Gamers have flooded a government inquiry to support the case for an R18+ rating for interactive games, but a Christian group opposed to the change has warned that the strong response was the result of a biased consultation process and that little weight should be attached to the gamers’ submissions.
How not in any way staggeringly arrogant.
Anyway, what “bias”?
Mr Wallace also pointed to serious flaws in the consultation process over this issue, saying that the development of a submission template which respondents were encouraged to use invited simplistic, formulaic responses which wouldn’t effectively weigh up the real issues at stake.
“The discussion paper itself also says nothing about the nature or content of R18+ games and takes an issue with the potential for strong social impact and reduces it down to a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. In this way it appears to be predicated towards an outcome that does not respect the complexity of this critical social issue – reducing it to a show of hands,” Mr Wallace said.
You’ve got to decide to HAVE an R18 category before you can decide on what that content will actually BE, Jim. Perhaps you’ve missed what this inquiry was actually about?
The fundamental question was simply: should there be a different rating for adults? How did the inquiry “not respect the complexity” of that very clear issue?
The ACL is angry because what they WANTED the discussion paper to include was a list of sensational photographs of violence and sex in obscure games (that would probably be refused classification regardless) to scare parents into thinking that that’s what their kids would see if there was an R18 rating.
And, as with pretty much everything the ACL ever says, its main argument about “impact” misses the point entirely: if it is true that interactive media have more impact (which isn’t proven, but if it were true) then that could be taken into account by the rating system. The SA Attorney General who’s been stalling this whole process, Michael Atkinson, likes to constantly talk about weird and offensive “games” that would never be released here under any rating (a Japanese “rape” game is his favourite example) as if they’re BOUND somehow to be released if we have an R18 rating. He seems to think an R18 rating means “nothing will ever be refused classification” – a weird attitude for someone who is partly responsible for the rating system we have now.
All that the R18 proposal seeks is a distinction between 15 year olds and adults. What is appropriate for adults in games would be up to the AGs to decide – and, if the ACL and Atkinson are right about “greater impact”, that might be well milder than what’s appropriate for adults in, say, R18 films – but it’s still fundamentally different to that which is appropriate for 15 year olds.
That’s all this discussion is about: allowing the censors to stop treating 15 year olds as adults. That’s what the opponents are demanding: that censors continue to be unable to recognise the obvious difference between teenagers and adults.
It’s so obvious, and so difficult to deny – could the ACL really stand up and say 15 year olds are the same as adults and not be laughed at? – so, as usual, the ACL is forced to rely on scare tactics – offensive pictures, misleading claims – to draw attention away from the crux of the issue.
Could some reasonable and honest Christians please start their own lobby group, so they’re not constantly being misrepresented by Jim Wallace’s mob of shameless liars?