You probably know of the dispute over whether there should be an R18+ rating for games in Australia. Most people say: 'yea that's gay or 'OFLC sucks' but most of the time nobody goes over the real reasons for and against this issue. If we don't just look like a bunch of illiterate hate-mongering kids then maybe they will take us seriously.
The reason there is no R18+ rating for games is because games are considered more interactive and therefore more likely to effect children than just simply watching the themes (violence, sex ect.)in a movie which does have a full ratings system. But this way of thinking is flawed:
In the Australian constitution it states: "adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want." Now you could argue that this rule does not say anything about playing games- but what this stands for is what is important: seeing- hearing- reading: these are all basic human rights and are observed in most free countries. This basically says that adults take responsibility and can give consent to do anything they want as long as they don't hurt other people. Right there you have hard proof that banning anything is wrong in the first place. That is what being in a free country is all about.
Secondly, movies and television; which are both forms of media, like computer games; have a ratings system that recommends and restricts audiences of certain ages to watch them. Without a complete ratings system for all forms of media many problems can come up, including misclassification of media. Just allowing a video game to be MA15+ rated because it isn't bad enough to ban is a silly way of looking at it, because if the ratings system is there to protect children from themes that are not suitable to them. How can you defend downgrading the rating to make it more accessible! Sure, there are onlythreeyears between 15 and 18, but it is still terrible ethics when you consider the difference betweena seven-year-old and a ten-year-old to a fifteen and eighteen year-old is the same.
The process of arguing the ban of a video game is far too lengthy and contradicts the point of releasing a game if the decision is overruled, because the game will not be competitive next to a newer set of games with better graphics and possibly better game play because the time span between the first failed release and the new one will be so long.
The stopping of certain games being released in Australia is to stop children from being influenced by what happens in the game and saying: "hey I just made that guy kill fifteen people! That's cool! Heymy guyjust got killed! Man I wish I could be like him!"
Although that is a bit melodramatic, I played Grand Theft Auto when I was twelve-years-old and I'm FINE.
On a study conducted by the OFLC regarding: "the theory that computer games would promote aggression in the young," they found: "no such effects". No, I haven't just taken a quote out of context. The full statement included my previous quote and the one before it and would not have made sense in my blog. The real statement:
"...several well-designed studies, conducted by the proponents of the theory that computer games would promote aggression in the young, have found no such effects." The report also asserted that: "none of the independent research published to date has demonstrated serious effects of aggressive game play upon young people's behaviour."
There you go. Straight from the horse's mouth that video games don't promote aggression in children. This, added with our basic human right of "adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want" surely proves that banning computer games is wrong on all levels. Adults are responsible for what they play and children should not be extremely affected by it, though should be heavily recommended or restricted to content that is not appropriate for them. I am all for children being protected and anyone who thinks otherwise is sick in the head, but why can't adults choose what they want to play?