Could you find me a study that supports this? I can't go making scientific assertions without a study supporting what I'm saying.

Hi all,

Here is a draft letter that I will be sending to Captain Douchebag. Feel free to comment/add to it.

And yes, I'm aware that this letter probably won't achieve anything, so I ask the mod team that any posts reminding me of this be deleted immediately in order to keep this thread on track.

-- --
To The Honourable Michael Atkinson MP,

I am writing to assert the clear need for an R18+ classification in Australia. The catalyst for my writing this letter is the recent banning of Left 4 Dead 2 by the OLFC, on the grounds of its violent nature.

I have read your response issued on the 30th of June 2008 to an undisclosed recipient (titled R18+ Classification for Electronic Games). You make an argument that R18+ video games should be banned on the basis that if they are brought in to the household, minors will get their hands on them. By this logic, should we also ban alcohol? Forcing adults to forego the enjoyment of some of Australia's finest wines (from your own good State!), should be done on the basis that if brought into the home children will consume said wine? In an age where video games are now packaged in DVD cases, is it not just as easy for a child to gain access to an R18+ feature film? Should we therefore revoke the R18+ classification for movies? These are the implications of your stance that parents cannot be trusted to enforce legislated restriction rules.

The National Classification Code sets out clear guidelines for the censorship of content within Australia. Upon reading these guidelines, it is clear that a balancing act emerges between the need to protect minors on the one hand, and allowing freedom of speech and an adult's access to content on the other. It seems that you are erring on the side of the protection of minors, as any good father would. However, given my aforementioned comments, it seems that assumptions upon which you base your position are flawed. Is it really up to the State to enforce good parenting? Who can really define what good parenting is, given that minors, as unique human beings, cannot possibly have the same personality or maturity based solely on age? Surely it is the parent, not the State, who knows what is best for his or her own child, as its own individual?

I see a recurring theme within Government policy of late, whereby the citizen is not seen to have the capacity to protect oneself from questionable and/or (potentially) harmful content, and it is therefore the responsibility of the State to protect its citizens on their behalf. Whilst not knowing your stance on mandatory Internet censorship, surely it is the parent's responsibility to police their children's internet usage (either directly or indirectly through an opt-in service such as the Federal Government's NetAlert)? On this point, modern operating systems (Windows Vista and the soon-to-be-released Windows 7), as well as consoles, have the functionality to restrict what games can be played by individual user accounts based on (amongst other things) age ratings. It is the Governments role to inform parents of the steps they can take to enforce what they want their children to have access to their absence, not to blanket-ban the content itself.

I implore you to re-consider your stance an R18+ rating for games in Australia. The adoption of this rating will bring us in-line with the rest of the civilised world. Or are we venturing down the Orwellian path of the State knowing best? It seems to me that the lack of an R18+ rating is another incarnation of the desire of the State to ostensibly protect (in reality, to censor) its citizenry.

Sincerely,
Chop Gun's Real Name

-- --
EDIT: The response to which I refer in the letter: