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

[quinnsong]

@ Balerion

So anything that a human being can imagine should not be censored. NAMBLA loves you. There is a balance and we decide what is and is not acceptable and Australia decided that glorifying rape on a video game was not in the best interest of society. You argue that it does no harm when in fact video games do increase the risk of violent behavior. The blanket statement that all scientific studies points to video games having no behavioral effects on players is blatantly false.

There is nothing progressive about exploitation.

 

[quinnsong]

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.

Again, there is a balance, just look at how marijuana laws are changing or how we are finally doing something about the prison lobby in America. Either we become more organized as a global community or we can reap the consequences of every individual's or group's right to do whatever their little heart can imagine. The fact is we are a long way from either scenario, because a completely organized society scares the hell out of us, as does the society where everything is a civil liberty.



Being spied on by our governments or by our corporations is an uncomfortable result of current technology and hopefully as the debate continues we will find yet another middle ground so that we are allowed at least the illusion of freedom.

 

[Balerion]

@ Balerion

So anything that a human being can imagine should not be censored. NAMBLA loves you.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. How exactly is NAMBLA censored today? Are you suggesting we all bury our heads in the sand and pretend that they don't exist?

There is a balance and we decide what is and is not acceptable and Australia decided that glorifying rape on a video game was not in the best interest of society.

You're using buzzwords and straw men; there is no substance here. What is this "balance" you speak of? How is it decided? You spoke of an "enlightened discussion," yet you speak in strictly general terms. And since you apparently missed it last time, the game was not banned for glorifying rape. It was banned because of depictions of drug use linked to reward. The Australian government doesn't want its citizens thinking that smoking alien weed will make them superheroes, I guess.

You argue that it does no harm when in fact video games do increase the risk of violent behavior.

That's either a lie or a misunderstanding on your part. There has never been one study that links video games to violent behavior. There have been some to link game playing to more aggressive behavior, but the studies have come under question for their quality. For instance, many studies are showing that players who play violent video games are a bit more rude or riled up. One study had a group play Mortal Kombat for fifteen minutes and then asked them to give hot sauce to students they were told didn't like spicy food. The group who played that game gave bigger portions of the sauce than students who played a non-violent game. But if all we're suggesting is that video games get people riled up, then we're not talking about anything worse than a sporting event, and probably something significantly milder. (Have you ever seen a video game-related riot, for instance?)

Meanwhile, studies have shown that areas in which violent game sales are highest show a decrease in violent crime rates. Now, you could take that to mean violent video games actually prevent real-world violence. Or, as most intelligent people, you could say that games don't have any appreciable effect on people, just like movies and TV and music. Marilyn Manson didn't make the Columbine kids kill their classmates, and Call of Duty didn't make that douchebag in Newtown kill those kids.

There is nothing progressive about exploitation.

Who, exactly, is being exploited?

 

[Balerion]

Again, there is a balance, just look at how marijuana laws are changing or how we are finally doing something about the prison lobby in America. Either we become more organized as a global community or we can reap the consequences of every individual's or group's right to do whatever their little heart can imagine. The fact is we are a long way from either scenario, because a completely organized society scares the hell out of us, as does the society where everything is a civil liberty.



Being spied on by our governments or by our corporations is an uncomfortable result of current technology and hopefully as the debate continues we will find yet another middle ground so that we are allowed at least the illusion of freedom.

Trite nonsense. A mish-mash of words and phrases you've heard elsewhere flung against the screen in hopes that something sticks.

 

[Gage]

Surely we can all agree there's limits to our freedoms and the government's power. Like previously stated it's just where those limits are put and how they're balanced together. At any rate at least we live in a nation/s that embodies the notion that both sides of the spectrum can have this conversation freely. An Orwell dystopia could never exist in such a nation/s.

 

[paddoboy]

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.

Yes.....
Whether they be Americans or Australians, I prefer to call them "snivel libertarians"

 

[quinnsong]

Trite nonsense. A mish-mash of words and phrases you've heard elsewhere flung against the screen in hopes that something sticks.

Gee, I guess I should be insulted that you believe I could not think of this trite nonsense on my own. Please enlighten me of why what I said is trite nonsense as my whole ego is dependent on what you think.:bawl:

 

[Balerion]

Gee, I guess I should be insulted that you believe I could not think of this trite nonsense on my own. Please enlighten me of why what I said is trite nonsense as my whole ego is dependent on what you think.:bawl:

Respond to my first post and I'll happily explain.

 

[quinnsong]

I don't know what you're trying to say here. How exactly is NAMBLA censored today? Are you suggesting we all bury our heads in the sand and pretend that they don't exist?

I'll let you figure out how NAMBLA is censored.

You're using buzzwords and straw men; there is no substance here. What is this "balance" you speak of? How is it decided? You spoke of an "enlightened discussion," yet you speak in strictly general terms. And since you apparently missed it last time, the game was not banned for glorifying rape. It was banned because of depictions of drug use linked to reward. The Australian government doesn't want its citizens thinking that smoking alien weed will make them superheroes, I guess.

I should have said taking everything in consideration(pros and cons) and deciding whether it is beneficial or is detrimental to a nations citizens. How it is decided depends on the individual country or state. I did miss that it was banned for depictions of drug use and not for the glorification of rape, but does not change my mind about any kind of censorship being a bad thing.

That's either a lie or a misunderstanding on your part. There has never been one study that links video games to violent behavior. There have been some to link game playing to more aggressive behavior, but the studies have come under question for their quality. For instance, many studies are showing that players who play violent video games are a bit more rude or riled up. One study had a group play Mortal Kombat for fifteen minutes and then asked them to give hot sauce to students they were told didn't like spicy food. The group who played that game gave bigger portions of the sauce than students who played a non-violent game. But if all we're suggesting is that video games get people riled up, then we're not talking about anything worse than a sporting event, and probably something significantly milder. (Have you ever seen a video game-related riot, for instance?)

Meanwhile, studies have shown that areas in which violent game sales are highest show a decrease in violent crime rates. Now, you could take that to mean violent video games actually prevent real-world violence. Or, as most intelligent people, you could say that games don't have any appreciable effect on people, just like movies and TV and music. Marilyn Manson didn't make the Columbine kids kill their classmates, and Call of Duty didn't make that douchebag in Newtown kill those kids.

How bout you pull your studies out and I will pull mine out? To think that what we put put in our bodies whether it is food or visual content does not affect us in either an adverse way or a beneficial way just lacks common sense.

Who, exactly, is being exploited?

Children, women, workers, immigrants, animals, soldiers, elderly, basically anything that isn't nailed down.

 

[wegs]

So...are movies that depict the same 'content' banned too, in Australian movie theaters? :bugeye:

Is the main reason because of sexual violence, and depictions of illegal drug activity, etc...? Call of Duty--tons of violence. Grand Theft Auto--tons of violence, and illegal 'activity' being depicted.

While I do find it odd that anyone would get a kick out of playing a game that simulates rape scenes, I'm against censorship when it's cherry picked in this fashion. UNLESS, this is a slippery slope, and maybe movies that depict sexual violence will be banned too....eventually. I don't know. I do know nothing happens in a vacuum. Will be interesting to see where this leads...stuff like this doesn't stay static.

Things that make ME go hmmmm!

 

[Balerion]

I'll let you figure out how NAMBLA is censored.

Which means you don't know.

I should have said taking everything in consideration(pros and cons) and deciding whether it is beneficial or is detrimental to a nations citizens. How it is decided depends on the individual country or state. I did miss that it was banned for depictions of drug use and not for the glorification of rape, but does not change my mind about any kind of censorship being a bad thing.

If entertainment had to be beneficial to gain a rating, then nothing but Reading Rainbow would ever reach the consumer. But let's set aside your ignorance of the rating guidelines and discuss what, precisely, makes depictions of drug use for personal gain detrimental to society. Who makes this decision? What is the criteria? Do you realize that some illicit drugs do provide benefits? If so, why then do you agree with a body that bans the accurate depiction of drug use?

How bout you pull your studies out and I will pull mine out? To think that what we put put in our bodies whether it is food or visual content does not affect us in either an adverse way or a beneficial way just lacks common sense.

For common sense to apply, one must have an understanding of the premise. You clearly don't. To be fair, it's a difficult topic that has had its share of controversy, but you pretending that it's "obvious" that media causes violence directly contradicts scientific data.

From Texas A&M: http://www.tamiu.edu/newsinfo/newsarticles/2013-MediaViolence011713.shtml Suggests violent media has no impact on empathy

Ward, et al, 2011: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959 Shows rise in violent game sales associates with a decrease in violent crime

Children, women, workers, immigrants, animals, soldiers, elderly, basically anything that isn't nailed down.

Did I catch you reading from a poster again? What the hell are you going on about?

 

[paddoboy]

So...are movies that depict the same 'content' banned too, in Australian movie theaters? :bugeye:

Is the main reason because of sexual violence, and depictions of illegal drug activity, etc...? Call of Duty--tons of violence. Grand Theft Auto--tons of violence, and illegal 'activity' being depicted.

While I do find it odd that anyone would get a kick out of playing a game that simulates rape scenes, I'm against censorship when it's cherry picked in this fashion. UNLESS, this is a slippery slope, and maybe movies that depict sexual violence will be banned too....eventually. I don't know. I do know nothing happens in a vacuum. Will be interesting to see where this leads...stuff like this doesn't stay static.

Things that make ME go hmmmm!

Movies are classified according to content....We even have a parental lock out system for parents to utilise with respect to what their children watch on TV.....
I would guess though that video games are easier to obtain and hence the total ban.
And yes, most of us, can play, watch and participate in violent/sexually explicit games without any effect, as we do know its only make believe and not the real thing.....probably 90% of the population would fit into that catagory. But then we do have that other 10% that are affected by such stuff. So the censorship laws are to protect the majority from the minority.
I recall some talk from a snivel libertarian complaining about his life being an open book for the world due to the advent of cctv cameras being everywhere he went. He literally was complaining about not even being able to scratch his own arse without somebody watching....
But those same cctv cameras have been responsible for the apprehension of many criminals and purpurtrators of various crimes.

I also would not find anything at all entertaining in participating in a simulated rape scene, nor do I find anything amusing about anal probes in the catagory of a game......sheeesh!!!
But maybe I'm old fashion.

The government in Australia have also implemented laws forbidding shops and outlets in displaying cigarettes for sale, [they must be packed away out of sight] and the same cigarette packs are plain packaged with the only advertising allowed being that for what dangers nicotine are responsible for.
You beauty I say!!! If that sort of nanny state prohibitive laws save even one child from the perils of nicotine then its worth it.
Me??...I'm an old bastard now and I can say that I have never had one of the dreaded filthy cancer sticks to my mouth....NEVER!!! Even when I had mates as a kid calling me "square"for not trying it...Two of those mates are now dead.
Seat belts laws was another issue that the snivel libertarians were jumping up and down and screaming about a few years ago. I wonder how many lives that has now saved.
We also can walk down the street in Australia generally speaking, without some mongrel pulling a gun on you.

Probably 95% of city dwellers in Australia [and that's a vast proportion of the overall population] do not and have never owned a gun.
That's not to say we don't have gum crime, but at least they are all with basic hand guns...Military style weapons in the hands of the general populace is virtually unknown.
Gun massacres???? Yep, we have had them too...I can recall about two over the last twenty years or so.

Nanny state???...Yeah I'm OK and happy and far safer in it.

 

[wegs]

Thing is though, censorship doesn't prevent crime.
Someone designed that sick game and thought there would be an audience for it.
You know what? There is an audience for it.
And my guess is...ppl who want to play it, will find a way around the ban to play it.

Games and movies don't create criminals.
People desire depravity and they seek it out.

I think you make great points and I happen to agree that protecting society is a healthy endeavor.
But censorship doesn't prevent crime.

And when it's "sold" to the public like that, it's more dangerous than if there was no censorship at all.
My opinion.

 

[Asguard]

I should have said taking everything in consideration(pros and cons) and deciding whether it is beneficial or is detrimental to a nations citizens. How it is decided depends on the individual country or state. I did miss that it was banned for depictions of drug use and not for the glorification of rape, but does not change my mind about any kind of censorship being a bad thing.

It was both but the rape depiction was the first reason listed on the original decision. The appeal didn't mention it that I saw but I don't know if that is because it was already removed or if what I read had just omitted it

 

[Asguard]

Which means you don't know.



If entertainment had to be beneficial to gain a rating, then nothing but Reading Rainbow would ever reach the consumer. But let's set aside your ignorance of the rating guidelines and discuss what, precisely, makes depictions of drug use for personal gain detrimental to society. Who makes this decision? What is the criteria? Do you realize that some illicit drugs do provide benefits? If so, why then do you agree with a body that bans the accurate depiction of drug use?



For common sense to apply, one must have an understanding of the premise. You clearly don't. To be fair, it's a difficult topic that has had its share of controversy, but you pretending that it's "obvious" that media causes violence directly contradicts scientific data.

From Texas A&M: http://www.tamiu.edu/newsinfo/newsarticles/2013-MediaViolence011713.shtml Suggests violent media has no impact on empathy

Ward, et al, 2011: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959 Shows rise in violent game sales associates with a decrease in violent crime



Did I catch you reading from a poster again? What the hell are you going on about?

Did you happen to see the recent research on body image and video games? One was a study on boys and the other on girls and both came to the same conclusion that what is depicted has a detrimental effect on the body image of the person playing. To suggest games have no effect on the person playing them is false. Also you keep quoting studies about violence in general and its effects and I'm sure your right but society and people treat sexual violence differently. Sadly sexual violence is still WAY to high and more importantly massively under reported. Do you know if there are any studies on the rates of people reporting sexual assaults that they are a victim of after playing games that glorify or turn rape into a joke? How about studies on the way people related to victims after playing games which glorify or turn rape into a joke? The decisions are far more complex than will mortal kombat turn you into a school shooter

This is quite an interesting video on the difference between rape and murder in games
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqMUl5Xj93Y

 

[Balerion]

Did you happen to see the recent research on body image and video games? One was a study on boys and the other on girls and both came to the same conclusion that what is depicted has a detrimental effect on the body image of the person playing. To suggest games have no effect on the person playing them is false. Also you keep quoting studies about violence in general and its effects and I'm sure your right but society and people treat sexual violence differently. Sadly sexual violence is still WAY to high and more importantly massively under reported. Do you know if there are any studies on the rates of people reporting sexual assaults that they are a victim of after playing games that glorify or turn rape into a joke? How about studies on the way people related to victims after playing games which glorify or turn rape into a joke? The decisions are far more complex than will mortal kombat turn you into a school shooter

This is quite an interesting video on the difference between rape and murder in games
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqMUl5Xj93Y

I'm sorry, are you expecting a response after you ignored my initial post to you?

 

[Michael]

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.

'After everything was done'. A) This is nonsense B) I moved to Australia because I was given an American research scholarship and was offered a spot in a lab in AU, the research I did was published and later I was offered a job at an AU medical school - they sponsored my PR as a required part of my employment and later became a Citizen. C) Everything is FAR FROM DONE. Far from done. Undone more like it.

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

Actually, I've had my fill. I've made long-term professional commitments to people who have similarly invested a lot of their professional life in our research. Once that is done, then I'll be more than happy to move. When I said far from done, I mean it. Many people have this airy-fairy notion that 'Government' is taking care of it. They're not. People take care of things. You really have no idea.

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

Yes, I know, I pay it.

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.

Actually this is incorrect. The services are actually provided for by people - some of whom are Australians, many of whom are not Australian.

Secondly, the levy doesn't meet the demand. Either it will increase, medical services will have to be cut or other publicly funded institutions will need to go with less. Right now, it's children who are going with less. This is a fact, AU is in investing less in Australians' higher education and training - and is one of the lowest per GDP in the entire industrialized world.

The 'Government' taxes and sells bonds and then acts as a large inefficient redistribution machine. That's it. There is nothing 'Government' does that citizens couldn't also do - and do more efficiently and of higher quality. Worse still, people think they can pull on the levers of Governmental aggression and honestly think nothing of it. Why is that? I think it's because it's Police who end up doing the aggression.


There's a small bureaucratic group who decided this game was unfit for ADULT Australians and so ADULT Australians have to obtain a child-safe version. Now, imagine if an Australian violated this ban, say out of principle, and sold the game. He or She's could be tossed in a Federal Rape-Cage for that. Now, this small bureaucratic group would never ever in a million years physically go to this Citizen, attack them, and toss them into their own cage. They'd just never do it. I also don't think they'd hire thugs to do it. BUT, as soon as you remove their action and hand that dirty job over to someone else, then it's out of sight, out of mind. The Police, they probably don't know what SRIV even is. The Prison guard - hell, he probably has a bootleg copy he's playing at home.

 

[Michael]

There is a balance and we decide what is and is not acceptable and Australia decided that glorifying rape on a video game was not in the best interest of society.

1) "Australia" is a geographical location - it's doesn't decide anything. In this case a few 'public servants' whom you did not vote for, whom you do not know, made a decision for you. They are your Nanny.

2) "in the best interest of society" is meaningless gobbledygook and doesn't mean anything.

Are facial tattoos in the best interest of society? How about low cut skirts? How about homosexuality? How about beer? Is beer in the best interest of society? How about day time TV? What about rap? How about reality TV shows? Is an iPad in the best interest of society?

There is nothing progressive about exploitation.

Nice use of the word 'Progressive'. It's similarly meaningless mental gobbledygook.

Are facial tattoos progressive? How about low cut skirts? How about homosexuality? How about beer? Is beer progressive? How about day time TV? What about rap? How about reality TV shows? Is an iPad progressive?

I should have said taking everything in consideration(pros and cons) and deciding whether it is beneficial or is detrimental to a nations citizens.

Oh, "National Citizens"... as opposed to.... Unnational Citizens?

Humans are humans. You are a human. I am. Don't let your National ID Stamp on your forehead trick you into thinking otherwise.

The truth is....

Determined by logic not by parroting political slogans, repeating some asinine politically correct phraseology that you heard on TV or the radio.

Anytime there is an enlightened debate over an issue

See, here's an example in your very next sentence. Prefacing 'debate' with the word 'enlightened' doesn't make your argument any stronger.

In Michael's world there are no speed limits and only the strong survive.

No, in Michael's world he specifically stated NO RULERS does not mean NO RULES. I know that little "R" in there is difficult to see, but do try. Thus, in Michael's world there are speed limits, on privately owned roads and when you drive on said road, you agree to drive at the posted speed.

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.

I know this is a big shocker to you, but I'm arguing for YOUR civil liberties. And while YOU may not cherish your freedom of expression, I cherish your freedom of expression. I personally do not like neck-tattoos. I saw a young beautiful girl, about 18, with a nice smile, and she had a horrific skull right on her esophagus with demon eyes staring at me and a chain of razor wires encircling her neck locking this demon in place. Other than that, nothing else. No other tattoos and if she were wearing a scarf, you'd never seen a thing.

My aesthetic disposition is not her aesthetic disposition. As I do not know her, I don't know her history or what prompted her to get that tattoo - but it wouldn't matter if I had, I don't have a say in what she can or can not have tattooed on her body. "We" don't have a say. There is no "collective". Your entire set of responses is littered with 'We' this and 'Our' that. There IS NO COLLECTIVE. We're not ants. We're individuals and taking a 'vote' to remove this young woman's right to obtain a tattoo is immoral. It's her body, her body is her private property, she has control over it. Roping off a geographical bit of land on a peace of paper and calling it 'country X' and then calling the people therein "Citizens of X' doesn't suddenly turn water into wine. It isn't going to make immoral into moral.

So, if you have a moral argument - make it. Until then, adult's have a civil right to experience this video game. It's our bodies - we own our bodies. If my eyes and ears and "I" want to take in that video game, that's my right.

 

[Bells]

'After everything was done'. A) This is nonsense B) I moved to Australia because I was given an American research scholarship and was offered a spot in a lab in AU, the research I did was published and later I was offered a job at an AU medical school - they sponsored my PR as a required part of my employment and later became a Citizen. C) Everything is FAR FROM DONE. Far from done. Undone more like it.

I meant "done" in the context that you accused another poster in this thread of being born after everything was done.

But I think you know that already.

Actually, I've had my fill. I've made long-term professional commitments to people who have similarly invested a lot of their professional life in our research. Once that is done, then I'll be more than happy to move. When I said far from done, I mean it. Many people have this airy-fairy notion that 'Government' is taking care of it. They're not. People take care of things. You really have no idea.

Oh God here we go. More of your 'the Government is out to get us' claptrap.

Yes, I know, I pay it.

And yet, you know so little about it.

Actually this is incorrect. The services are actually provided for by people - some of whom are Australians, many of whom are not Australian.

Right.. You are saying that the law and Constitution of this land is incorrect...

Secondly, the levy doesn't meet the demand. Either it will increase, medical services will have to be cut or other publicly funded institutions will need to go with less. Right now, it's children who are going with less. This is a fact, AU is in investing less in Australians' higher education and training - and is one of the lowest per GDP in the entire industrialized world.

Well the issue is because the Government is being pushed by those on the right of politics to fund private schools and the private sector more. At the end of the day, in Australia, if you need medical care, you will get it, free of charge and while elective surgery has a wait, non-elective surgery is catered for with fairly high standards. Having utilised both the public and private sector healthcare, I actually prefer the public sector, simply for the facilities they provide when they are needed. Latest experience with that was my mother's recent major heart attack. She had a shorter wait for an angiogram in the public sector than she did in the private sector. So she was transported to a public hospital and chose to remain there.

The 'Government' taxes and sells bonds and then acts as a large inefficient redistribution machine. That's it. There is nothing 'Government' does that citizens couldn't also do - and do more efficiently and of higher quality. Worse still, people think they can pull on the levers of Governmental aggression and honestly think nothing of it. Why is that? I think it's because it's Police who end up doing the aggression.

Again, more of your anti-Government psychotic break...

There's a small bureaucratic group who decided this game was unfit for ADULT Australians and so ADULT Australians have to obtain a child-safe version. Now, imagine if an Australian violated this ban, say out of principle, and sold the game. He or She's could be tossed in a Federal Rape-Cage for that. Now, this small bureaucratic group would never ever in a million years physically go to this Citizen, attack them, and toss them into their own cage. They'd just never do it. I also don't think they'd hire thugs to do it. BUT, as soon as you remove their action and hand that dirty job over to someone else, then it's out of sight, out of mind. The Police, they probably don't know what SRIV even is. The Prison guard - hell, he probably has a bootleg copy he's playing at home.

Man, your paranoia knows no bounds.

Censorship has always existed in Australia in some form or another. The issue with Saints Row IV and State of Decay is new and it has hit the headlines because it has happened after the adult R18+ classification was applied and created for video games to match movie and film ratings. Do I think the ban is bizarre? Yes. However you are blowing this all out of proportion. It isn't illegal to play it, it just cannot be supplied or sold or advertised in Australia. People bypass the ban by getting it from overseas (probably at a much cheaper cost to be honest). The issue here is that the R18+ classification was brought in specifically to apply to such games. The group that denied it classification were actually an independent panel of 3 people, who deemed it too violent for even the R18+ classification.

Instead of over-reacting and carrying on like an idiot and ranting about the Government jailing people for rape for example, what you should be doing is signing the many petitions which exist about these video game bans. That movement was successful in getting the R18+ rating established and many previous games are now allowed because of that rating. Seriously, grow up already.

 

[quinnsong]

Which means you don't know.

NAMBLA is censored by law from acting out their desires on young children and NAMBLA really only exists to change current consent laws. OHHH, but that slippery slope, fuck that, you heard me fuck that, at some point someone has to say enough is enough. So what, I have the right to assemble and say just about anything, no real power or threat in that.

If entertainment had to be beneficial to gain a rating, then nothing but Reading Rainbow would ever reach the consumer. But let's set aside your ignorance of the rating guidelines and discuss what, precisely, makes depictions of drug use for personal gain detrimental to society. Who makes this decision? What is the criteria? Do you realize that some illicit drugs do provide benefits? If so, why then do you agree with a body that bans the accurate depiction of drug use?

When I step in shit I know it and so do you, but you call it chocolate and I say it is pure unadulterated shit. I f you can guarantee that the ESRB rating system actually worked then great, but we know that some parents do not care what their children watch or play and even if they do their children are able to access M games at their friends houses.

What action would you take against violence and drug use?

Which drug and what personal gain? Be more specific? So you are saying that the Aussies banned a game merely because it showed an accurate description of drug use? Does Saints Row IV show an accurate depiction of drug use? If yes, has Australia banned every book, tv show or movie that shows an accurate depiction of drug use? Is the game promoting drug dealing? Maybe the Aussies want to leave drug dealing up to doctors like we do in the U.S.

For common sense to apply, one must have an understanding of the premise. You clearly don't. To be fair, it's a difficult topic that has had its share of controversy, but you pretending that it's "obvious" that media causes violence directly contradicts scientific data.

From Texas A&M: http://www.tamiu.edu/newsinfo/newsarticles/2013-MediaViolence011713.shtml Suggests violent media has no impact on empathy

Ward, et al, 2011: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959 Shows rise in violent game sales associates with a decrease in violent crime


I could cite numerous studies that contradict yours as you well know but let's keep this simple. Why does the American Military encourage our soldiers to play violent video games? Or, I had 2 boys that played violent video games at a friend's house while I was working and I noticed a marked physical aggression in their behavior towards me and one another.

Did I catch you reading from a poster again? What the hell are you going on about?

Really, so exploitation does not exist in your world. Hmm, can you give me some of that illicit drug for personal delusion.