Michael Atkinson Explains

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

Chief opponent of an R18+ rating for video games in Australia, South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, has today sent an in-depth letter to Gamespot, outlining his views on the issue. Unfortunately, while the letter is in-depth, his opinions are not. You can read the full text on the Gamespot website, but here are a few choice excerpts.

Retaining the present classification scheme for electronic games is necessary because: it keeps the most extreme material off the shelves; it prevents children and vulnerable adults from being exposed to sexual abuse, criminal activity, and extreme violence in video games; it prevents children and vulnerable adults from virtual participation in sex, criminal activity, and extreme violence; and it results in game developers modifying their product for Australian and sometimes international audiences.

On the surface this sounds entirely reasonable – until you put a few seconds of thought into it. Then it falls apart.

1. It keeps the extreme material off the shelves: …and instead puts it onto the internet, where, due to the publicity surrounding its ban, it is immediately, and illegally, downloaded by thousands of people, most of whom are far too young to be seeing it.
2. It prevents children and vulnerable adults from being exposed to sexual abuse, criminal activity and extreme violence in video games: Actually, it forces them to be exposed to all these things, because games containing it are forced into an MA15+ rating where children can then by them. Grand Theft Auto, anyone?
3. It prevents children and vulnerable adults from virtual participation in sexual abuse, criminal activity and extreme violence: Wait, didn’t I just say Grand Theft Auto? Did I mention it’s multiplayer? So that children aged fifteen can get together with their friends and virtually participate in sexual abuse, criminal activity and extreme violence? Doesn’t that invalidate everything Michael Atkinson is saying? Oh yeah, I guess it does.
4. It results in game developers modifying their product for Australian and sometimes international audiences: Yes, it does. I can’t deny this one: Australia’s rating system has inconvenienced game developers, and game players worldwide, and cost the international industry large sums of money due to expensive edits, reworking and resubmissions. Apparently Michael Atkinson thinks it is not only acceptable, but in fact, desireable, to force his views upon not only his electorate, but his state, his country, and in fact the entire world. Well done Mr. Atkinson, your monumental ego knows no bounds.

Nothing we haven’t seen before of course, but it’s not unusual for politicians as detached as Mr. Atkinson to rehash old material instead of having to face their own hypocritical contradictions. I thought that was pretty damning in itself, but then he goes on!

I have three sons who regularly play computer games at home–the eldest is now 22. I see my children become physically and emotionally obsessed with games, and it is difficult to drag them away from the gaming console. The repeated act of killing a computer-generated person or creature desensitises children to violence. It makes violence part of their everyday lives and what is especially concerning is that it is their re-creation. A child being able to watch sex and violence in a movie is damaging to the child, but the child participating in sex and violence in a computer game is worse.

Making policy based solely on his own household experiences, and then using his position to force the entire nation (and even the world in some cases) to bow to that policy? That, my friends, it the Michael Atkinson method. I’d like to say it’s out of line for me to speculate about Mr. Atkinson’s personal life, but he seems quite content to speculate on everybody else’s by forcing his views onto the entire Australian nation. So I won’t say that. Instead, I’ll just say that as a 23-year-old myself, I would venture to suggest that if Mr. Atkinson has trouble getting his 22-year-old son to stop playing games, perhaps the problem is not with the games.

Apparently being elected Attorney-General means that you instantly become an expert on child psychology. The jury is still out on the long-term effects of early exposure to violent material, even if Michael Atkinson seems to think that he’s got it all figured out. In any case, if being exposed to violence desensitises children to it, you would think that Mr. Atkinson would support a rating which would mean violent games are restricted to adults. Instead, he opposes it and champions the current system which forces such material into the hands of children. Hypocrisy? Or just ignorance?

In cinemas, the age of moviegoers can be regulated, and at the video store people must provide ID to hire R18+ videos. Once electronic games are in the home, access to them cannot be policed and the games are easily accessible to children. These days, older children (18-30) are often living in the family home with younger children (under 18). This means games belonging to older children or parents can easily make their way into the hands of those under 18.

Wake up, Mr. Atkinson! Because of the current ratings system, adult games are already being forced into the hands of children under 18. The same system you champion is already doing the same thing that you are terrified of, and because of you, it’s all beautifully legal. Well done Michael Atkinson. The sooner that you stop “protecting children” and actually start paying attention, children might actually have a chance.