Australian Christian Lobby Compares Games Industry to Tobacco Companies

Update: This story is apparently ancient history from March 2010. While it's fun to refresh your memory, it's not news. We apologize for presenting it as such.

The Australian Christian Lobby is doing its best to slow down the momentum of an R18+ ratings classification in Australia by using a new tactic: comparing mature video games to cigarettes. The group used the public consultation period for the R18+ classification to assail the games industry.

The ACL recently claimed that Australian game industry is ignoring the research that shows a link between violent computer games and aggressive behavior. They claim it is "reminiscent of the tactics of tobacco companies in questioning the link between smoking and lung cancer."

The ACL is using a 2009 paper titled ‘Video game effects confirmed, suspected and speculative: A review of the evidence’, authored by Barlett, C.P., Anderson, C.A. & Swing, E.L.. That paper claims that "multiple studies have found overwhelming evidence to suggest that exposure to violent video games is causally related to … aggressive feelings, aggressive thoughts, and physiological arousal … aggressive behaviour, and other variables."

You can't blame them for trying, and as a political organization, vilifying an industry is as good a tactic as any to impede the progress of something you don't like. Their biggest problem is that – beyond the political rhetoric – the research is inconclusive because of so many conflicting studies claim games have both beneficial and negative effects on those who play them. You can read the whole story here. It also offers some interesting quotes from some self-described Christian game developers.

Thanks to Uncharted NES for the tip.

Source: Kotaku Australia. Image credit: All rights reserved.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    edmoss87 says:

    Let's suppose for a second that they were right about the evidence (they aren't). Surely using this assertion as an argument against R18+ ratings is a bit like using evidence linking smoking to cancer as an argument against health warnings on cigarette packets.

  2. 0
    BearDogg-X says:

    Considering that every court in the United States rejected these junk science studies, the Australian Christian Lobby's stance is beyond retarded and amounts to bearing false witness.

    Perhaps the Australian Christian Lobby should be given a copy of Scalia's opinion in Brown v. EMA last year, specifically:

    Says California's evidence was not compelling because the research did not prove that violent games caused minors to act aggressively. That nearly all the research is based on correlation, and most studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology, citing Craig Anderson's admissions that "effect sizes" of exposure to violent games were "about the same" produced by exposure to television and that the same effects were found after watching Bugs Bunny and Road Runner cartoons, E-rated games like Sonic The Hedgehog, even viewing a picture of a gun.

    Says in a footnote that a study finding that children were more likely to complete a fill in the blank word puzzle with "explode" rather than "explore" did not constitute a compelling state interest.

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

Leave a Reply