Legalising R18+ Games will not protect children

A relentless push by gamers and the industry has resulted in the Federal Government's call for responses to the question "Should the Australian National Classification Scheme include an R18+ classification category for computer games?

The responses to this review will inform the decision to be taken later by the Federal, State and Territory Ministers responsible for classification issues.

ACCM's view

In summary, our view is that the answer to this question should be NO.

Introducing an R18+ category for games will allow into the hire and sale system games with more extreme violence and with more impactful depictions of sexual and drug taking activity than are permitted now (up to MA15+ level). Present sale and hire system prohibitions are not effective in preventing access by minors. Parent's task of minimising their children's exposure to such content will become much harder. The principles underpinning Australia's classification system, which include "minors protected from material likely to harm or disturb them" will be further undermined. There is increasing evidence of harm from violent computer games.

Background

In 1993/4, the Federal, State and Territory Ministers responsible for classification matters, introduced a system of classification for computer games. That system allowed games with content from G (General) up to and including MA15+ (Strong impact and not legally available to those under 15 years).

At present, games with content more extreme than MA15+ level are Refused Classification. This cautious stance was adopted by Ministers in 1993 as they believed that the interactive nature of games would make them more impactful: that "doing" the violence and being rewarded for it would be more harmful than just "watching" it (as with films). This caution has been supported by a growing body of research evidence (more of this later).

If accepted, the proposal will allow into the sale and hire system, games with content more extreme than at present. R18+ content is such that it is likely to be offensive (a legal definition) to sections of the adult community, and minors should not be exposed to it.

Australia's classification scheme embodies 4 principles (with none designated as having more weight than others):

a) adult freedom to see, hear and read what they wish
b) minors protected from material likely to harm or disturb
c) everyone protected from exposure to unsolicited material they find offensive
d) the need to take into account community concerns about depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence, and the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.

NOTE: Australia's classification system is a cooperative one between Federal, State and Territory Ministers and cannot be changed without the agreement of all Ministers.

Go to http://www.ag.gov.au/gamesclassification

The gamers' main argument now is that an R18+ category will provide better protection for children. It will not.

Here's why

• Legalising R18+ level games will add into the retail system, games with more extreme levels of violence, and high level sexual and drug taking activity than presently available in the retail system 
• Our and other surveys have shown that portable R18+ items such as DVDs and videos are easily accessible  by children, in ways and at venues, not able to be controlled by their parents
• Such exposure is undesirable given the mounting evidence of harm from violent and interactive computer games  (See References below)  

From our reading of the many views expressed in support of legalising R18+ level games, it is evident that many support this view because

• they think that there are too many very violent games in MA15+.
• they believe that if an R18+ category is introduced, these games
  will somehow be moved across into this R18+ category.
• they believe that an R18+ classification is more recognisable to parents as containing material that is unsuitable for their children and adolescents

These reasons are not valid because:

• The games that are now in MA15+ are there because they meet the
  MA15+ criteria.
• No change is likely to the classification of any game now classified MA15+, unless there were an application for review.  This is an expensive process, and given the time lapse could probably be only undertaken by an AG.              
• There is nothing in the recent Inquiry proposal to indicate any intention that the criteria for MA15+ will be reviewed
• Presently games and films are classified using a common system and criteria. Disengaging them would require considerable time and expense.

A community education campaign could alert parents that material classified MA15+ is unsuitable for those under 15yrs.   Or is the proposition that all material deemed unsuitable for children and adolescents should be classified R18+?

In our view, the present proposal to legalise R18 + games will undermine the principles of the classification system.  These require not only "adult freedom to see hear and read", but equally, that "minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them".   

To read more on this topic in PDF format see an article written by Professor Elizabeth Handsley, Faculty of Law, Flinders University or read the same comment on the Online Opinion website.

References

Anderson et al.(2010 in press) "Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and pro-social behavior in Eastern and Western countries: a meta-analytic review". Psychological Bulletin, 2010

Gentile, D. and J. (2008)"Violent Video Games as Exemplary Teachers. A
Conceptual Analysis" Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 127-41

Gentile, D et al.(2009)"The Effects of Prosocial Video Games on Prosocial
Behaviors: International Evidence From Correlational, Longitudinal, and Experimental Studies" Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35:752.

Polman H et al.(2008) "Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent video games on children's aggressive behaviour", Aggressive Behaviour, 34, 256-64.