NoR18Games Website Launched

I see a censor coming to my post at the Conservative site, so, what the heck.  Yes, Long.  But shorter than it could have been.

What is sad here is that those in the Conservative Party, claiming to be the morally superior, have, in fact, advocated lies, deceit, misinformation, dishonor, a lack of ethics, and signs of immorality. 

It's a shame that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights fell to Anti-Freedom of Speech/Expression forces and corruption.  Otherwise, Australia would be in serious violation of Article 19.  No, not merely because of the censorship of video/computer games.  But because one of the opposing forces to R18+ and supporters of Anti-Freedom of Speech actually enacted a law prohibiting the Free Expression of opposing political opinion.  These two events are, in fact, only the tip of the iceberg for the likes of Michael Atkinson and the Conservative Party as it applies to Freedom of Speech/Expression in general, not merely focused on one type of Expression.  Had Article 19 not, in effect, fallen to such similar foces, Australia could face sanctions for such violations.  Atkinson's desire for said law had NOTHING to do with the value or lack thereof of anonymous comments.  It had to do with the fact that those making anonymous comments had been known to make intelligent counterarguments and, not having any intelligent retorts, or even unintelligent ones, wanted to identify his opposition and retaliate.  Atkinson wanted to "put on trial" the SPEAKER, rather than deal with the ISSUES specifically.  Throwing out a smoke screen by getting the audience to focus on the SPEAKER, and ignore the actual discussion as he isn't competent to actually speak intelligently on the issues at hand.

The Truth, The WHOLE Truth, And Nothing But The Truth.  This is an oath the is taken by some in the judicial system.  But, usually, not taken by the officials (counsel, judge, etc), or by journalists or by politicians.    Lucky for those such as Atkinson and the author of this article and of the website being referred to.  There would be serious sanctions that could be brought against all those as well.

Here are some FACTS that Atkinson, the religious gorups, and even the Conservative Party as a whole don't want to face:

As pointed out by another comment, research into any of the issues surrounding media exposure has been poorly performed, incomplete, and even had their results intentionally misrepresented by those with agendas.

In such research, the individual is taken out of the equation.  Meaning that the extreme complexities that make up an individual are excluded from the data and, hence, excluded from being recognized as a part of the formula that leads to the result.  Genetic predisoposition, life experiences, mental predisposition, present emotional and mental conditions of the individual, level of interest and competency in any aspect of the stimuli the subject is exposed to, and many other aspects need to be taken into consideration to understand why any specific individual reacts to any given situation.

This is not being done.

Additionally, there is NO factual evidence in existance that interactive entertainment or exposure to ANYTHING that allows interactive participation has a clear definitive difference than non-interactive exposure.

Indeed, the contrary is true.  Evidence:

Look at various riots over time that took place due to preceived injustices.  Let's take the Rodney King beating from a decade or so back.

How many individuals ACTUALLY were present and involved during the actual beating?
How many individuals did NOT riot afterwards?  Were they desensitized and, therefore, did not react?
How many took part in the riot after watching the video on TV once?  Or saw it over and over?
How many only read about it in a newspaper (with or without still images)?
How many only heard about it through word of mouth and joined the riot?

Next example to think on:
Sporting events.  Either contact or non-contact sports.  There are plenty to do research on.  How many of the spectators jump up and down either in favor of a team or in opposition of a team?  They aren't playing in the sport, so they aren't interactive with it.  Some spectators just sit there.  Some jump up and down. 

And some get into fights with either the players or even other spectators.  In addition, there HAVE been reports of fans, and even players, committing violent acts before or after games.

Another example:

There ARE many games that children themselves play that DO have violent content.  These games have not been limited to the last couple of decades, but centuries, even thousands of years.

Children always find a reason to pick up a stick and, depending on the era and what is well known happening in society, will use the stick, or some other object to "compete" with other children.
"Cowboys and Indians"
"Cops and Robbers"
"Yankees vs the Confederates"
Even playing swords of one nation vs another from even the Roman times.

And, at some point, when playing these violent games, someone HAS to be the "bad guy" (and, of course, the "bad guy" is subjective).  And the "bad guy" HAS to win from time to time.  Else, why play?

Someone mentioned somewhere about asking supporters of R18+ ratings what the "benefits" of having certain content in certain materials was.

The answer, in relation to material that is focused on a fictional foundation such as video/computer games, books, movies, etc, is this:  It is neither "benefitial" or "detrimental".  The content is relevant to the context it is included in which is relevant to the overall genre and context of the overall product.  Asking what "benefit" the content has is actually a veiled question of what "benefit" the content has to the person asking the question.  If the question is not answered to the satisfaction of the person asking the question (and the question CAN'T be answered to their satisfaction as they have already determined that the material is of no benefit to them, the person asking the question), then the content must not be of "benefit" at all, and therefore, does not belong in the material at all.

It simply comes down to the fact that we, as a society, are NOT required to like or dislike the exact same things as individuals.  I am not required to like, dislike, participate or not participate in, desire, be offended by, or share the exact same characteristics that other individuals do.  And the same is true in the opposite.

In Freedom of Speech, feel free to like or dislike something.  Like your kind of music.  Your kind of books.  Your kind of religion.  Your kind of genres within any form of media.  And so on.  But, under NO circumstance do you, or anyone else, have the Right to dictate what is or is not appropriate for someone else or someone else's children. 

Your/My Rights end where someone else's begin.

For the record, these statements are true regardless of who I am.  Regardless of what politics I follow.  Regardless of what nation I'm from.  Regardless of whether I be a Saint, Limbo bound, the Devil incarnate, or joe-schmo.

There is plenty more to say on this subject in opposition to the likes of Atkinson and many others.  Even the supposed false claims of "links" between exposure to video/computer games and real world violence can be disputed very easily.  Moreover, using comparison and contrast and comments used by the likes of Atkinson and other members of the religious and Conservative communities, I could wonder why censorship is being heavily used on religious documentation and interactive services.  Atkinson and other have claimed the recognition that only a bare few in the gamer community have committed criminal acts, but that censorship and violation the Freedom of Expression Rights of the WHOLE community is justifiable to protect the children/society.  If this is so, and considering how many atrocities in just the last few decades have been committed by various religious groups, INCLUDING Christianity, one wonders why laws banning children from being exposed to ANY religion, including Christianity, hasn't occurred.

After all, many claim that those who commit such atrocities (such as teaching bigotry and hate, advocating verbal, mental, physical, and/or sexual abuse against others, including children, and even religious leaders committing various abuses against even children) are the tiny minority.  But, certainly, if we use Atkinson's argument about protecting the whole of society from the few by depriving the many of their Rights, then he, and the Conservative and religious communities, would support protecting society, including children, from the harm being done by religions.

After all, fictional content, such as in vidoe/computer games, fictional books, fictional movies, etc, only say these things are happening/can be done here in the fictional world.  While the religions are directly teaching that the bigotry, hate, abuse, and other acts are how one real person should treat another real person. 

One would have to wonder about Atkinson's, the Conservative party's, and the religious community's "morals" considering that such protection of society has NOT occurred.  Perhaps they think that their religious beliefs are more important than protecting society, including children.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Odd logic that is...

Is it not the point of the R18 to keep the content out of young peoples hands and at the same time not deprive older, dare I say mature people access to the material in question? Maybe I missed something....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus

I feel I must reitterate what I said before. We must counter this anti-gaming site. Post on it. Show why this R+18 should be allowed. But do it while being civil.

On a side note, why don't they do it like ESRB, where the ratings have a clear line between the games that are around 17(M) and the 18+(AO) games that have content that is so gorey or pornographic. Then there is a clear distinction between a game like GTA IV or some other rated M game, and games that such as Rapelay.

All you people wanting Rapelay banned, you're just as bad as Australia. I wouldn't play or enjoy a game like Rapelay, but I wouldn't call for it to be banned either. Freedom of expression doesn't mean jack squat if it only applies to what you find acceptable.

To be honest, anyone who says that opening a discussion will eventually lead to the laws being changed and not in their favour has got no real meaning of the word, demoracy.

I also feel that this is what Mr Atkinson wanted, not to have the discussion paper released at all because of the fear of the people being against him.

Those who must lie to get their way do not deserve it.

Although R18+ DVDs are already available, computer games involve the player in an interactive role where they become the character doing the killing, raping, beating or sexual activity.  An example of a currently banned game that would be allowed into Australia is a Japanese creation where the player is encouraged to gang rape and beat young women. Other games involve “first person” playing where the player takes the role of torturing or mutilating people.

Geez, if you're going to ban R-18 video game, you might as well ban R-18 movie also.  if you allow that, and don't allow that one.  That's double standard.  So it's Ok to have violent movie, but not ok to have violent game.

point at the bold one: they sound kinda racist when they focus on the Japanese H-game.   

• Login or register to post comments