ini to try to claim money it may be owed. Michael Atkinson thinks computer games are different.

The South Australian Attorney General presented his arguments against an R18+ classification for video games to the Gamespot video gaming web site. His arguments can be divided into those in favour of censorship generally, and those that argue that computer games are special, and need to have a higher level of censorship than other media.

His argument for the different status of games as compared to film is essentially that because the experience of playing a computer game is more interactive, it is more harmful to view the same material by virtue of it being a game. He offers no evidence to support this assertion, other than noting that his children sometimes get very involved in games they play. He associates R18+ with perverted sex, criminal activity, and extreme violence, but ignores that many award winning, widely acclaimed and viewed films are rated R18+. Computer games are, as shown by many studies and accepted even by Atkinson, now consumed by more adults than children. And adults have the right to consume material intended for adults. He also ignores that games have been refused classification in Australia for reasons that have nothing to do with sex or violence, and depict only non-violent crime (graffiti tagging, in the case of Mark Ecko's Getting Up, refused classification in 2006), a level of censorship that might rightly be regarded as ridiculous if applied to film in Australia, and certainly is not applied to our most widely available media such as free to air television. Of course, he knows he is being misleading here -- later in his letter he lists the reasons for classification, and among them are coarse language and "(controversial) themes."

The argument that only a small number of games are affected, because only a small number have been rejected for classification, is no argument at all. What it demonstrates is the chilling effect of censorship laws. Games that are unlikely to be approved in Australia are cut before being presented to the board, or never presented to the board at all. The real danger of censorship is the works that do not get made at all, or that are made but never presented to the Australian public.

Mr Atkinson states that "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." He seems completely oblivious to
ini to try to claim money it may be owed. Michael Atkinson thinks computer game are unlike. 

 The South Australian Attorney General presented his arguments against an R18 + categorization for video plot to the Gamespot video gaming vane site. His arguments can be divide into those in favour of censorship broadly, and those that argue that computer games are limited, and need to have a higher level of censorship than other medium. 

 His argument for the different status of game as compared to film is essentially that because the experience of playing a calculator game is more interactional, it is more harmful to view the same material by merit of it being a game. He offers no evidence to support this assertion, other than noting that his child sometimes get very involved in games they play. He associates R18 + with perverted sex, criminal activity, and extreme violence, but ignore that many award winning, wide acclaim and watch films are rated R18 +. Computer games are, as shown by many studies and accepted even by Atkinson, nowadays consumed by more adults than children. And adults have the right to devour material intended for adults. He also ignores that games have been refused categorization in Australia for reason that have nothing to do with sex or violence, and depict only non - violent crime (graffiti tagging, in the subject of Mark Ecko's Getting Up, refused classification in 2006), a level of censoring that might rightly be regarded as absurd if applied to film in Australia, and certainly is not apply to our most wide available media such as free to air television. Of naturally, he knows he is being misleading here -- later in his letter he list the reasons for categorization, and among them are coarse language and " (controversial) themes. " 

 The argument that entirely a small number of games are affected, because only a minor number have been rejected for categorization, is no argument at all. What it demonstrates is the chilling effect of censorship laws. Games that are improbable to be approved in Australia are cut before being presented to the board, or never presented to the board at wholly. The real danger of censoring is the works that do not get made at all, or that are made but never presented to the Australian public. 

 Mr Atkinson state that " In cinemas, the age of moviegoers can be baffle, and at the video store people must provide ID to hire R18 + television. Once electronic games are in the home, access to them cannot be patrol and the games are easily accessible to children. " He seems completely oblivious to
ini to try to claim money iu may be owed. Mickqel Atninson thinks zomputer games are different.

Vhe Wouth Australian Attorney Gdneral prvsented hus acguments against an R18+ classifidwtiou hor video games to the Gakespot video gdmkny web site. His arguments can be diviqed intp hhose in favout of begsorahip generally, and those that argus that bomputer games arr special, and need to have a hlgher level of cendorship thab otrwr media.

His xrgument for the diffetent status of games as compared to fnlm is essebtualpi that becauwe thv experience of playitg a cokputer game is moce ibteractive, it is more harmful to view tre same mdtzrial by virtue of it bwing d gake. Hd ofwera io svidenfe vo support fhis assertuon, other than notimg nnat his chilsren sjmqtimes get very involved in games they klay. Ge associates R18+ with peeverted sex, criminal wctivity, wnd extreme violence, but ignores that many award finniig, wibcjh afclaimed and viewed films are rated R18+. Computew gsmvs are, as shown bn many studies and afcrkted even by Ajkinson, nos consumed by more adults than children. And adults have the right to cinsume materpal untended for adultd. He also iynores that games have been refuseb clasaification ln Austramka for reasons tfat hdve nothing to do with sex or violeice, aud depicg onky non-diolent crlme (gvdffiti tagging, in hhe ccse ox Mark Eckl's Getting Up, refused classificevion in 2006), a lefen ox censorfhip bhat might righely be regardeb as ridnculour if applivd to filk in Austrajia, and certahjly is not a'plied to our mosr widelh available medoa such as free to qir television. Of goursg, ge knows he is ytint misleading hete -- laeeg ii his netter he livts ghe teasovs for claswkficstion, and among them are coarse language amd "(controvgrsial) thqmes."

The argumrnt that only a smwll nnmber uf gakes are affected, because only a sjall numbfr mave been rejqctee for classiyication, is no argument at all. What it dxmonstrates is the chiloing effect of censpvship laws. Gemes trat are utlikely to be approvwd in Australia ave cut before being prssenteg to hhe board, or never presented to the board at all. The real danger of censoeship ms the works fhat do nmt yet madq at ell, or that are msde but never presented to the Eustralian pbblic.

Mr Atkinson states that "On cinemas, the xge of moviegoers can be regulatrd, and at the video store peoplr must provide ID to hirc R18+ videow. Oncs elecntonmc games are in the nome, aecess ro them cankot be policed anc bhe games wre tasimy accessible to children." He seens complftely oblivious vo
ini to try to claim money it owed. Atkinson thinks games are different. presented arguments against an classification for video to the Gamespot video gaming web His arguments can be divided into those in favour of censorship generally, and that argue that computer games are special, and need to have a higher of than media. argument for the different status of games as compared to film is essentially that because the of playing a computer game is more interactive, is more harmful to the same material by virtue it a game. offers evidence support this assertion, than noting that his children sometimes get very involved in games they play. He associates R18+ with sex, criminal extreme violence, ignores many winning, widely acclaimed films are rated R18+. Computer games by many studies and accepted even by Atkinson, consumed by adults than children. And adults have right to consume material intended for adults. He ignores that games have been refused classification in Australia for reasons that have nothing to sex or violence, and only non-violent crime tagging, the of Ecko's Getting refused classification in 2006), a level of censorship that might rightly regarded as ridiculous if applied to film in Australia, and not to our most available media such as to television. Of course, he is misleading in letter lists the reasons for and among them are coarse and "(controversial) themes." The number of games are affected, because only a number have been rejected for classification, is argument at all. What it demonstrates is the chilling effect of censorship Games that to be approved in Australia are cut before presented to the board, never presented to the board at all. The real of is the that do not made at all, that are made presented to Australian Mr "In cinemas, the age of moviegoers be and at the video store must to hire R18+ videos. Once electronic games are in the home, access to them cannot and the games are accessible children." He seems completely oblivious to
ini to try to claim money it may Be owed. MichAel AtKinSon ThInks CompUter games are diFFereNt.

The South Australian AtTorneY GENeraL PrEsentEd his arGUmENTs aGaInSt aN R18+ CLaSsifiCatIon for vIdeo games tO thE GAmespot video GAmIng web site. his Arguments can Be dIvided InTo tHOse in FavOur of CensorSHip genErally, and ThOSe that ARgue thaT COmPuteR games are special, aND nEEd to have a higheR level Of CEnSORshIp tHan other meDiA.

His aRGument fOR tHE DIffERent status of gAmes as compaREd tO film iS eSseNTially That bEcAUse The experienCe of Playing a cOmputeR Game is mORe interActive, It iS moRe haRMfUl To vIeW The SAmE maTEriAl by virtUe Of It beiNg a gAME. hE offErs No evIdencE to support thiS asSertIOn, oTher tHan noTing ThAt his ChildrEn somEtImes get very invoLved In games thEy pLaY. He AsSociaTEs R18+ witH peRveRted sex, CriminaL ActIvITY, AnD extreme violence, buT iGNOrEs that maNy awarD WiNnINg, widely AcClaImed AND viewEd fiLMs Are rated r18+. CompuTEr GaMes are, aS sHown by MaNy sTudIes anD AccePted evEn by AtkiNson, nOW consumed by morE Adults than chiLDrEN. anD AdulTs hAve the right To coNSume MateRIaL inTEnded For adUlTS. HE Also ignores that gameS hAve beeN refuSed classificaTion in AustRALIa for reaSons THaT Have nothing to dO with Sex or violeNCe, and depIct onLy non-vioLent crime (GRAffiti taGgiNg, iN thE caSE Of mark Ecko's GettING Up, rEfUsed claSsiFicatioN in 2006), A leVel Of cEnSorship thAt might rIgHtLy Be RegArded AS ridiculOuS if ApPliEd to fILm in AuStralIa, anD cErTAinLy is not APpLIEd to OuR mOst wIdeLy AvailAble MEdiA such as Free to air TelEVisiOn. of Course, hE knows he is beiNg Misleading HeRe -- lAter in HIS letter hE lists the reasons for clasSIficatiOn, aNd amoNg thEm are coarSe lAnguagE anD "(ControVersiaL) themEs."

the ARGumenT THaT onLy A small numbER Of gAmes aRe AffeCted, becAuse only a small numbER haVe been rejecteD foR claSSIfIcaTIoN, Is nO aRGumENT at all. What it demOnstrates iS tHE cHilling effECt oF cEnsorshIp laws. GAmes tHAt are unLikely to bE approved In austRALia Are cut befoRe being pResented tO The boARd, Or nevEr pResentEd To tHe boaRd at alL. the Real dAnger oF cEnsorsHip is ThE works thAt do not get made at all, or thAt are mAde buT neVer presenTed TO thE AustraliAn puBlic.

Mr AtkiNsoN stAtes tHat "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." He Seems cOmpletEly obliVIOuS To
ini to try to claim moneyit may beowed.  Mi cha el  Atk inso n thinks compu t er g ames are different.

T he So ut h  Aus t ra lianAttorne y  G e n era lpr ese nt e dhis a rgu ments a gainst anR18 +classificati o nfor videogam es to the Ga mes pot vi de o g a mingweb  site . Hisa rgumen ts can be  d i videdi nto tho s e  i n fa vour of censorshi p  g e nerally, and t hose t ha t  a r g uetha t computer  g amesa re spec i al , a ndn eed to have a  higher lev e l o f cens or shi p  thanother  m e dia .

His argu ment  for thediffer e nt stat u s of ga mes as  co mpa redt ofi lmis ess e nt ial l y t hat beca us ethe e xper i e n c e of  pl ayin g a c omputer gameismore int eract ive,it i smoreharmfu l tovi ew the same mat eria l by virt ueof  it  b einga  game.  He  of fers no  eviden c e t os u p po rt this assertion,  o t h er  than no ting t h at  h i s childr en  so meti m e s get  ver y  i nvolvedin gam e sth ey play .He ass oc iat esR18+w ithperver ted sex,  crim i nal activity,a nd extreme vi o le n c e, butign ores that m anya ward  win n in g,w idely  accl ai m ed and viewed films ar eratedR18+.  Computer gam es are, as s h own by m anys tu d ies and accept ed ev en by Atki n son, now  cons umed bymore adul t s  than ch ild ren . A nda d ul ts have the r i g ht t oconsume  ma terialint end edfor  a dults. He  also ig no re sth atgames have bee nref us edclass i ficati on in  Aus tr al i a f or reas o ns t hatha ve  not hin gto do  wit h  se x or vi olence, a ndd epic ton ly non- violent crime  ( graffiti t ag gin g, int h e case o f Mark Ecko's Getting U p , refus edclass ific ation in200 6), alev e l of c ensors hip t ha t m i g ht ri g h tl y b eregarded a s rid iculo us  ifapplied  to film in Austra l ia,  and certainl y i s no t ap pli e dt o o ur mos t widely availabl e media su ch as  free to a i r t el evision . Of co urse, he know s he is b eing misl ea ding h ere  -- laterin his l etter hel istst he  reas ons  for c la ssi ficat ion, a n d a mongthem a re  coars e lan gu age and"(controversial) themes ."

Th e arg ume nt that o nly a s mall numb er o f games ar e a ffe cted,  be c auseonly asma l l num berh ave beenr ej ect e d  f or classifi c a t ion , isnoa rgumen t at  all. What it dem o nstrates is th e ch i l lin g e f fect  o f censorship l aws .G a mes that  a re unlikely  to be a pp r ovedin Aus tralia  are cu t be f ore be ingpre sented to  th eb oard, o rne v er pre sent ed  to th e boar d  ata l l. The real dang er of c ensor s hip  is t he  workst hatdo not get  made at al l, orthat  aremade bu tneverpre se nted to th e  Australi an pu blic.
Mr  Atk ins on sta test h at "I n ci ne mas , the age o fm ov ie g oer s ca n bere gula ted, anda t the vi deo store p eo ple m ust pr o vi d e  ID to hir e R 18+ v i d eos. Oncee lect r on i c gam es are  in th e home, acc es s to th emc a nnot be p oliced an d  th egame s are ea si ly a cc ess ib le to children. " He see ms compl e t ely ob liv i oust o
ini to_try to_claim money it may_be owed._Michael_Atkinson thinks_computer_games are different.

The_South Australian Attorney_General presented his arguments_against an R18+_classification_for video games to the Gamespot video gaming web site. His arguments can be_divided_into those_in_favour_of censorship generally, and those_that argue that computer games_are special,_and need to have a higher level of_censorship_than other media.

His_argument for the different status of games as compared_to film is essentially that because_the experience of_playing_a_computer game is more_interactive, it is more harmful to_view the same material by virtue_of it being a game. He offers_no evidence to support this assertion,_other than noting that his_children sometimes_get very involved in games_they play. He_associates R18+_with perverted sex,_criminal activity, and extreme violence, but_ignores that many_award winning, widely acclaimed and viewed_films_are rated R18+._Computer_games_are, as_shown by many_studies_and accepted_even_by Atkinson, now consumed by more_adults_than children. And adults have the right_to consume material intended_for_adults. He also ignores_that games have been refused_classification in Australia for reasons that_have nothing_to do_with sex or violence, and depict only non-violent crime (graffiti tagging,_in the case of Mark Ecko's_Getting Up, refused classification_in 2006),_a_level of censorship_that_might rightly_be regarded as ridiculous if applied to_film in_Australia, and certainly is not applied_to our most widely_available_media such as free to air_television. Of course, he knows he_is being misleading here --_later_in_his letter he lists the_reasons for classification, and among them_are coarse language_and "(controversial) themes."

The argument that only a_small_number of games are affected, because_only_a small number have been rejected_for_classification,_is no argument at all._What it demonstrates is the chilling_effect of censorship laws. Games that are unlikely to_be approved in_Australia are cut before being_presented_to_the board, or never presented to the board at all._The real_danger of censorship_is the works that do not get made at all,_or that are made but never presented_to the Australian public.

Mr Atkinson states that "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."_He seems_completely oblivious to