Michael Atkinson responds: R18+ games, bad parents and protecting children
July 14, 2008 – 11:06 pm
South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson is what most people consider a dickhead (and that’s by folks who vote for him). Gamers and anyone opposed to censorship aren’t so kind. They know he’s been blocking an R18+ classification for video games for years.
Why? Atkinson swears blue children will be harmed by the introduction of an adult games rating. Extreme sex, violence and illegal acts will be thrust upon us through our Playstations and Wiis (imagine Ron Jeremy: Pornstar on the Wii! Beat that Wii Fit).
In his recent response to a concerned citizen’s letter, Atkinson makes it clear that not all parents would stop their children from playing games classified R18+ and that a restriction on adult liberties is a small price to pay in order to protect them:
‘I do not think your right R18+ games should outweigh society’s interest in protecting children and vulnerable adults. What the present law does is keep most of the extreme material off the shelves. It is true this restricts adult liberty to a small degree. This is the price of keeping this material from children and vulnerable adults. In my view, it is worth it.’
Atkinson’s long argued that children will want to play R18+ games more than they’d want to watch an R18+ film, and that probably holds some truth. But because the possibility for substandard parenting exists, is compromising the freedom of Australian adults (as flimsy as it is) really the best way to protect children? If Atkinson can’t trust parents to monitor game use, why does he see them fit to decide on their children’s film and TV viewing habits, the toys they play with, or the food they eat.
Wouldn’t better education on the importance of good parenting when it comes to classification be a better solution? A long term campaign to inform parents about healthy entertainment practices for their children?
Banning video games to protect children is equivalent to saying the only way to combat childhood obesity is by banning junk food for kids and adults both. The key is making parents aware of what’s good for their family so they can make the right choice.
Atkinson’s goal of keeping games that don’t agree with his tastes out of the hands of children and adults has become all too reminiscent of the stern fifty’s father who refuses to let his kids go to the Friday night dance. Partly because of genuine concern, but primarily because they just don’t like it or understand it. It’s time Michael realised he’s not our dad.
More reading:
Logan over at Kotaku reponds to a number of Atkinson’s objections. Take a look.
10 Responses to “Michael Atkinson responds: R18+ games, bad parents and protecting children”
Mark Twain is supposed to have said:
“Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.”
By Simon Rumble on Jul 15, 2008
I think we can find a lot of similarities between food and censorship, but none as good as Twains.
By Mike on Jul 15, 2008
If there are parents out there concerned for their children’s safety against these games, then they should really look at themselves and think long and hard why they would give into their child’s demands to buy the game in the first place.
The ratings are there to inform people of the level of violence/language/nudity etc, not for the kids to demand it just because they want to play it more than a PG game. If parents can’t say no, then it’s their own problem, not ours.
If we’re talking censorship here, then why not take down the disgusting billboards advertising impotence treatment? What happens when a 5 year old reads that and asks their parents? Awkward questions much? I know I wouldn’t want to have to answer something like that.
By Rachel on Jul 20, 2008
Hi Rachel,
This article re Dark Knight is a good example of parents ignoring classification markings:
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,24029281-7485,00.html
It reads:
Sydney mother Laurina took her 8-year-old son to the movie as a school holiday activity and left the cinema highly disturbed by the violent
scenes, and felt the movie was inappropriately rated.
“I’m horrified, this movie is rated M and I almost feel it’s heavier than an R rated film. I had to cover his eyes and talk to him throughout to cover some of the dialogue.
“I mean these companies market Lego products to children like my son. This movie should definitely be rated higher. We’re going to go and get some sunshine and go somewhere happier!”
Her son, who she didn’t want to name, walked out of the film visibly shaken and said he “had a headache.”
Dark Knight was rated M. Does anyone consider an 8 year old a mature audience?
In regards to the Longer Lasting Sex billboards, attempts to remove them have already happened. You will now start seeing more big yellow Longer Lasting XOX billboards.
By Mike on Jul 20, 2008
Hi Mike
Thanks for bringing that article to my attention. I myself went and saw Dark Knight just this Saturday gone, and, myself being an adult found it quite gory. My partner and I both felt queasy in the scene that portrayed burnt flesh and exposed bone and muscle. It was excellently portrayed, and I admired the work put in to make that so realistic, but it’s nothing that a child should see.
I noticed that people had young children in the audience, and I couldn’t believe that someone would be so ignorant as to ignore a strong classification like M, and take their five year old son to see it. Yes, I saw as young as that. I was horrified.
The original Batman story has ALWAYS been dark, and gritty, and never in my opinion a story suitable for a child. There has been a lot of child-appropriate Batman material, to appeal to the younger generations, but I mean, for crying out loud, the story starts with a young boy’s parents being murdered right in front of his eyes, and taking it into his own hands to become a vigilante and try to rid his city of murderous theiving scum.
That alone should be enough to tell someone that a movie of this calibre is not suitable for a child, not withholding the classifications. If that parent, and others like her, is taking her child to see M rated movies, then she needs to do some serious rethinking about what she allows her child to see.
I realise that the Longer Lasting Sex billboards are in the process of being altered, but as one concerned parent pointed out to me on the bus one day, “My child will still ask ‘What’s longer lasting XOX mean, mummy?’ and I won’t know how to answer, because if I say ‘You’re too young to know’ then she will keep asking people she knows until she gets an answer.
‘If I tell her, which I never would, I would have to spend time lengthily explaining what sex means, what impotence means, why people want their sex to last longer, and it’s not something I want to expose my child to until I feel that she is at an appropriate age to learn about the facts of life.”
There used to be a time when things like these advertisements were put in magazines for a restricted age level of customers, and now they’re being splashed about, in plain view. It’s not just on billboards either. I stopped listening to the radio because I was disgusted at the inundation of ads talking about impotence treatments.
I apologise for the length of this reply, I tend to rabbit on a fair bit when I read about stupid, stupid people ^^;
By Rachel on Jul 21, 2008
Well, the thing with the Longer Lasting ads is they are extremely tame. They are to the point, only text, and deal with a real medical problem. The benefits of them being on billboards is the message gets to a lot of people who wouldn’t normally pick up a magazine where such a product might be advertised.
Explaining to children about certain subjects is always going to be a bit touchy, but at the end of the day it comes down to the parent.
I don’t think under any circumstances should an ad relating to a legitimate medical product, which is advertised in a thoughtful manner, be banned.
By Mike on Jul 21, 2008