IE 6? Just upgrade. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
I was bored and found this. It is from the guy who gave the world the great hits ‘Show Me Your g******s‘ and ‘I Kill People‘. Enjoy!
[Ed: This post censored for being completely f*****g rude. Google 'f**k everything' if you're over 18 to watch this vid.]
Article taken from Sydney Morning Herald:
Had enough … former South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson. Photo: David Mariuz
The long-awaited introduction of an adults-only rating for video games in Australia could be a step closer after South Australia’s Michael Atkinson yesterday resigned from his position as Attorney-General.
Mr Atkinson has been the South Australian Attorney-General since 2002 and has frustrated attempts to introduce an R18+ rating for games because its introduction requires unanimous support from all state and federal classification ministers.
“There ought to be renewal in the ministry,’’ he told reporters.
“There are talented people on the Labor backbench who deserve a go. I don’t think we want all the Labor ministers leaving in a bunch about the 2014 general election and so it’s important that that renewal be staged.’’
Australia is the only democracy in the western world not to have an adults-only rating for video games. Last year six games were refused classification for exceeding the limits of the MA15+ rating, effectively banning their sale in Australia.
——————————————–
ScreenPlay: Game over for Atkinson
——————————————–
Video game developer David Doe established the Gamers 4 Croydon party late last year to try to unseat the 51-year-old Mr Atkinson at the South Australian elections on the weekend and raise awareness of the R18+ issue.
Although Gamers 4 Croydon had little impact on the poll (receiving just 3.7 per cent of the vote in Croydon and 0.8 per cent in the Legislative Council) Mr Atkinson suffered a 12.4 per cent swing against him in his safe Labor seat of Croydon.
The federal Attorney-General’s department recently completed a public consultation inviting Australians to have their say about the proposed introduction of an R18+ rating for games following the publication of a long-awaited discussion paper detailing the advantages and disadvantages of an adults-only rating.
Mr Atkinson frustrated attempts to release the discussion paper after disagreeing with its contents, forcing the federal Attorney-General’s department to publish it alone.
Mr Atkinson is the only classification minister to publicly oppose the introduction of an R18+ games rating, although he has repeatedly claimed that there are others.
Mr Atkinson has previously told South Australian parliament that he knows the lack of an R18+ rating denies Australian adults choice but was necessary to help restrict children’s access to “potentially harmful material”.
The next meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General is held in Melbourne on April 29, but it is not yet known whether the introduction of an R18+ games rating will be discussed.
At least 40,000 submissions were received by the Attorney-General’s department from Australians who want an adults-only rating introduced.
The result of the South Australian election is still unknown, with both Premier Mike Rann and Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond still refusing to claim victory or concede defeat.
A controversial figure
Elected to parliament in 1989, the 51-year-old Atkinson’s tenure as attorney-general has been controversial.
Mr Atkinson oversaw SA’s anti-bikie laws, parts of which were ruled invalid by the Supreme Court in a judgment Labor will contest in the High Court.
Last year, he cost taxpayers about $200,000 when he settled out of court a defamation case brought against him by an Adelaide magistrate. Deputy Chief Magistrate Andrew Cannon launched the legal action after Mr Atkinson used the words “daft” and “delusional” in relation to the magistrate’s suggestion that some people might get lighter sentences because of overcrowded jails.
Mr Atkinson was also involved in SA’s first political corruption trial in 2005 when a former adviser to Mr Rann was found not guilty of abuse of public office. The adviser, Randall Ashbourne, denied offering a former Labor MP board positions in return for the politician dropping defamation action against Mr Atkinson in 2002.
And in this election campaign, Mr Atkinson was forced to scrap legislation which required people posting internet comments regarding Saturday’s poll to use their real names.
‘‘It may be humiliating for me but that’s politics in a democracy,’’ he said at the time.
Submissions must be received by 28 February 2010. Submissions received after this date may not be able to be considered.
Hop to it snappers!
Shmitee’s original call to action: ATTENTION ALL SNAPPERS!!!! An R18+ Classification for Computer Games – Public Consultation! (15 December 2009)
irama’s response: Adults Only (20 December 2009)
As Shmitee pointed out, our federal government is undertaking consultation to see whether Aussies feel the need for an R18+ rating classification for games.
I know there are more serious issues facing Australia at the moment, and more important ones to be passionate about, but we have been given the opportunity to voice our opinions on this issue, and I think it’s worth taking.
As I responded to the consultation questions (based on arguments from the discussion paper) I couldn’t help feeling that some of the arguments both for and against the R18+ classification were shallow and kinda’ missed the point.
For example, a couple of the arguments supporting the R18+ classification seemed entirely arbitrary and at least one of the arguments against the R18+ classification didn’t actually require that we not have an R18+ classification. I ended up feeling the need to complete the ‘comments’ section of my submission to explain why my responses may appear confused.
I thought I might take the opportunity to share these comments publicly. Hopefully they help to clarify that we can have an R18+ classification for games without putting minors at increased risk:
I fully support the addition of an R18+ classification for games released in Australia. The ability to access and play R18+ games is an important liberty that should be afforded Australian adults. However, I don’t believe that every game developed is suitable to be released within Australia, so I support the plan to maintain the ability to refuse classification for games with truly extreme themes or content.
International parity is not necessarily a valuable goal for any legislation/policy (unless we agree with the particular international policy). It would be far more beneficial for Australia to set it’s own benchmarks for what is suitable for adults and children of different ages. This however does not mean that we have the right to prevent adults from accessing content because it is inappropriate for minors.
Existing or future research may confirm that the interactive nature of games increase the negative impacts of violent content. If this trend can be confirmed I support this being taken into account when classifying games, even if it meant that the types of content that are considered suitable for each classification in Australia are more conservative than in other countries. Likewise, this would mean that while “consistent classification categories for films and computer games are easier to understand”, complete consistency between game and movie classification may not be appropriate. In other words: The same types of content may be less suitable for a game than they are for a movie under the same classification.
Even without the existence of an R18+ classification for games, minors can currently access unsuitable game content through a number of means. Regardless of whether an R18+ classification is introduced for games in Australia or not, parent/guardian involvement and diligence remains the best method of protecting minors from unsuitable content in games, movies or other media. It is fair to say that we should protect minors from the results of poor parenting, but I don’t believe preventing adults from accessing adult content is an acceptable solution. Other measures ranging (in terms of obtrusiveness) from parent awareness and education campaigns through to child safety intervention should be considered instead.
Regardless of whether you agree or not, I encourage you to get involved and submit your opinions.
