This post is written by Michael Meloni, from Somebody Think of the Children, for our series of blog posts on the importance of online civil liberties as part of EFA’s 2010 Fundraising Campaign …

When I was fifteen some friends and I wrote an e-zine about school and what was happening around town. It was lowbrow satire and only twelve of us read it, but we were pleased to be sharing our ideas. Here we were, in a small town with not much else to do but cause trouble, creating something.

The Internet was changing the way my friends and I communicated. We were having conversations that weren't localised between a set of people at one given time or place. We were exchanging laughs across the span of a week or even months when somebody read a copy long after it was published.

Little did I know this very means of open communication was under threat, seen by governments as a scary film or book that could be easily edited (or deleted) rather than as conversation.

A year earlier I had become an instant fan of Silence of the Lambs after renting it from the local video shop. Despite being a squeamish kid, I was beginning to understand movies weren't real and the blood was just tomato sauce. Standing in front of the VHS lined shelves, I debated with myself about whether I was really brave enough to watch it. I'd heard it was terrifying but I was interested in film making and couldn't resist watching one of the greats. Part of me knew I was ready and I was right; I watched it, enjoyed it and understood why it was so highly regarded.

On the opening day of its sequel, Hannibal, I dragged mum along to the cinema for the first session because none of my friends were fans and it would ease any concerns she had about me seeing it by myself. It was classified MA15+ but not for long. A ludicrous scene where Anthony Hopkins removes the top of Ray Liotta's skull to cook part of his brain stirred up Australia. Within a week of opening the Queensland Attorney General, Judy Spence, requested the rating be reviewed and subsequently Hannibal was reclassified R18+. Only adults could see it.

It was here that I realised that mum and I weren't the only people deciding what I was permitted to watch and read. No kid is a stranger to be being told what they can and cannot do; it's part of growing up. However, on the verge of adulthood I struggled with the concept of another party deciding what fiction and fact was appropriate for me. I knew what was right and wrong, legal and illegal, but this was a story I had read in a book borrowed from school and was now not meant to have seen on the big screen. Talk about an eye-opener.

As a family our only exposure to classification existed when we read the labels on the front of video jackets or the warnings before television movies. I was sent to bed many times as a child after that deep, drone-like voice uttered 'The following film contains violence and is suitable for mature audiences only'. When I wanted to see Hannibal, even as teenager, I had to make a case.

It's this conversation between parent and child that is missing when we look to technology such as ISP filtering as a solution to keeping children safe on the Internet. Where along the way did we forget that the best way to protect children online is the same as we do off-line; by talking to them. Discussing Internet safety with them is just as important as discussing road safety, pool safety, sex and stranger danger. And it's parents, family-friends, community leaders and teachers who are best placed to have 'the talk'.

Remember the sit-down most of us had with our parents before we went to our first party in high school. They knew there would be alcohol, potentially worse, but by talking to us about it beforehand they were instilling trust and responsibility. The Internet is no different.

We are now part of a global village and we are having global conversations, although not always ones appropriate for all ages. It's ultimately why a one-size-fits-all ISP filter is a poor substitute for good education. Even PC filters with their faults still remain a far better option for families because access can be tailored to individual users. While the Australian Government may have good intentions introducing mandatory ISP filtering, they'll probably do more harm by giving parents a false sense of security. Their filtering policy will do little if anything to make the Internet safer for children and that leaves me wondering what's the point?

It's been over 10 years since I wrote that e-zine and I'm still creating content online. Somebody Think of the Children has reached an audience far bigger than that zine ever could. I like to think every sentence I write is a conversation with my readers and it's organisations like Electronic Frontiers Australia that help us little guys keep doing so. It's their hard work and effort that links our voice with the policy makers and media. If you take a moment to think about how you communicate online and how important it is to you, I believe you'll understand why it's crucial we support EFA in their fight to protect and promote civil liberties in Australia.

This post is written by David Harrison, the editor of AusGamers, for our series of blog posts on the importance of online civil liberties as part of EFA's 2010 Fundraising Campaign ...

I've lost count of the number of times that I have literally seen eyes glaze over when trying to explain to people why digital and online civil liberties are important. I'll say something like "hey, that's a nice iPhone, but do you realise that even though you own it, Apple don't think you should be able to do certain things with it?", or "There's this great zombie game coming out, but you won't be able to buy it in Australia because there's no R18+ classification rating!"

It is hard to get people motivated to care about something when they feel they have no direct, immediate interest in it. Some people don't want to jailbreak their iPhones. Some people don't want to play violent video games, or mod their console to extend its functionality. Some people don't care that their DRMed music or video collection might one day just stop working. Some people don't even care that the government is planning to censor the Internet! Unfortunately, many people learn to care about these things the hard way - when it's too late.

Fortunately for them, other people do care about these things, and are right now trying to educate by fighting against the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that surround these issues. Certain interest groups are telling everyone that violent video games will result in children turning into murder machines. Big media will tell you that without DRM, artists won't get paid and there'll be no more music or movies. The government invokes the spectre of child pornography to explain why they need to control access to the Internet.

On the surface, these all sound like reasonable arguments - no-one wants to stop the music! Unfortunately, to counter these points and explain why they're bad and scary to us nerd-types often involves invoking technical arcana (like the importance of open, DRM free media formats), mentioning obscure fringe cases (running homebrew code), or acknowledging that various abuses are possible (such as copyright or patent infringement). Several arguments also touch on highly sensitive issues, such as violence, abortion or euthanasia, which cloud judgment and make it hard for rational discussion to take place. So it becomes an even bigger challenge to explain to the average citizen why exactly we care about these issues - and why they should, too.

At this point, when in a discussion with my friends, I find I need to shake them out of their glazed-eyed stupor, as typically they have fallen out of the conversation and are thinking about the cool farting application they've just installed on their iPhone.

I will then try to convince them that these issues are really important to understand. They're important because they are fundamentally about freedom. They're about having the right to make your own choices, and not have to worry that someone else doesn't like it and thus might stop you doing it. They're about having the right to do what you want with your own property - things you have paid money for and own. It's about having more freedom in the choices you make for yourself, not less.

AusGamers has been on the front lines of online civil rights battles recently in the struggle to get an R18 classification for video games. We believe that more awareness about issues to do with online and digital civil rights will create a more open and freer society, and we're doing what we can to encourage more discussion.

We firmly believe in the right of gamers to make their own choices, and we especially believe that adult gamers should have the right to make adult choices. We know that Australian gamers desperately want to be able to play these games, not because they're obsessed with violence and are dark, scary, individuals plotting murder and mayhem from their parent's basement, but because these games are fun. Adult gamers have adult tastes - we can vote, we can drink, we can go to war, and we can watch adult movies - but when it comes to video games, we can't choose how we spend our spare time.

We know that - regardless of whether an R18 rating exists - gamers will get their hands on these games one way or the other. Giving them a channel to obtain these games legitimately gives Australian gamers the freedom to make their own choices - and ensures they won't become criminals just because they wanted to play a video game that a few people thought was too violent.

While we're doing what we can at AusGamers to make sure issues of online civil rights are in the minds of Australian gamers, we strongly feel that the EFA is the best positioned organisation in Australia to tackle these issues head-on. If you're at all concerned about the fate of Australian gaming, Internet censorship, or the myriad of other important issues facing us in the Information Age, I strongly urge you to consider contributing to the EFA's fund raising drive or becoming a member today!

Last month, I was interviewed by 4ZzZ’s Zed Games show on the introduction of an R18+ rating in Australia. The show also includes an interview with Gamers 4 Croydon. You can grab the mp3 here: 20100218-ZedGames-R18-EFA-G4C (40mb).

Thanks a lot to Ray and Chani for having me on the show. It’s great to see a gaming show on prime-time community radio, and I’m really excited to hear future episodes.

The recent review (EFA and AusGamers' submission is here) on the introduction of an R18+ rating has apparently received more than 55,000 submissions from Australians interested in this issue. This sort of turnout is incredible - several orders of magnitude higher than the regular response rate to Government reviews.

I want to extend our particular thanks to Grow up Austrlaia and EBGames for leading the campaign - particularly by providing a visible petition and an online submission form.

I am greatly heartened by this news - both because this should now provide unignorable evidence that Australians demand to be treated like adults when it comes to game classification, and because it signals real potential for the future of grass-roots activism and public participation in the democratic discourse.

Expect more news and a report sometime after April.

The Review on the introduction of an R18+ rating for computer games closes on Sunday. To all of you who have not yet made a submission, I encourage you to do so.

To make a submission, use the template provided on the Attorney-General's website. Fill out the questionnaire and add your own comments. It is critically important that we explain to the Australian Government that Australians are capable of making responsible decisions for themselves and for their children. You should explain, in your own words, why you believe we should not censor games designed for adults. Two particular points I think it's important to get across are:

• If you are a parent, explain how you monitor and oversee what media your children are able to watch and play;
• Explain why you would like the opportunity to play games that deal with complex adult themes

We have almost completed our submission, drafted in conjunction with AusGamers. You may want to read through it for some ideas.

We believe that it is time that Australia accepts that games are not just for children - that games are a highly expressive media capable of conveying complex adult themes that are not suitable for children but which should not be banned. We believe that Australians are capable of making responsible choices about what games we play and what games we allow our children to play. We believe, crucially, that introducing an R18+ rating will help parents and all Australians make more informed choices by providing a clear indicator of video game content and aligning games classification more closely with film classification.

Please take the time to make your voice heard on this crucially important issue.

The public consultation on the introduction of an R18+ for computer games closes at the end of the month. Jessi Citizen, on behalf of EFA and in conjunction with Ausgamers, has prepared a draft response to the consultation that sets out our understanding of the issues and our arguments.

• Draft submission paper (MS Word format)

In the spirit of community involvement, and to ensure that we have the strongest argument we can possibly put forward, we are opening this draft paper for public comment. You can see (and edit) the paper on Google docs. Please provide us with your comments and suggestions on this paper. In addition to the draft document, we also have some research that we conducted (thanks to Julian Merlo and Matt Postle) that details comparative ratings for games in 2009 worldwide (showing that over half of the games that were rated as MA15+ here were given adult ratings by all five comparative jurisdictions overseas!)

To join in our discussion on the draft paper process, please join our discussion list. Putting these documents together takes money, and EFA is entirely volunteer funded. If you would like to contribute to our R18+ submission, please consider making a small donation to help us recoup our costs:

In addition to comments, we would like to see as many people as possible put together their own submission to the public consultation. You can do this either by using Grow Up Australia's submission form or following the submission template and the instructions on the AGD's website.

Here's some tips for writing a submission:

• Be reasonable; don't attack the classification board or any particular Attorneys-General. We have the facts and the theory on our side, and we don't gain anything by sounding childish or petulant.
• Follow the submission guidelines - make sure your voice is heard.
• Make your points clearly and succinctly. Feel free to take any of the information we present in the discussion paper; you're usually better served by being brief and to the point.
• Express the issue in your own words, and tell your own story; Explain to the AGD why you personally want an R18+ rating, and how it affects you.

The main points that we are trying to stress in this discussion paper are really quite simple:

• Gamers are adults; games, like films, tell expressive stories, not all of which are suitable for children. Banning everything that is not suitable for children amounts to unacceptable censorship of legitimate expression.
• Gamers are parents; as responsible parents, we take care to monitor what media our children consume, and can take responsibility for those decisions.
• An R18+ rating is about empowerment; the goal of Australia's classification is to empower adults, protect children, protect people from accidental exposure to offensive material, and to take into account community concerns about particularly offensive content. An R18+ allows adults to choose what is suitable for themselves and for their children.
• An R18+ rating will be more likely to decrease rather than increase the exposure of children to inappropriate content, because it sends a clear message to parents that certain material is not appropriate for children; the lack of an R18+ for games, particularly when one exists for films, only causes confusion and lessens the ability of parents to take responsibility.
• Australia's system is out of step with the rest of the world; games that are clearly not designed for children are being released with an MA15+ rating, and games that are suitable for adults are being banned. Our research shows that of the 47 games that were rated by the Australian Classification Board, the US ESRB, the UK BBFC, the EU PEGI, and the NZ OFLC, more than 50 per cent of titles that were rated MA15+ in Australia were given an adult rating overseas. The Australian system is demonstrably less effective in warning parents and gamers about the content of video games than our international counterparts. Introducing an R18+ rating will address some of this disparity and enable Australians to make more informed choices about what games they play or allow their children to play.

The Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department has finally released the public consultation paper on the R18+ classification of computer games.

This marks the next stage in the campaign for an R18+ rating. We will be working with AusGamers to prepare a submission that accurately and persuasively addresses the civil liberties concerns of Australian gamers. If you think you can help, please join our discussion list or contact me with suggestions.

This weekend I attended and spoke at a rally organised by Ethan Watson in favour of the introduction of an R18+ rating for computer games. Many thanks to Ethan for organising the event, and thanks to the 50 or so people who turned up to show their support.

Photos courtesy of Andrew Wade.

You can view video of the event filmed by Julian on youtube: Part One;  Part Two;  Part Three; Part Four.

The next step in this campaign is to pressure the Commonwealth Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O'Connor, to release the discussion paper. If you have not already, please take the time to send a letter showing your support. Once this is done, we will work on putting together a submission that addresses the concerns of Australian gamers.

The two main points that I wanted to get across on Saturday are relatively simple, but important. We need to refocus this debate by ensuring that everyone understands that interactive entertainment is an evolving and important legitimate expressive medium. I think an R18+ rating is important for two main reasons:

• An R18+ rating empowers adults and parents to make better decisions about the games they want to play and the games they want to allow their children to play.
• An R18+ rating for games, consistent with ratings for films, would enable Australians to create more complex and expressive stories that deal with adult themes - games are not just for children, and we do significant harm to freedom of expression by limiting the material that we deem acceptable in games to that which we find acceptable for children.

See our campaign page on our wiki for more details about how you can help.

I will be speaking at a rally this morning for the introduction of an R18+ rating for computer games. The event has been organised for 11am at King George Square. Come along if you're in Brisbane and have the time!

The next step in lobbying on this issue is to push for the release of the discussion paper.

A new six page form-letter from the South Australian Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson, on the topic of the lack of an R18+ rating for games has begun circulating. An EFA member has sent us the response he received; it seems almost identical to the ones available at both Kotaku and Reddit. [ ed: see also discussion at ausgamers. ]

The letter reiterate that this is not going to be an easy fight to win. For Atkinson, the lack of an R18+ rating is clearly something that helps keep violent media away from children, and he sees no real harm in not making the same material available to adults. This letter shows both his conviction and his arrogance on the issue. He ends by stating that his constituents "are more concerned with real-life issues than home entertainment in imaginary worlds" and notes that he is "grateful for the support [he has] had [...] from the Liberal Party".

I want to put together a response to the discussion paper that analyses and addresses all of the points that Atkinson makes, as well as systematically covering the research in the field. If you are able to help, please contact me, join our R18+ games discussion list, or take a look at our (quite bare at the moment) wiki space.

[ edit: you can get the PDF of an identical letter from the reddit post ]

Steve Farrelly over at Ausgamers attempts to unravel the apparent inconsistency in two recent decisions of the Classification Board in rating computer games: refusing classification to Left 4 Dead 2, but granting Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 an MA15+ rating, where in most other jurisdictions it was rated as suitable for adults only.

Farrelly argues that:

the system itself is flawed, because in [the Classification Board's] arguments against classifying Left 4 Dead 2 they cite many things that you are currently able to do in other games, specifically Dead Rising, which encourages the use of creative melee weapons to dismember and kill the undead. The Samurai sword, as the best example, offering equal amounts of locational damage also showing off zombie insides; a game quite easily marked with an MA 15+ upon submission. And that is but one example.

The problem here then is there's no such thing as precedent. In the Board's eyes, despite releasing both Left 4 Dead and Dead Rising as MA 15+ games (among many, many others), they hold no ground to how they should treat Left 4 Dead 2, which is why it's entirely fine to walk into an airport in Modern Warfare 2, kill innocent people and watch piles of bodies build up on the floor around you, but it's not okay to smack a zombie in the face with a frying pan.

This is an interesting point - it certainly seems as though there is great difficulty in the potential for inconsistency in the Classification Board's case-by-case approach. The Board does have guidelines which it follows quite closely, but when cases like this seem to lead to inconsistent results, it lessens confidence in the system.

If you have some comments, head on over to the Ausgamers weekend discussion and add your voice.

Asher Moses is reporting on the outrage caused by leaked footage of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which allows players to play the part of a terrorist as part of a cut-scene.

Once again, this story really shows how expressive video games can be. They're constructed, like films, to elicit emotional responses in players, and some of them deal with fairly gritty subject matter. Films often show the villain's perspective, and by doing that, they get across the character story and the heinous nature of people who carry out atrocities. Games, too, are becoming more expressive, and are telling more involved stories. From the reports I've seen of the CoD:MW2 footage, it seems to be trying to tell the story of a truly evil character, setting the scene for the player's main role of stopping the terrorists.

We do not ban films that tell such expressive stories, and we need to realise that computer games, like gamers, have grown up. Most interestingly, Infinity Ward appear to acknowledge that the game is aimed at an Adult audience - it's MA 15+ rating in Australia is lower than elsewhere. If we're concerned about allowing people to make informed decisions about what games they want to play, and empowering parents to make those decisions for their children, it really seems like it's time that we should introduce an R 18+ rating.

The Classification Board appears to have reclassified Left 4 Dead 2 to MA15+, the highest rating level in Australia.

The good news is that L4D2 is now cleared to be distributed in Australia. The sad news is that adult Australian gamers are still restricted from playing games that we deem suitable for people aged 16 and up.

edit: it appears that Valve modified the game and re-submitted it to the Classification Board to obtain this approval.

edit 2: GameSpot AU reports that the game has been substantially modified to allow classification in Australia:

While EA and Valve have been quiet about exactly what content had been changed in the "modified version" of Left 4 Dead 2, Australia's Classification Board hasn't been as silent. The Board has provided GameSpot AU with a copy of today's Left 4 Dead 2 ruling, which states that the modified version of the game recently resubmitted "no longer contains depictions of decapitations, dismemberment, wound detail, or piles of bodies lying about the environment".
 
"It is the Board's view that the element of violence in the game has been sufficiently modified and is now able to be accommodated within the MA15+ classification," the report stated.

edit 3: now that L4D2 is on sale, it is clear that the Australian version is clearly a very disappointing cut of the uncensored version.

Valve's highly-anticipated sequel, Left 4 Dead 2, has just been refused classification in Australia.

For more information, see IGN and Kotaku.

I imagine that this will go to the Classification Review Board for appeal. This highlights the continued impact of a lack of an R18+ rating for computer games in Australia. If this decision stands, Australian adults will find it significantly more difficult to play the much anticipated zombie shooter sequel.

This follows from some reports from Gamespot.au earlier this week that little progress has been made on releasing the discussion paper for the introduction of an R18+ rating in Australia.

Once the discussion paper arrives, we will be putting in a submission. Until then, you may want to help by (a) writing to your Attorney-General; or (b) helping us prepare the submission in advance. See our wiki for more details.

The recent announcement by the government that the mandatory blacklist will explicitly target computer and video games has caused much alarm in Australia. In order to clarify, we have put up a page to quickly cover the issue and which we will update as things progress:

EFA: The mandatory blacklist and computer games

Please feel free to spread the word. I'd like to reinforce a couple of extra points here, though.

For one, this latest expansion of the scheme has to be seen in the wider context of the plan as a whole. Sold to the electorate as a plan to protect children, it actually only targets websites that an adult is likely to encounter, and applies indiscriminately to all Australian homes and businesses. Due to technical limintations, it can't and won't stop the traffic of child abuse material. The blacklist is secret, there is no appeal, and what goes on there is controlled by Government. The potential game ban is only one alarming aspect of the plan as a whole.

EFA has repeatedly warned that, regardless of its intial scope and intentions, any government-controlled blacklisting scheme will expand in time. It's simply impossible to imagine this and future governments resisting the temptation to add content to the list when politically expedient or in response to powerful lobbies. Even if the blacklist was just targeted at child abuse material, it would soon expand to include hate speech, violent games, copyright violation, incitements to crime, adult pornography, and any other political panic of the day.

So far, however, the blacklisting scheme only applies to web sites. This means that online games such as World of Warcraft or Second Life would continue to work - only web sites making them available would be banned. Due to the limitations of filtering technology, you will be able to circumvent the filters and get to those, too. EFA will show you how - as long as the Government does not criminalize such circumvention.

Bearing in mind the ineffectiveness of blacklisting in actually protecting children or stopping illegal material, it's hard to argue that the censorship scheme will help children, Australian adults, or the speed and cost of internet access. Banning popular games would just add insult to injury. Let your elected representatives know what you think.

Dr Greg Adamson, Chair, SSIT Australia advises that the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology (SSIT) is running a forum next week about online gaming and censorship that promises to be very interesting.

WOW, they’re uncontrollable: Online games, censorship and the crisis of control

6:00-7:30pm, Wednesday 13 May 2009

Dr. Jeffrey E. Brand, Associate Dean and Head of School, Communication and Media, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Bond University

Melbourne University, cnr Grattan & Barry Sts, Carlton. No charge, all welcome.
Brochure at: http://ssit.ieeevic.org/upcoming.php