem to realise how counterproductive their actual stance is. It won't stop violent games getting on the shelves, it'll simply ensure that they're legally available to younger audiences than they're actually intended for.

I have sitting before me the Limited Edition copy of the game Just Cause 2.
It has an embossed cardboard slipcover bearing the Australian MA 15+ logo.
Removing the slipcover what do I see printed on the actual DVD cover?
The UK R18+ logo.
R rated games are already being sold in this country, every second game I buy seems to have this anomaly.
The game in question is not even particularly violent, you can't kill civilians, there's minimal blood, the bodies disappear after a few seconds and the harshest language I've heard in it is "Crap".
The other issue is that parents, my own siblings included think that an MA15 plus rating means the game is harder and will "teach" their kids something through an added challenge...seriously.
Most of the really violent games are first person perspective shooters which rank at the very low end in terms of difficulty.
Then we have games like Grand Theft Auto IV which while moderately challenging and not graphically violent have a very dark and mature storyline, where you are forced to make very adult choices, who lives and who doesn't, that sort of thing.
As a parent I'd be happy if all games featuring any violence at all were 18+, the kids can play FIFA soccer and driving games, at least they're challenging and somewhat educational.

Many well meaning people support the legalisation of R18+ level games, because they think that if we had such a classification, then many very violent games now in MA15+ will become R Rated.

Not so. Games now rated MA15+ have been assessed as meeting the present MA15+ classification criteria (which allow content with strong impact). Any new games coming in will still be classified MA15+ if they meet those criteria. There is no proposal to change these, and to do so would require a review of the total classification system, including for films.

So, allowing R18+ level games will simply provide easier access to games with more extreme violence, and/or high level sexual or drug taking activity ,than at present

If parents are confused about what's suitable, then let's give them more help, including info about the meaning of MA15+ (= unsuitable for those under 15 yrs and has legal force).

"Any new games coming in will still be classified MA15+ if they meet those criteria."

If they meet those criteria, exactly. Remember that the classification board has a lot of pressure to pass content. The people who made GTA IV made the game for players over 18 years old. If we HAD the R18+ classification in Australia then it would have been released under it. Since we don't, they were forced to make a number of very minor edits to the game in order to meet the absolute limit of what is acceptable in an MA15+ rating.

Seriously, when you're talking about an 18+ game where you can pick up prostitutes in your car, take them to a dark secluded alley, engage in sex with them, then beat them to death to get your money back; then you take out the footprints your shoes make when you walk through their blood and reduce its rating to 15+ - can you logically claim that the system is working?

Why not just ban everything that could possibly be unsafe? Instead of a principle of liberty, we could have a principle of security: the starting point is that everything is illegal, and you can then apply to the government for permission to do anything. You might say it's none of the government's business, but I say 'What about the widdle childwen?' Demand a risk-free world now!

If the permission-granting authority decides that you have filled in the appropriate appliation form, undertaken any compulsory licensing and paid the prescribed fee, and decided that you would not be putting yourself at risk, then they would issue you the permit to do whatever it is. But since there is risk in everything, and since we might get wiped out by a meteorite tomrrow, what would they measure the risk against? Your liberties will vary according to the length of the foot of the official making the decision.

Good thinking. Since over 150 million people have died in the last 100 years from people acting on the socialist belief system - far more than any video game ever killed - perhaps we should ban all socialist publications and communications too. That would close down the universities, the ABC, the unions, and all major political parties - and reduce the risk of violations of our freedom. Anything to be safe I suppose.

beb
"...our retail system"
Since when did everyone else's decisions what to buy or sell become your property?

Shadow Minister can control what his children see and do. Other parents need to get off their backsides and do the same thing.

The problem is, however, most parents these days want the nanny state to do everything for them; they can’t look after their children properly, so the nanny state has to do it. The fact that 59% of Australians approve of the socialist dictator and bully Kevin Rudd shows that they don’t want to do their own thinking or control their own lives and those of their children.

There should be no censorship of any kind in a healthy, free society. Unfortunately, Australians have chosen not to have a free and healthy society opting, rather, for Big Brother Kevin who has ‘given’ them money and goodies without telling them that he will want it all back, with interest, when crunch time comes, as it always does under the boot of socialism.

I once had an East German gliding instructor who returned to that country (this is 4 decades before the Berlin Wall came down, and the Reds were still running the show) because he would be given a flat, a TV, free holidays every year and be paid for his gliding because of the competition aspect which the lands under the USSR valued at the time.

He had a good job here, a car a house, and plenty of money to indulge in his pastime; but, he couldn’t shed the nanny state mind set in which he was bribed to overlook the iron fist of the socialist dictatorship.

Australians, with Rudd’s encouragement, are getting locked into the same mind set . Sorry folks, but your life is not your own anymore; you’ve handed control of it to Comrade Rudd, and censorship and bans are only the beginning of life in the socialist state

Good post Leigh.
I'd also add that once the Filters and the Bans and the "Human Rights" and other Tribunals come in, even a Lib/Nat government won't remove them.
Did Rudd remove the ABCC? No.
Border Protection, Same old Same old.
Family? no change.
Housing? nope.
Immigration? No change.
NT Intervention? Rudd followed through on Howard's plans to extend the measures to all welfare recipients.

The "System" is Socialism or at any rate Frankfurt School Second Generation Communism coupled with a limited form of Free Market, much like China has.
Scientific Materialism is replaced by scientific Racism.
NKVD Thugs are replaced by PC Thugs and "Anti Racist" paramilitaries.
Failure heaped on failure upon failure.
Reds never change because they can't think and therefore can't learn.

"Reds never change because they can't think and therefore can't learn."

I think there's about a billion Chinese Reds who may disagree.

Looking at the world economy at the moment, perhaps they learnt a bit too well.

I am with Grayzie here. The problem the anti-18+ category campaigners have is that men vote, and a huge chunk of men like to play video games. That means there is an enormous amount of money and votes pushing to make these games available, which is what leads to games like GTA being rated MA15+.

That is the reality, and it isn't going to change. If Professor Handsley genuinely thinks games like GTA are harmful to kids, her opposition to R18+ looks to me like she is increasing those harms as rating them R18+ would clearly reduce kids exposure to them. Her actions seem to be putting kids in harms way.

It seems to me Handsley is an ivory tower idealist. Rather than pursing pragmatic solutions that have some chance of achieving some what she wants, she shoots for the moon regardless of the risk of almost certain failure.

It's a shame that Online Opinion would publish a piece that is full of vitriol, unecessary name calling and stereotyping. Maybe Shane Ogden needs to stay away from gaming for a while and practice being a decent debater.

The problem is JayG, is that of the few articles posted on this site about the R18+ game debate, Chris' article, like all the pro-R18+ advocates but UNLIKE the pro-censorship advocates, actually make a compelling logical case.

But let's face it, when the medium in question has so many near-identical mediums already in existence for decades to which to gauge the most-likely identical social impact it would hypothetically have if it too was written up to the same laws and regulations as they, it's impossible for those insisting it should STILL be banned to look completely ignorant, hysterical, illogical and downright silly- and that's being too kind!

@JayG: It's a shame that Online Opinion would publish a piece that is full of vitriol, unecessary name calling and stereotyping.

OK then. So what is the polite name for someone who wants to control an activity effecting no one else, that you do in your own house, in private and in your own time?

King Hazza - whaaaa??

Shane, have you got kids? Assuming not, you're seriously kidding yourself... if you do, tell us how you'd run your argument past any of them that wanted to play adult rated vid games, as so many do, in their tweens.... Moral Do-Gooder

@wooldog: Shane, have you got kids? Assuming not, you're seriously kidding yourself...

I do, or rather did. They are adults now.

@wooldog: if you do, tell us how you'd run your argument past any of them that wanted to play adult rated vid games, as so many do, in their tweens

How about: No.

Does No work for you? Because when my kids crossed the boundaries, a parental No is what worked for me. All I had to do was say it, and mean it. I didn't say No to often, but when I did I always meant it. If it wasn't respected sanctions followed, in fact they were expected.

If you are too wimpy to say No to your kids, you are always engage the parental lock on the gaming console. It will say No for you. It won't brook any argument, and there is No a kid can by-pass it, not even the smartest kid.

If you are not prepared as a parent to say No, and not prepared to ask the shop about how to operate gaming console, then I guess you could just skip buying it entirely and wear the flak.

What isn't acceptable is expecting the state to the state to say No for you. If you do then frankly you just aren't up to this parenting thing. It is beyond you. Leave it to people who do know how to control their kids.

@wooldog: if you do, tell us how you'd run your argument past any of them that wanted to play adult rated vid games, as so many do, in their tweens

Assuming YOU have kids, what would you do if your kids wanted to buy cigarettes, pornographic material, alcohol, or see the latest R-rated Tarentino movie? A simple "No" is the answer, and for bonus points, you can explain to them why "No" is the answer. Did you miss this at Parenting 101?

@JayG: "It's a shame that Online Opinion would publish a piece that is full of vitriol, unecessary name calling and stereotyping. Maybe Shane Ogden needs to stay away from gaming for a while and practice being a decent debater."
@JayG: "King Hazza - whaaaa??"

Where can I learn to debate like you? You effortlessly check-mated King Hazza there. Bravo!

Nothing more for me to say- I'm just enjoying how this goes at the moment!