Article

Quote: The Federal Government has now set its sights on gamers, promising to use its internet censorship regime to block websites hosting and selling video games that are not suitable for 15 year olds.

Not sure why, but I like following Australian news on censorship. This one stuck out though today. Not just because they want to block websites, but because of the next part:

Quote: Conroy confirmed that under the filtering plan, it will be extended to downloadable games, flash-based web games and sites which sell physical copies of games that do not meet the MA15+ standard.

I was thinking of sites like newgrounds that host any kind of games and actually has mature games hosted. If this goes through sites like that are walking a fine line. I know we don't have many Australians on the boards, but I talked to two of them online quick and they can't believe it's happening. Anyone shocked? I'm just surprised how far the government is willing to go to parent everyone and take responsibility away from actual parents in regards to internet usage.

Ideologically, I utterly disagree with censorship, there are very few cases where censorship is warranted. Most governments already have enough influence over the media to convey warnings and parental advisory, thus there's no real need for censorship. Now, one could argue that perhaps the overall level of education in the country is so low that the government feels that it can not trust its people to make correct decisions. This of course is not a very flattering argument, nor is it true for most countries, and if a country really would be in such a state then they have much bigger worries -- be it that their level of education is extremely low, or that they are slipping towards dictatorship -- than the next inappropriate flash game...

My 2 cents.

I thought Conroy's internet filter was quietly killed off. Guess I haven't been following the news closely enough.

I'm a bit concerned about what happens to all the games that haven't received classification because they never applied for it. While they're not "Refused Classification", they also don't have a rating.

If Conroy actually manages to implement his filter, I expect what will happen is that, either through incompetence or through good old-fashioned civil disobedience, some major websites will end up on the blacklist such as Google, YouTube, major newspapers sites, etc. They'll probably only be down for a day before the media crucify Conroy, but it will be enough to pull the plug.

I also don't think the government knows how unpopular this will be with tech-literate people. Politics is usually too chaotic for me to make a stand on a single issue, but I've already made up my mind not to vote for Federal Labor on this alone. It's the sheer arrogance of keeping the damn thing alive despite everyone in the industry stating how stupid it is that's the most galling.

I don't think I have an idealogical issue with censorship per se. In the UK for instance, we have something called the "watershed", UK channels can't show extreme violence/language/sex before 9pm. To me that's absolutely fine. We also must have some rules on showing really explicit stuff even after that time, and I believe the USA is the same. I don't have any issues with not allowing porn to be shown on TV, I don't feel my freedom or rights are being compromised.

It's a long way from what AUS are doing, but for me the issue is the severity of the censorship, not that governments employ it in the first place.

It doesnt matter what your beliefs are whether right or wrong
the thing thats bogus with this is
It will fail.
Thus ultimately there has been taxmoney spent for no meaningful result

some news organization needs to check who benefits financially (work etc) from this, obviously the person who proposed it has already benifited

Quote: Original post by d000hg
I don't think I have an idealogical issue with censorship per se. In the UK for instance, we have something called the "watershed", UK channels can't show extreme violence/language/sex before 9pm. To me that's absolutely fine. We also must have some rules on showing really explicit stuff even after that time, and I believe the USA is the same. I don't have any issues with not allowing porn to be shown on TV, I don't feel my freedom or rights are being compromised.

It's a long way from what AUS are doing, but for me the issue is the severity of the censorship, not that governments employ it in the first place.

That isn't censorship, it is business regulations for reasonable time, place, and manner.

It is very common to see time, place and manner restrictions on all sorts of things. The people involved can still do it, but must do so in a way that doesn't harm others.

You described a government placing restrictions on how they broadcast publicly. The content itself is not censored. There are time/place/manner restrictions on public broadcast to prevent harm to other viewers, but you can get it at different times or on a pay-per-view or on-demand broadcast.

Further, individuals themselves are not prohibited (censored) from actively seeking out those materials from video rental stores or other sources. Even in the case of porn you might have to go to the back room to get it, but a consenting adult can legally obtain it.

I strongly support this idea. It satisfies the needs of the vast majority to be shielded from the material, but still allows complete access to people who want it.



What the AUS proposal is attempting to do is different.

Instead of restrictions on time, place, and manner they are talking about a complete ban. You cannot get around it. The material will be completely inaccessible because somebody who maintains the list thinks it should be banned. It is even worse when the list itself is private, since there can be malice and corruption in blocking things that are perfectly legal.

This is a horrible concept. It denies access to everybody, regardless of circumstances.



These types of laws (in all nations, not just AUS) are absolutely stupid. The money would be better spent by hiring a nanny service for the common people. The nanny can slap your hand when you try to look at porn. She can throw away your food because it contains trans-fats. And if you live in Australia, she can turn off your computer while surfing the web and tell you that you are too young to be playing that game.

This internet filter has had me fuming since late last year when they were threatening to implement it by Christmas. It never happened. As far as I can tell this is all just hot air that will never be implemented. At least I'm hoping.

This specific discussion raises another issue about game ratings that annoys me greatly. The fact that there's no adult rating (I believe that the MA15+ is the highest rating) for games. Does the government really believe that adults just do not play computer games? A few decades ago that might have been believable but these days most people around my age (mid 20s) have grown up in a huge boom of computer gaming and claiming that games are limited to people 15 and under is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm all for regulations and ratings and informing people about the content of things such as games and movies, but when the government starts to act like a mother and tell you what you can and cannot watch/interact with, that's when I have a huge problem.

This internet filter won't go ahead... Putting in laws that allows the opposition to compare you to Iran is not good political sense!

Quote: Original post by instinKt
This specific discussion raises another issue about game ratings that annoys me greatly. The fact that there's no adult rating (I believe that the MA15+ is the highest rating) for games. Does the government really believe that adults just do not play computer games?

That's Michael Atkinson's fault, not this Conroy tard.
When Atkinson was shown evidence that the vast majority of us supported an R18 rating, he just claimed that the surveys were fraudulent.
So yes, he does think that adults do not play or want people to play video games...

Quote: Original post by instinKt
This specific discussion raises another issue about game ratings that annoys me greatly. The fact that there's no adult rating (I believe that the MA15+ is the highest rating) for games. Does the government really believe that adults just do not play computer games? A few decades ago that might have been believable but these days most people around my age (mid 20s) have grown up in a huge boom of computer gaming and claiming that games are limited to people 15 and under is absolutely ridiculous.

The lack of an R18+ rating is entirely because of the South Australian Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson. The way the system is set up, any changes to the classification scheme require the unanimous support of all the federal and state attorneys-general. All the other attorneys-general are AFAIK either in support of changes or don't see any good reason why not to. But Michael Atkinson is strongly against the R18+ rating come hell or high water - he won't be shifted by anything. We won't get a higher rating system or even parity with games with films until SA gets a new Attorney-General.

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
This internet filter won't go ahead... Putting in laws that allows the opposition to compare you to Iran is not good political sense!

The bit that puzzles me is why they're pushing the idea in the first place. Is it just a cold Machiavellian ploy to win support from the more authoritarian independent senators? If so, it's still stupid because it's more likely to tick off the Greens whose votes they need. If not, then why is this government so determined to impose a mandatory blacklist? They're uncomfortable questions.

My strong hunch is the sole reason it's being pushed so hard is because Conroy, for whatever reason, has adapted this as his pet project. His poltical career is now entwined in this project and so I guess he feels obligated to push it through.