Welcome to the Nanny State: Saints Row IV banned in Australia

[Michael]

Saints Row IV ban upheld in Australia

When Saints Row IV was initially banned in Australia last month, there was still some hope that an unedited version of the game would eventually make it out Down Under following an appeal by publisher Koch Media. But that hope has now been squashed, with the Classification Review Board today unanimously upholding the Refused Classification tag for Saints Row IV, meaning it will be illegal to sell the game in Australia.

LOL
Adult Australians are legally bared from buying and selling a mainstream video-game. Hahaha..... Welcome to the Progressive Nanny State. Banning freedom of expression one video game at a time. But, hey, you get "Free" healthcare - just don't end up in a Public Hospital.

[video=youtube;GeysFNSx3Zs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeysFNSx3Zs[/video]

 

[Asguard]

Wow, how far behind the times are you. This was argued and debated months ago on the gaming sites I frequent and the same argument I put there I will put to you

It was banned because of sexual violence not justified by context, because it had a rape gun in it. Yes Australia has standards, and I for one wouldn't want to live in a country where rape was a joke. The problem isn't with the ratings, its with the devs who thought rape would be a fun thing to play with.

Would you think it was ok if the rape was of children? would that be ok to put in your game?

 

[Asguard]

Oh and BTW when the realistic drug use and the rape gun were removed it was given a MA rating so anyone who wants to play it can play to there hearts content

 

[Michael]

Wow, how far behind the times are you. This was argued and debated months ago on the gaming sites I frequent and the same argument I put there I will put to you

It was banned because of sexual violence not justified by context, because it had a rape gun in it. Yes Australia has standards, and I for one wouldn't want to live in a country where rape was a joke. The problem isn't with the ratings, its with the devs who thought rape would be a fun thing to play with.

Would you think it was ok if the rape was of children? would that be ok to put in your game?

The free market can determine if the sexual violence was 'justified' in the story telling or not. Adults do not NEED a group of bureaucrats to determine if 'sexual violence is or is not justified by context'. Telling a story about rape, and raping a person, are two completely different things. One is a story and the other is an action.

Yes Australia has standards

You mean the geographical land has 'standards'? Oh, I see, you mean 'the people of "Australia" have relatively high standards' compared to everyone else in the world - even though 25% of "Australians" were born and raised in various other countries - that allow this game to be sold to ADULTS.



Yes, these disparate Australians have such high moral standards that they can not be trusted to be left up to their own decision-making processes and decide not to buy and play this game. Sounds to me like out of the entire world, Australian ADULTS must by-and-large have the lowest of the low of morals and, given these very low standards that are so utterly low, their care-takers will have to make decisions for them.

How pathetic.



Australians do love their Nanny State, that much it for sure. AND maybe they need a Nanny. Maybe Australians are simply to immature to act as adults and require someone take on that role for them.

 

[Asguard]

More religious bullshit from you, sorry we are a country of LAWs, the free for all dystopia you want. Yep we have health care and have to say that public health care system is BRILLIANT, never had an issue with waiting times at all. Course the waiting times in the your heaven are infinite because rather than care focus you would have profit focus so the rich could walk straight in for a nose job but the guy with a AAA would never get to see a surgeon because they couldn't afford it.

You mean the geographical land has 'standards'?

This just shows how out of touch with reality your fairy tale truly is, its a COUNTRY, a SOCIETY but you don't even understand what those words mean

 

[Michael]

Presumably you would also like your Nanny to ban George R. R. Martin's works? Given the misogyny, rape, assumed, actual and forced child rape as well as slavery.

"Australians" need an "Australian" Nanny State - because they can't be trusted to make moral decisions; therefore the Nanny State (a group of bureaucrats / their Nanny) will make those decisions for them.

That's interesting, because by taking away the Civil Freedom to decide for themselves right from wrong, those people NEVER LEARN right from wrong.

Good one, see how that works out for you.

 

[quinnsong]

View attachment 6437



Here Michael, your ideal place. Now go!

 

[Michael]

I find it hilarious Australian ADULTS have to play a dumbed-down child-safe game because their Nanny told them to.

I find it sad Australians are so pathetic they lash out and attack anyone for having the gall of informing them they're adults now and can make up their own minds - as adults.


Oh course, this is all somewhat academic, if I truly wanted to have an ADULT discussion with someone, it wouldn't be the child Citizens, but the Nanny. There's really not point hearing what Australians have to say on this topic - as they have no say - their Nanny does.


It should be worth mentioning, it really makes no sense to only restrict Australian Adults to this game, if your Nanny thinks it knows best, then it should also restrict your access to the Internet in total (actually the AMCA wants to filter the entire internet just as China does) as well as most books (Game of Thrones), TV shows (Breaking Bad) and numerous movies (Fight Club).


Maybe your Nanny is right. Maybe Australian Adults are too simple-minded to be left up to their own devises? Perhaps in this case I should agree with your Nanny - you don't deserve the Civil Right to act like an Adult. You're a child and should be treated accordingly.


Enjoy your Child Version of Saints Row IV

 

[Balerion]

I actually agree with Michael on this. You win, universe.

It was banned because of sexual violence not justified by context, because it had a rape gun in it.

The problem isn't with why it was banned, but that it was banned at all.

Yes Australia has standards,

Everyone has standards. What you have in this case is a government that doesn't think you're mature or intelligent enough to make informed decisions. There's no need to bring up the obvious slippery slope argument; I think it's bad enough that your leaders are legislating morality.

and I for one wouldn't want to live in a country where rape was a joke.

That's a poor straw man. Allowing an unedited version of the game onto the shelves doesn't amount to an endorsement of its content. Here in the US, it's a reminder that even vulgar, crude, and ugly speech is free. As it should be.

And I call bullshit on you. I guarantee you've laughed at rape jokes in your lifetime. Everything can be joked about, and it's very important that everything is joked about.

The problem isn't with the ratings, its with the devs who thought rape would be a fun thing to play with.

I'd say the problem lies with your government, and is two-fold: First, they think you're stupid; and second, they think that exposure to such content will turn you into a rapist, even though scientific studies have shown that video games have no discernable impact on a person's behavior.

Would you think it was ok if the rape was of children? would that be ok to put in your game?

My (or anyone else's) opinion of the content is irrelevant. We're talking about your fundamental right to make your own decision.

Oh and BTW when the realistic drug use and the rape gun were removed it was given a MA rating so anyone who wants to play it can play to there hearts content

Actually, it wasn't the anal probe gun which brought about the ban. It was the use of alien drugs that grant superpowers--which you laughably refer to as "realistic"--that did the trick. And that's what had to be removed from the game. It was the same issue for State of Decay, a zombie-based survival horror game: in it, you can take drugs to improve stamina or health, and some of those drugs are illegal, like amphetamines. It was denied classification because the use of drugs was linked to rewards (ie stamina boosts, etc.). Because in Australia, you're supposed to pretend that illegal drugs have no benefits, apparently.

 

[Stryder]

It's not the first game to suffer a ban and likely won't be the last. I remember when Manhunt generated controversy down there, considering the games content was about being apart of a snuff film. Personally I wasn't particular fond of man hunt, but that was more relate to preference of game play versus what was available (namely not enough ammo).

Why Saints Row likely got picked on is actually down to people concerned with Pyschology/Psychiatry, in the sense that they think a prolonged exposure to games will cause a person to blur fiction with reality, or become desensitised to very real world concerns like violence or drug use.

What the "powers that be" don't take into consideration is that "Politics" and "Religion" in the real world cause more death and violence than anything else on the planet (and that's real death and violence, not arcade), do we see a sudden culling of Politicians and Religious groups? No instead we have a kowtow attitude towards them.

As for drug usage, unfortunately in the real world it's rife and law enforcement will never stop it, but just lower it's availability, which in turn pushes up it's price. The criminals actually benefit more from police busts than the governments do.

What they also don't like about video games is how it effects the attitude of people, after all if you always play the protagonist, the hero (or anti-hero), where the world bends to your whim and the outcome is fully dependent on playing as protagonistically as possible it can rub off on people in the real world. In essence they start to question authority, to demand things based upon their whim rather than what is actually achievable and if anything it scares those in power because they are outnumbered by such people ten-fold. This is significantly noticeable when you look at the generation gap over the past 30 years and look how people act in the world (and to each other).

 

[Asguard]

It's not the first game to suffer a ban and likely won't be the last. I remember when Manhunt generated controversy down there, considering the games content was about being apart of a snuff film. Personally I wasn't particular fond of man hunt, but that was more relate to preference of game play versus what was available (namely not enough ammo).

Why Saints Row likely got picked on is actually down to people concerned with Pyschology/Psychiatry, in the sense that they think a prolonged exposure to games will cause a person to blur fiction with reality, or become desensitised to very real world concerns like violence or drug use.

What the "powers that be" don't take into consideration is that "Politics" and "Religion" in the real world cause more death and violence than anything else on the planet (and that's real death and violence, not arcade), do we see a sudden culling of Politicians and Religious groups? No instead we have a kowtow attitude towards them.

As for drug usage, unfortunately in the real world it's rife and law enforcement will never stop it, but just lower it's availability, which in turn pushes up it's price. The criminals actually benefit more from police busts than the governments do.

What they also don't like about video games is how it effects the attitude of people, after all if you always play the protagonist, the hero (or anti-hero), where the world bends to your whim and the outcome is fully dependent on playing as protagonistically as possible it can rub off on people in the real world. In essence they start to question authority, to demand things based upon their whim rather than what is actually achievable and if anything it scares those in power because they are outnumbered by such people ten-fold. This is significantly noticeable when you look at the generation gap over the past 30 years and look how people act in the world (and to each other).

Actually the reason it was controversial is that it was the second game to be banned after the new R-18 rating came in on Jan 1st this year, the first was an XBLA title who's name I can't remember which was banned because of realistic drug use for reward. Of course those of us who supported and pushed for the legislation knew that it was never an open slather, it wouldn't allow sexual violence in unless it was justified by context and it wouldn't allow drug use for reward. It also wouldn't allow realistic depictions of sex because that would have fallen under an x rating which games don't have. For the most part I supported that legislation, I would have liked consensual sex allowed and I still push for that but the sexual violence ban was justified, (would it be ok to put the rape of a child into a game for fun? so you can go around raping children? should that be sold?), the realistic drug use ban fits well with the restrictions on smoking advertising in Australia which are being shown to work quite well, (it is after all illegal in the first place). So there are justifications for the ways the laws are written and there were ample discussion papers and public consultation before the changes to the act was passed. As I said I would like the way sex is treated changed but then I don't think that an x rating should exits at all, why is it not all just part of the R rating but that will take years to change. However I am glad I live in a country where sexual violence isn't something that is lauded, if a game came along which dealt with a rape in a mature fashion then it would be passed but if its just about glorifying rape or turning it into a joke it will get banned

 

[paddoboy]

Saints Row IV ban upheld in Australia



LOL
Adult Australians are legally bared from buying and selling a mainstream video-game. Hahaha..... Welcome to the Progressive Nanny State. Banning freedom of expression one video game at a time. But, hey, you get "Free" healthcare - just don't end up in a Public Hospital.

[video=youtube;GeysFNSx3Zs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeysFNSx3Zs[/video]

You talk of morality and whether Aussie adults can or cannot make up their own minds.....
We elect our governments to legislate for the good of the majority, and if on the occasion they do go overboard on some particular issue, the general populace will certainly make their feelings known, at the time with protests, and of course at the end of their term of government they are judged by those same people. BTW, voting is cumpulsory in Australia also, both state and Federal. Any of your thoughts on that matter?
And of course we do have the best health scheme in the world, in either public or private......and that care is subsidised simply by a 1.5% levy on one's Annual Income.
Retired Australians receive a pension around $700/fortnight per person or $1150 a married couple, with that health care free for them.
Private Health care of course is also available if one chooses it, with extra benefits of private wards etc....But they still pay the 1.5% levy as well.


And we also probably have the toughest gun laws in the world which are supported by both all sides of parliament conservative and liberal and Greens.....
Just also recently had a law passed concerning compulsory immunisations of children....Hmmm, that also goes against the snivel liberties of some.
The problem is the so called liberties of those that don't want their children immunised would be the same that would scream blue murder if the government decided that if they chose not to immunise their kids, they would not be allowed in any schools for fear or risk in case of an epidemic....

Finally I would suggest that if you find the banning of one questionable video game as that abhorent and upsetting, start up a protest from your end...See where it gets you.

If that's your version of the nanny state, then OK, I'll stick with the nanny state

 

[paddoboy]

Oh, and I know SFA about the video game in question, but there has not been any real protest about it here...Perhaps we need you to come out and show us the error of our ways?

 

[Michael]

We elect our governments to legislate for the good of the majority, and if on the occasion they do go overboard on some particular issue, the general populace will certainly make their feelings known, at the time with protests, and of course at the end of their term of government they are judged by those same people. BTW, voting is cumpulsory in Australia also, both state and Federal. Any of your thoughts on that matter?

Compulsory voting prevents the public from expressing a third option: a boycott. By taking away the ability to boycott the voting process itself, its not possible to express your dissatisfaction with your choices. You will pick someone. A government that could only turn out 5% of the vote would signal to the public that it is illegitimate. The fact that any State would need to legally initiate force against people for wanting to boycott the vote or feeling their vote is a waste of their time - should tell you something about that particular State.

And of course we do have the best health scheme in the world, in either public or private......and that care is subsidised simply by a 1.5% levy on one's Annual Income.

Yes, I'm Australian, part of my job is to train medical doctors and I know all about Australian healthcare.

 

[Michael]

Oh, and I know SFA about the video game in question, but there has not been any real protest about it here...Perhaps we need you to come out and show us the error of our ways?

Who is 'our'?

I find it interesting how easily people accept their Citizenship as part of their identity - and then even go so far as to feel this identity somehow gives them a level of virtue personally. If you were born Australian, you had absolutely no choice in this, you did nothing personally to attain your civil liberties, probably have little interest in the history and philosophy of liberty, cannot claim any sort of virtue through natural citizenship as it was dumb luck you happened to be born in a time and geographical location called Australia, yet maybe feel a sense of pride in something you did nothing to attain - if that is they case, your pride is very much unwarranted.

Yes, you apparently love your Nanny State. Good for you.

But, the State doesn't pay for all those 'services' you mentioned. The State taxes the Citizen or sells Bonds against the Citizens future labor. As the resources boom ends, you'll begin to see those services cut.

 

[Gage]

[video=youtube;Qh2sWSVRrmo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo[/video] No one mentioned the children who might play this game and get traumatized.[video=youtube;QPsdxR0zzNE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPsdxR0zzNE[/video]

 

[quinnsong]

The truth is Americans are fixated on the idea of choice and that their civil liberties are in constant threat of being eroded. Anytime there is an enlightened debate over an issue as seemingly simple as glorifying rape in a video game, people like Michael see it as an affront to their so called civil liberties. To Michael it does not matter that this game is a detriment and offers no value to society at all, as long as his perceived choice is still in tact. In Michael's world there are no speed limits and only the strong survive.

Michael, you consistently cry Nanny State when any law is passed, no matter if it is a law that is progressive and good for the whole, or a ban on just about anything.In your world "exploitation" rules the day.

 

[Bells]

Who is 'our'?

I find it interesting how easily people accept their Citizenship as part of their identity - and then even go so far as to feel this identity somehow gives them a level of virtue personally. If you were born Australian, you had absolutely no choice in this, you did nothing personally to attain your civil liberties, probably have little interest in the history and philosophy of liberty, cannot claim any sort of virtue through natural citizenship as it was dumb luck you happened to be born in a time and geographical location called Australia, yet maybe feel a sense of pride in something you did nothing to attain - if that is they case, your pride is very much unwarranted.

Neither did you. You moved here for work and apparently became a citizen, even though you complain and demand that we apply American standards here. You moved here after everything was done.

Yes, you apparently love your Nanny State. Good for you.

So what if he does?

What is it to you if he does?

No one is forcing you to stay here. You chose to come and live here. So obviously you love it here also.

But, the State doesn't pay for all those 'services' you mentioned. The State taxes the Citizen or sells Bonds against the Citizens future labor. As the resources boom ends, you'll begin to see those services cut.

It's a levy. And it is not funded by the resource boom.

And those services are actually provided for in our Constitution. Section 51 (xxiiiA) to be exact. Certainly, they could be cut, but I doubt they would be.

But since you are Australian, you should know this already.

 

[Yazata]

The problem that I have with governments overruling individual liberties, is that even if every imposition is fully justifiable, they tend to add up.

More and more of each individual's freedom to make decisions for him or herself ends up taken away, and handed over to elites who believe that they know better than the people what's in the people's own best interest.

Obviously some laws and some government regulations are necessary. I'm not an absolute libertarian and governments aren't always evil by any means. (Somalian-style anarchy isn't for me.)

But too many laws, and too intrusive laws, turns adults into the equivalent of children. They also threaten to turn the people's rulers into something approaching a police-state, in which every aspect of everyone's life ends up closely observed and precisely regulated. (For the people's good, of course.)

The difficult trick is finding the optimum point somewhere in the middle.

My own sense is that governments around the world are moving en-masse towards more and increasingly excessive control. Every year, the number of laws and regulating every aspect of everyone's lives multiplies, and every year governments' ability to monitor and enforce those laws expands.

I'm increasingly scared, to tell you the truth. I'm not really scared of some Australian video-game ban, though it may or may not be symptomatic of a larger problem.

But when we start talking about ever-present surveilance cameras with face-recognition technology, about the recent American NSA mass communications surveilance revelations, about every police-car being equipped with an automated licence-plate reader that records the licence, time and GPS location of every vehicle the police-car passes, when your bank, your employer and many of the companies that you do business with are reporting on you, and when all of this is fed into vast searchable Google-like databases where a few keystrokes in elite offices promise to produce instant dossiers on all aspects of anyone's life, it scares the absolute crap out of me.

'1984' comes closer every day.

 

[Balerion]

The truth is Americans are fixated on the idea of choice and that their civil liberties are in constant threat of being eroded. Anytime there is an enlightened debate over an issue as seemingly simple as glorifying rape in a video game, people like Michael see it as an affront to their so called civil liberties. To Michael it does not matter that this game is a detriment and offers no value to society at all, as long as his perceived choice is still in tact. In Michael's world there are no speed limits and only the strong survive.

The problem is that there has been no enlightened debate. All scientific study points to video games having no behavioral effect on players, so all you really have here is old politicians chasing boogeymen.

Michael, you consistently cry Nanny State when any law is passed, no matter if it is a law that is progressive and good for the whole, or a ban on just about anything.In your world "exploitation" rules the day.

There is nothing progressive about censorship.