Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Australia Censorship Government Games Politics Your Rights Online

Australian Attys General Agree in Principle on R18+ 32

Posted by timothy from the by-default-gentlemen-let's-censor dept.
dotarray writes "In Adelaide today, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General was again unable to reach a unanimous decision on the topic of whether or not Australia should have an R18+ rating for video games." Nonetheless, the committee has reached a decision in principle to allow such a rating, with only one Attorney General having abstained from today's vote.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Attys General Agree in Principle on R18+ More

Australian Attys General Agree in Principle on R18+

Comments Filter:

  • So now our governments stupidity has made world news. Pathetic.

    • Welcome to the club.

      - USA

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by deniable ( 76198 )
      What stupidity? All but the new guy agreed to do it. The new guy needs a bit of time to study the issue. It's likely to be a done deal by October or November.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        What stupidity? All but the new guy agreed to do it. The new guy needs a bit of time to study the issue. It's likely to be a done deal by October or November.

        Either that or state governments will legislate it of their own accord, QLD and ACT has already indicated they will.

        Then the A-G's will understand the true meaning of failure, when state government has gotten more done then you.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )
      If the games were rated like movies by the Federal government it would be far less of a deal. As it is each state is busy showing that they are contributing something to the issue "for the children" so we get a pile of idiotic press opportunities and everything played to get maximum attention.

  • Ah Politics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spigot the Bear ( 2318678 ) on Friday July 22, 2011 @03:33AM (#36843466)
    "We're in agreement that this should be done, but not that we should actually do it."

    • "We're in agreement that this should be done, but not that we should actually do it."

      Wish I could mod this up higher, but it's already at max...

  • Coward! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The New South Wales Attorney General claimed he had to discuss it in cabinet, despite the topic of discussion being known for months (years, in fact) beforehand. Bloody coward.

    Fortunately, the Federal Government will over-rule the abstention by the coward, so we will finally get our R18+ rating.

    I'm looking forward to a more rational rating system for games.

    Now all we need is the death of the stupid ISP filter.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by deniable ( 76198 )
      Known about for years by a government that's only four months old? He needs to give some policy people time to justify their jobs and tell him it's not a problem.

  • Nanny State (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rat_herder ( 527991 ) on Friday July 22, 2011 @04:40AM (#36843668)
    Australians are such a contradiction, relaxed and uptight at same time. It's a weird attitude we seem to inherited have inherited from the Brits. This insanity serves as an example of the unbearably slow pace of reform in this country, in a social environment that is changing quicker than most people realize.

  • Abstention (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dan B. ( 20610 ) <slashdot@NOSpaM.bryar.com.au> on Friday July 22, 2011 @04:51AM (#36843700)

    The NSW Attorney General abstained because it hasn't been discussed in the NSW Parliament, despite (in his own words) "the issue being around for over 9 years".

    I really do despise Conservatives that are unable to make a decisions without asking someone else. Why do you think you are in that position? It's because obviously people trust you to make the right decisions from time to time without having to go back and ask them all the time!!

    • Ah yes, but if you don't ask someone else then when people think your policy is crap, you can't say "Well, it was developed with input from outside consultation." It's much harder to pass the buck if you admit to doing something out of your own authority. Lucky for Australia that in this case it's just video game ratings. The Canadian government is playing a similar game with our immigration policy right now, which is a good deal more serious.

    • Because they're awaiting instructions from Fred Nile [wikipedia.org]?

  • Ratings may not be the whole story when it comes down to a game or movie's content, but the purpose of a rating is to restrict the sale of a product so that the proper authority (e.g. the parent) can make a final decision.

    And I do support the state restricting the sale of a product to minors. While the authority on if the child watches or plays it rightfully belongs to a parent rather than the state, that authority also rightfully belongs to a parent rather than a retailer. Handing the retailer the author

    • I think it's rather pointless to restrict the sales of certain types of video games and other entertainment to certain people. Unless someone can show that this "inappropriate" content causes real world violence or somehow is harmful (which, to my knowledge, there has been no direct evidence to support such a conclusion), I couldn't care less if some kid walks into a store and buys a violent video game (even if they did it without the permission of their parents).

  • From the rumblings I've been hearing, rather than adding a new R18+ rating about the MA15+ rating, what they may be intending to do is simply to change the current MA15+ rating into an R18+ rating. All the games currently ending up as refused classification because they go beyond what's allowed for the MA15+ rating would still be refused classification. Such a change would be fairly dangerous for our marketplace, I'd think. With the way the general public treats R ratings for film and TV, an R18+ sticker wo
  • what's the advantage of using atty instead of getty?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ihmhi ( 1206036 )

      "Attys" is shorthand for "Attorneys". Just the way it's been. I suppose they could have said "Attys Gen", but knowing this audience they might have thought it some was script kiddie from Ukraine.

Slashdot Top Deals

What sin has not been committed in the name of efficiency?

Close