Great article! It is an old line, but "blind freddy" knows that the very nature of games mean that once they are on the street they WILL be available to kids. Ever seen an under age kid smoking or drinking? What makes anyone believe you can restrict violent games once they are out there? So opening up higher impact games means more impact on kids. No brainer!

What is clear is that the industry is only motivated by profits, not by any genuine interest in protecting kids.

As a gamer, I do love playing a good (and sometimes violent) game. But the gaming industry with their profit and selfish motives do not speak for me as I recognize that sometimes the duty to protect children overrides the rights of adults.

I don't really see the issue. You can still very easily get the games, most times for free. It's hard to moderate bit torrent traffic. At the moment the companies are taking the minimum out of the violent games to just slide them in at MA15. They wouldn't have to bother if there was an R18. So, yes, there would be less violent content at 15+. You're wrong. Yes there would also be more available legal violent content at R18 for kids to get their hands on, you're right.

So, the kids who can get someone older to buy and copy a game at R18 are the same kids who can download it for free on the internet now. ie the only difference is parents buying 15+ games for the more supervised kids would have a better idea what it contained and there would be less violence at 15+.

'What Australian parent would want an interactive, repetitious computer game on the market that contained simulated paedophilia?'

Gold star for hyperbole! You should sign up for a gig on ACA. I saw that Salo years ago and I cant remember any paedophilia. Was a bit boring with too much gay sex for me, but not especially shocking.

I'm thinking teenaged boys are generally looking for explosions and gore and sex, I don't see how you could attract them with underaged gay sex in a mainstreme game. The market for such a game would make it commercially unviable. Ralph magazine readers don't like to be confronted with gayness.

Houellebecq said - I don't really see the issue. You can still very easily get the games...

Interesting point, but not that strong an argument. Do we legalize something just because it's happening anyway? Drugs? Domestic violence? Murder?

Fair point about games slipping into the MA15+ category, but isn't this a reason to fix up the classification guidelines restriction first and foremost?

Blind Freddy knows that all these games are already available over the internet. You can have them delivered or just download them. They are not illegal, just unclassified.

The only difference is that they are not available in local shops so no tax is paid, and less Australians are employed.

The Australian Christian lobby are not noted for intelligent debate.

How many violent crimes do we have to see reported on the evening news before we make a decision to limit the amount of violent media content we allow to go on sale in this country?

You really have to wonder why some government ministers are so hell bent on allowing more violent and pornographic games into australia.

A few bad parents will let their kids play R18+ games if the rating comes in, but a low cost awareness campaign would teach slacker parents the negative consequences of letting their child play R18+ games. And lets start removing the positive reinforcement our government gives parents these days for failure.

Would any parent allow their kid to do graffiti if the parent had to clean the graffiti or face losing their medicare entitlement?

Ah yeah, the "please won't somebody think of the children" argument, when really, maybe parents should step up to the plate and do some parenting for themselves instead of expecting society to raise their kids for them.

I couldn't get access to porn when I was a kid because my parents did their own parenting. How about getting involved in your kid's lives instead of giving them free access to the internet and all that comes with it.

"...under sustained pressure from commercial gaming interests and extreme civil libertarians..."

What, pray tell, is an 'extreme civil libertarian'? Someone who thinks people should be able to do whatever they like, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else? Scary!

No wonder the Christian lobby, which thrives on guilt, is backing away and making the sign of the crucifix.

What everyone is missing here, is that it is perfectly legal to buy these R18+ or Xrated games in Australia. It is just not legal to sell them in Australia.

If I wanted to buy and Xrated game or movie etc, I am legally entitled to buy them from a retailer overseas and have it shipped over.

A few decades ago, this was difficult and expensive to do, now it is often cheaper to buy a book, movie etc from overseas via amazon or others than locally. Kids generally do most of their shopping on line, and this ridiculous censorship only works on the 50yr+ computer illiterates who push this stupid agenda, and is as useful as a ban on sunshine.

The Australian National Classification Scheme should not include an R 18+ classification category for computer games.

In the absence of proof as a result of long term, wide ranging studies, that interacting with games whose content is outrageously violent, sadistic or violently sexually depraved, does not lead susceptible individuals to copy these behaviors, approval of them under any classification would be reckless.

By their interactive nature these games lead the player into enjoying appallingly violent and deviant behaviour in which they are a participant. The scenes unfold as the player clicks through the game, the object, of course, being to win and enjoy the buzz that goes with that.

This can invoke copy cat behavior in the mentally disturbed , in those whose social environment makes them prone to breaking the law, and in children who happen to discover the games in the household.

According to the Office of Film and Literature Classification guidelines for computer games, the regulations for computer games are applied more strictly because “Ministers are concerned that games, because of their ‘interactive’ nature, may have greater impact, and therefore greater potential for harm or detriment, on young minds than film and videotape".

Whilst it is the case that they can be obtained via the Internet, most responsible people would not want such games on the shelves of video stores and rental outlets. Once outside the store and in the home they will be available to children.

There is now significant concern about the incidence of violent behavior in the Australian community. It occurs on city streets, in bars, on the roads and even in schools and hospitals.
To introduce a veritable training programme in violent behavior in the form of R18+ computer games would not only be reckless but irrational

To outline the need to review and change classification laws makes the ensuing statement "the Justice Minister Brendan O’Conner’s decision this week to propose the introduction of new forms of extreme sex and violence in computer games is difficult to understand" a non sequitur fallacy.

Also, the ability to buy unsuitable media from overseas is a key factor.

I think its hilarious that Christians try to be two forces at once:) but we all need to make our money, don't we;)

lea

Hi Pat,

So you want games banned because there is no proof they are safe? Doesn't the same apply to, say, the story of Cinderella? After all, most serial killers would have heard the story of Cinderella at some time in their childhoods. Just because -- as with video games -- there is absolutely no evidence suggesting any connection whatsoever with adult violence, or any mechanism by which that connection might operate, that's hardly a reason not to ban Cinderella, is it? Because we haven't proved it's not the cause. How about some real evidence, if you have any?

And as for Bananas in Pyjamas, well...

I think many video games are sick, disgusting and repulsive. But if we banned everything I think is sick, disgusting and repulsive... well, let's just say that a lot of theologians would be out of work.

I'd like to know the names of the games which are supposedly full of "sadism", "sex' and "violence".
In the main games are banned or modified here because they contain dismemberment or realistic drug use.
I've never come across a mainstream game that featured graphic sex scenes, though apparently such games do exist on the Asian market,
but to sell such a game here would require expensive technical re working, re dubbing and other localisation procedures.
The problem with the argument that more "extreme" games will be on the shelves runs into a big hurdle in the form of sales figures, very violent games are just not that popular or profitable.
According IGN.com to the top games on XBOX this week are:

Portal 2: (non violent, puzzle based action game)
Might and Magic, Clash of Heroes: (non violent, puzzle based role playing game)
Outland: (non violent, puzzle based platform game)
Crysis 2:(science fiction themed shooting game, war themes but no graphic violence)
Dragon Age 2: (contains moderate medieval combat violence and adult themes, suggestive scenes involving lovemaking)

I've played all of those games bar Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2 is not suitable for young children, it's rated MA 15+ which, as a parent seems to me to be the right classification.
As for the most popular online competitive games, the shooters like Call Of Duty and Halo I can assure readers that the focus there is very much on the competition, leaderboards and skill rankings rather than violence.
That aspect, the aggressive hyper competitiveness, to me is the only negative aspect of such games,coupled with anonymity it allows for some pretty infantile behaviour, but again, nothing you don't see in real life.

Just what the world needs more violence and sex. Come on we must be able to be happy without that stuff. But as adults we also have a responsibility to think about future generations and not just our own self gratification.

People who play violent video games are nearly always to be found at home...playing violent video games, people who get off on fighting or beating up other people are usually found loitering about the streets..bashing and harassing other people.
Alchohol is by far and away the greatest aggravating factor in violent crime, we don't ban it outright but we have an age restriction which good parents respect.
Only bad parents allow their kids to use harmful products or products with an age restriction, end of story.
It's easy to control what your kids watch, play and do, all computers can be quickly and simply set up to block access to certain content, game consoles have parental controls which can be used to limit the time children play and the restrict the content by rating.
It's simple, if you don't take steps to control the media your kids consume you're a BAD parent.

This wasn't a huge success Lyle.

By the looks of the comments from newbies here you got a bunch of your church mates to jump in and do a bit of astroturfing. Yet even with this this article has only accumulated "77 likes", yet the earlier pro-porn article from Alan McKee http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12079 got "89 Likes", and I didn't see any astroturfing there.

On a related note, related as in it is another issue Lyle campaigns heavily on, Conroy said yesterday that Labour remains committed to their mandatory internet filtering initiative. Which is really weird, considering it doesn't have a hope in Lyle's hades of getting up in the Senate now the Libs have rejected it, and it's even dubious it could get up in lower house given its current makeup.

One theory about why he did continues to flog the dead horse is it is still Labour policy, and Conroy is nothing if not dogged in perusing his assigned tasks. Even if it is to the detriment of his party it seems, because the filter is almost certainly a net vote looser. The policy is up for renewal at Labours National Conference in December. If you care, a letter to your local member reminding them of the likely effects on this policy on their electoral fortunes would be might be opportune. I imagine they would be clutching at any and all available electoral straws right now.

I think rstuart has hit the nail on the head. Getting a bunch of like minded conservatives to create forum accounts for the sole purpose of leaving supportive comments on a conservative article is not just silly, but is going to be quickly 'found out' especially on a site like OLO where the weekly readership is generally made up of highly educated individuals.

For any of the one post wonders that do come back and read further comments, until you have actually played any of these games, or seen any that contain the "depraved violence/sex" that you so often cling to, then might I suggest that for your second post you think about an apology admitting that you were in fact, wrong, and that none of the material the ACL is so afraid of making it "in to the hands of children" even exists, let alone is available for sale in Asutralia or otherwise.

With the exception of one or two gratuitous sex 'games' on sale in Japan - which would be Refused Classification here anyway - everything touted to fill the R18+ category is currently misclassified as MA15+, or has been mildly toned down to just slide in below RC.

It's been said before and I'll say it again; the "think of the children" argument is null and void. Stand up to your responsibilities as a parent! Despite the complacency of many parents that this may apply to, at lease the great bulk of them would understand that R18+ is most definitely not suitable for children, either their own or others.

The reason R18+ is a good thing, is because all parents know straight away that little Johnny should NOT be playing an R18+ game just like he shouldn't be watching an R18+ video. The psychological difference between the two classifications in the eyes of the parent is the number on reason we DO need the R18+ game category.

Please save us ACL!
Prohibition is such a success that we want to emulate it everywhere...especially into mediums of which we have *no* understanding!
Sure the paedophile games will become even more popular, sure the kiddies will get the most wicked games on torrents *because* of the publicity...but we don't want to send the wrong message now do we?
Lets let the criminals deal directly with our kids like the druggies do...such scum have no place in a regulated market!
And yes...our freedoms are in *your* hands. After all, who ever heard of a hypocritical Christian? Lead us, oh perfect beings!

Sigh...I guess control freaks just cannot give up their addiction.

Dan: They do it in the media, they do it in schools, they do it in public life.
With God foremost, Good is ignored. Only the ego and stick matter to these people.

Another point that needs to be made is that a lot of larger retailers will not stock violent or "Adults Only" games, K-mart and Target don't sell games like Mafia II or The Witcher.
I may be wrong here but I seem to recall a spokesman from one of the large chains (Big W ?) saying that his stores would not stock an R-Rated game even if the classification was changed.
Nintendo have said in the past that they will not publish R-Rated material for their consoles and given the shift in focus in gaming generally to family friendly and what are termed "casual' games I can't see the publishers falling over themselves to back "video Nasties" which might damage their other brands.

An indication on how far away from the wider community Lyle and the ACL are on this issue is the position of Catholic Church in Australia.

They made a submission to the 2010 inquiry in support of an R18+ games classification and more recently welcomed the draft guidelines.

That's not to say that Australian Catholic Bishops just can't wait to play some R18 games. They said that they'd prefer that such content didn't exist, but in the real world it does exist and is already available. They'd like to see it classified appropriately.

The ACL are often out of step with wider community values. On this they really seem to have put themselves out on a limb.

I've noticed some wild claims from them in the past that such a rating would allow games depicting rape and graphic sex to be sold in Australia. It shows that they never understood what was being proposed. They like a bit of doom prophecy to scare people into action. It has less impact every time they exaggerate and distort to attempt to shock.

I consider myself a libertarian and as such tend to be against all forms of censorship.

However, I do acknowledge the partially formed minds of children need protection from the hardcore realities of the adult world.

I see no problem with a classification system designed to protect children.

I do see a lot of problems with attempts by some to re-introduce, for want of a better word, a modern day “Hays Commission” charged to police computer games.

Such an organization would be unnecessarily paternalistic in nature, seeking to regulate people as much as what they are allowed to see.

We have hopefully grown beyond that era

Just as I hoped we had grown beyond the lies of socialism and controlling government -

unfortunately, the battle for "liberty" from both censors and over-regulating politicians, pretending to be a “paternalistic government” seems to be part of an unending war.

The other day, our 8 year old son Joey visited his neighbour's house after school for a seemingly harmless 'play'.

Later on in the evening, he awoke from a terrible nightmare, where he said that monsters were jumping out from everywhere to try and 'get' him.

When further questioned, he said that during that afternoon, he had watched his neighbour Harrison (also 8) playing a scary and violent video game. He also said that he saw on the cover of the video game that it was meant to only be played by children older than 15.

Now if 8 year old boys are playing games that are supposed to be being played only by over 15 year olds, it stands to reason that R18+ games would make their way into the hands of much younger children.

I hope the pollies see sense and don't make any changes to the current legislation!