Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Australia Censorship Government Games Politics

Anti-Gamer South Australian Attorney General Quits 104

Posted by timothy
from the usually-the-car-holds-more-clowns dept.
dogbolter writes "South Australian Attorney General, Michael Atkinson, infamous for the banning of R18+ rated games and the censoring of political comment in Australia, has quit. The recent South Australian election provided a massive swing against Atkinson's governing labor party. As a direct result of the South Australian election result, he is standing down. Hopefully someone with half a clue will assume the vacant post and overturn the decision to ban adult oriented computer games."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Gamer South Australian Attorney General Quits

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21, 2010 @04:38AM (#31555932)

    I know I will be called a troll for asking this: but how is the SA AG's view on computer games flawed? It should be obvious to anyone that he believes that the views of his constituency (which BTW is more than just teenaged and 18-25 year old anglophone middle class computer-literate males) are not supportive of a "wider range" of content in video games. Given what he does, his decision is quite sensible.

    To cater to the sensibilities of other people, and decide that their needs come before some others, does not necessarily make him "anti" anyone. Just like how if x is not larger than 3, it does not automatically make is smaller than 3, but it could also be equal.

  • Not quit as in quit (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21, 2010 @05:06AM (#31556016)

    Can I make a point here.. he hasn't quit parliament, he's just quit cabinet.. he will still remain a member of Labor's government (or be in Opposition if Labor don't get over the line)..

    I don't think this is quite the scalp everyone is looking for..

  • by Gadget_Guy (627405) * on Sunday March 21, 2010 @05:22AM (#31556082)

    It wasn't a great election result for Gamers4croydon [gamers4croydon.org], who were standing against the Attorney General on the platform of allowing R18+ ratings. They only received 3.7% of the vote [sa.gov.au]. In fact, there were more informal (or invalid) votes at 5%.

    Still, they will be happy with the final outcome, even if it wasn't a victory for grass roots campaigning.

  • Game over Michael (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mjwx (966435) on Sunday March 21, 2010 @05:53AM (#31556194)
    Victory. /administrator voice

    Shock Horror, the system worked. Sorry for the rant but after numerous threads about the issue and countless uniformed "why don't you Aussies do something" posts I think we can are entitled to a little schadenfreude. We dealt with Atkinson within the system. I wonder how Conroy is feeling about now, between the censorship and NBN debacle he hasn't many people left who like him enough to vote for him.

    However we can be certain the people behind Atkinson who are the driving the anti-game agenda aren't quitting as easily but still, this is a step in the right direction and I think it will be very hard for the puritans to replace Atkinson on the ratings board.
  • by Orteko (530397) on Sunday March 21, 2010 @06:05AM (#31556248) Homepage

    To be fair they always had an uphill battle.

    Atkinsons seat is one of the safest around - G4C's vote isn't actually half bad, they beat a large amount of minor parties and independents in the legaslative council.

  • by biryokumaru (822262) * <biryokumaru@gmail.com> on Sunday March 21, 2010 @11:02AM (#31557634)

    It should be obvious to anyone that he believes that the views of his constituency (which BTW is more than just teenaged and 18-25 year old anglophone middle class computer-literate males) are not supportive of a "wider range" of content in video games.

    Let's say that I don't believe in setting aside reservations for Native Americans, or giving them special rights with regard to gambling. I feel that it makes them second class citizens, and stunts their ability to be contributing members of a larger society.

    So I should get a say in what happens to them, right? Just because I have an opinion? Even though eliminating reservations or leaving them be would have virtually no effect on my life what-so-ever?

    Yeah, democracy makes lots of sense...

    Next, you're gonna say I, as a man, can vote on whether female rape victims have the right free counseling, medical care care and an abortion.

  • by Dragonslicer (991472) on Sunday March 21, 2010 @12:18PM (#31558072)

    I know I will be called a troll for asking this: but how is the SA AG's view on computer games flawed? It should be obvious to anyone that he believes that the views of his constituency (which BTW is more than just teenaged and 18-25 year old anglophone middle class computer-literate males) are not supportive of a "wider range" of content in video games. Given what he does, his decision is quite sensible.

    To cater to the sensibilities of other people, and decide that their needs come before some others, does not necessarily make him "anti" anyone. Just like how if x is not larger than 3, it does not automatically make is smaller than 3, but it could also be equal.

    Even if this is the view of his constituency, you're talking about tyranny of the majority, which is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, problem with a democratic government.

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990

Working...