Posted by Van:

A friend of mine, a video game journalist here in Australia with years of experience in the industry, has prepared a case against the Australian banning of the video game Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure, and has put together a letter to the OFLC and Phillip Ruddock. As is made clear in the letter, the future implications of this ban in Australia are far-reaching and potentially devastating to the video game industry, and because of the code’s relation to the film, writing, and music industries, it also stands to wreak havoc on these areas as well. This is a matter of oppression, of taking away from adults the right to decide for themselves what is and isn’t suitable for their own viewing, and is potentially - not to make this sound bigger than it is, but I fear it is this big - a further step toward building a police state.

Below is the letter that Drew Taylor, editor of JumpButton Magazine, emailed to friends and industry and Government peeps.

—————————————————

While I make no pretense at being any kind of legal or argumentative whiz,
the following is an open letter that I constructed and this morning sent
to Philip Ruddock’s office and the OFLC (as well as all of you).

If the letter is something you support, please feel free to post the
contents of it on forums, forward it to friends, collegues or media, or
use it as the basis for your own letter to the Attorney-General.

If you hate it, and wish to flame me, please at least wait until Monday!!
And preferably until after my 10 am coffee!

An open letter to Australia’s Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock MP.

RE: overturning the decision to refuse classification to the computer game
Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure

Dear Mr Ruddock,

I write, urging you to overturn the OFLC Review Board’s recent decision to
refuse classification to the computer game Getting Up: Contents Under
Pressure on the grounds that the ban was unfounded, given the guidelines
set down in the Act and the Classification of Films and Computer Games
2005.

I put forward the case that the decision made by the Board does not meet
the requirements outlined, in that the videogame Getting Up does not
provide ‘detailed instruction or promotion in matters of crime or
violence’ when compared to previous OFLC classifications and decisions,
and the large array of information already freely available.

In the official press release regarding the Board’s refusal of
classification, OFLC Review Board Convenor Maureen Shelley cited three
main areas of concern that led to the decision:

‘1) the realistic scenarios whereby the central character Trane acquires
his knowledge of graffiti tips, techniques and styles–including meeting
with five real graffiti artists who pass on details of tips and techniques

2) the reward for and positive reinforcement of graffiti writing on public
buildings and infrastructure, and

3) interactive biographies of 56 real graffiti artists, with details of
their personal tags, styles and careers. The game detail states that all
these artists began their careers performing illegal graffiti on public
buildings and infrastructure and that some continue with this practice
today.’

Contesting those three points, one by one:

1) while the central character (Trane) does meet with the digital
representation of five real graffiti artists, the tips and techniques he
receives are not detailed.

Take for example, his conversation with Shepard Fairey, whose ‘tips’ and
‘techniques’ include the line ‘A little wheat paste glue, a squeegee and
some posters and you could become the city’s best ad agency’, and, after
handing Trane nothing but a squeegee, the dismissive comment, ‘Here’s all
the tools you need’.

There are no details given as to what ‘wheat paste glue’ is or how it
should be applied, the type of paper Trane should use, how he should
create the posters, how to create larger posters, or anything else of
practical use. If a driving instructor handed one of their students the
keys to a car and said, ‘Go, drive’, would the law determine that the
driving instructor’s company had provided the student with instruction on
how to pass their driver’s license test?

2) without doubt, limited rewards are given for the restricted application
of graffiti within the game. But, in context, can these rewards be
considered of a stronger impact than the rewards given for equivalent, and
often far more serious, crimes in games that have successfully been given
classification by the OFLC?

In The Warriors, players not only engage in interactive graffiti, but they
are rewarded for looting shops, mugging civilians, attacking police
officers and inciting riots. Hitman 2, the Grand Theft Auto series, Tony
Hawk’s American Wasteland, Beat Down: Fists of Vengeance and Total
Overdose are just a few additional examples where crimes with a level of
realism are met with rewards. (Should the entire phrase ‘matters of crime
or violence’ be included and possibly a quarter of all games awarded
classification by the OFLC would need to be reconsidered.)

Or consider the G rating allowed for Need for Speed: Most Wanted, in which
players are rewarded and given positive reinforcement for gaining
notoriety as a wanted felon by engaging in illicit street racing and a
variety of criminal acts including the destruction of public and police
property and resisting arrest.

3) yes, biographies are available on up to 56 real graffiti artists,
should the gamer manage to ‘unlock’ them all. It must be pointed out,
however, that they are hardly interactive, unless one considers turning
the page of a book or scrolling through a page of a Word document as
interactive.

Additionally, the issues of detail and fair comparison must again be
questioned. Each biography included in the game is roughly between 30 and
60 words, and the level of information supplied regarding their styles and
careers is realistically less than expected from any year seven school
project.

Interestingly, our public schools have no problem teaching students about
Australia’s own ‘legendary’ criminals–bushrangers such as Ned Kelly, who
robbed banks and murdered policemen–without those teachings being brought
into question or deemed to solicit additional criminal acts. That the
government finds it acceptable to elevate real criminals to ‘hero’ status
(the impact of which must be considered greater due to the fact that Kelly
et al were Australian) and teach extensively about them (even deem recent
films about them as classifiable) raises serious questions about the idea
that Getting Up could be banned on this premise. Even a biographical film
about Australia’s notorious underworld criminal, ‘Chopper’ Read, was not
refused classification.

It must also be noted that a single entry at Wikipedia (‘graffiti’,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti) provides almost more information on
a single internet page than is contained in the entire game, with the site
listing in excess of 85 graffiti legends (providing links to extensive
biographies for the majority), as well as an expanded history of graffiti
art, a glossary and a list of additional links, including image galleries
of graffiti artist’s work. And, unlike the game, all of the information
available online is able to be printed out, duplicated and given to
others.

In addition, it is understood that graphic arts magazines such as Computer
Arts Projects have run special issues on graffiti art (which have included
particularly detailed step-by-step how-to instruction and promotion of
illegal graffiti), and Australian books and magazines (such as Artillery)
have been published showcasing illegal graffiti and street art (with
profiles on, and interviews with, current graffiti ‘legends’ and
‘criminals’, a number of which are Australian).

The legal use of illegal graffiti in television advertising must also be
considered promotion, and the questionable use of stencil art by
VicHealth, spraypainted onto the platforms of Melbourne railway stations,
sends a very mixed message indeed.

Broaden the topic to include ‘crime’ or ‘violence’ in general, and based
on the level of detail and promotion contained in the videogame Getting
Up, one must expect the government to refuse future classification to any
publication or film resembling JFK, Wolf Creek, The Godfather, Pulp
Fiction, Natural Born Killers, Chopper, The Bourne Identity, American
Psycho, Crime and Punishment, serial killer profiling or true crime
stories, and films or documentaries on matters that instruct or promote
instances of assassinations, riots, unsolved crime, criminals, the
construction of a crime or forensic investigation.

After all, let it be made quite clear that the basis upon which the ban
was made– namely that computer games can be refused classification if
they ‘promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence’–is the
same one within the Act which is able to be applied to film and
publications.

Investigating further the topic of the decision, while it is recognised
that the way in which the vote was carried out was within regulation
(according to section 57, page 47 of the Act), concern must be raised over
two particular facets.

Firstly, why would a Review Board be called with an even number of
members? Surely, this would increase the likelihood of a ‘hung’ board. Is
this standard procedure? And, if it is, why would a government department
create a system that encourages problematic situations and decisions?

Secondly, why is the Convenor given the power to make a casting vote (ie.
with Getting Up, Convenor Maureen Shelley was able to make her vote count
twice)? With a board able to be made up from as little as three or four
members, a second vote is a considerable percentage of the vote.

Furthermore, let it be pointed out that I strongly believe that the
Classification Code itself–in part–contravenes its own principles. It is
clearly stated on page 1 of the Code, that OFLC ‘decisions are to give
effect, as far as possible, to the following principles: (1) adults should
be able to read, hear and see what they want’.

How this can be possible if–in direct contrast to publications and
film–the Code does not allow for an R18+ classification for computer and
video games? Given that statistics provided by the Interactive
Entertainment Association of Australia point to a situation where 88% of
Australians believe there should be an R18+ classification, 76% of
Australian households have a device for playing games and the average age
of a gamer is now 24, it must be assumed that the Code needs immediate
revision.

In closing, then, for the Australian government and its legal
representatives (such as the OFLC) to consider itself in a position to
fairly and justly classify all publications, film and computer games, I
believe:

1) the decision to ban the videogame Getting Up must be immediately
overturned

and, 2) future provision be made for R18+ classification for computer games.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I look forward to your
response, and subsequent action.

Kind regards,

Drew Taylor
Editor of JumpButton magazine: the art and substance of videogame culture

——

–
Drew Taylor
Editor
JumpButton Magazine
PO Box 293, Blackburn South 3130
Australia
email: info@jumpbuttonmag.com
web: www.jumpbutton.com

This entry was posted on Friday, March 3rd, 2006 at 12:45 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.