Feeding kids on a diet of video game junk

Me says:

08:21am | 06/05/10

Jeremy, that’s an absolute fallacy and you know it. The argument that the R18+ classification will actually protect children is an absolute furphy, invented by the gaming industry in the last few months to cover up their real motivation, which has always been the libertarian, “let me play what I like” line. It’s so disingenuous as gamers to now pretend that you actually care about the welfare of children when that has never, and will never be, your motivation.
The claim that questionable material is now “shoehorned” into the MA15+ rating, if true, is no argument for allowing even more graphic and violent interactive media into the country. Rather, it shows that the current guidelines require proper application. What’s to say that if there were an R18+ rating there would not continue to be a misapplication of the guidelines? What then would be squeezed into the R18+ rating?
It is also clear that an R18+ rating, even if apparently sending a “clear message to parents” (another one of the typically transparent gaming ‘arguments’), will not stop children from playing the games. Parents routinely fail to check the classification rating of games, and UK and NZ research shows that despite the best efforts and intention of parents to shield their children from such material, their efforts are frustrated by the lax parentings of friends’ parents, older siblings, and retailers.
Feel free to argue the merits of the R18+ classification by all means, but at least be honest about your real motivation, which is yourself, not the interests of children.

Barry says:

08:34am | 06/05/10

Jim, it might have been helpful if you had revealed at the start of your article that you are a member of a religious lobby group. That would have saved me the minute that I wasted reading you opinion. It is also interesting that as a long term member of the military, you are associated with real violence, death and destruction. And yet you are concerned about the content of games?

Phillip M says:

09:16am | 06/05/10

I am amazed at the hysterical nonesense by many who are opposed to Wallace’s views.

The power of his view is that it should create an intelligent response born out of considered argument. That is not what is happening here. One response states that ACL members have a low IQ. Another has a bias just because Wallace is from the Australian Christian Lobby.

Look at these responses and decide for yourself where the low IQ levels are focused.  I am not an ACL member, and I carefully listen to all sides of an argument so that I hopefully respond and not react. Let’s engage in intelligent debate please so that we can contribute to the solution and not add to the problem. Hopefully this is about concerns we should all share for the future security of our young people.

I am a Christian so on the basis of many of the published views my comments are now invalid because I am bigoted and aligned with ACL.

My mind is not made up on this issue. I think a few of the comments once untangled from hysteria bare some thought.

Thank you Punch for publishing this article.

Ben says:

09:27am | 06/05/10

Phillip M: My low IQ remark was parodying Wallace’s argument style. I don’t actually believe all ACL members to be stupid.

The thing is the R18+ “lobby” (heh) have been “intelligently” arguing for it for YEARS. You aren’t going to get all of the information you require to satisfy your intelligent debate from commenters on a random article posted on the Punch.

Having said that I cannot believe you would consider Wallace’s view intelligence - he did not present one SHRED of evidence!

L. says:

10:12am | 06/05/10

“One response states that ACL members have a low IQ. “

Clearly did you didn’t read his post correctly…he used the ” ACL members have a low IQ” remark as a means to illustrate the simplistic logic that Wallace himself used..that is, unfounded opinions stated as “fact” and made up statistics.

Smidgeling says:

12:38pm | 06/05/10

Me (asssuming that is the writer of the article):

Jeremy stated R18+content is shoehorned into the MA15+ classification. You have responded with there “is no argument for allowing even more graphic and violent interactive media into the country”.

What you are failing to understand is if we had the R18+ classification very little new material would actually be coming to Australia. Much of the material that was used to demonise R18+ games, such as the rape and torture games from Japan, was stuff that very few people in this country are interested in.

The type of content that would make it in is stuff like the R18+ version of left 4 dead 2. Let us ignore for a second that the R18+ version of this game is no more violent than the MA15+ version of the previous title. I know for a fact that most gamers in Australia playing that game have the R18+ version of it anyway, because it really isn’t hard to get the content for anyone with basic IT skills.

Therefore, the rating can only serve to educate parents. You say they won’t understand the rating. That is rubbish. Anyone who has watched a movie in the past 20 years knows R18+ means it isn’t for kids.

While yu are right this may not be the primary motivation for gamers, children’s welfare is something gamers have considered carefully in their debate.

Kelly says:

10:30am | 07/05/10

What on earth are you talking about Barry? it clearly states in Jim’s bio who he is and what he does. You think he should have to include his bio in his article too? Is that common practice?
Well at leas you’ve revealed your own bigotry, he’s religious so his views don’t count.

Glenda says:

10:02am | 08/05/10

I agree with this article. I work with children and see their behaviour. Nothing can replace good parenting. But that job is made much harder by governments that bow to pressure from groups that want to be free to do whatever they like. I understand that the argument by Jim Wallace is to not allow R18+ games at all. Jeremy is right about one thing - the classification does not protect your child. Only unavailability!!

Benno says:

12:53pm | 08/05/10

This issue has got nothing to do with children and frankly I’m getting sick of hearing about them. The issue is whether or not Australian adults should be given the right to legally choose what material they consume, just like in every other democratic nation in the Western World.

If you don’t want your children playing violent video games, don’t let them. As far as Jimbo’s comment about a village raising a child um what? No village is raising my children. I’ll raise them as I see fit, and Melbourne’s no village, I wouldn’t have them wandering around the streets alone, just like I wouldn’t let them play a video game without seeing if for myself first. Don’t expect the village to look after your children, take some parental responsibility and look after them yourself.

Shaun says:

08:50am | 06/05/10

This is a ridiculous statement.  Introducing an R18+ category will do nothing to protect kids and the idea that playing video games is a substitute for commiting real world violence just shows how out of touch the gaming community are on this issue.

Chris L says:

12:48pm | 06/05/10

G’day Shaun, just a couple of counters here:
“Introducing an R18+ category will do nothing to protect kids” - except by making it illegal for them to buy the game and warning their parents of what it contains.
“and the idea that playing video games is a substitute for commiting real world violence just shows how out of touch the gaming community are on this issue.” - I guess you didn’t fully read my post. I pointed out that I had no proof and was comparing my baseless assertion to Jim’s baseless assertion.
Care to try again?

Harold says:

12:11pm | 06/05/10

Nicotine is a scientifically proven carcinogen.

Video games are lights on a screen.

Your straw-man’s pants are on fire.

Anthony says:

01:32pm | 06/05/10

Harold,

The “lights on a screen” are just as addictive and your straw man has an erection in his pants. Dont give us that no consequence crap.

Scott Glennon says:

02:16pm | 06/05/10

@Bill & Anthony,

Compasion of Tobacco companies to Video Game creators?
This would have to be the most stupid thing I’ve come accross in the debate regarding R Classification.

Zeta says:

02:32pm | 06/05/10

The world’s biggest video game company, Blizzard-Activision, pales in comparison to the size and revenue to the world’s Evangelical Churches - and lobby groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby, or NAMBLA

NigelP says:

06:04pm | 07/05/10

Bill.

Do pay attention. No one wants to lift the ban on R18+ material. They want to introduce an R18+ rating.

Sherlock says:

09:46am | 06/05/10

I have nothing but respect for people of faith. However their self-appointed belief that they are the moral guardians of society should be treated with the disdain that it deserves.

Ron says:

09:53am | 06/05/10

I think it unfair to assert that a lobby group “wishes to impose their beliefs on wider Australia”. ACL, like any oither lobby group, legitimatly represents a sector of our community. Dissagree if you will but attacking the right of any group to be represented is unwise.

Thatsthepoint says:

11:18am | 06/05/10

Yes Nevyn, we all know. What I don’t understand is what your point is. Labelling someone as fundamentalist is just lazy debate. Can we please stop shoehorning people into categories as a childish mechanism of dismissing their argument.

Sherlock, everyone has morals, everyone draws a line somewhere, and everyone also has the democratic right to engage in society and express their point of view and try to influence the way society is structured. Clearly, your morals are different to Mr Wallaces but you are still trying to influence the outcome from your point of view. You are being as much a moral guardian as Mr Wallace is.

David says:

06:10pm | 06/05/10

@Ron

While it is unfair to assert any lobby group is engaging in activities designed to achieve a blanket application of their own personal moral or ethical slant to the country as a whole… unless they are actually trying to do that.

The ACL are engaging in lobbying for policy changes or resistance to policy changes in order to preserve or re-establish some kind of Christian-centred moral position. Such as the Human Rights Act, internet filtering and ofcourse the R18+ classification of games. All three of these issues are of national context and apply to the population as a whole.

Nevyn didn’t attack their right to represent or lobby and nevyn did critcise his argument (lack of scientific evidence, history of moral outrages towards media).

I seriously question the degree to which the ACL are representative of Australians. Sure they’re a non-denominational Christian Lobby group but less than 9% of Australians attend church these days (according to the National Church Life Survery) so I’m not too clear their position is representative of the majority.

The ACL have every right to express their opinion but everyone else has the right to respond, simply disagreeing is not attacking someone’s right to represent.

Chris Braid says:

10:50am | 06/05/10

R18 is a Red Flag to a promiscuous Child being pushed past their Childhood into Adult life… You see it everywhere on the Streets with Young Girls in too much makeup and Skanky threads, These are the Vulnerable targets of marketing. We loose a younger generation to loose morals and Bad Choices (Abortion for one) and quibble that we have to import Workers from Islamic countries.Not All Youth are effected by the Video content But when one of the few is, Mass Violence often results…

Thatsthepoint says:

10:54am | 06/05/10

That is the point. Thank you for confirming one of the issues Mr Wallace was highlighting. There is lazy parenting. There is also peer pressure, unscrupulous shop owners, school yard deals, negligent neighbours, lazy grand parenting.

None of you here can seriously argue that if R18+ is brought in, children of 11 won’t be playing those games. We all know they will be playing it, and we all have a responsibility to those children. You have a responsibility to those children.

Smidgeling says:

12:45pm | 06/05/10

Thatsthepoint- You are showing your naivety here. R18+ content gets in under the MA15+ classification anyway, and if it doesn’t, children download it from the internet without their parents knowing what classification it is anyway.

If you think having games classified as RC and not sold at game retailers in Australia keeps kids away from them you’re kidding yourself. In fact the bigger the issue is made the more likely kids will want the “banned game”.

The R18+ classification only serves to warn ‘involved’ parents away from certain games. The rebellious kids will get them whether we have the R18+ classification or not.

thatsthepoint says:

01:28pm | 06/05/10

Dear Smidgeling

No, not being naive. I’m fully aware stuff gets under the MA15+ category. But that is a different issue. That simply tells us that MA15+ has to be properly managed.

As for some kids getting hold of it anyway, yes of course they will. We put hurdles up in society to protect the common good, knowing full well some people will jump them. But if those hurdles are there, then less people will get hold of that material. Your assertion that somehow more kids get hold of it, if it is banned, is totally unfounded. If we allow this stuff in, freely available under an R18+ classification, far more will get hold of it.

L. says:

01:42pm | 06/05/10

“Not All Youth are effected by the Video content But when one of the few is, Mass Violence often results…”

Mass violence OFTEN results..??

Care to give examples of this “often”..??

Smidgeling says:

02:35pm | 06/05/10

Thatisthepoint- Please use some common sense here. What happened when Australia realised it wouldn’t get the R18+ version of left 4 dead 2? Everyone’s attention was drawn to the banned game and retailers in other cuntries set up methods for getting the banned version to this country.

By banning a game you give it the publicity it needs to become even ore popular among kids because it is ‘naughty’ to have it. It’s a proveen fact that people want what they can’t have. It’s even in the bloody bible the OP uses as the basis of his alleged moral highground.

thatsthepoint says:

08:20pm | 06/05/10

Smidgeling

We are not talking about the banning of one game. We are talking about the opening of access to a whole class of game. Thank you for describing the mechanisms by which banned material gets into the country. I’m not interested with regards to this debate. I am interested in making sure the country doesn’t give legal access to that material. LfD2 can sneak in by various ways but thank fully it is not as easy to access as otherwise. The mechanisms by which banned material come into the country can be dealt with by the appropriate authorities.

Smidgeling says:

09:35am | 07/05/10

Thatisthepoint- I told you to implement some common sense here. You’re pretending like not having an R18+ classification makes it hard for these games to beobtained in this country- it’s not hard at all. All the same people will get the games, legal or not.

Also, I doubt you actually play games because the list of games that can’t curretly be sold here is actualy quite short, and many titles on that list aren’t culturally relevant to Australia.

Research before you open your mouth.

LC says:

06:50pm | 11/04/12

Chris,

The “makeup and Skanky threads” you speak of (especially the latter) are made for kids and marketed to kids and their parents. Games that would be rated R18 or MA15 are games which are developed with an adult audience in mind and are marketed to adults, not children. Strawman sense…tingling.

Also, please cite both examples of this “mass violence often results” to back up your claim, and also cite scientific evidence that proves that videogames are the primary cause of it (please note that any papers you cite MUST be peer-reviewed and come from reputable scientific journals).

And if kids are getting their hands on these games, for one that would already happen now (the classification board rates many games which would be R18 as MA15 rather than banning them, to avoid stirring up too much controversy) and secondly, their parents are morons!! If this is any reasonable sign of their parenting ability, the kid will have other much greater issues to worry about than violent videogames (alcohol and cigarettes come to mind).

Smidgeling says:

12:50pm | 06/05/10

Mid- I doubt you’ll get a sensible argument on your valid point. It’s the lord’s word apparently, so it isn’t subject to any of our rules. Maybe I need to rewrite the bible according to Infinityward or Valve.

Nickk says:

06:07pm | 17/05/10

I’m in favour of R18 games, and a Christian.

But this argument is ridiculous. You’re comparing a book which condemns and looks down upon those things, compared to video games which often glorify and celebrate some of those (murder and morbid violence in particular)

Andy says:

03:24pm | 07/12/10

@Nickk - But regardless of context, the Bible does contain this material, yes?

Mite says:

09:58am | 06/05/10

“Jim, there is no evidence of a link between gaming and violence. Get over it.”
Matthew Gunn, ignore no more:
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2010-2014/10ASISBSRS.pdf

“The media violence research literature is large, diverse, and consistent. True scientific experts on media violence effects have reached a consensus that, in our view, meets the criterion of a scientific fact as a conclusion held with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. The key fact is that exposure to media violence causes an increase in the likelihood of aggressive and/or violent behavior in both short- and long-term contexts.”
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2005-2009/08AG.pdf

Oliver says:

10:23am | 06/05/10

@ Mite

If you look carefully at those papers you presented, you will see that all of them are authored by one man; Craig A. Anderson. He has been running a personal vendetta against violent video games for years. Sure these papers have been published, but they’ve been highly questioned on neutrality and technical grounds. I don’t even pretend to understand anything about psycology and their testing methodology but relying on results from one person of questionable neutrality does not make a good argument. It would be like relying on Jim Wallace for an honest appraisal of Atheists…

BTS says:

10:41am | 06/05/10

Mite,

‘The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has weighed into the ongoing polemic regarding a possible link between violent video games and “real-world aggression”.  The Uni says the findings of the first long-term study into exposure to video games and subsequent stroppy behaviour may be “surprising”, given that they show “robust exposure to a highly violent online game” did not cause any substantial increase in said aggression.’

‘Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test of Aggression in an Online Game (Williams, D. & Skoric, M.) is the first long-term study of the affects of a video game on players’ aggressiveness, measured according to sociological standards (particularly, the Normative Beliefs in Aggression scale, or NOBAGS). The study saw “no strong effects associated with aggression,” and even provided the basis for questioning just who it is that is most affected by so-called “violent video games.” The method of analysis precluded the detection of “small effects”.’

‘Results from the current meta-analysis found that there were about 25 recent studies on violent video game effects, with conflicting results.
Overall results of the study found that although violent video games appear to increase people’s aggressive thoughts (which it would not be surprising that people are still thinking about what they were just playing), violent games do not appear to increase aggressive behavior.’

Thatsthepoint says:

11:05am | 06/05/10

No Peter. Censorship is not wrong. Censorship is part of our everyday lives. We all live with censorship and we all want it on some level. For instance, none of us would want to see the sale of videos that incite hate against the Lebanese communities of Sydney. None of us would want to DIY manuals on the local hardware store on how to build your own bomb (even though this information is pretty easy to get hold of elsewhere). The debate here is what do we want censored. Where do we draw the line. Some of us want R18+ games and some of us don’t.

Some of the views on this site would seem to want to censor Jim Wallace, simply for being a Christian and engaging in a public debate on the opposing side. Idiots.

Finally, responsibility for bringing up children rests with all of us. Not just the parents. You Peter have a responsibility on this issue, which you can contribute to or ignore.

Steely Dan says:

12:33pm | 06/05/10

@Thatsthepoint

“Some of the views on this site would seem to want to censor Jim Wallace, simply for being a Christian and engaging in a public debate on the opposing side.”
Opposition to a viewpoint = censorship of said viewpoint?

Really?

Chris L says:

12:59pm | 06/05/10

“Some of the views on this site would seem to want to censor Jim Wallace, simply for being a Christian and engaging in a public debate on the opposing side. Idiots.”

Oddly enough these people do not lobby for this because they have respect for the rights and views of others. Pity the ACL seems to have no such respect for us heathens.

thatsthepoint says:

01:38pm | 06/05/10

Steely Dan and Chris L

Engage with the debate boys instead of going of on a tangent or making assertions like ” the ACL seems to have no such respect for us heathens.” This is a debate. It is a societal debate, it is a political debate. The ACL is engaged in that debate and it is not out of lack of respect for any one person, belief or perspective. The debate here is about censorship of a class of video games. So at risk of a bad pun may I suggest you get back to the main game.

Steely Dan says:

03:00pm | 06/05/10

@thatsthepoint

I’ll take that as a retraction!

Chris L says:

03:02pm | 06/05/10

@Thatsthepoint - Just responding to your accusation that the people commenting here want to censor Jim, plus your name-calling. If we cannot respond to that, then it’s not a debate is it?

Chris L says:

03:02pm | 06/05/10

@Thatsthepoint - Just responding to your accusation that the people commenting here want to censor Jim, plus your name-calling. If we cannot respond to that, then it’s not a debate is it?

Fred says:

03:05pm | 06/05/10

Thatsthepoint I absoutely disagree with you.  I have nothing to do with your children and nor do I want it.  If I see them misbehaving, I blame you, the parent, not the government.

Dad says:

10:10pm | 06/05/10

Peter I have 8 kids and anything that makes it slightly harder for them to get high level violence and sex content into their hands is great. I am not a bad parent and I take seriously my responsibility to parent, and to protect my kids from anything that I think is potentially morally harmful to them. But I cant watch them all the time, everywhere. Just as some drugs are illegal yet still find their way into the hands of kids, so some game content is too violent for kids, yet they will get hold of it if they can. So I agree with anything that might make it less accessible to them. I am glad Jim is someone who is sharing the concern of many parents, and has the guts to speak out about it.

LC says:

08:31pm | 27/04/11

@ Dad
Yes. Because taking these games, watering them down to just meet MA15 requirements (and in at least one case (Alien Vs Predator) simply slapping the MA15 label on it no questions asked) is really protecting children, correct?

You say you aren’t a bad parent, so can I safely assume you’d take one look at the big black label with R in a diamond in it and say “NO”? You’d do that with R rated movies, what makes this so different?

Markus says:

10:04am | 06/05/10

“I will never allow my children to play or watch these types of games in my home”
Good, these games aren’t designed for children which is the entire point.
The whole aim of the R18 classification is to bring the gaming rating system into line with the existing TV and movie rating system.
No confusion, no mild adjustments to a clearly adult game to make it slide in under the M15 banner, just an immediate R “no children allowed to buy” rating. This should help you know straight up which games aren’t suitable for your kids.

MD says:

12:40pm | 06/05/10

They wont be doing it in your home they will do it at their friends houses the ones whoose parents don’t have a problem with them

Jane says:

09:40am | 06/05/10

I agree - for all of the so called ’ facts’ the author presents, he has not backed them up with evidence. Anyone can pull statistics out of the air,

L. says:

10:03am | 06/05/10

“How many children talk about finding their parents’ adult DVD collection? It’s the parents’ responsibility to ensure these games or any other adult material do not end up in their household.”

Did you know that if the Internet Filter comes in, Jim wallace and the ACL have called for the filters scope to be increased from RC to include ALL xxx pornography in 3 yrs..?? Even porn including consenting adults over the age of 18.

He and the ACL represent the Australian Taliban

Mary says:

12:50pm | 06/05/10

I don’t know if you guys have children, but if you had, you would know that nothing is safe if you have kide - kids are very inquisitive and in an age of absent parents, chances are that kids younger than 18 will be playing these games, even if they are not allowed to.

L. says:

01:10pm | 06/05/10

“chances are that kids younger than 18 will be playing these games, even if they are not allowed to.”

That’s why God invented passwords for computers…Parents should learn how to use them.

Mary says:

12:47pm | 06/05/10

Just because you don’t believe it doesn’t mean it’s not true…..Did you know that in every area in which it could be checked - historically, geographically, scientifically, etc the Bible has been verified as factual by extra-biblical sources. Have you ever seen any actual proof that the Bible is not the truth? How sad that you are missing out on the most wonderful experience available to mankind, a relationship with God through the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ.

Chris L says:

01:07pm | 06/05/10

Mary, did you know the siege of Troy described in the Iliad has been independantly discovered to be true? Since that particular work is older than your bible, and describes its own set of gods doesn’t that mean it has greater veracity? Time to start worshipping Zeus and Apollo!

Mary says:

01:24pm | 06/05/10

Chris, have you ever wondered why man has always seeked God.  If you look at different countries all over the world, even look back in history you will see that man has always seeked something to worship, no matter how primitive he was.  This is because since the beginning everyone has been created with a ‘God shaped’ hole inside of them.  You might fill this void with drinking, gambling, TV or video games, but I have found that true peace and joy comesonly from a relationship with the true and living God.  I know what I know because I experience his presence and this makes everything else irrelevant.  Sad for you though.

Eye4anEye says:

01:34pm | 06/05/10

@ Mary yep truth it’s not real - bible=world created 10k years ago and has giant humans
reality= world proven to be over 10k years old (shock horror) no evidence of giant humans amoungst the vast collection of fossils.

I’m not saying their isn’t a god because I don’t know that (just as you don’t know their is)....I am saying the bible is a made up bunch of crap created by humans…..humans with an agenda to gain influence over other humans.

MD says:

02:02pm | 06/05/10

I was actually discussing with a colleague the other day that maybe there was an advanced civilisation many many years ago and they either left or died out but there was some kind of disaster and the only literature from this time was a story book called ‘The Bible’ was a childrens book to teach right from wrong but was never meant to be taken as written.

We then speculated what would happen if we were wiped out and all that was left were the Harry Potter series.

jack says:

02:28pm | 06/05/10

If the bible is literal truth then how do you explain dinosaurs?

Darren says:

03:14pm | 06/05/10

wow mary - you actually believe the bible as the literal truth - unfortunately too many MPs do as well!

Chris L says:

03:40pm | 06/05/10

Mary, you’ve actually just made the best argument I’ve ever heard on behalf of religion, and I love to argue religion. You’re also obviously a kind hearted person, but just as you feel sympathy for me not following your religion I feel sympathy for you believing that religion. To each their own, but I still want to be able to play violent video games.

Liam says:

07:32pm | 06/05/10

Mary, although I admire your faith, and I too believe in a god, I do not believe in organised religion.  The Christian bible as we know it today was largely constructed due to a vote at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century.  It was here that the divinity of Jesus was voted upon among other things.  It is in the Church’s history and pre-dates the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches not to mention the Protestant reformation, all of which that have given us variations of the same theme.

While I am happy you have found god, I personally do not believe one needs a bible to do it.

Ronald says:

09:27am | 06/05/10

Wendy, please show me a full study proving these links?  Are you just taking the word of Jim as gospel, or perhaps the meta-study that they have commissioned?  I would suggest you open your mind, spend a few moments to Google; specifically meta-studies and look for studies specifically looking into this “link”.  Let me know how you go.

Ben says:

09:32am | 06/05/10

“Given the clear links between violent video games and aggression”

Sources please. Or better yet, read Grant’s post below.

“Scientific experts”

Oh… this is just fantastic.

Fred says:

09:34am | 06/05/10

Ohhhh Wendy.  There are no ‘clear links’.  You do realise that the majority of games that are rated R in other countries, to be allowed in this country, have been down scaled to an MA rating.  Which means these games are here already.

Oliver says:

11:46am | 06/05/10

There have been studies connection increased short term aggression with video games. Saying that those same effects can be seen in competetive sport, where a certain amount of positive aggression is needed to perform. Basically all those studies prove is that we should ban sport.

Mary says:

12:59pm | 06/05/10

Interesting to see that its mostly guys who have a problem with your statement.  I’m with you, Wendy.  There is enough violence in the world.  Having emigrated from a country where there is more than 50 murders per day, I have had enough.  Just thinking of all the cases of elderly people who are being bashed/killed and robbed, which we frequently see on the Australian news - I don’t think that this is something that happened in the days before violent video games.

Fred says:

03:17pm | 06/05/10

Yes Mary, you’re probably right that all those bashings, murders and robberies didn’t happen before violent video games. But guess what, neither did wireless internet, or the latest ice cream flavour from baskin and robbins.  (Correlation is not causation)

Steely Dan says:

03:32pm | 06/05/10

@Mary

“I don’t think that this is something that happened in the days before violent video games.”
Here’s where you could test that link, Mary! Research the incidence of violent crime in Australia over 50 years or so, and see if you can see any jump which suggests that the influence of video games (which have really got going in the last 20 years or so) has any relationship to the incidence of violent crime.

I eagerly await your conclusions!

M says:

03:55pm | 06/05/10

Steely Dan - you wont get an accurate example with that as humanity grows so does our ability to hurt each other we seem to thrive on it, and video games do not have sole responsibility for that, movies even cartoons like Simpsons promote violence, with Media and news glorifying killers is it any wonder more want to get their moment of fame? there have been more books written about Jack the Ripper than all the American presidents combined.

lets look back in history or over to the middle east and oh what is that? people are fighting? do they have GTA? no? what are they fighting about? oh religion eh?

You will find throughout history most of the violence is caused by religion.

Chris L says:

05:40pm | 06/05/10

Mary, you really ought to think about your statement “I don’t think that this is something that happened in the days before violent video games.”
Violence has always been a part of the human experience as seen in the Roman Gladatorial Arenas, the Spanish Inquisition, the many wars where young people are sent by their governments to kill actual (rather than virtual) people, etc. ad nauseam.
BTW The worst ever high school shooting in history was perpetrated by a man in his fifties before video games were invented!

Steely Dan says:

11:09am | 07/05/10

@M

I agree.  But I’d like to see Mary go through the steps just to see how wrong she is.

LC says:

08:44pm | 27/04/11

@ Wendy,

And your peer reviewed paper(s) to back that claim up are where?

Oh, and aren’t you the same Wendy Francis that said legalizing gay marriage is like legalizing child abuse?

Ronald says:

09:43am | 06/05/10

Katrina, I respect your conviction and agree that children should not be exposed to elements that can be harmful, adult based computer games included.

Alcohol has devastating impacts on people and should be banned so children are not exposed to it.

Cigarettes have devastating impacts on people and should be banned so children are not exposed to them.

Sports such as football have poor role models and are violent; they should be banned so children are not exposed to them.

You mentioned violent movies, they too have a big impact on children (although not as much apparently), why risk it, let’s ban them so children are not exposed to them!

Where do you want to stop Katrina?

As I said, I respect your conviction, and I follow my own form of “banning” with any children that are exposed to any form of media in my family home, isn’t that where it is most important?

Ronald says:

09:44am | 06/05/10

Katrina, I respect your conviction and agree that children should not be exposed to elements that can be harmful, adult based computer games included.

Alcohol has devastating impacts on people and should be banned so children are not exposed to it.

Cigarettes have devastating impacts on people and should be banned so children are not exposed to them.

Sports such as football have poor role models and are violent; they should be banned so children are not exposed to them.

You mentioned violent movies, they too have a big impact on children (although not as much apparently), why risk it, let’s ban them so children are not exposed to them!

Where do you want to stop Katrina?

As I said, I respect your conviction, and I follow my own form of “banning” with any children that are exposed to any form of media in my family home, isn’t that where it is most important?

Mick says:

10:34am | 06/05/10

As a gamer myself, I have to agree. With the realism in games these days (basically on the verge of breaking into ‘life-like’ realism) they’re not the 16-colour games with a few sprites on the screen many of us grew up with. Couple that with the teenager-centric movie industry (think Saw, Hostel etc) and I think that’s where the worst of the violence etc in the videogame industry is headed.

While I’m no fan of censorship either I think eventually there is going to be a line that we will cross that I’m not so certain we should. Already the violence out there on the streets these days is so much more callous and vicious than it was 20 years ago. I wouldn’t put the blame solely on any one thing but surely desensitization has some effect, I won’t buy that it doesn’t. And as long as these games/movies etc are out there, kids will get them. No doubt whatsoever. I was a teenager not much more than 10 years ago, I remember how it was, and my parents actually gave a stuff about not exposing me to the worst of it, unlike most of my classmates at school.

I’m surprised at the intensity with which so many are attacking what the author of this article suggests. I mean disagree, by all means, but surely it’s at least worth discussing seeing, as he mentions, it’s about to potentially be made law? And the bible? Please. It’s only a book, and if kids these days read more of them it’d be great.

Patrick says:

01:24pm | 07/06/10

Mick do you reckon today’s violence is really that much worse than stoning people to death for working on the Sabbath?

And you say the Bible is only a book, yet that particular book has caused more hate crimes in the world than any other medium of fiction.

Janet says:

10:29am | 06/05/10

fascinating debate.  Some of the claims in the replies baffle me.  We as parents are bombarded with advice from experts which tell us that the way we deal with our kids when they are young, shapes their thinking & emotions for the rest of their lives.  That’s confirmed daily from every direction.  What we put into our minds and what we see and experience affects us deeply, especially children, whose minds & views are still developing.

If a child or teenager or adult is constantly subjected to real violence or sexually abusive behaviour in the home, we all know that it will have a devastating affect on them.  We are outraged at vulnerable people being subjected to things they shouldn’t have to deal with.

So why on earth do we even argue that it’s ok for simulated versions of the same thing to be readily available for people (either young or old) to see for hours at a time?  Having a classification won’t stop kids from getting hold of it - ask any parent or teacher if current classifications are adhered to.  Even if you as a parent keep tight controls, other kids will have adult games somewhere.

I believe that there are times when adults should act as adults, & say that there are things which are not helpful for the whole community.  This is one of them.  Games are (I speak as a parent & teacher here) highly addictive.  An increasing number of kids & now adults are spending increasing amounts of time in cyber reality instead of in human interaction & this cannot be a good thing.

The kids & young adults that I know who are functioning best & who are happiest, are not hooked into games - they are engaged in the real world, making a difference to the lives of people around them in a positive way.

thatsthepoint says:

11:43am | 06/05/10

Grant. Thank you for confirming why I am so worried about an R18+ classification. No one here, least of all Mr Wallace would argue that violent games make violent people. But in a society where there is problems associated with low socio-economic status and dysfunctional families, why do we want to add another ingredient which contributes to the problems arising in such areas? As you stated, there is a reasonable proportion of people with a violent propensity, who are attracted to violent media.

I do not want to see even more violent material made available to them. It is unnecessary. Any game that qualifies for an R18+ category is just unnecessary. If you are a fan of gaming, you are not getting a better quality of game in that category. So the real issue here is people want the liberty to be even more violent in their fantasy lives ... and in some peoples cases that spills over into their real lives. The real issue here is nothing to do with gaming or quality of game.

Smidgeling says:

01:02pm | 06/05/10

Thatsthepoint:

Actually, one of the frquently stated arguments against the R18+ classification is that this material causes people to be violent (which we can all see is poorly supported).

Whether you like it or not, the material exists and is easily accessible for children whether you ban it or not. You could reject the R18+ classification, support the internet flter and protest your little heart out- children will still aaccess the content.

The R18+ rating serves to educate parents. You know, the people responsible for teaching their offspring what is good and bad, what is wright and wrong? Bah!

thatsthepoint says:

01:47pm | 06/05/10

Smidgeling

That’s rubbish. If the MA15+ category fails to ‘educate parents’ then the R18+ one will also. Anyway, it is a fallacy to think that the education of parents is a problem here. It is the fact that the material is available in the first place. As you have already agreed with me elsewhere, some kids will get hold of it. This is because there is a lot more people involved in getting it to them than just their parents.

Secondly, we are not talking about banning this material. This material is already banned. We are talking about not letting it in in the first place. Once that happens, once it is more freely available, more children will get hold of it.

Smidgeling says:

02:31pm | 06/05/10

Thatisthepoint- They will not get hold of the material any easier if there is an R18+ classsification because retailers can be fined for supplying it. All the other channels a child would get this content from are already well used. Left 4 dead 2 R18+ version is banned in this country yet myself and everyone I know are playing it. I think your hurdles have already failed. Wake up and smell the roses.

thatsthepoint says:

08:30pm | 06/05/10

Smidgeling

If you find it so easy to access then why get your knickers in a twist. Accordingg to your logic it is not going to make any difference to what AG decides. Great. Go home. Carry on as you were.

On an unrelated point why do you even want to play this stuff? In 5 years time, when LfD2 is no longer cutting edge what will you be playing. I bet it won’t be something less graphically violent. I bet it will be more graphically violent. Call it a hunch.

Smidgeling says:

09:49am | 07/05/10

Thatsthepoint- I want it available on a matter of principle- the freedom to make a choice as an adult in my own country.

How would the average consumer feel if the government banned fast food because of the health effects and the costs on the public healthcare system (someone think of all the unlheathy children being doomed to adulthood obesity)? I think people would object to their basic freedos being restricted. They could still MAKE the bad food, but it should be their choice to buy it.  Same thing.

And on your “unrelated” point- I see the trap. Well I want to play an uncensored version of left 4 dead 3 (or whatever they call the next one).

ps the first left 4 dead was no more graphic than the second.
pps games have hit somewhat of a graphical ceiling at the moment so they won’t get too much more realistic for quite some time. Anyway, it’s pretty easy to differentiate real life from make believe games.

Chris L says:

10:30pm | 07/05/10

People are arguing Grant’s point, yet it’s one of the very, very few posts that is actually backed up with research (factual evidence). The point is that violent games have not been shown to have any, ANY effect on personality despite the many desperate attempts to show such a link.

There is a problem with violence and violent behaviour, but you are attacking from the wrong angle. Let us find the true source of violence (whatever that turns out to be) and work against that rather that find a scapegoat and pretend we’ve done anything to help.

OK says:

04:51pm | 06/05/10

>“Glad to see someone is highlighting the potential dangers of these sorts of games for our kids.”

You just don’t get it. This has nothing to do with kids. The lack of an R rating for games stops adults playing these games, not just kids.

What if I don’t have any kids? Why should I be impacted by this restriction (if it were even a useful restriction)?

mary says:

01:18pm | 06/05/10

I think you will be surprised at how many parents will not want this - I write this, being the parent of a 18 and 13 year old.  You are the weak one here, giving up on trying to build a strong, good, moral society for your kids to grow up in and be safe.

Elphaba says:

01:54pm | 06/05/10

Mary, I’m not giving up on society.  The politicians are, by banning this kind of thing without proper debate.  They’re throwing up their hands and saying “People can’t be trusted, so we won’t let them have it in the first place.”

I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. I believe in letting people find they’re own way.  I believe the ony way people learn is to make mistakes.  I believe that trusting someone to make the right decisions is reminding them that they are an adult, and spent their formative years growing up so that they have the chance to prove themselves mature, responsible adults.

It’s you that’s given up on moral society - supporting the doling out of punishment before the citizens had a chance to stuff up.

Zeta says:

02:37pm | 06/05/10

‘Jim Wallace is a great Australian. The Australian Christian Lobby, or NAMBLA, work tirelessly to help the less fortunate in our society and to protect families against those that would destroy them i.e.: The Master Chief.’ Fixed.

Eric says:

10:52am | 06/05/10

If you tried to ban Christianity, obviously the biggest objectors would be Christians. They would be rather defensive too.

By your reasoning, this defensiveness would justify a ban on Christianity.

Markus says:

12:04pm | 06/05/10

“However the defensive nature in some of the gamers comments previously on this site would suggest that the above research is true and aggression levels are increased amongst gamers”
The defensive nature would suggest that the responses are from free-thinking adults, who find it irritating when someone tries to spin a bunch of made up statistics (95% of parents?) and patronising lies (“the techno-heads that inhabit the games industry missed too many primary school English classes on the way there”) as rational debate.

Mary says:

01:30pm | 06/05/10

Eric,  Before you can ban Christians, you would have to get rid of the PM and leader of the opposition first, as they are both Christians.

Fred says:

03:27pm | 06/05/10

Mary judging by the comments Eric has made in other articles, I hardly doubt for a second he would have a problem getting rid of those politicians.  You say that like you’re making a point.  Everyone already knows!

Ben says:

04:04pm | 06/05/10

In regards to your comment Eric I can see your point but I feel it is out of context. Anyway while we are at it lets ban all religions and become communists. Then well have no 18+ video games and no Facebook.

grant says:

10:35am | 06/05/10

I find comments like this very disconcerting to say the least.

Someone who cannot differentiate fantasy violence on a computer and real life violence are few and far between.  People and children can distinguish between pretend and reality

And buddy…  rapes…  seriously, what is wrong with you?  who has asked for that in computer games.

Kane says:

11:28am | 06/05/10

“The classification is a white wash and WILL NOT prevent kids from accessing these games.  To all the perverted gamers who enjoy violence and rapes I can see why you are so in support of this classification.. Shame on you!!! “

Please actually research a issue before you contribute. If you researched this yourself, you would know these games are already here. Introducing a R18+ classification will FINALLY allow them to be classified properly as currently they are just being rated M15+.

Stop listing you your priest, god and think for yourself… God gave you a brain of your own…. USE IT!

Scaramunga says:

09:31pm | 06/05/10

“To all the perverted gamers who enjoy violence and rapes I can see why you are so in support of this classification.. Shame on you!!! “

Wow Jinu! Really? I am a gamer, so I am perverted and enjoy rape. This is why more and more people pull away from religion(myself included).

Fair dinkum. I was made to go to a Christian school and church every sunday as a kid and the hypocrisy of some people is astounding. Instead of hurling around personal insults like that how about you practice what you preach and love thy neighbor.

LC says:

12:23pm | 07/06/10

“The classification is a white wash and WILL NOT prevent kids from accessing these games.”
Some kids MAY get the games, noone’s denying that. However:
- They already do so with many MA15+ games, some of which are rated the equivalent of R18+ in other countries.
- Alternatively, they may download the game off bittorrent or P2P services. If these copies are taken to school, by the end of that week the majority of students will be playing it. Even during my school years, cracked copies of computer games on CDs were reguarly exchaged amongst students.
- Bringing in an R18 rating will allow shops to be fined thousands of dollars for providing them to minors, and would require photo ID to purchase. Hell, you can introduce laws which allows parents who supply them to minors to be fined (I’d back you up).
- Introducing R18 ratings will open up legitimate avenues for adult gamers to get thier entertainment, reducing demand on illegal avenues on the internet. Given time, it will reduce the number of illegal suppliers.

“perverted gamers who enjoy violence and rapes I can see why you are so in support of this classification.. Shame on you!!! “

LC says:

10:05pm | 27/04/11

Good onya mate.

The ACL have used a simple, but quite effective tactic when it comes to their name. The use of the word “Christian”, when coupled with census statistics (reliability issues aside), makes them look like the majority verdict. But in reality, just like fringe lunatics of any cause, they are a tiny minority that’s definitely not worth catering to at the expense of everyone. A lot of Christians I know in real life (including all of the ones at my place of employment), and several I’ve heard of on the net hate their guts, but unless they publicly come out against them, the government thinks they are giving them the silent tick of approval.

The more Christians openly come out against the ACL, the less influence the ACL will hold, and that, my friend, is a good thing for everyone.

monkeytypist says:

12:29pm | 06/05/10

How does creating a classification for games for adults that will be illegal for children, expose children to more violence?  Or would you prefer that all the movies that are currently rated R18+ be rated as MA 15+ instead?

LC says:

10:48pm | 10/04/12

Science is the way we accumulate our knowledge of a range of topics in a TESTABLE form. Indeed, sometimes science does get things wrong, but through continued research and the gathering of evidence, it can put right sooner or later. To reduce the incidence of this, systems such as peer-review exist. It’s not foolproof (nothing is), but it’s the best we have. With the rigorous testing and review processes that science demands, to listen a handful of unsupported anecdotes (largely from religious vested interests) in favor of it is a fallacy.

As far as the science in concerned at the time of posting, there is no link at all between media and behavior of any kind.

To make the link between marriage breakdown or the main causes of marriage breakdown and videogames (or more to the point of the article, videogames and violent behavior in children), you need to back it up with evidence in the form of scientific studies. Even more so when you wish to curb freedom of choice in what’s supposed to be a free country. Until then, sorry, but all you have is an opinion. Yes, you are entitled to it, but you aren’t entitled to wave it around as fact in a public medium of debate.

Ronald says:

10:35am | 06/05/10

The emotions that are stirred up is of frustration, and sadness that proponents for an R18+ rating are somehow “deviates” or must be sick and have poor morals.

Here is a quick list of R18+ movies that I and many others have enjoyed which have had a profound impact on me.

Schindler’s List
The Shawshank Redemption
Saving Private Ryan
Braveheart
Gran Torino

I’m able to watch those great bodies of work, yet I should be denied another form of media that is aimed at my age group?

I’m sorry, but I don’t think that you have the right to be the moral guardian of what I can watch or play.

Remember too, if your lack of parenting skills allows a child access to inappropriate material, the rating on the cover will have little benefit.  (This is beside the point that the particular game title listed would have been classified R18+ if we had one).

grant says:

10:45am | 06/05/10

This statement here that you made

“there is overwhelming scientific evidence of the desensitising effect of such material on the attitudes and thinking of young people”

Can you link the name of the journal articles or research that you are referring to please?  I would like to take a read.

Mike says:

01:29pm | 06/05/10

Actually Ronald, not to nitpick but I don’t think a single one of the movies you listed are R-rated (unless there were uncut DVD versions or something later on). On top of that, most if not all either have some historic significance or a narrative driven by morals etc, in other words not just violence for violence’s sake like the Saw franchise which in my opinion (and I stress it’s only my opinion!) really offers absolutely nothing of value. I’m not judging what anybody should or shouldn’t watch, but I do think it’s ok to question where all this is headed in terms of interactive video games depicting life-like imagery on the screen. Certainly there’s an amazing amount of positive directions that can be taken in, but also other directions where to me it’s at least worth asking the question of whether we absolutely want to go there. Obviously a lot of people have made their minds up already, fantastic.

M says:

03:47pm | 06/05/10

we wont be harmed but we enjoy it, come on the Government is trying to get rid of smoking a pleasurable past time now video games???

Has anyone seen Demolition Man? pretty soon they will outlaw sex as it causes a lot of problems and health issues too.

LC says:

04:32pm | 05/02/11

“there is overwhelming scientific evidence of the desensitising effect of such material on the attitudes and thinking of young people.”

And yet, you have referenced nothing.

That said, I’ll disagree with that statement. On a documentary on video game violence, the hosts send a 9 year old boy, who loves to play violent video games to a firing range to be given an opportunity to fire a real rifile, silimilar to ones he has he has encountered in his games (with adequate supervision, naturally). Result: The kid only fires one shot (out of the three he was given), and does not wish to continue. He is later seen crying into his mother.
References:
The documentary itself:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWr4htYp9dM
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ7comwLPFY
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLBx9XOhsm8

Chris L says:

05:44pm | 06/05/10

Actually Jake I take a great deal of pleasure from my violent video games, which I consider a benefit (assuming I am considered part of society). I get that you don’t like them, and thus would be happy to have them banned. On that note I suppose we should just ban everything that you don’t like. Wouldn’t the world be a happy place if everyone were just like you?

Mary says:

01:32pm | 06/05/10

Ditto.  Thanks Punch.  I have always believed in freedom of speech.

Daniel says:

12:38am | 08/05/10

@ Mary
You treasure that freedom of speech, Mary.  With the mandatory Internet filter being forced through as soon as the government can feasibly manage, you might not have it for much longer.

monkeytypist says:

12:38pm | 06/05/10

“Just imagine what’s going to be ‘shoehorned’ into the R18+ classification if it’s passed. “

Again, illogical thinking.  The reason that MA15+ games are “shoehorned” is because there’s no 18+ category to take them.  These games are designed, mainly in the US, for the equivalent 18+ category worldwide.  It’s Australia’s lack of the category that makes the “shoehorning” take place.

Once again, giving censors the power to say “this game is appropriate for teenagers, while this game is appropriate only for adults” gives them more power, not less, and allows parents to make better choices.  If the only classification was a G-level, that would basically mean that any game with any level of violence (even something harmless and normal that you could see in a PG movie) would be treated the same as something extremely violent and terrifying (ie. both would be banned).  It would be stupid to treat games that are PG the same as games that are MA15+; similarly it’s stupid to treat games that are appropriate for adults only the same as games that are inappropriate for anyone to play.

Smidgeling says:

02:32pm | 07/05/10

Glen- You just argued the best reason FOR an R18+ classification. At present children are quite easily able to download games that have been banned from our country. In fact because of the bans on ‘refused classification’ content there are international companies helping underage gamers get the content.

However, if the R18+ rating was introduced you would have less media coverage on the clearly adult only games. Fewer illegal channels would be created because the need would be partly diminished. The stores selling the games would have the same restrictions and punishments as tobacco and alcohol stores.

Can’t you see how logical that is? The lack of R18+ rating here does NOTHING to stop the content getting to kids.

LC says:

02:36pm | 02/02/11

@Glen

“The fact that any killing Jim may have done (and I don’t know if he has) would have been in the defence of his country is obviously irrelevant to his critics.”

Wrong. Killing is killing, and if you condone for killing for the country, then you cannot condemn killing for any other reason. To have this man yap on about how killing virtual things on computer screens is bad but thinks voluntarily signing up for killing real people overseas is perfectly acceptable is hypocrisy, plain and simple. Don’t try and sugarcoat it.

Matt says:

12:17pm | 06/05/10

regardless of any moral issues involved with it, mcdonalds has every legal right to advertise to children as there is no law restricting the advertising and consumption of Mcdonalds (or any other fast food) to children.

due to the proposed classification it would be ILLEGAL to advertise and distribute R18+ video games to children, the same way it is illegal to advertise and distribute cigarettes and alcohol to children. Doing so would be agaionst the law and the only way children would be able to play these games is through lazy/poor parenting (similar to kids getting their hands on alcohol and cigarettes.)

Until a law is passed banning Mcdonalds et al from selling to children you are really comparing apples with oranges.

as for your theory re king street, do you have any evidence of a rise in violence? furthermore any evidence linking this to video games? i could just as easily argue that any potential rise in violence could be a result of the rising prevalence of drugs such as ice in the community. Though given i have no evidence of this i could not claim it as fact. until you have sufficient evidence all you have is a personal, irrelevant opinion.

Eric says:

10:55am | 06/05/10

“Things that are extremely violent, extremely obscene and pornographic still make it into the market (just check out your local corner stores soft porn mags).”

Corner store soft porn mags contain extreme violence, extreme obscenity and extreme pornography? Your definition of “extreme” is obviously different from that used by rational people.

Daniel says:

11:01am | 06/05/10

“t’s the interactivity that bothers me about gaming .The fact that interactive violence and sex is in a gaming form where for some young players, they almost become the character is alarming.  I speak colloquially about the teens that I interact with.”

Which is why we have the classification system. Such games are not suitable for children. They are not sold to children. They should not be purchased for children. If a parent is buying ma15+ games for their 10 year olds, then that is the fault of the parent, not of the classification. Nor is it societies responsibility to raise each parents children for them.

“So parents do need a hand, firstly by screening out the junk.  “

The junk is already screen. That’s how it’s classified.

“hings that are extremely violent, extremely obscene and pornographic still make it into the market “

Because such things are only unsuitable for children. Adults make their own decisions about what they want to see. The problem here is people thinking they can ban adults from things because it’s not suitable for children. Adults aren’t children.

“When asked where they saw this behaviour, the answer was at home”

Again, parents responsibility. You cannot justify banning adults from seeing adult material because of irresponsible parents.

“Moderated censorship is not a bad thing for society”

Censorship is always a bad thing for a society based on freedoms and personal responsibility. The ability to make your own decisions is one of the defining characteristics of a free society. Censorship takes it’s price by detracting from this freedom. In same cases (Crime footage, Rape videos, Child porn) the price is worth paying. Keeping adult video games from adults is not worth the price of censorship.

“Sure, the onus is on the parents to ensure that they don’t buy their children inappropriately themed games or expose them to inappropriate material in the first place, but how ignorant are parents? “

Then perhaps you should spend your time trying to change the opinion of parents regarding their children? Assuming parents are ignorant and unable to raise their children responsible and using it as an excuse to ban adults from adult materials is ludicrous, disgusting, detestable and downright insulting.

L. says:

11:01am | 06/05/10

“The fact that interactive violence and sex is in a gaming form where for some young players, they almost become the character is alarming.”

Excuse me..??...what game sold anywhere on an international level has “interactive sex”..?? Go on..name one. I bet you can’t.

Oh, and don’t say Rapeplay…as it was a Japanese domestic only offering, from the country with one of the lowest instances of domestic violence on the planet.

Ben says:

10:40am | 06/05/10

That email explains a lot. Not “you might wish to comment on Jim’s article” - instead, it is flat out saying “leave a comment in support”.

Daniel says:

10:48am | 06/05/10

Cathy. Games are not just for children. Adults play them too. In fact, a very large proportion of games are played by adults. The classification system is there to classify material for everyone. Not classify the materials that are suitable for children only and ban everything else.

Games are shoehorned into ma15+ because the game isn’t graphic enough to warrant banning. It’s thus put into the highest available category, ma15+. The issue is that there is no r18+ to put it into instead.

Parents are responsible for their children. You don’t get to ban adults from making their own decisions about their games because a few parents are irresponsible with their children and a few christians in the ACL believe the games are immoral.

Daniel says:

11:06am | 06/05/10

“Why do we want to make the job of parenting even more difficult by making room for this kind of content?”

Do you buy ma15+ content for your under 15 children? If so, you’re part of the problem. If not, how does this make your job as a parent any more difficult. Not buying your child an r18+ game isn’t any more difficult than not buying your child a ma15+ game.

” Gamers will argue that they have a right to adult content”

Yes, we will. How is it unreasonable for adults to want access to adult content. We’re adults, we make our own decisions. You don’t decide what we get to watch.

“For the better good of society can we for once put our personal rights behind what will be beneficial for the society as a whole?”

O dear lord no. No we can’t. There’s so many things wrong with that, that don’t even know how to express it.

Martin G says:

12:51pm | 06/05/10

“Protect our kids and our future at all cost”

I am understandably wary of any motives by the Christian Lobby to ‘protect our kids’.

Greek Snake says:

01:19pm | 06/05/10

@Mark: The only mindlessness in this entire debate is displayed in by the author. The entire ACL has abused this site and their followers to push their agenda. An email to all ACL members to come here in support? Pathetic.

Christianity is based on a book depicting the very acts of violence you wish to censor.

There exist R18+ classifications for every other form of media, but for games? No, this becomes unacceptable. The argument about games being interactive is irrelevant. DVDs, magazines, websites and online publications are all interactive. All these forms of media must adhere to classifications which include the R18+ range. Why are games different?

The church is making it’s final stand in a long winded battle of moral supremacy. It is on the way out and the only way to make some noise and gain ground is to hijack silly parents against the R18+ classification for games.

Statements like “Protect our kids and our future at all costs” are gross exaggerations. The church, as always, relies on scaremongering and sensationalism. Why isn’t the image of christ being nailed to a cross subject to classification? My kids don’t need to see that rubbish.  Oh that’s right… you put your personal religious rights ahead of what is better for “society as a whole”. Hypocritical scumbag.

jack says:

11:01am | 06/05/10

The majority of people believe that Jim Wallaces argument should be rejected because it does not make sense at all. If he so hell bent (no pun intended) on not having an R18+ rating for games because children will still be able to get them then why do we have age restrictions on movies, driving, gambling, smoking , working, etc. Should all these things be banned so that children cannot access them as well?

Daniel says:

11:18am | 06/05/10

“a) he is a former soldier”

Which doesn’t make his views on video games any more valid than anyone else’s. If we were talking about the defense budget, military spending, the situation in iraq, etc etc, than you would have a point.

The reason why most people object to Jim’s “opinions” Is that he actively campaigns to have them enforced on the entire population. Few people want to be forced into conservative Christian values.

It also has to do with the way he twists things to support his views. He actively engages in what is termed “reductio ad absurdum” A good example of this is his releases concerning the internet censor, he repeatedly accuses the opposition of Being child porn supporters.

Having a look at this article, he implies that the purpose of the r18 content is to allow children to have violent video games. A blatant untruth.

“R18+ is a term that 95% of parents will not fully know”

He assumes that parents are idiots.

“the techno-heads that inhabit the games industry missed too many primary school English classes”

He insults people that hold opposing views.

“With more McDonalds’ – type – logic,”

And again.

“Because amazingly the attorneys might decide this week that hours and hours of playing computer games with highly simulated and even interactive violence and sex won’t affect children in any way”

And here we encounter the “reductio ad absurdum”. Assuming that we all want children to have access to video games and that by allowing a r18+ classification, we’re endorsing r18+ games for children.

Dr Jane says:

11:19am | 06/05/10

I was beginning to despair that Punch had any readers with any social conscience or sense of responsibility for themselves or the community. Most of the writers would qualify for anger management / social skills training. Intellectual debate is necessary on this topic, not violent verbal abuse.

Martin G says:

12:47pm | 06/05/10

‘protect the kids who need protection’??

This is the job of parents. Take your nanny-statism elsewhere. Who are you to say he is standing up for what is right?

Chris L says:

10:35pm | 07/05/10

Martin, Jim has every right to say what he wants. It also follows that we have every right to criticise his views. From a logical standpoint there has been nothing to indicate that violent video games are a problem, and you can check this by looking at the multitude of studies that were undertaken with the specific purpose of finding such faults with games and ending in abject failure. The best result the anti-game folk can find is aggressive feelings immediately after playing such a game, which is pretty much the same as the aggressive feelings felt immediately after playing rugby, or hunting, or watching a boxing match, or (for me) a meeting with my manager at work.

LC says:

06:43pm | 12/04/12

If Jim was having “such an easy time” arguing against this I doubt he’d need to:
- Employ personal attacks (“It makes you wonder whether the techno-heads that inhabit the games industry missed too many primary school English classes on the way there”, “With more McDonalds’ – type – logic, the gamers also argue that parents will be able to better control access to games by minors if there is an R18+ classification.”)
- Use gross generalizations (“R18+ is a term that 95% of parents will not fully know the definition of”)
- Put words in people’s mouths (We’re often told it is indisputable that a child watching the very occasional 30-second McDonalds’ advertisement will have their eating habits irrevocably changed. They are headed for a life of junk food.)
- Indulge in the false dilemma fallacy (“if the attorneys decide in favour of R18+ games they will owe Ronald McDonald a huge apology.”).
- Put some kind of study or meta-study on the table to show a link between video game violence and real life violence, rather than resort to an anecdotal example of a case of poor parenting to wrap up the article (“A school chaplain recently told me that he had a Year 1 student joyfully relating his experiences of playing Grand Theft Auto III. This is a game with a MA15+ rating which begs refused classification for its simulated sex and violence”).
I’d also think he wouldn’t feel the need to send out messages to members of his lobby group to make them speak up in support of him. It’s been discussed further up in the article, and it explains what’s going on here better than anything else. Look at other articles on the matter on this site or on any news site, you’ll see that comments against an R18 games classification are fairly thin on the ground.

Michael says:

12:29pm | 06/05/10

Short question Ben - do you have any children under the age of 15? If so would you let them play video games classified MA15+?

Michael says:

12:29pm | 06/05/10

Short question Ben - do you have any children under the age of 15? If so would you let them play video games classified MA15+?

MD says:

01:12pm | 06/05/10

I would!

L. says:

11:28am | 06/05/10

“You want to ensure that adult games remain in adult hands”

No Andrew…the ACL don’t want these games in the hands of ANYBODY.

Ben81 says:

08:49pm | 06/05/10

“No Andrew…the ACL don’t want these games in the hands of ANYBODY”

Too bad L., we’re already playing them right now.  Nothing you or the government says can or will stop us, and no not even the waste of money filter that hopefully will be dropped like Rudd’s other failures soon.  We’ll either continue to send our money overseas to get them, or just download them.

It sure would be nice though if christian groups could mind their own business so at least some of our money stays in Australia and we don’t have resort to illegal downloading.

L. says:

07:28am | 07/05/10

“Too bad L., we’re already playing them right now.  Nothing you or the government says can or will stop us”

Ben, I’m on your side…

LC says:

07:07pm | 12/04/12

I don’t recall Barry asking to revoke Wallace’s right to free speech. Wallace has every right to publish his opinions and thoughts, but in turn we all have the right to disagree with Wallace and debate his “points”.

It should be noted that the man you’re defending is not only the biggest non-government supporter of the internet filter (the greatest threat to free speech and expression that Australia has ever faced), but he has publicly called for every one of the 85k people who signed the R18 games petition to be censored.

L. says:

11:55am | 06/05/10

“The military have been using these types of games to desensitise troops, pilots use video games to fine tune their reflexes. “

Rubbish. Soliders do not play computer games. I was in the army for 10 yrs, and never saw anything of the type.

Chris L says:

10:21pm | 07/05/10

Dr Jane, please point out which games teach us how to rape. Just curious. Even GTA didn’t teach me anything I could use in a rape situation that I didn’t already know.

PS. I have never raped nor ever will, just curious where you get these ideas from.

Grant says:

11:52am | 06/05/10

Wrong!

“there are the ones that are weak in the head and go on a murder spree to feel what it’s like from the game”

A US Secret Service study title ‘Final report and findings of the safe school initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States’.

Found that only 12 percent of those involved in school shootings were attracted to violent video games, while 24 percent read violent books and 27 percent were attracted to violent films, the last 37 percent actually preferred violence in their own writing, poems, stories etc.

MD says:

12:34pm | 06/05/10

Then why are people down on video games? and note that in my post I didn’t say that ALL violence in America was by kids playing video games just some that wanted to and quote see what it felt like who were copying a game, no mention of school shooting as an example at all I merely stated that most of the ones who do the ‘see what it feels like’ killings were in the USA.

Chris L says:

10:57pm | 07/05/10

The point, MD, is that you’re attacking from the wrong angle. Violent games are not the reason for the violence in society. Your intentions are noble, but you are not attacking the cause of the problem. I myself do not know what the casue of the problem is either, but I think it’s worth our while to support efforts to find it rather than another scape goat.

One suggestion I have is to look at the very liberal societies in northern Europe (Denmark, Holland, etc.) where they are not horrified at computer games, drugs or even the human body yet have close to no violent crime. Let us look at what they are doing right. Personally I think it’s a factor of their society. People there have more freedoms than us but they frown upon selfishness and encourage generosity. Maybe that’s where we’re going wrong. Maybe it’s the people, not the laws, that need to be made better.

Tony Gibbs says:

11:56am | 06/05/10

“But, if you get your thrills from Left 4 Dead 2 (uncut)”
The cut version didn’t remove much violence and is still no where near child suitable. It would have been better to leave the game as created and put it into an adult category.

“you have serious issues.”
That’s a common and easy throw away line. You’d need to also argue that people who watch lots of not for suitable for children content have serious issues too.

Eg Mad Max featuring Mel Gibson. Rated R. Initially Banned in NZ and Sweeden. Should all adults be stopped from seeing that too?

MD says:

02:09pm | 06/05/10

Tony - YES it was a shit movie (compared to today, from it’s time pretty good)

Shane From Melbourne says:

01:29pm | 06/05/10

I’d say alcohol has more to do with increased violence. I’d like to see the ACL lobby for the ban of alcohol or can you say hypocrites…..

thatsthepoint says:

01:57pm | 06/05/10

Actually Shane From Melbourne

The ACL has lobbied for a ban from alcohol in aboriginal communities where there is uncontested links between alcohol abuse, violence, and child molestation associated with pornography. Are you going to start supporting the ACL now, or listening to opposing opinions?

Andrew G says:

02:10pm | 06/05/10

Here’s a few for you Alcohol,Racism,Ignorance,Social labeling and expectations (girls needing to be thin,etc)

I find your generalization of everyone commenting of “Geeks” who “need to go outside” both offensive and highly ignorant..and it makes you no better then those flaming Old Jim.

You are part of the problem with society, you try to shove your views and opinions down the throat of others who oppose your own yet accuse and insult others who do the same..that my friend makes you a massive hypocrite.

Shane From Melbourne says:

03:08pm | 06/05/10

@thatsthepoint- Why only aboriginal communities? If there is uncontested linkage between alcohol abuse, violence, child molestation and pornography then it should be true regardless of race or culture. Or are you suggesting that race / culture is the primary causal factor? An interesting scientific hypothesis but evidence of the interaction of violence and alcohol in non aboriginal communities (e.g. Melbourne and Sydney on a Friday or Saturday night would suggest otherwise) I’m listening to opposing opinions, but to suggest that video games have a greater casual impact upon violence than alcohol is ludicrous. Maybe the ACL should be focusing on the 15 and 16 year olds that binge drink and start fights at the local railway station than worrying about video games….

Fred says:

03:49pm | 06/05/10

Yes Thatsthepoint, Shane from Melbourne has quite rightly pointed out the discrimination in what you argue.  What the ACL has proposed, the banning of alcohol in those indigenous communities is actually illegal.  Did you know that??  Because you cannot make decisions like that based on race. And if you cannot see the wrong in that them I am very, very worried.

thatsthepoint says:

08:08pm | 06/05/10

Fred and Smidgeling

At the risk of going off on yet another tangent (yawn). The reason why ACL lobbied for the banning of alcohol in certain aboriginal communities was nothing to do with race. It was because the ladies in the communities themselves were pleading with the government to ban alcohol so the destructive cycle of violence would end. The reason why this was refused was because of the lobbying of the powerful alcohol industry. ... Hmmm sounds familiar.

There are indeed uncontested links between alcohol abuse and violence, plus hardcore pornography consumption and child molestation in many different cultures regardless of race. I hope that worries you. I hope that you will consider lobbying for changes to law that break those cycles. It would be nice to think you would get as emotive about such issues of harm to the vulnerable in society as you seem to get about your desire to consume video games.

Fred says:

10:33am | 07/05/10

@Thatsthepoint - you’re missing MY point.  Regardless of whether people/women/whoever from those communities were asking for alcohol to be banned, regardless of how much lobbying was going on from alcohol industries (please source that, as I didn’t see any alcohol industries protest this) to do so is illegal and it goes against the constitution. 

OF COURSE these problems are extremely worrying! This is something I am extremely passionate about.  You cannot simply remove what YOU think is the cause.  Removing something that is widely available to all Australians from a particular race is not only discriminatory but it doesn’t get you anywhere.  You need to look at why these problems are occurring and tackle those issues (and trust me, it’s way more complicated than people just drinking a lot)

So rather than restrict the availability of it, you need to treat these people like adults and even more so, human beings that can make decisions for themselves.  And please remember that you cannot make any of these decisions based on race alone, it’s insulting.

Chris L says:

11:10pm | 07/05/10

@thatsthepoint, when you say “there is uncontested links between alcohol abuse, violence, and child molestation associated with pornography” I believe you have a point, and if I cared to argue I would research opposing points.

Show me the “uncontested links” between computer games and violence and you might have a point here…

Matthew says:

12:25pm | 06/05/10

I don’t think you can get drunk or get cancer from playing a game. But seeing as teenagers obviously do get their hands alcohol and cigarettes and they’re obviously worse than games, lets ban both. In fact let’s ban everything that is currently restricted to adults.

See, here is where the debate falls down. It’s nonsense to ban something just because it’s not suitable for a child. Children live in an adults world, not the other way around.

Michelle says:

12:46pm | 06/05/10

Ok, so we keep lowering the bar?  Yes alcohol and cigarettes will have a negative health effect physically, but video games will psychologically effect children.  Violent video games played in the first person has been proven to increase aggreassion in children.  (Vol 33, Journal: Aggressive Behavior).  Do we keep introducing things that parents will have to monitor?  Where do we draw the line?  R18+ video games are dangerous and harmful for children- surely adult gamers can be happy with the MA15+ rating and not keep pushing for this harmful material to be allowed to sit in homes across our country.

Matthew says:

01:04pm | 06/05/10

Michelle, can you please explain why the US, UK and every other country who has 18+ games have no problem with them, yet it will somehow have some terrible effect in Australian society? Are Australians somehow dumber than people in other countries who currently have 18+ ratings for games?

As I said before, why exactly does the world have to be dumbed down to the level of a child? It is the responsibility of the parent to raise the child to live in the world as an adult. We don’t train adults to be children, so please don’t treat me like one.

Michelle says:

01:22pm | 06/05/10

Technology is moving faster than the research we have to study its effects.  Let’s commission a study into the real effects this material is having on children… and adults for that matter before we allow it in Australia.  What is ‘dumb’ is the UK and US opening their doors to this material without knowing its real effects.

Mary says:

01:40pm | 06/05/10

Matthew, you should Google violent crime amongst kids in the US and UK, you will be surprised at the things that are happening over there.  Kids killing, carrying weapons to school, etc that we do not have in Australia yet.  Just look at the school shootings.

Fred says:

03:53pm | 06/05/10

Oh Mary.  You had some credibility at the beginning of these comments but now that I’ve reached this one I really have to say something.  Look, if you want to believe what you want to believe, that is fine, and it is fine for me to believe what I want to believe.  What is not fine is a conservative group of people having a say in what I get to do in my free time.  Last I checked, I didn’t vote for you.  While I realise the ACL has a lot to offer the community, sometimes the lobbying powers of the ACL really terrify me.

Matthew says:

05:09pm | 06/05/10

Sorry Mary, what are the links between this crime and games in the US and UK? Where is the outcry to ban 18+ games in the US and UK because of the supposed crime they cause? As for school shootings, see the US Secret Service’s “Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States” report; only 12 percent of those involved in school shootings were attracted to violent video games, while 24 percent read violent books and 27 percent were attracted to violent films, the last 37 percent were attracted to violence in their own writing, poems, stories etc. So the obvious conclusion is we have to ban creative writing in schools first before looking at games, correct?

Ah Michelle, we don’t know the effects, huh?. So we still don’t know after 30 years of gaming in this and other western countries? As far as I can see there has been no negative effect on the population, yet you’re telling me there has been. Where? Which country? Where are the studies? If games are so awful and people can’t control themselves because the content, surely there would be high instance of game related crime as lot of people have gaming consoles now.

Chris L says:

11:14pm | 07/05/10

Indeed, Michelle, the level of violent crime per capita has actually been on the decrease since 1973. Oddly enough that seems to coincide with the rising popularity of computer games. Maybe there’s a link there. (Just kidding. I would not profer a baseless assumption as fact without doing some sort of research first… unless it’s to point out the stupidity of someone else’s baseless assumption.)

L. says:

12:19pm | 06/05/10

“It is interesting - because Jim knows what he’s talking about! As the ex Commander of Australia’s SAS Regiment - he’s seen more REAL bloodshed than many gamers dream about. He knows the power behind games and simulations.”

Well if this were the case, where’s the bloodshed on the streets..??

Violent video games have been around for at least 15+ years…I’m yet to see any evidence of aggressive kids born out of these games.

In fact, I would wager that the violent kids we do see on the streets probably come from families so poor they couldn’t afford computers in the first instance..

monkeytypist says:

12:23pm | 06/05/10

Okay, let’s hang on for a second there.  Let’s zero-in, with military precision, on Jim’s amazing leap of assertion:

“A school chaplain recently told me that he had a Year 1 student joyfully relating his experiences of playing Grand Theft Auto III. This is a game with a MA15+ rating which begs refused classification for its simulated sex and violence – and the classification procedures definitely need to be tightened up. But what will your Year 1 child be playing if we allow R18+ standards?”

Two things:
1. Having an R18+ classification means that internationally-released games with high levels of violence will *not* be “classified down” to MA15+ on the basis of largely cosmetic changes.  An extra classification is more protection, not less, for children.
2. “Tightening up” the classification procedures entails a basic recognition that adults play video games!  In overwhelming numbers, in fact.  I don’t see how “tightening up” the regime makes parents more likely to understand something that is so bamboozling and complicated as “18+” (what could that possibly mean?)  As a good “family values” lobbyist, Jim should be arguing that parents, not regulators have the ability to discern what’s appropriate for their children.  Giving regulators an extra classification means that parents have the power to make better, more informed choices.

Captain Kuhle says:

01:12pm | 06/05/10

‘L’ wants to know ” ...where’s the bloodshed on the streets..??”

I live in a ‘peaceful’ little town called Cairns where the arguement has been raging for months about banning glass in some pubs. Why? Because people keep getting violently ‘glassed’ - resutling in a fair bit of blood in the streets.

Ask your parents, is the world we live in out there on the streets more violent, or less violent, than it used to be. Then ask what changed ...

L. says:

02:28pm | 06/05/10

“Ask your parents, is the world we live in out there on the streets more violent, or less violent, than it used to be. Then ask what changed”

The world where my parents grew up in had a law which made it LEGAL to hunt aboriginies (legal up to 1934 I believe). So please, don’t give me this crap about video games being responisble for that…

Now..glassing..??..really? You are going to draw a link between video games and alcohol related violence..??..hang on, why are you not calling for a ban on alcohol..?

Dirk says:

03:36pm | 06/05/10

Of course people will say “more violence now” because the media capitalises on it.. they make money from searching down every little violent thing that has happened.  Yet you can find records for the western world (US and Australia) that violent crimes have been on the decreasing trend for the last 30 years.

Whats changed? i dunno, you tell me.

Chris L says:

10:39pm | 07/05/10

“The world where my parents grew up in had a law which made it LEGAL to hunt aboriginies (legal up to 1934 I believe).”

L you have just pwned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Martin G says:

12:44pm | 06/05/10

“The fact is we all know that these games, whether rated R or not, will come into the possession of children who will play them.”

The fact is we all know that cigarettes and alcohol, whether restricted to persons of age or not, will come into the possession of children who will use them.

I guess that’s a good enough reason to ban everything, isn’t it?

Trjn says:

01:54pm | 06/05/10

http://www.igea.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/IA9-Interactive-Australia-2009-Full-Report.pdf

A few select quotes:
“In total, this research collected information about 1614 households and 4852 individuals, 3162 (68%) of them gamers.”

“The average age of computer and video game players in Australia is 30 years old (up 2 years on the average in 2007). Non-players are 40 years old on average. According to the ABS, the average age of all Australians is 36 years. Increasingly, older Australians are choosing to play computer games.”

“By 2014, the average age of gamers will be the same as the average age of non-gamers.”

“Including all players in Australian households, 63% play for up to an hour at one time; 5% play for four or more hours in one sitting, demonstrating moderate play habits.”

“67% of mothers and 69% of fathers agree that they play computer and video games as a way to spend time with their children. A third of parents play games with their children as a way to monitor what their children play.”

“According to the Classification Board, 75% of all computer and video games classified in Australia in 2006-2007 were either G or PG. 1% of games were either refused classification or withdrawn from the process.”

“91% of Australian adults (including gamers AND non-gamers) think that Australia should have an
R18+ classification for games.”

“78% of parents say an adult is present when games are purchased for their children.”

Now, these mother shots and 48 hour LAN parties, I can tell you that it’s pretty clear that those are a incredibly small minority of gamers.

As for the consistency issue, the simple fact is that video game themes have not been proven to have an impact on children any more than any other type of media. So, if you’re after consistency, surely video games should be treated the same as other media. You know, if you feel like talking about consistency.

Or if you want to be specific about the consistency between treating the advertising of games and things that have been proven to have negative effects on children, then it’s a simple matter that fast food, tobacco and alcohol have all been proven to have negative effects. Games have not, and yes, I’ve read the studies.

thatsthepoint says:

02:26pm | 06/05/10

Amy

Thank you for your post. I hold the opposite position to you, but at least you were respectful and well thought out in your logic and I appreciate that.

It is true that we have trusted adults to keep children safe on many issues. But we have also always drawn lines. To use your analogy we don’t allow adults access to automatic guns in this country. Neither do we allow free access to ice as a legal drug. In the same manner, on this issue, we are not talking about something being banned that is already available. We are discussing whether R18+ should be made available in the first place. I say no.  I also say there is plenty of horror already out there. There is plenty of violence already out there. You can get your fix from what is already available. You do not need to have more violent material or increasing horror.

We always have to draw lines. In this particular case, if we remove this line, there is very little left to go. People have stated on this site that no-one is interested in rape scenes in computer games within Australia, but the fact is they are not interested in them YET. People (that is adults) are certainly interested in them in other parts of the world (e.g. Japan). It would be naive to think that if we allow this line to be removed here in Australia then people won’t become interested in such material in the future. In fact the R18+ classification will allow future classification boards to approve something like a rape scene in a game, without any public debate. It is not the reality yet, but it will be. I personally find that a very uncomfortable scenario, and hope you may reconsider your position.

Amy Hightower says:

03:35pm | 06/05/10

Thank you, thatsthepoint, for a calm and considered reply.  My own reply to you shall be in two parts – there is only so much one can write on one’s lunch break, alas.

I’m afraid I must also take direct contention with your assertion that introducing an R18+ classification will allow future classification boards to approve rape scenes in games without public debate.  This is a flawed assumption for three reasons:

Firstly, if we establish the classification of film, as is historically the case, as the basis for the classification of games, then the RC category of games will include any game(s) that:
<ul><li>depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime,cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified;</li>
<li>describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not);</li>
<li> promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence;</li>
<li> contain real depictions of actual sexual activity between consenting adults in which there is no violence, sexual violence, sexualised violence, coercion, sexually assaultive language, or fetishes or depictions which purposefully demean anyone involved in that activity for the enjoyment of viewers, in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult;</li></ul>

The R18+ rating, much as it is for film, will consist of games that “are unsuitable for a minor to see or play” and that do not contain any of the above.

Secondly, with the sole exception of the proposed mandatory internet filtering scheme, decisions made by Australia’s censors are open to public scrutiny.  We may see why something was classified as it was, and we may instigate an appeal if we feel the decision is wrong – see the ongoing tussle over the film, Salo, banned, unbanned, banned again…

Thirdly, changes to the National Classification Code require the unanimous agreement of all sate censorship ministers and the federal attorney general.  It is possible for one minister of firm resolve – as has been the case in the R18+ debate – to stop any changes to the Code from being made.  It may also please you to know that, historically speaking, when the ministers have been agreement on making changes to the Code, they have been far more likely to impose further restrictions, not relax them – e.g. the change that made pornography with a fetish component, however mild and mainstream, RC.

Something interesting to consider is that, for all the depravity of its media, Japan has one of the lowest rates of sexual and sexually motivated crime in the developed world.  A 1999 study links liberalisation of Japanese media laws a decline in sexually motivated crimes – and notes that this trend is most pronounced among juvenile offenders and crimes targeted at juveniles.  This was something also seen in Denmark and West Germany following the relaxation of their pornography laws.

thatsthepoint says:

09:25pm | 06/05/10

Yes, that is interesting and informative and lunch breaks are never long enough. Challenging of a classification takes time and effort. Too often it is a case of ‘the cat is already out of the bag’. My understanding is that reclassification will not take place on the protest of say an individual. You would typically need an interest group, or a lobby group, or a petition representing a groundswell of opinion. Then the organisation that reclassifies a media, are the same board who classified it in the first place. This is problematic. For instance the Australian Family Association requested the film Mysterious Skin be re-rated but the board voted against such a move. Other movies with content that directly contravene the classification board criteria have been allowed on the basis of ‘artistic merit’.

These points mean that classification is a very broad brush and certainly a moving scale. So this begs the question, where do we draw the line? If we look at society historically, there was a time when Greek society accepted paedophilia as a norm. So my original point stands, if we allow classifications to continually erode, they will continually erode. That is to say, what is todays RC, will be tomorrows MA15+.

Do we need a greater degree of horror? Do we need a greater degree of violence? We can get our horror and violence fixes from what is already available. We certainly won’t get a better quality game. The conclusion is that a new classification is unnecessary, and when we look historically, it is part of a worrying trend which we have the opportunity to halt at the moment.

Amy Hightower says:

11:25pm | 06/05/10

The second part of my response… a touch late, I know.

Firstly, we do not allow access to ice or assault weapons because there is sufficient evidence – or at least there is there perception that there is – to demonstrate that the harm caused by allowing access, even by mature, informed adults, outweighs any potential benefit.  And these bans are not without controversy – arguments can be made that the cost to society as a whole, both in dollar terms and in lives lost or destroyed, would be less were some currently illicit drugs to be legalised.

But that’s getting a bit off-topic.

Do video games targeted at adults cause harm?  If they do, is that harm caused to the adults they are targeted at as well as children?  And if that answer is a yes, is the harm caused on such a wide, undeniable scale that we can not merely restrict access, but must ban outright?

If we judge video games by the same standards we judge other media and the other activities that we currently allow adults to partake, the answer is no.  The fears about increased interactivity having greater impact have proven unfounded – interestingly, it was Manhunter on the Wii that demonstrated this most aptly -  and the purported links between simulated violence and real-world aggression are tenuous at best, with the most commonly cited studies in public debate touting a conclusive link suffering serious accusations of poor methodology and unchecked confirmation bias.  We have also had more extreme levels of content available in cinema, VHS, DVD and print form for decades without societal collapse.

We draw lines, yes, but those lines should be drawn based on evidence.  Policy dictated by half-formed or unfounded fears is the worst sort.

To the question of horror and violence…

There is unquestionably a large amount of horror and violence in the world – much as there is a great deal of delight and joy.  I contend, however, that games with horrific and violent themes do not add to that horror and violence; rather, they help us confront it.  Horror gives us a way to confront, explore and conquer our own fears, particularly those fears that are too dangerous to confront, too silly to admit to, too large to feel surmountable or that are rooted in our deep-seated fear of things that don’t exist but would go bump in the night and are therefore otherwise unbeatable.

More importantly, through our art and entertainment, it is a way of doing so that is *safe*, with no threat of actual harm to ourselves or others.  A way where it doesn’t matter if some or even most of our attempts fail, where we get to try out different strategies, where we can be confident of eventually winning – or at least of learning a valuable lesson.  For children we have horror children understand.  We teach stranger-danger through fairy tales – did you know that before the Brothers Grimm, Little Red Riding Hood escaped the wolf by her own cunning or got eaten?  Interestingly, the tale of Red can work for adults too, but for best effect you must change and deepen the otherwise simple story: the Path, an award-winning horror game that has been described as being a simulation of how it feels to be a rape victim, explores themes like the loss of innocence, illicit temptation, sexual awakening, the importance of death and the fear of parent for child.  Playing through it is a unconventional, deeply affecting experience; one I would consider unsuitable for most children and many teens, but one I would be poorer for not having had because it made me really think about what it would be like to be powerless.

That is the value of of dark fantasy, and the value of games and other forms of art and entertainment with themes of violence and/or horror.  Without it we would be less, and we would be less able to confront the darker truths of our world.

Amy says:

03:55pm | 07/05/10

To reply to your second comment….

It is actually quite important that challenges to the classification of material require, as you say, the effort of a group of individuals and not a single person (unless that person is a member of parliament or the entity that submitted the content for classification).  This ensures that the appeals process is not abused by a single person or a small group of people who are not representative of the wider Australian society.  If a classification is wrong, you should be able to convince numerous people otherwise.

Secondly, that the AFA requested that Mysterious Skin be re-rated and had the R18+ rating upheld is indicative that the system works – much as the upholding of the ban of the uncut version of Left 4 Dead 2 is.  A group was concerned that the rating given was inappropriate, appealed, and had that appeal assessed by people who are trained in film classification but were not involved in the original decision.  They found that the rating of Mysterious Skin as R18+ was appropriate.  This rating is consistent with the ratings for the film around the world, further indication that perceived problems with the film were held by a minority, not the majority.  In this instance, those represented by Australian Family Associate were not the reasonable adults referred to in the Code.

Please provide me with an example of a film that was rated solely for artistic merit in blatant contravention of the Code.

I’m surprised and disappointed that you’re indulging in use of the slippery slope fallacy.  Because we allow x, we will allow y, and then, because we’ll allow y, we’ll certainly allow z too.  In this case, if we allow video games targeted at adults, ones that meet the requirements for the R18+ rating set out in our Classification Code, to be sold and played, we will soon start allowing things that are illegal, and do so in film, television, print and radio too.  Or, if we allow video games targeted at adults, ones that meet the requirements for the R18+ rating set out in our Classification Code, to be sold and played, we will start seeing social disorder and unrest.

*sighs*

We’ve had this argument with every new entertainment medium.  We had it for mass-produced books.  For various types of music, including rock.  For comic books.  Now for computer games.  Every time is has proven unfounded.

To your talk about horror and violence, I refer you to my second comment.  I feel you’re rather missing the point.

Chris L says:

11:41pm | 07/05/10

in 4th century BC Plato bemoaned “What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?”

We are no more violent that the people of those days (indeed violence, statistically, has been on the decline since 1973). Let us look at what the good folk of northern Europe are doing right, despite their despicably liberal society.

I profer this as a form of courtship to Amy. I love you and want to marry you. Please instigate the appropriate divorce proceedings from your current spouse, or point out another woman of at least equal intelligence and taste who would be subject to my advances (willing or otherwise, I’ll take what I can get).

martin says:

01:45pm | 06/05/10

Frustration…  The big loss is, the government not listening to a majority, the petition for this is larger than the workchoices petition was, and look at what labor did to secure that vote.

So your proof is that people that are fed up with ridiculous moral based policies, a MAJORITY of people in fact, just because they are irritated by the process?  hah.  Just goes to show the people siding with wallace are the ones with no real facts behind them, just slander.

Chris L says:

11:44pm | 07/05/10

Matiu, the correct quote is “the proof of the pudding is in the tasting”.

Just my poor attempt to show that gamers can be intelligent and educated people (myself excluded I suppose).

LC says:

10:57pm | 27/04/11

Oh don’t worry Hamish. These people weren’t suddenly won over by Mr. Wallace’s article (which is oozing with personal attacks and logical fallacies), but rather were people who have had their mind made up on the issue for quite some time, and were contacted by Jim Wallace’s organization and encouraged to comment.

The ACL have very cleverly abused this site to push their own agenda.

monkeytypist says:

02:18pm | 06/05/10

More precisely Mal, people who continue to blithely force odd social restrictions on everyone because a non-existent god tells them to are the problem.

Andrew G says:

02:37pm | 06/05/10

We do..its called THE LAW

Eric says:

03:52pm | 06/05/10

Mal, the Bible contains explicit violence and sex. According to your logic, the Bible should be banned.

Aaron552 says:

01:15pm | 07/05/10

The argument around and R18+ rating for games is not, and should not, be about children at all. It is about giving rational adults a CHOICE about what media they consume. If that media is unsuitable for children, we need to restrict access to it. This is what we do with DVDs, Movies and alcohol.

Preventing adults from accessing it provides no benefit to society and actually may be harmful, as games that probably shouldn’t be rated MA15+ get given that rating because they’re not extreme enough to ban; parents then buy these games for their under 15 children because they believe that MA15+ games are suitable for children (whether they are correct or not shouldn’t be part of the discussing, either).

In addition, these games are legal in all other Western countries. What makes Australia so special? Are our adults so stupid that they can’t tell the difference between a video game and reality?

To those claiming that violent video games cause real life violence, there is no study that conclusively proves that this is the case and many that provide a claim one way or another. Violent crime has actually been shown to be decreasing since 1973 (right before the first video games) and the only country games like RapeLay are sold (Japan) has the lowest domestic crime rate IN THE WORLD.

As a rational adult, it is my right to choose what I see. You have NO RIGHT to tell me that I shouldn’t see R18+ video games.

Tom says:

11:59am | 07/05/10

Punch always provides bio’s of authors.  Just click on the name under the photo - this is what they always do. 

Also, most articles in Punch have a bias.  They are not “reporting” pieces, usually.  They are opinion pieces.  When you state an opinion you are speaking from your “bias”.  An opinion piece doesn’t pretend to be, in the journalistic sense “unbiased”.

Fred says:

04:06pm | 06/05/10

Zeta I don’t think I’ve laughed so much at a comment before - nice one bruva

Tom says:

03:42pm | 07/05/10

I agree, i also play LFD2 with my girlfriend and her bro.
The bloke never talked to me until he saw me save her from the Tank with a machete! Now i know wedding bells are in the air

Ralph says:

02:39am | 08/05/10

hahaha brilliant!  So true love is turning back from the chopper, brandishing but a sword?

Good to hear your gallantry was rewarded.

She sounds like a keeper, in any respect!

Gizzt says:

05:47pm | 06/05/10

A point I missed, we don’t play violent games just because they’re violent, just that they tend to be 10x more fun and superior production values than “family-friendly” games which get old within an hour. Whether they are more fun because they are violent? Could be - I don’t know but they certainly are more fun than anything with a low production value.

In the end, they are just entertainment - and last time I checked entertainment is meant to be family fun where we can sit down as a family and do something we all enjoy. Just what we choose as entertainment after a day of hard work or good grades at school(and homework) may be different then the wowsers. So what?

Tom says:

11:39pm | 06/05/10

Well, Gizzt, regarding your point one.  We live in a pluralist democracy where every citizen has the right of association and the right to lobby their elected members on issues that concern them.  I wouldn’t have it any other way, would you?  If you feel so strongly that these games should be available, lobby your politicians.  It isn’t very helpful for you to imply that people from a minority shouldn’t have that right.

Personally, I think that many people here are placing the burden of proof on the wrong party.  They say that there is no conclusive evidence that these videos harm children.  This leads to the requirement for anyone who would like them banned to prove that they do lead to harm.  As a parent, I would say that it is intuitively obvious that misogynistic, violent games will do harm.  I don’t want my family harmed.  Why should the burden not be on the producers and distributors of the games to prove that they will not harm children?  After all, they are the ones who stand to make a profit out of something that might harm my family. (When in doubt, follow the money.)  I say this because there is NO way that these games will not fall into the hands of children far younger than 18.  In spite of parents’ best efforts, that’s just the way it is.

Amy says:

04:21pm | 07/05/10

Tom, it is extremely difficult to prove a negative - that a phenomenon doesn’t exist or happen.  I could present you with fifty studies that show that there is no link between violent video games and real world violence, and you could still say: ‘what about the fifty-first study’, or ‘what about in this particular situation you haven’t tested yet’?  That’s why the bulk of the burden of proof - not all, but most - lies with those who argue the positive.  Demonstrating a positive is much easier and more practical than demonstrating a negative.  Interestingly, as pointed out above, we have demonstrated that the negative is plausible, several times over.

And yes, you are welcome to lobby.  The concern arises when particular lobby groups wind up holding a disproportionate level of power and influence.

James1 says:

11:56am | 07/05/10

For most of us (I would hope) there is no need for the government to ban games so that our children don’t play them.  Any responsible parent would make sure of that themselves.

Chris L says:

08:06pm | 09/05/10

LJA, can you name a couple of examples of “copy cat cromes from vieos and games”? Just a couple will do. In return I’ll name a few crimes committed on behalf of religion from this decade.

Fred says:

03:04pm | 07/05/10

Where is this ‘violence’?  I see a lot of frustration directed at people speaking about things they don’t know anything about.  But not violence.

Tom says:

11:50am | 07/05/10

“Now is it my concern about your children…..respectfully, not really! Nor should it be. You are responsible for your children. You nuture and educate your own child. You communicate and show your child how to conduct life. That is no business of mine. “

We live in a society.  What we do as a community affects members of that community.  I’m not saying that you don’t believe what you wrote, but to a greater or lesser extent, we are all responsible for each others children.

Can’t remember who said it but “it takes a village to raise a child”.

Knave says:

09:31pm | 07/05/10

“If the promoters of these games want to lobby to bring them in, then let them prove that they will not harm our kids, because there is NO way they won’t fall into the hands of kids much younger than 18.  That’s a reasonable approach, surely, since it puts the burden of proof on the people who want to make a profit out of something that could potentially harm my family?”

That is not the way that things work.
It is next to impossible to prove a negative, and those opposed to this are the ones who are making unsupported assertions.
The burden of proof is on them.

Also, the gaming industry doesn’t need to prove that they don’t harm kids. These games will only be for adults, that’s the point of the rating.
Similarly, alcohol companies do not need to prove that their products won’t harm children, because children are not their market.
It is the same with video games.
The R18+ classification will better inform parents to the content of games and help them to make appropriate decisions for what their children play.

Chris L says:

05:36pm | 10/05/10

To add to Knave’s argument I would refer you to several comments above made by Grant. He has pointed out several researches that show no negative effect of these games. I know that several of those studies were commissioned with the express intention of finding a link between violent games and actions to suit the agenda of those that sponsored them, yet still failed.

Grant says:

09:27am | 07/05/10

I guess Obama is secretly a socialist and Sarah Palin is super awesome too…

Seriously Jim Wallace, we don’t have room for this kind of rubbish here in Australia

Tom says:

11:43am | 07/05/10

Alf, thanks for your reasoned and thoughtful post.  It’s refreshing.

You present empirical evidence that there is “no conclusive link between video game usage and violent activity”.  I accept that but I have a problem in where we are placing the burden of proof.  I think that it seems highly likely that exposure to misygonistic, violent games, where the player acts as the assailant would be harmful to my children and grandchildren.  Since there is NO way that such games will not fall into the hands of kids far younger than 18 (despite parents’ best efforts, they seem to get access to alcohol and tobacco easily enough) I think that it is reasonable to require the people who will make a profit out of the sale of such games to prove that they will not harm my family.  When in doubt, follow the money. 

I don’t think that we ought to require evidence that the games will be harmful to children, but rather that the game manufacturers and retailers should have to provide evidence that they are not.

Matthew says:

12:14pm | 07/05/10

Tom, asking “burden of proof” to be put on to others because you think that games may be “harmful to my children and grandchildren” is absurd. Seeing as you and others are making the claims, you have to provide the evidence.

Science doesn’t work by coming up with a theory and then asking everyone else to disprove it. Those claiming something have to provide the evidence. It doesn’t work the other way. That’s just stupid.

Fred says:

03:09pm | 07/05/10

@Tom - By the sounds of it, you don’t have children.  NO way that such games will not fall into the hands of kids far younger than 18???  I absolutely and wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment.  You know there are kids in this country that don’t even have a computer, let alone a game console.

Tom says:

11:28am | 07/05/10

We live in a democracy with freedom of speech.  You have the right to post, just as I do.  You have the right to lobby your politicians, just as I do.  If I choose to exercise that right, I’m free to do so - isn’t that the sort of society you want to live in?

Your post is pretty much all ad hominem attack - you didn’t address the issues.  I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t air your opinion of ACL.  I’m just saying that you haven’t made a case that they are wrong, just that you don’t like their view.

Interesting that you say you would like the Bible banned - would you really be happy to inflict that on the ‘sane Christians’?  They wouldn’t like it any more than the ACL.

LC says:

06:54pm | 27/02/11

Tom, the problem Wayne is referring to is not occurring because groups are exercising their right to lobby politicians and government, but rather when these groups gain undue amounts of power and influence.

Alf says:

11:48am | 08/05/10

You have obviously chosen to ignore a lot of well thought out arguments posted in response if you really believe what you are typing.

Maybe next time you should actually research what you are talking about rather than spout hearsay.

Bearing a cup of abominations says:

07:44pm | 08/05/10

The logo of Jim Wallace’s Australian Christian Lobby was, until 2005, rather ominous. It featured a stylised representation of the distinctive flagpole atop Australia’s Parliament House but instead of our flag, there was a crucifix. Hello theocracy! How this extremist ever managed to obtain a security clearance to be in the SAS AND become a BRIG is indeed discomforting.

Dan says:

06:43am | 10/05/10

Jamie, control of THEIR morals, that is.

monkeytypist says:

01:32pm | 07/05/10

There is no way of keeping children out of car accidents either, but we still allow adults to drive.

LC says:

08:33pm | 09/05/10

“What possible social good can come of it?”

1. It will prevent games that get rated the equivalent of R18 in other countries from being toned down to a point where they just meet MA15 requirements, such as the GTA series, Left 4 Dead, Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare and Alien Vs Predator (and that one was released as MA15 without any changes), and they can be purchased by anyone aged 13+. It will bring us into line with all other 1st world countries.

2. It gives parents a clearer indication of what is/is not appropriate for their kids. The moment the parents see that a game that’s rated R18+ they know INSTANTLY that it’s not appropriate for kids., no background research necessary.

3. It also at best takes profits form Australian businesses overseas (I have imported games from US and NZ without a problem) and at worst hands it over to criminals (as people will turn to piracy to get the games). Many of adult gamers do this, and the more tech-savvy kids can do it as well. And if one kid has a pirated game, by the end of the week his whole school will have it. When I went to high school in the late 90’s to early 00’s, trading of cracked (another term for pirated) games on CDs was quite common, with the favorites being half life, Warcraft 2, doom and (towards the end of my schooling) GTA III. All very violent and gory games by the standards of the time.

4. Kids getting violent games is a parenting issue. Jim’s anecdotal evidence of the kid playing is not the fault of gamers, it’s not the fault of the manufacturers who only made a game aimed at, designed for and marketed to adults. It’s the fault of his parents. Parents taking an interest in their child’s gaming activities, talking to them about the games they play, using parental controls available on modern gaming consoles and Windows operating systems, and simply saying “NO” when need be, then they have FAILED as a parent. And I don’t see why gamers (who’s average age is around 30 in Australia) should be punished for the shortcomings of parents.

5. I’m 26. By law, I am allowed to own and drive a car, truck or motorbike, vote in elections, gamble, participate in a game show, drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, enter a strip club, rent out or buy a pornographic film, rent or buy out an non-pornographic adults only film, such as The Godfather, own a gun, get a job which involves me carrying a gun, get a job flying an aircraft, get a job in the Defense forces, go to war, but I’m not allowed to play a videogame? Does that sound sensible to you?

LC says:

02:12pm | 10/05/10

Should’ve took a few minutes to proof-read that. I meant to say was:
“Parents who >AREN’T< taking an interest in their child’s gaming activities, talking to them about the games they play, using parental controls available on modern gaming consoles and Windows operating systems, and simply saying “NO” when need be, then they have FAILED as a parent.’