eBriefs
Computer
Games - Interactive Movies - Players
- Stakeholders -
Local
Censorship - Overseas Censorship - Developer
Responses - Accusations
Who has a stake in the computer games censorship debate in Australia?
- Supporters of the retention
of the current computer games censorship system
Throughout the debate, the
following groups have been instrumental in supporting Government positions
on the computer games classification issue:
* Conservative politicians.
Elected representatives in this category can be found on both sides of
Australian politics - in the Federal and State parliaments. Computer
games regulation is a topic that engages almost
every politician towards a conservative viewpoint. Exceptionally
prominent figures include Senators Margaret
Reynolds (Labor) and John Tierney
(Liberal).
* Religious groups.
Typically, these Christian groups view electronic media, especially its
newer varieties, as promoting irreligious ideals and a general lowering
of moral standards in the community, especially among children. Specific
examples of such organizations include the Catholic
Women's League and the Festival of Light.
Apparently, no non-Christian religious group has taken a public position
on computer games classification issues. This category occasionally
also includes some members of groups that promote largely secular philosophies
such as feminism as devoutly as the holders of traditional religious beliefs
(see Dietz, 1998 in particular).
* Young
Media Australia (YMA).
This strong activist group promotes the protection of children from media
influences that may cause them any form of distress, harm, or confusion.
They frequently make submissions to relevant Government inquiries and usually
make a highly favourable, positive impression on the usually sympathetic
politicians. Their influence has traditionally been considerable,
as their head, Barbara Biggins, was also the head of the OFLC's
Classification Review Board for many years. YMA members continue
to fully support the recommendations of the Senate
Committee in 1993, dismissing the plentiful evidence to support the
opposite position that has arisen since that date (such as from the OFLC's
own research). No other non-government supporter of the status quo
comes close to attaining the influence of Young Media Australia.
All three major groups in
this category have in common a desire to do what they think is right to
protect children from new technologies that they believe threaten their
well-being.
- Supporters of the relaxation/revision
of the current computer games censorship system
Their opponents take a conflicting
view and argue for a broader and more tolerant computer games classification
regime that reflects the actual demographics
and other realities of the nature and use of this entertainment medium:
* Computer games magazines.
The two most prominent Australian computer games magazines, Hyper
and
PC
PowerPlay, have long argued for a fairer computer games classification
system. This category often includes these magazines' close allies,
Australian computer games distributors (see Emails
and Memo in Unpublished
Resources).
* Internet free speech
advocates. These include Electronic
Frontiers Australia and some of its most prominent members such as
Irene
Graham. At their Web pages, they promote a fairer computer games
classification system as part of their larger aims to support and expand
online freedoms.
* OFLC.
It may at first seem ironic that one Government agency is opposed to its
peers, but it is a fact that most of these people, through their classification
work on several thousand products, have much more actual practical experience
in studying electronic entertainment, including computer games, than anyone
else in this country. They assert that many adults play computer
games, that they can protect their children adequately without excessive
Government intervention, and that there is no evidence that computer games
need to be regulated more harshly than films.
In this category, all three
major groups base their arguments on scientific evidence that refutes the
positions of their opponents. Additionally, the first two groups
hold the ideals of freedom of speech in particularly high regard to the
extent of advocating the loosening of classification restrictions.
For information regarding
some of the specific details of the opinions held by some of these groups,
please refer to the Accusations page.