CLA is often asked – by students doing essays for their legal or justice studies at high school – for comment on issues. Here CLA member Arved von Brasch answer some questions on the R18+ issue…the lack of an adult classification for video games in Australia.
The government plays (video) games
Hello Willy Wonka,
My name is Arved, and Civil Liberties Australia has asked me to reply to your query regarding the R18+ classification for video games.
1. How has the lack of an adult classification for video games restricted creative freedom in the Australian Video Game Industry?
This is perhaps better directed at the video game industry. Very few large scale video games are produced in Australia. Australia is such a small market, comparatively, that whether something could be sold in Australia is rarely a consideration at the time of production. This means it only becomes an issue when the producers submit their work to the Classification Board for rating, at which point their choice is to either not sell in Australian at all, or slightly modify their work for the Australian market. This is one of the contributing factors to the high price of video games in Australia, and a reason many gamers order from overseas.
On a smaller scale, it certainly would make a difference. Consider the growing mobile phone game market, particularly the iPhone. Here there are larger numbers of small scale developers located within Australia and elsewhere. The Classification Board has been seeking the power to rate mobile apps. This would absolutely cripple, if not destroy, that market in Australia. Very few small scale developers have the resources to seek classification for their products, Apple is already a hard enough obstacle. I’m not convinced that this would lead to a lack of development within Australia; the world market is still lucrative. What it would mean is that very few small publishers would seek to have their games available in Australia. That would dramatically limit the products available in Australia.
Perhaps the greatest thing about the age in which we live is that people can actually make money (or just get enjoyment) producing narrative based material (short video series, text based fiction, even blogs) or developing software products (including video games). The Classification System was designed for a time when producers had to have huge amounts of resources, and therefore there were only a handful of producers. That is no longer the case, and the Classification System simply cannot cope with this new age. Attempting to fit the current world into this Classification System is a fool’s errand, and the sooner we realise that the better off we’ll all be. It’s purpose should be as a tool to help Australians make informed decisions about what material they wish to expose themselves and their families to, not to dictate what material Australians can and can’t see.
2. How was the lack of the R18+ classification for video games in Australia an overt restriction on the civil liberty of freedom of expression? Was the impact greater to video game developers or consumers?
Consider the first principle of the National Classification Code: "[A]dults should be able to read, hear and see what they want". The lack of an R18+ classification for video games fundamentally prevents adult Australians from doing this. Children are a red herring in this argument.
Restricted publications and R18+ films already cannot be shown to children, video games would be the same. Censorship of this type is effectively the Government saying, ‘As an Australian adult, we do not think you are capable of making your own decisions, so we will make them for you.’ Europe or North America do not have demonstrably worse crime rates that could be linked to video games. This means the Government is claiming that Australians are particularly feeble minded compared to people living elsewhere.
I think I already answered the second part above, greater for consumers. Companies without experience of the Classification Board do not consider what the Board will allow before beginning a project. As games are a relatively new industry, it isn’t something that would have much consideration. However, who knows how many large companies may have considered expanding into Australia but didn’t because of their experience with the Classification Board.
It is also worth considering other industries to see what effect the Board has had. The most obvious case, that appeared recently on the ABC’s Hungry Beast, is the case of softcore pornography aiming for the Unrestricted (Mature) Publication Classification. Publishers digitally alter genitals in order for their magazine’s to be passed by the Classification Board. The only reason they do so is the Classification Board. In a society where sex education is typically poor, and people’s first exposure to naked bodies is magazines like this, we can only speculate what this ‘chilling effect’ has meant for people’s expectations. In some ways this is analogous to game publishers removing some gore effects from their products, as if the lack of gore effects actually reduces the overall adult themes in the games.
3. How will the introduction of the R18+ classification harmonise parents’ need to protect their children with that of the gamer population’ want in consuming all forms of media (according to the National Classification Code)?
I think you have to unpack this question a bit. First, if you are talking children, then the parents are in control of their media exposure. A Restricted publication, R18+ film and a possible R18+ video game cannot be sold to children. Indeed, it is an offence for MA15+ video games to be sold to children under 15 (at least in the ACT, I’m less familiar with other states’ laws). There is no reason to think that video games are any different than films. Additionally, it is not an offence for parents or guardians to show higher classified material to their child. This is presumably because the (ACT) Government recognises that parent’s are the best judge of their child’s maturity.
If there is wide spread concern about this, then an education campaign about the Classification System is the appropriate response. However, what typically happens is informative: when you ask people about whether they think there is a problem, they say that they are the best person to know what is appropriate for their child, but they are concerned with other people’s parenting ability. This says to me that much of this concern is manufactured rather than actual.
4. What impact will the ‘Status Report on the Public Consultation on the Possible Introduction of an R18+ Classification for Video Games’ have on the introduction of an adult video game classification? Will it likely sway the Standing Committee of Attorneys General (SCAG) and the greater Australian population?
My suspicion is that the Government never intended to actually move to introduce an R18+ Classification. With the former South Australian Attorney General, Michael Atkinson, in place, there was no way that the Attorneys General would ever agree to such an introduction. I believe this Federal Government began the submission process in order to get the brownie points of being seen to move on an issue with a segment of voters they typically have trouble courting, while knowing they’d never have to actually implement it with a firm ‘no’ from South Australia. However, after the March 2010 South Australian election and the resignation of Atkinson, together with the overwhelming response to the public consultation, they were left in a bind. Hence, we have already seen stalling, and I doubt it’ll come up before the next Federal election, and they are going to hope the issue goes away. The wording of the Status Report backs this up.
I think the State and Territory Attorneys General (including the new South Australian one), were already agreeable to introducing such a classification. Certainly the more liberal places like the ACT have been keen to see this come about for some time. It is only the Federal Government that wants to see it ignored. This is largely because those opposed have huge sway with the current Prime Minister and several Cabinet Ministers.
It is something that is going to happen eventually regardless of what happens now. The current generation of Attorneys General will be replaced with the gamer generation within the next two decades. These will be people who understand and are familiar with computer games, and they will have no problem with mature content in games. At that time we will see that the concerns voiced now are much ado about nothing.
5. Are there any other comment you would like to comment on the issue?
The most popular claim against the introduction of an R18+ Classification is the "Media ‘Effects’ Model". That is, that being exposed to certain material causes demonstrable harm. This is an idea that has been around a very long time, regardless that it has never had any credible evidence. It was discussed after the introduction of the printing press when large segments of the community first had access to books. The first generation of fictional novels were considered damaging, and certainly not something that the public should have access too. More recently, we’ve seen the same argument made against television, Rock ‘n’ Roll, Heavy Metal in the 80s, and now computer games. The Media Effects Model has been resoundingly tested for decades and has never produced anything more than tiny correlations in poorly structured experiments. That it is has been such a spectacularly unprovable idea for decades suggests there is nothing there to find.
More information on the Media Effects Model can be found here:
http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm
Ultimately, this comes down to the first principle of our National Classification Code: "[A]dults should be able to read, hear and see what they want".
The only grounds that should exist for censorship, is when that material was produced illegally. All material, no matter how offensive, ill-informed, hateful, or otherwise undesirable, should be available for public discussion.
Censorship has always had unintended consequences, in particular it typically removes the voice of those it intends to protect. Ultimately, it is better to have such material out in the open rather than festering in corners of society.
I hope you found this helpful,
Warm regards,
Arved von Brasch, member CLA
Web: www.cla.asn.au