You know you’ve hit a raw nerve when a goverment classification board decides to join a boycott of your game. So when Australia’s Classification board refuses a certification for Left 4 Dead 2 because Valve are RIPPING OFF THE KIDS you know you’ve… actually, no, I’ve misread this again. They’ve banned it because it’s a violent videogame and Australia has some of the most agreeably loopy censorship in the democratic world. Man!
Related Stories:
Australia has really become a laughing stock in gaming news lately, what with this and Fallout 3 that recent Evony story where a British fellow is getting sued from here. Epic fail.
Additionally, sign the petition here if you disagree with the decision:
http://www.petitiononline.com/l4d2inoz/petition.html
Give us 8v8 with all the maps and characters from both games and all will be forgiven. Oh and censorship is a great way of boosting sales so well done Oz you just shifted an extra 10,000 units.
“That all really depends on how one defines free speech. I consider games to be a media no less than books or television, so I consider banning any piece of content at the state level to be an attack on free speech.”
It hasn’t been banned, it has been refused classification. Do you understand what that means under law? Its illegal to sell but otherwise you can do whatever you want with it.
You might also be interested in looking up Australia’s Bill of Rights and Constitutional rights.
“It hasn’t been banned, it has been refused classification. Do you understand what that means under law? Its illegal to sell but otherwise you can do whatever you want with it.”
Please inform me how that cute semantics shell game doesn’t effectively result in a piece of banned content.
“We haven’t banned it, we’ve just made it illegal and or impossible for you to obtain it!”
also, I believe in Western Australia there is a $10,000 fine for the possession of material that is refused classification. So, it’s been banned.
“There’s no freedoms being wrested away from anyone. Current ratings regulation does not include video games equally. That’s it.”
Try to go buy one of these banned games. If you are incapable, your freedom to purchase that game has been wrested from you. One could easily make the argument that it’s only a few games, but one could say the same of books bans, though they are usually regarded with more fervor on the part of the people suffering the ban.
“There’s no precedents being set that 200yrs worth of free speech precedent wouldn’t crush in heartbeat should anyone try and apply it elsewhere (there’s no precedent being set at all).”
The precedent is that the government can tell you which media you may and which media you may not consume. Video games are a media, just like books, television and radio. There is solid precedent here for the government to begin applying ratings (or refusing to apply them, as the case may be) to those media, thereby effectively banning them too. If your strongest argument in favor of placidity is that the heat is only increasing very slowly, I still contend that you run the risk of being boiled by degree.
“I’m not quite sure how depriving us of Left 4 Dead 2 robs us of the means to revolt either, for all that (extrapolating to that extent tends to gloss over a few important steps I find)”
I would advocate the upturning of the Aussie government mostly because of their restrictive gun policies, which negates one of the most important basic human rights (the right to overthrow one’s government) and permanently cements the government in place. The free speech issue is just awful icing on the terrible cake.
Well, advocate away! The argument won’t hold any more water than it already doesn’t. I’ll be over here taking it easy.
In the mean time, I see you’re not that up to speed on how precedent actually works. I’m not sure I can explain it all that well, except to say that ain’t it. Nothing has actually changed. There’s no legal decision that’s laid down any new government powers over the media that could suddenly be applied elsewhere. Were anyone to try, new laws would have to be drafted to which other precedents would apply. (some independant pollies have actually made suggestions that everything should be rated thus. It never got past the discussion stage precisely because of what that would mean and how fast the house & courts would smack it down.)
It’s really simple what needs to be done here and why, it’s just the how part where it’s caught up.
I have to say, I like our restrictive gun laws. At no point in my life have I ever had to worry that I might get shot.
The idea that you think a portion of the US populace could actually overthrow their government should they feel the need to do so makes me smile though. How many rifles do you think you’d need to buy from Wal-Mart to actually take down an Apache gunship, or penetrate the armor of a main battle tank, out of curiosity?
Please tell me I didn’t just read that.
“In the mean time, I see you’re not that up to speed on how precedent actually works. I’m not sure I can explain it all that well, except to say that ain’t it. Nothing has actually changed. There’s no legal decision that’s laid down any new government powers over the media that could suddenly be applied elsewhere.”
Legal precedent and cultural precedent are two different issues. The problem is that people are now submitting to the government telling them what they may and may not view. That sets the precedent for possible future incursions into free speech and the media, which will face less opposition because people have already accepted the concept of government censorship (”jeffb” in this thread who says that the game isn’t “banned”, only made illegal, so it’s A OK is a good example).
“Well, advocate away! The argument won’t hold any more water than it already doesn’t. I’ll be over here taking it easy.”
Not certain what you’re alluding to here. It has been accepted policy since Locke and put into formal practice since 1776. If you wish to give up that right it’s your prerogative.
(you can reply to the same thread thing more than once if you want to. or maybe there’s a limit in total posts to a page)
I wish I could imagine civic life so.
Seriously, if no one cares about games it’s because no one cares about games. If something happens to something else that they care more about, they’ll care more. Pointing out to them that they didn’t care about games isn’t going to stop them. All the while in this thought experiement we have to assume the government has the legal means to do these things, which, as we have discussed, it does not. This memetic bacterial growth you see just doesn’t exist and depends upon an image of the populace that simplistic to the point of absurdity.
(jeffb never said it was A Ok, and what he says is true. It’s not illegal except to sell. He’s being a little lenient on that though, so far).
Sadly for us we’ll have to think of some other argument besides the downfall of democracy to get L4D2 in here.
“Seriously, if no one cares about games it’s because no one cares about games. If something happens to something else that they care more about, they’ll care more.”
It appears that plenty of people care about games quite a bit given the concern gamers in Aus and around the world have shown. My point stands that the issue is that gamers are only outraged when their pet game gets banned, rather than when any infringement on the content that adults can consume is limited by arbitrary government decree. That sort of fractiousness is what leads to worse and more draconian restrictions.
As to whether the government has the power to ban more things today, it’s irrelevant. The U.S. government had far less capabilities to infringe on our rights pre 9/11, but over night the Patriot Act changed that. It only takes one 9/11 or one Reichstag for everything to go to hell. To ignore that fact and rely on the current powers of government being insufficient is to bury one’s head in the sand.
“This memetic bacterial growth you see just doesn’t exist and depends upon an image of the populace that simplistic to the point of absurdity.”
Simple enough to permit their games to be limited or banned by government censors and simple enough to be divested of the power to overthrow the government by the government, evidently. How much more simple can one get?
Your simplicity knows no limits, clearly.
The part about gamers needing to pay more attention to the situation is true. The rest is not.
I don’t know what the hell this has to do with anything. How about we tackle any knee-jerk reactionary stuff when it comes along. Banning L4D2 doesn’t constitute a putch or egregious misuse of some emergency powers (it’s an irritating misuse of state’s rights). Your hysteria is baffling.
send in your opinion to the p.m. he cant ignore all of us forever
http://www.pm.gov.au/PM_Connect/Email_your_PM
He just might be able to do something
Unfortunately I’m not a citizen of that particular country, so I don’t think my words would hold much sway. Hell, here congressmen don’t give a damn about you unless you’re a member of their district, much less the member of another country.
A-scale, you should focus more on your own country as you seem to have zero understanding of Australian law.
edit: “Please tell me I didn’t just read that.”
Its not illegal to own it, noone can stop you bring it into the country unless you plan on reselling it.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/cfacgea1996596/s89.html
89 . Possession or copying of certain computer games
(1) A person must not possess or copy —
(b) a computer game classified RC.
Penalty: $10 000.
If you own a refused classification computer game in Western Australia, you can be fined $10,000.
And even if that weren’t the case, customs will confiscate it if they find you trying to import it, so please drop this “It’s not banned, you can pay thousands of dollars to go and buy something worth fifty dollars in another country and bring it back with you” argument. It’s semantic rubbish.
The word banned does not equal “the government will put you in front of a firing squad if they find you with this”.
There are apologists, and then there is you. The game is banned for sale in Aussieland meaning that 99% of Australians will not have access to it. Only those who buy it in another country and bring it back can legally obtain it. You’re arguing that the item which is effectively banned is not banned because a loophole lets a traveler purchase it elsewhere and bring it back. If it smells like a ban, prevents the sale of the item like a ban and prevents 99% of people from getting it, IT’S A BAN.
Sigh, not again. I can’t believe this is still happening.
Political debates relating to video games and government control where people espouse beliefs you disagree with? My word!
Clarification for people under the impression that Freedom of expression Is guaranteed in Australia. It isn’t. Australia has no bill of rights, and it is not expressly protected under the constitution. However the High court found that representative democracy is entrenched in the constitution, which implies certain rights in relation to political discourse. Australia is a signatory to International law which guarantees the freedom of expression; but international law is not legally binding. Furthermore there are of course Defamation laws and the recent sedition laws that limit the scope of what can be produced. So while you can expect freedom of expression, it is not a protected right, and can be challenged.
“So while you can expect freedom of expression, it is not a protected right, and can be challenged.”
And all the more reason to defend it.
Is on the “human rights”, and thats enough for me
australia might get the German L4D2 i think it just has green blood so it gets past german laws which are alot more strict.
Well thats the end of that then :p green blood it is, Man I really want that game. And its EA, they will bend over backwards to make somemore money