Comment I wrote this on the issue, before the AvP case (Score 2, Insightful) 143
Probably the most shocking revelation about Australia for your average international Media Studies student is the deep reach censorship has in this country. I had heard news of an overregulated Australia before travelling to Melbourne, but those reports seemed like exaggeration. Having lived for a few months down under, overwhelming evidence defeats disbelief and sheer astonishment settles in. Why does a society that praises itself so highly for its openness, progressive achievements and multiculturalism allow crippling censorship legislation to evolve into such a pervasive and ubiquitous fog?
The latest case of ridiculous censorship in Australia is the banning and later un-banning of “Left 4 Dead 2”, a video game published by Electronic Arts. My concern about the banning of a game characterised as ‘violent’ is more about the value of freedom than a matter of personal interest. For the record, I don’t own a video game console, and, for the record, I would probably prefer spending my time and money in one of Melbourne’s many fine dining venues than playing video games. But the issue lies precisely in the importance of that choice. Should censors consider that sophisticated cuisine is wasteful, they couldn’t prevent me from enjoying it. Why can they then limit someone’s choice when it comes to videogames? It is the role of adult citizens, not the government, to decide whether they spend an evening beheading zombies or having seafood and wine. This choice has to be reclaimed as a citizen right beyond the reach of moral entrepreneurs.
Chronicles of this issue include episodes that are simultaneously sad and funny, like the classic movie “Salo” by Pier Paolo Passolini which was banned in Australia twice, or the video game “Marc Ecko” which was never sold here because of its depictions of the criminal horrors of graffiti art.
In September 15 2009, the Classification Board issued a report explaining that in this game “attacks cause copious amounts of blood spray and splatter, decapitations and limb dismemberment as well as locational damage where contact is made to the enemy which may reveal skeletal bits and gore”. According to current legislation if the Board determines that a video game is unsuitable for persons under fifteen years old, it can not be sold in Australian territory.
In contrast to legislation regarding film, video games lack an R18+ classification. Why? Unbelievable as it may sound, this policy affecting all of Australian adult population is the decision of one individual. I am talking, of course, of Mr. Michael Atkinson, South Australian Attorney-General. Australian censorship parameters can only be modified by unanimous decisions taken by all Attorneys General, and Mr Atkinson alone has for years been blocking the creation of an R18+ category for video games.
Mr Atkinson argues that “an R18+ rating for electronic games will greatly increase the risk of children and vulnerable adults being exposed to damaging images and messages”.
What Mr Atkinson means by this so called ‘risk’ is that video game discs with violent content, belonging to the adults in the family, might be found in their houses by children who could then play these games. This is the argument used to support the need to ban all games with content considered unsuitable for children. The implication is that adults are not to be trusted, and the contradiction is that when it comes to pornographic DVDs the same consideration somehow does not apply. According to Atkinson’s logic kids are able to find games around the house, but not movies.
There is also an underlying problem with his argument: the way he presents the problem, in function of the ‘risk’, cleverly plants the assumption that video games are ‘damaging’ in a way that makes it seem beyond debate. A proper dissection of the idea that videogames are somehow negative to kids would fill the whole newspaper for years. Researchers are on the task, but current evidence is inconclusive, and it will probably remain so. It is certainly not a settled matter as Atkinson would have us believe.
This ‘risk’ and ‘damaging images and messages’ are just empty figures of a mentality that relies on fear to establish a regime of intolerance.
Mr. Atkinson contends that, "Some may believe that the present system restricts adult liberty. It certainly does restrict choice to a small degree, but that is the price of keeping this material from children and vulnerable adults. In my view, the small sacrifice is worth it”. A document called ‘Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games’ issued by the Attorney General’s Department in Canberra states that “adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want”. Mr. Atkinson’s argumentation against a R18+ classification for video games is unsustainable because it clearly fails to acknowledge a higher principle of Australian law.
Just over two weeks after ‘Left 4 Dead 2’ was refused classification, Electronic Arts submitted a second version of the game, edited for Australian censor sensibilities. The Board reclassified the game with a MA15+ rating because “the game no longer contains depictions of decapitation, dismemberment, wound detail or piles of dead bodies lying about the environment”. To be honest, I don’t think Electronic Arts really cares whether the game has to be about feeding kittens as long as they get to sell something in Australia’s healthier-than-average-economy.
As it is, Australian adults are prevented from fully being able “to read, hear and see what they want” because of politicians that use their position to impose a regressive, paternalistic and infantilizing conception of the state. In the end, one wonders if true democracy can flourish when expression can be limited on the basis of indemonstrable suspicions of potential ‘risk’.
