Legalising R18+ Games will not protect children

Release of the Guidelines for the Classification of Games

Media coverage of the SCAG meeting and issues

Greg Thom in the Herald Sun

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/fears-for-kids-as-mps-hit-play-on-explicit-games/story-fn7x8me2-1226100142883

A media release from Minister for Justice, Brendon O'Connor

http://www.ag.gov.au/www/ministers/oconnor.nsf/Page/MediaReleases_2011_ThirdQuarter_22July2011-AgreementonR18+classificationforcomputergames

The Insiders on ABC TV

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2011/s3276497.htm

R18+for games?: proposals and counter proposals.

(Editorial from small screen May 2011)

On 20th April, the ACCM wrote to all Federal, State and Territory Ministers responsible for censorship, setting out our proposals for a child-friendly system for classifying computer games. We argued for the separation of the classification systems for films and games, and for establishing just four classification categories: G, PG, MA15+ and R18+. This new MA15+ category would allow only moderate impact material (as for former M category) and the new R18+ category would allow only “strong impact” content (as for previous MA15+). This would have the effect of moving, for example, very violent content into higher, legally enforceable, categories. The current M category contains material that is not recommended under 15 years, but is often ignored.

Moving MA15+ content into a new R18+ category would satisfy many of those who support having an R18+ category for games because they mistakenly believe that the very violent games in MA15+ will be pushed up into it (thus making it harder for children to access). This had not been the intention of the proposals for introducing an R18+ category: that was rather to allow even more extreme material.

The ACCM has had responses from 5 of the 9 Attorneys General, with none so far expressing support for our suggestions. Two (ACT and WA) said that the main purpose of having a new R18+ category was that gamers could have “higher impact games”. That’s precisely what we understood in the beginning, but we were outraged when the message used throughout the past year’s campaign was not that, but instead emphasised “this will protect children better’. And many of the public bought that message.

On 25/5 Federal Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O’Connor, released his proposed draft new guidelines for public comment by June 22. In his accompanying media release the Minister said that “The Gillard Government wants to provide better guidance for parents and remove unsuitable material from children and teenagers,” He claimed that “the introduction of an R18+ classification will help achieve that and will also bring Australia into line with comparable nations”. He said, “the draft guidelines make it clear that sexually explicit games or games with very frequent, strong and realistic violence will not be allowed in the MA15+ category,” The proposed measures are supposed to address the difference between films and computer games, especially in terms of interactivity, and ensure that the Refused Classification category is retained.

On close examination of the O’Connor proposals, we cannot see that they offer the claimed “better guidance” and “removal of unsuitable material”. For a start, many of the insertions into the proposed guidelines are merely transfers of phrases from the introductory section of the present film and games guidelines, and don’t add any new levels of protection.

We find that :

• the insertion in nearly all classification categories, and assessable elements, of the phrase ”must not be related to incentives or rewards” is not new, nor are apparently new statements about interactivity. These are all there now in the opening section “Assessing impact” of the present guidelines.
  the new statements about drug use “not being detailed and realistic” are puzzling in that we were not aware that drug use was a big problem with games, whereas violence clearly is, and there are few changes that will help that problem.
• the new sentence under violence at MA15+ contains the phrase “strong and realistic violence should not be very frequent”. So there could still be strong and realistic violence that was frequent. How are classifiers to distinguish between frequent and very frequent?? The present criteria already provide for a judgement of higher impact if “a scene is repeated frequently”. How does the change ensure that problematic violence is no longer permitted at MA15+?
• the new R18+ for games is virtually identical to that for films, except for the addition of a statement that actually already categorises what goes in to RC.(Refused Classification).

So for anyone hoping for greater protection for children - this won’t do it.

By contrast, the SA AG, is proposing a system that offers the promise of better protection for children, while still accommodating gamers’ intense desire to be able to play more extreme games. SA AG John Rau, would accept the Federal Govt proposal to introduce an R18+ category, but wants a scheme in which the MA15+ classification is rolled into the new R18+ classification. The available categories in the Rau proposal would be G, PG, M and R18+. The SA Government would prohibit the sale of any game labelled MA15+.

None of the AGs has yet really acknowledged how hard it is for even responsible parents to keep portable R18+ items such as DVDs and games out of the hands of children. It’s seems it’s still the case that adult rights are more important than ensuring the best supports for parents bringing up children in an increasingly toxic media environment.

NOTES
1) ACCM sees whatever is to be done with computer games now as a stop gap measure, until the Aust Law Reform Commission has explored issues with the whole Classification Scheme later this year.

2) A recent article by Sacks, Bushman & Anderson explores further the weight of evidence of harm from violent computer games
http://colloquy.law.northwestern.edu/

3) Helpful advice for parents dealing with a teenage sons addiction to computer games can be found at
http://cmch.typepad.com/mediatrician/

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? Below is a summary of ACCM's views on this question.

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.