A push by the computer gaming industry to allow more graphically violent and sexually explicit computer games into Australian homes gained new momentum this week when the Federal Attorney-General’s Department commenced a public consultation on whether to introduce an R18+ rating for video games. Presently MA15+ is the highest rating for video games to be legally sold in Australia, with anything above this standard rated as Refused Classification (RC). An R18+ rating would allow interactive games with higher impact content, such as extreme violence and sexual conduct, to be freely available on the Australian market. The computer gaming industry have been pressuring governments across Australia for many years now for the introduction of a higher rating for games, claiming that the average age of gamers is now in excess of 30 years, and that adult gamers have the ‘right’ to play more ‘mature’ games. That aim has now been, to some extent, legitimatised by the consultation process. These games would contain graphic horror, violence rape and sex scenes. An example of a currently banned game that would be allowed into Australia is a Japanese creation where the player is encouraged to gang rape and beat young women. Other games involve “first person” playing where the player takes the role of torturing or mutilating people. Yet despite the many studies and examples of role game linked violence the proponents for the importing of R and X rated games argue that it is an individual’s right to watch or play whatever they want and that the repeated playing of such extreme acts will not lead to harmful effects on players’ beliefs or values. As the structure of the consultation is geared towards an outcome likely to be favourable to supporters of extreme video games, it is extremely important that people opposed to the introduction of such games voice their opposition. Fortunately, participating in the consultation is a quick and easy process. Please click here to go to the consultation website. There you will find a handy discussion paper (or see below), which outlines the key arguments for and against an R18+ rating for video games. The site also has a simple submission template. Please complete the template and return it to the address provided. Submissions close in late February, but please act now if you are able. “The introduction of such games into Australia would inevitably lead to some children playing and being influenced by these games – to the detriment of both their development and the wider society.” Please click here to read the release (or see below). Media reports about the computer game consultation can also be found by clicking here and here. Submissions against R18+ Video Games are due 28th February 2010. Examples of submissions below By Dr Alison Reid (MD): Under current legislation computer games that contain material unsuitable for a minor, which would have been rated R18+ for a film, are NOT AVAILABLE for hire or sale within Australia. An R18+ rating for computer games would still mean that these products may not be legally purchased or viewed by a person under 18 years of age. However, if R18+ video games were on the shelves and legally available for hire/purchase by adults, they would inevitably find their way into the hands of minors. The move for change does not come from a ground swell of public opinion. It has been instigated largely by the Interactive Games & Entertainment Association (IGEA). In other words, the move for change is driven by the prospect of increased private sector profits. Research commissioned by the IGEA indicates that young adult males are increasing consumers of computer games. What motivates young men to engage in solitary interactive excessively violent games as opposed to participating in community based recreational and sporting pursuits is an important demographic question. It may well point to significant unrecognised mental health issues. Arguments in favour of the ANCS including a R18+ rating for computer games are largely related to classification systems, technological controls, international parity, and individual freedoms. These arguments however do not address the paramount question - the only question which really matters – “Do excessively violent computer games cause harm and do they incite vulnerable people to violence?” Some research claims that no association has been found between violent computer games and real life incitement to violence. On the other hand, other researchers have consistently found compelling evidence that violent computer games can increase aggression and antisocial behaviour. Demographic research with a well designed large longitudinal study investigating any association between interactive violent computer games and real life violence is not available. It is unlikely that such a study will ever be carried out on account of ethical considerations. The results of research (some commissioned by the IGEA) are polarized leaving an academic stalemate with no easy means of resolution. Real life however provides graphic evidence of the detrimental effects of violent computer games. Over the past decade there have been numerous massacres, suicides and other antisocial acts in different countries of the world in which obsession with violent computer games has been implicated. Those who support a change in legislation cannot emphatically state that exposure to violent computer games does no harm. As Australians, we want to live in a cohesive, harmonious, and safe society. However, the incidence of senseless violent criminal acts is undeniably increasing. Debate has been raging in the media as the underlying causes. Why would our government at this time pass legislation allowing volatile people (minors or adults) access to interactive violent computer games? These games may actively assist with the planning, initiating, and implication of real life violence (assaults, murders, and terrorism). Any move to make violent video games available in Australia is inconsistent with the Federal Governments proposal to introduce Internet filtering (which has been personally endorsed by Mr Rudd). If Internet sites which the government deems potentially harmful are to be blocked, it would be irrational and hypocritical for the government to make excessively violent computer games more easily available and to deny their dangerous and harmful potential In conclusion, it is my view that the Australian National Classification Scheme should remain with the status quo. There can be no positive outcome for Australian society from including an R18+ classification category for computer games.By Emma Hazelton: Given the strong links between watching or involvement with animated violence and committing violence, allowing R18+ games would be a serious error of judgement. One example would be the American teenager who’s playing of video games lead him to kill his parents. Despite an average IQ, the judge found he believed the rules of his virtual world were real and his parents would relive. Another example is the well documented evidence that every serial killer arrested by the US system over a period of 10 years was addicted to pornography that detailed explicit violence to women. The clear links between pornography and child sex abuse in remote Australian communities cannot be disputed. The difference between watching porn or violence and playing R18+ games is that the player becomes an active participant in it, taking on the role of the killer. Many in the Australian community are also aware of the growing number of gaming addicts in society. People who become addicted to violent video games are more likely to display antisocial behaviour or have mental or social disorders and in cases, to act out the violent behaviour in real life, just like the people addicted to violent porn or child porn. This is seen most clearly in remote communities but occurs throughout the Australian community. We know that despite banning alcohol and cigarettes from those below 18, there are many younger teenagers who drink and smoke, some heavily. Labelling a product 18+ has no guarantees whatsoever of preventing that product being used by children. In fact, there are many parents who give their children alcohol in their homes even though they know it is only suitable for adult use. Therefore the argument that parents and friends of minors will prevent them from accessing R18+games is nonsensical. Who are the main parties wanting R18+ games in Australia? Firstly, there are the video game creators who stand to profit from the introduction of these games. Secondly, there are the retailers who also stand to profit. Thirdly, there are the people who enjoy watching and participating in highly violent and sexually violent content. Given what we know about the linking of addiction to violence or porn and acting it out, it is completely undesirable to allow this material in to Australia. We already have MA15+ games that allow the viewer to experience the gritty realism of war, or fighting, or sexual fantasies. R18+ material will not be beneficial to the community in any way, nor will it be neutral. It will be harmful, de-sensitising individuals to violent acts and easily finding its way into the hands of minors. I implore the classification board to not look merely at the numbers of submissions wanting R18+ games allowed, but at the parties and motives those numbers represent, as opposed to the wider but quieter general community. |
|
|
Images From Volient Games    |
Find Out More
|
