R18+ propaganda manipulating public opinion

Updated April 06, 2011 11:44:22

Many of the 80 per cent of Australians who agreed that there should be an R18+ classification for computer games (Galaxy 2010) did so because they believed that this would provide better protection for children from inappropriate violent content.

It makes an interesting and disturbing case study of media manipulation to explore how this belief came about. How did a push to obtain access to more extreme games get portrayed as a crusade for the kiddies?

Firstly a little background is needed. Since the implementation in 2003 of the 2000-2001 Review of Classification Guidelines, films and computer games have been classified using identical classification criteria. Prior to that, films and games were classified separately and differently, an acknowledgement that the media experiences were different - one passive and the other interactive.

For the past eight years, the only exception to the reliance on the same set of criteria for films and games has been that the R18+ classification was not available for games. The R18+ exception had been in place since the early ‘90s, with successive state and territory ministers taking the view that caution was needed, given the strong indicators that the interactive nature of games would increase impact.

Ever since the 2001 decision by the ministers to maintain this state of caution, gamers have kept up a relentless push to have R18+ games legalised. This push has, until the past year or so, mainly centred around the freedom that adults should have to see, hear and read what they want: if adults can access R18+ films why not R18+ games?

Over the past year the tactics have changed. Rather than pushing adults’ rights, the pro-R18+ lobby has argued that having such a category would provide better protection for children. The push became propaganda.

It’s propaganda because the real outcome of having an R18+ classification would not protect children. It would legalise games with higher level impact than are presently available in the sale and hire system. Using the classification criteria for films, as the system required, R18+ games would have no restrictions on themes, could have high-impact levels of violence, of implied sexual violence, of realistically-simulated sexual activity (and perhaps the real thing), of drug use and of nudity. Given that it’s practically impossible for even the most conscientious of parents to keep their children away from exposure to portable R18+ items like DVDs and games, how can it be possibly claimed that this would be better for children?

Over the past year, the propaganda has been along the lines of “All these very violent games now in MA15+ (the highest level now permitted) don’t belong there; if we had an R18+, they’d all [magically] move up into R18+. Everybody knows R18+ games are not for children, and that will keep them out of the hands of kids. And if parents allow access it’s not our fault. And as well, we won’t be the laughing stock of other countries because we don’t have an R for games…”

The last argument is laughable - as if other countries care what Australia does about classification! But it seems to have traction in some circles.

The main line of propaganda has, however, been largely accepted, even though all that was actually being proposed was the legalisation of games with higher level content than presently permitted. Until the SCAG meeting in December, there was no proposal on the table to modify the guidelines for any lower classifications for games, or to reclassify MA15+ games at a higher level.

Many good-hearted people have been misled. They’ve said “Yes” to polls asking them if there should be an R18+ classification. This has allowed the Federal Government to quote the level of support as a reason for now pushing the state and territory ministers to acquiesce in allowing an R18+ by July.

There’s another way to look at it. We’ve had a position of no R18+ for games for 18 years. A wise position of caution that has only been strengthened by increasing evidence of harm from very violent games - desensitisation, loss of empathy, a lack of appreciation of the real life consequences of violence, increases in risk taking activities. It’s only been a long running sore because gamers have never been willing to take “No” for an answer.

This time around they’ve managed to swing the public behind them with a well-designed and publicised, persistent propaganda campaign, promising protections that could not have been provided.

As an example, since January this year around 18 regional newspapers in NSW and Victorian have carried the same story - (the faces and the stats change) that “everybody wants it, it will be better for families and will bring Australia into line with the rest of the world”. How can anyone argue against that?

Since December, the responsible state and territory ministers have gone away to consider their options. We don’t know what they are considering as we’ve not been told.

What is needed is acknowledgement of the difference between the experience offered by watching films and that of gaming - where, for example, you are rewarded for being the best at violence. A separate games system can and should have regard for interactivity as its basis.

What would make sense is for the ministers to decide that it doesn’t make sense for the guidelines for games to be changed ahead of a complete review of the classification systems for films and games to be conducted by the Australian Law Reform Commission later this year. Are we so hell-bent on putting an R18+ in for games that we fail to do the logical thing - wait and review all together?

The ALRC’s review provides the opportunity to look back at the criteria that were being used to classify games at the MA15+ level in 1999, and compare them with those used from 2003 onwards in the common films and games system. In 1999, games in MA15+ could have “depictions of realistic violence of medium intensity”. Depictions that had “unduly detailed and or relished acts of extreme violence or cruelty” would be given RC. Since the joint system from 2003, MA15+ films and games have been permitted to have violence with strong impact so long as it’s justified by context (just make up a violent story!), and stylised violence is seen as having less impact.

A central concern in this debate is the high level of violence available at MA15+ but this shows why we have it. We would not have had so many very violent games in the MA15+ category in the past years, if we’d kept the 1999 wording. Expressing our concerns at the subjective nature of the 2003 wording, we were assured at the time by the minister of the day not to worry, the standards will stay the same. The level of concern about what’s allowed in MA15+ may have its roots here. But what is clear is that the answer to violence in MA15+ is not to introduce R18+.

So gamers may rant and rave (and they do if anyone dares oppose them) but let’s take the ALRC opportunity to review the options properly, not respond to propaganda.

Update April 5:

So many comments on my article above have ignored or missed the point that I think I need to provide a  further explanation.


The question put to the Australian public in December 2009 was, "Should the Australian National Classification Scheme include an R 18+ classification category for computer games?

The Inquiry question was put in the context of Australia's joined-up classification system for films and games for display, sale or hire.  The same classification criteria are used for games as for films at each classification level. The difference is that some whole classification levels are not used for games, namely R18+ and X18+. 

The proposal was about filling the gap relating to R18+. There was no proposal or question on the table about changing the classification criteria for games at the MA15+ or any lower levels.  If the R18+ proposal were accepted, it would simply mean that higher level games would be legalised.  

Yet much of case for legalising R18+ level games has been made on the basis that many of the very violent games now in MA15+ would move to a new R18+. This could not have happened without a revision of the criteria at MA15+ level at least, and a massive reclassification of games now at MA15+.


It’s these facts that led me to state that the message that having R18+ would better protect children was sheer propaganda. 


This was the point of my article: the pro R18+ games case was dishonestly or mistakenly made on the basis of better child protection (which could not have been delivered) rather than on just honestly arguing for adult freedom to have access to R18+ games.


Maybe this quote from the Kotaku website of Aug 24 2009, will make things clearer.  


Responding to an article promoted on Kotaku, DogMan 2:10 PM, says  "Its sad that the best hope of getting treated like an adult is to twist the argument so it appears as though we’re protecting the children. … [B]eing forced into fighting the battle on this field seems wrong. As a grown man my opinion doesn’t mean squat, yet if I’m defending hypothetical children* aged 15-18 from nasty pictures suddenly I’m worth listening too."

Unfortunately DogMan does not explain whether he at any point tried to get a hearing on the adult liberties argument, much less the response he got from anyone with any power to change the system.

It’s plain that the gaming industry understood that adult freedom was the real issue. Here's Ron Curry CEO of IGEA in The Punch March 19, 2010:

"The fact is that the R18+ classification discussion is not about children, it’s about adults and their right to access material that has been developed for them. Australia exists within a global social and economic economy and there is now a substantial amount of content available that carries mature themes, with some of this content containing substantial sexual themes and/or violence". 

Further, the IGEA submission to the Inquiry made its argument principally on the basis of adult freedom, with only a sideways glance at child protection (”parents will have a full tool kit of classifications”).

We and other submittors understood that the inevitable outcome, if the Inquiry proposal were accepted, would be that some games presently in the Refused Classification category would be made R18+. 

I have no quarrel with someone arguing for R18+ if that's what they think is good for adults, and understand that this would be the outcome.  I do not agree that it would be a good thing for children or for society in general, but that is not the point of my previous article. I was not arguing that case which is well covered in our submission to the Inquiry, complete with evidence and references. Others, including the Children’s Commissioners and Guardians also point out the difficulties experienced by parents in keeping R18+ material out of the hands of children.    


This said, none of the above negates our real concern, shared by many, including many of those who commented on my previous article, that there is a very real problem with many games presently in the MA15+ category. They are legally there because the guidelines allow for eg games with “strong” violence.  And they will stay there unless the criteria for MA15+ are changed.

In its submission to the inquiry, ACCM argued for reconsideration of the criteria for MA15+. We said:  “There are many concerns about the impact of games already in the system at MA15+ level. This concern would lead us to propose that the criteria for inclusion of games at the MA15+ level should be reviewed before any consideration is given to adding R18+ level games.”

Through our close involvement in the debate it has become clear to us that many who supported the proposal for an R18+ did so not because they wanted more freedom to play higher level games, but because they were concerned about the levels of violence in MA15+ games and had somehow been led to believe that would change.


So if the Ministers currently considering their options interpret the large vote for an R18+ as a vote for reviewing the guidelines for games at least at the MA15+ level, some progress will have been made.

Barbara Biggins is CEO of the Australian Council on Children and the Media, and has been an advocate for children’s interests in relation to the media since 1973.

Topics: arts-and-entertainment, community-and-society, games, games-industry

First posted March 30, 2011 12:27:37