Zarko

America - New House of the dead was R

Australia - New House of the Dead was MA15

Difference? Gore cut out to a fair degree

Sameness? A man still crawls back into a dead womans womb

Astronomer

Which supports my point that if Australia had 18+ video game ratings then it would not be over 15 year olds viewing that but instead over 18s.

__________________

Zarko

Yeah, that was exactly my point. ATM there is still plenty of stuff in games that would be unsuitable for an MA15+ rating, but still makes it to that because Atkinson is such a ****head that he thinks creating a games R rating will somehow increase the likelihood that the children see these images.

Again, its about suggesting that parents aren't able to do their own job.

Freebase Dali

Honestly Neapolitan, I think you're probably the most right-brained person I don't personally know. You'd do well in the arts or bumbling around a load of ridiculous theoretical ideas so creatively that one of them accidentally made sense and ended up saving the world... but you're currently interfacing with logical people, and you certainly don't operate on a logical level. I'm just trying to say that the ideas you come up with in a conversation don't exactly translate well to how most other people think. While we may view them as playful and humorous at times, you make it very difficult to know whether you mean it that way or not.
And most of us just don't want to expend the extra time and effort to decode everything someone says.

I hope you understand that.

__________________

Astronomer

Yeah, agreed completely. Michael Atkinson is such a twat. Although I heard that they're currently asking for official submissions from members of the public regarding the introduction of R18+ games to voice their opinion on the issue, but honestly who knows if that will make much of a difference in the decision.

__________________

VEGANGELICA

In general I oppose Internet censorship because I support free speech, which includes the freedom to show images, even the most vile. The Australian link says, for example, that off-shore sites showing "bestiality" would not be allowed. Bestiality occurs right here in Iowa, and if it weren't for video footage of bestiality (in hog confinements), and descriptions of it on the Internet, then many people would never know of its occurrence.

There is much in our society that I feel is "uncivilised," and the Internet can be used to expose and educate people. War atrocities include numerous uncivilised behaviors, but being able to show them so that people know what is going on is important. I agree with those who say that it is the parents' duty to determine what their children watch.

Unfortunately, the Internet can also be used to hurt and harm others, and sometimes the poorest people (molested children, etc.) are the least likely to be able to afford legal protection to have their Internet images removed. This is a concern. Selling snuff films (in which people and non-human animals are killed) and being allowed to show them does create a market and can be argued to inspire continued violations. Wherever there is a market for something, there are usually people willing to do whatever hurtful/harmful action is necessary for the sake of money. So, I certainly understand why a government would want to violate freedom of expression in order to protect those who are in the films and in order to prevent future suffering. Still, I want governments to err on the side of greater freedom of expression in the media...while working to end physical actions that cause harm to other beings.

__________________

Burning Down

I agree with you 100%. The Internet is a great source for up-to-date information regarding issues that are going on around the world and right in your own backyard, whether they are positive or negative. I think it's important that people stay informed. It's a shame that some people get so greedy that they are willing to publish harmful material on the Internet just to make some money. Unfortunately, the exploitation of certain subjects (like animals and children) is unlikely to stop just because the government imposes media censoring. There will always be an underground market (if you want to call it that) for that kind of stuff. The purpose of censoring content on the Internet is mainly to protect children, but it really isn't necessary. It is just a result of parents who want the government to raise their kids. I've always believed that it is up to the parent to shield their kids from certain things.

VEGANGELICA

And I agree with you 100%!

My main reason for opposition to media censorship is that I feel actions are harmful but sharing information, opinions, etc. is not (directly) harmful (although I recognize it can lead to harm, as in the case of slander). I feel the legality of an action should not be a determinant of whether an Internet image or description of that action is allowed. Many countries around the world have numerous laws with which I disagree (such as laws prohibiting women from driving or leaving the home without a male escort), and I would not want the Internet to be limited to showing only what is legal at a given time and place.

__________________