Grab yourself a beverage, and a snack. Tea and biscuits will do. This's gonna be a long one.
This is something I hope won't bore people to death, but instead will help improve public circulation about our country. Which I am a fan of, just before I begin tearing into it.

[link]

I consider myself a calm, rational human being. A gamer, and game designer.
I enjoy many forms of expression, film and television, music, theater, art, books. I'm pretty much a fan of any form of expression that allows me to attain freedom, suspend my disbelief and explore who I am, who I'm not, and who I might have been.
For human beings, this is an important thing, something we have had since the dawn of our species. It allows us to reflect back on ourselves, see things in different ways, and maybe even change our perspective for the better.

These freedoms have all fallen under attack at some point, mostly from people who fear for the exposure of their children, or perhaps to prevent crimes they believe will be caused by the content involved. The above article is a very poorly structured and undereducated attempt to capitalize further on the collective negative press the medium has been enduring. In fact he proudly declares in one section that he doesn't consider games 'art' in the same vein as movies, and then proceeds to cite another occasion he played games on.


But we should be getting over it. It has happened over and over again.

It has happened in books.
[link]
I've even heard of 'To Kill a Mockingbird' 'Lolita' and '1984' being taken off reading lists and shelves in several stores and curriculum.

It has happened to Film.
[link]
Many of the films mentioned in that section are now praised as 'ahead of their time' and 'masterpieces'.

It is basically the ONLY thing that happens in theater.
[link])#Nudity.2C_sexual_freedom_and_drug_use

Comic books.
[link]

Video games have been on the chopping board for nearly as long as they've existed.
[link])#Controversy
Looking back now, doom seems pretty tame to me.
I dunno, maybe I've been desensitized?

Apparently, we (especially here in Australia) are not learning from our mistakes and moving forward, we are actually starting to tip backwards. We have always been a little bit backward, not having had an R18+ rating for movies until 1971, and continually enforcing strange censorship policies on all media.

[link]

Please find enclosed in this link a list and history of Australian censorship.

On the topic of video game censorship, Left 4 Dead 2 famously had an appeal going through for uncensored classification in Australia that was refused by the board of classification. In fact, the reason the first one was not censored appears to be that the technology did not simulate with as much accuracy as the first one, bodily dismemberment.
[link]
Our game policies have obviously not quite caught up with our movie policies. From 38 years ago. This is largely because of Michael Atkinson, the South Australian Attorney-General.

[link]

To sum up, his spokesperson said on the matter, "He doubts whether any safeguards could be put in place to deter young people, who after all (are) the most computer literate and savvy in our society, from being able to access material."

Eat one of your biscuits now, you'll need the stamina.

Essentially, the logic is that kids are going to get the games R rating or not. What he might not realize is that by refusing the R rating for games, he is promoting piracy and in fact making it easier for the technically savvy to obtain illegal copies of the full uncensored game, and punishing those who would contribute money towards the industry.

Every time someone cites the rating system as adequate information, someone intimates that it doesn't matter, and the children it is designed to protect will get past it anyway. Most commonly, parents.

I don't care who you are, if you have children, and you allow them to have video games, you should be monitoring the content yourself! A great deal of parents are completely unaware that games have ratings as it stands! They blunder into their local games shop, buy the kid whatever they want, and then complain when they see their child blowing people up and running them over in GTA. Many store attendants I have heard from have reported attempts to recommend appropriately rated games have been met with vague or even aggressive dismissal .

Of course you don't want your 4 year old playing Manhunt, are you insane?!

Why did you buy your 8 year old Chinatown wars if you weren't prepared to educate them about drugs?

No, Mortal Kombat is NOT suitable for your 6 year old nephew, unless you're trying to de-sensitize him to computer violence, which, I might add, has been found to be processed in very different areas of the human brain when compared with actual violent impulses.

With many game companies based in Australia, in an industry larger then Hollywood and still growing, there seems to be very little support for a product we are able to deliver globally, that could offer the country some much needed stability during the economic crisis.

But even WITH an R rating, would our country lessen its vice-like grip on so-called 'Family values'? Its calling card used wherever a song is bleeped, a game left unreleased or a new dry zone established?

I don't think so!

More strange decisions become apparent on the first two articles on this page:
[link]

Yes, yes, I'm citing porn, do try not to snicker. By the way, don't forget to drink your tea!

The first item is merely the last victim in a long line of unfortunate films to get banned for trying to be more then just a Pornographic film. There is a policy in the classification system that stipulates any movie primarily concerned with sex is not to contain any acts of violence. In theory, the law looks as though it is set up to stop films glorifying sexual abuse. However, clearly upon looking at this and other items, the policy is used when the 'violence' in question is clearly non sexual or consensual.

I have read about a movie that was banned because it was a Western themed porno, and it contained scenes where people aimed guns at one another. Pirates was cited on a similar controversy. Even a film that involved light spanking was refused classification.

The second item listed actually documents police raiding specialty shops, seizing movies and handing them to the board, only to have them pass without any controversy. The scary thought, is imagining that the police are out there, hooning around raiding porno shops.

Is this really a good use of anyone's time? Doesn't this sort of behavior violate ANY kind of law? Am I going to look out the window one day to see shocktroopers at my door demanding to see any and all of my skin-flicks?

Which of course brings us back to the proposed internet filter that Minister Stephen Conroy seems to be having trouble with. Despite costing $128.5 million to further hamper our notoriously slow, unreliable and already regulated internet connection, He boasted "Greater protection to children from online pornography and violent websites"

Fine for familys I suppose. I'd appreciate the right to opt out.

"Mandatory for all internet service providers to provide clean feeds, or ISP filtering"
"The government will not let users opt out of the proposed internet filter when it is introduced,"

So wait, what about freedom of speech?

"If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, the Rudd-Labour Government is going to disagree,"

Is this going to affect my browsing habits?
Are legitimate pornographic websites going to be stopped?
I know a few sites the supply information about which ecstasy pills are dangerous, which while supplying possibly illegal informationl, has probably saved a few lives.

"(It is) not known what content the mandatory filter would bar, with euthanasia and pro-anorexia websites on the chopping block"
"We are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible of illegal material,"

Until the list was accidentaly leaked, a shining example of the efficiency of this department, the government refused to release the list to the public, which included a dog kennels website blocked for the use of the term 'bitch'.

He even dithers down the plan to censoring any web content that might "offend against the standards of morality".
[link]

An extract from the following link sets precedent for content being censored for political agenda.
'Wikileaks was added to the blacklist for publishing a leaked document containing Denmark's list of banned websites.'
[link]
Another extract from this article reveals there is actually an agenda to punish economic development:
'Already, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby, Jim Wallace, has said he hopes the sex industry will go broke as a result of the censorship scheme.'

After all the talk of going after child pornography rings, and attempting to call anyone opposing the filter with his above statement, Minister Conroy released this statement.
[link]

Since the filter isn't designed to stop child pornography, does that mean its designed for familys to protect their children? Then why is it mandatory for all ISPs?

Any biscuits left? I ran out...

Giving ISPs this power also breaks the Net Nuetrality ideal, in which all information is equal, and website is given higher priority then any other. It would give the ISPs the ability to set up a racket in which larger companies websites could buy a higher priority, and smaller ones who can't afford additional costs to load more slowly, or not at all.

With both France and Finland establishing internet access as a human right, I can't help but feel embarrassed on behalf of my country, as we shirk away from economic opportunity, and towards completely regulated information. This isn't just suppressive on a day to day level, but damaging to our countrys future, as others leap ahead. World class internet was certainly a boost for South Korea, who now boast the fastest connection in the world, and have generated thousands of jobs through it.

The projected society becomes bleaker upon reading this:
[link]
With an eventual target of lifting the legal drinking age to 21, that's a pretty disappointing highschool graduation party. With many underage youths obtaining alcohol illegally anyway, this decision looks poised to simply create more criminal activity, rather then preventing it.

So imagine in this future world gone wrong that you are a 18 year old high school graduate. Its 4 months till university and there is finally some breathing space between educational facilities. You want to go party, but you wont be able to drink for 3 years. You want a job in the digital entertainment sector, but because of the filter and the slow speed of internet, everyone who wants to work in that department has moved overseas.

You go on the internet to play games, but its slow, and because you are from Australia, all your games, and the games of those who you play with will be censored and no one plays with you. You can't even watch porn. Still in the mood for a party, games being no good and alcohol being illegal, you decide to get some anyway and while you're at it, get some harder drugs, because hey, if you're gonna get busted for alcohol anyway, you may as well experiment.

At the party someone produces ecstasy tablets of a few varieties. You each try one until one of you feels hot and passes out. You try and look up what was in their pill, but the filter prevents you from finding out until its too late. The doctors identify the substances after your friends brain has swollen up and ceased functioning.

I don't really think this is a good idea.