Thinking the Unthinkable

Opinion from Matt - Wednesday, 04 February 2009 @ 11:14pm

I can't believe I'm saying this, but here it goes: I agree with Jack Thompson.

Ack. I have a taste in my mouth, like a fetid blend of insanity, disbarment and Old Spice.

But the fact remains, I agree with him. Not on significant matters. I don't agree that games teach violence. I don't believe that games are bad. I don't believe that the school shootings that have occurred around the world (and especially in the US) are related to video games.

But here's one thing I do agree with - sales of video games to minors should be stopped.

There have been a number of highly publicised United States state bills attempting to make it a crime to sell videogames over a certain rating to minors.

In the US, state after state has attempted to ban sales of violent video games to minors, and each time they do the supreme court strikes down the bill on First Amendment grounds. The politicians waste taxpayer money and gamers around the world join in rejoicing at a victory for freedom and liberty. The stage resets, to be repeated in another state that I've only otherwise heard referenced in Bonanza episodes.

I've always been one of those people. I've posted approval on GamePolitics comments, decrying the moral minority that seeks to take our freedom. A first amendment victory. STAND FAST, BROTHERS! Except I have been thinking about it now, and I don't actually agree.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Startlingly, videogames aren't even mentioned. An oversight, to be sure.

There are valid criticisms of bills aimed at the banning of sale of games to minors. One is that the ratings system used by the industry is a voluntary one, and handled by the industry itself. Continuing that system would in a sense be allowing a private industry to dictate law, something to be avoided.

But the issue I have isn't with the fine print. It's with the overall concept. People (gamers in general) fight these bills to protect freedom. The question I have to ask is why is anyone even fighting these bills on any grounds? It seems to me that the First Amendment is being made to dance a merry jig, shoehorned into an argument it's ill-prepared for, like Palin in an interview. I see no way you can say that Video Games are to be protected by the First Amendment that you can't apply to... say... pornography.

I know it's a cheap shot, but there are parallels. One of them is material suitable only for mature adults, that children should not be allowed access to. The other is pornography. While I'll rant and rave till International Returning Bovines Day (June 8th) about an adult's right to see and hear and do what they want, I can't bring myself to take up the cause for minors. Or miners.

First Amendment grounds are being used here as they're considered sovereign, and an awful lot of bad behaviour can be hidden behind them. I'm ok with that in general. It's unpopular speech that needs to be protected, representing minority views. And, occasionally, angry and insane ones. But I see no reason myself why they would apply to games.

I should clarify that I'm for the First Amendment in general. I'd like Australia to have a Bill of Rights too, though legislative, rather than the US constitutional one. I'm pro-freedom, especially freedom of speech, pro the rights of citizens to speak as they wish. My issue in this case is not with Amendment 1 itself, but with somehow equating freedom to speak with the right to sell an inappropriate product to children.

But I'm an Australian, not American. So I should focus locally. Here's the thing - the type of bill we're talking about would do little more than bring US law into line with Australia's. Australia's ratings system is already compulsory, and it's already restrictive. It is illegal to sell an MA rated video game to an Australian child, just as it's illegal to allow a 16 year old into a cinema to see an R rated movie.

I've never heard a single person complain about civil liberties in Australia being violated by that prohibition.

Don't get me wrong, the Australian ratings system is made of poo on toast, it's inconsistent and unmanageable, and the lack of an R rating is a continued insult to Australian gamers. But in a way that's connected.

The issue with so many of these crusaders is to "protect the children". The shrieking cry of "somebody think of the children!" is a long standing cliche for the overprotective attitudes of a moral minority (or majority for that matter) but it's still a valid concern of the state. There are plenty of things that are restricted from minors, from alcohol and cigarettes to tattoos and porn. You know, the best stuff. I see no reason violent media (whether videogames or movies) should be any different.

It's not about whether videogames cause violence in children because it would appear strongly convincing that it doesn't. But that's irrelevant. They're not appropriate for children and children should not be allowed to have them.

As gamers I'm surprised we're disputing that. We should be embracing it. We should be acknowledging that not all games are suitable for children, just like not all movies are. We should accept that our industry has grown up, and that we have grown up ourselves. We should be censuring local games retailers that sell MA15+ games to teens without checking ID, and with the same conviction and vigor that we rave about the lack of an R18 rating here. We should be educating and informing parents of the mature content of todays games.

And ultimately this is the choke point. Parents need to be parents, to be responsible when it comes to game purchases for their children. Many parents simply are uninterested in the violent nature of the title they buy for little Timmy.

While no distinction is made between children and adults by retailers or the gaming industry, and no distinction is made between adult content in games parents buy for their own children we can't possibly ask for the law and parliament to make one. When we have a system where it's at least difficult for children to get games that are not appropriate for them... maybe then we'll deserve an R rating.