It seems that the Australian government is finally considering the introduction of a restricted classification (R18+) for computer games. Last week, the Attorney–General’s department released a discussion paper calling for submissions on whether the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Cth) (Act) should be amended to permit the Office of Film and Literature Classification to rate a computer game as ‘restricted’, meaning that it is ‘unsuitable for those under 18’ and ‘may offend some sections of the adult community’.
Currently, the Act requires that any computer game unsuitable for a minor to see must be classified ‘Refused Classification’ (RC), which prevents it from being sold, hired, exhibited, displayed, demonstrated or advertised in Australia. We saw last year that this affected relatively mainstream titles, such as Fallout 3 (which originally encouraged in-game morphine use, and simulated effects of addiction) and Grand Theft Auto IV (which featured prostitution and realistic depictions of violence), ultimately forcing the developers to censor their worldwide release versions.
The current position is bad for numerous reasons. Most importantly, it doesn’t prevent any demonstrable harm to vulnerable persons in our community (notably children):
- there’s no consensus that violent games cause violence — although some studies suggest a correlation in young age groups, this applies across all media — not just video games — and in any case, under an R18+ rating, adolescents wouldn’t be able to purchase games judged excessively violent; there is therefore no demonstrated need for the policy;
- in any case, the absence of an R18+ rating means minors are more, not less, likely to access unsuitable games — banning an objectionable game simply encourages children to obtain an uncensored copy on the internet — a trivial task for most millennials — whereas regulated sales would be strictly controlled by retailers, leading to greater parental involvement in purchase decisions; in this way, the policy actually encourages the very thing it purports to prevent;
- minors already have access to plenty of unsuitable material — banning RC games will not have an appreciable effect on minors’ ability to access numerous other material that would be refused classification, so the policy fails to achieve its stated objective;
- the absence of an R18+ rating risks misinforming parents about the content of RC games — to classify game content as unsuitable for minors gives an unambiguous indication of its content, allowing parents to make more informed decisions about what games their children play;
- an outright ban is disproportionate to the stated harm — given that the average age of computer gamers is 30, to prohibit this otherwise lawful activity for everyone would be disproportionate to any adverse consequences suffered by the small subsample of children who might otherwise be exposed to R18+ material; and
- therefore, given that adults playing RC games does not of itself cause harm to anyone else, there is no case for restricting that activity — to proscribe lawful activity without reason offends justice and undermines the rule of law.
There are, of course, loads of other good arguments about why the current policy fails to prevent harm. More important, however, are the many tangible harms that the current policy actually does cause:
- it unreasonably interferes with the right to private life — by proscribing media based on arbitrary normative criteria not accepted as valid by many educated adults, the government is imposing a moral standard on citizens that unreasonably encroaches upon their right to make decisions about the types of media they consume in the home;
- it unjustifiably restricts freedom of expression — both of the makers of RC games, and their putative consumers (the act of consumption, given the nature of interactive media, also being a valid form of expression); for example, in Fallout 3, Japanese censors forced Bethesda to alter one quest in a fundamental way, so as to deprive players of the choice whether to detonate a nuclear bomb, while in Left 4 Dead 2, Valve had to cause bodies to fade away and remove important decals to make the game MA15+ compatible — actions which critics say significantly harmed the quality of the gaming experience;
- it causes significant economic damage — a seemingly protectionist measure (since most RC games are foreign-developed), it actually harms domestic industries by encouraging copyright infringement, harming local game retailers (by forcing adults to buy RC games from overseas internet retailers), harming the local games industry and damaging Australia’s reputation as an innovator in electronic entertainment and digital credibility more widely; and
- it undermines the coherence and authority of the classification system as a whole — the arbitrary exclusion of R18+ and X18+ computer games is inconsistent with the treatment of such materials in other media; although there is an argument that it takes a lower degree of violence in an interactive medium to elevate a work’s classification, the answer is to adopt different scaling criteria, not to exclude entire categories; to do otherwise risks damaging the moral authority and logical coherence of the entire scheme.
Introducing an R18+ classification is a step towards more coherent and effective regulation of electronic media content. This is especially so when it is remembered that the RC category would continue to prevent the sale of a game with ‘gratuitous or exploitative depictions of sexual violence’, as well as any game that ‘offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults’ to such an extent that it should not be classified.
Interested members of the public have until 28 February 2010 to submit their comments on the discussion paper.
