Australia: WTF Mate?

[Adzma]

Another pointless thread with the basis "It doesn't effect me, why should I care?"

 

[clutch-monkey]

how many games have been banned?
manhunt
that soldier of fortune game
L4D2

oooh.
wow.
such a loss, i mean i have L4D2 (thanks playasia.com!) but seriously... who gives a shit.
the entire premise for this thread is fucking retarded. good job faghats

If you are going to swear, at least spell it properly. And SH:H was banned as well.

Are you talking about 'faghats'? Maybe he isn't spelling faggots, but in fact 'faghats'. People can make their own swear words up you know.

But that's just going off topic.

this man, he knows
also, maybe i was typing phoenetically because i was speaking in a wierd accent at the time
who knows

edit; looks like i got a warning for making up a swear word
huh

 

[Explosm]

Michael Atkinson is actually doing the world a favour. He knows that as a group of people who are descended from convicts that crime is in their blood. Plus being stuck on a desert island with little to do of course their minds are weak and more succeptable to brain washing than other countries citizens. He has proven this with countless phrenology studies.
He is undertaking a noble task. He absorbs their hatred, redirects their rage towards him and places himself directly in harms way to protect the innocent.
We should not hate this man. We should praise him for taking on this burden to keep the world safe.

Vote Michael Atkinson in 2010!
This is clearly satire for those not bright enough to follow.

What bridge do you live under, Im gonna come find you and slay the fuck out of you

 

[alinos]

*snip*

Since you're not Australian I don't see why you need to express your opinion. Admittedly, the exploits of the Australian Classification System is well known on the forum, telling us Australians to do something about it isn't as easy as everyone seems to think it is. Atkinson can't be voted out by anyone outside of his own state, and Conroy can't be voted out until the next election. (I think)


-Rade.

yup although for atkinson its more like his electorate which is way smaller and unfortunatly im not sure tho but i would assume that conroy like rudd and julia gilard are all in towns that are extremely labour based so there nearly impossible to loose there seat in the next election(tho that doesnt mean that theyll keep there current postitions or whether or not we have a labour govt because of that) luckily the next election is within the next 12 months

*snip*

What bridge do you live under, Im gonna come find you and slay the fuck out of you

its called sarcasm your post is also kind of a good example why we dont have an R18+ rating

 

[D.L.390]

Who knows? I've never been to Australia but from all I've heard, I can only assume its run by a bunch of right wing pussies.

Left wing pussies actually.

 

[Danish_4116]

If they're going to refuse classification to games, they should at least standardize what counts as 'excessively violent'. For example, the ability in Fallout 3 to pick up a body and carve it up with a chainsaw is considerably 'higher impact' than the gore in Left 4 Dead 2. At least, in my opinion.

But still, I am against any forms of restrictions to our freedom of choice, speech and all that good jazz.

 

[Fire Daemon]

have to say I admire Fire Daemon's standpoint, that of Democracy over the power of the vocal minority,

Thanks.

though it confuses me, as only recently they asked for feedback on the issue (from the Austrailian public I might add before people start swearing at foreign commentators), and whilst not a refferendum, was at last count 98.6% in favour of a R18+ band for games.

There is a discussion paper released but I don't believe that 98.6% of the admissions are in favour of the R18+ band. I don't even think that submissions have stopped being accepted for that discussion paper. If you have a link that can prove that information, that would be great. There was a university study done a while ago that claimed 95% of people want an R18+ rating but I've never been able to find it, it seems like a rumour to me. If that study did exist than I would have to question the validity of it, a study that I know to exist [http://blogs.abc.net.au/abc_tv/2010/02/hungry-beast-reveals-australians-support-proposed-internet-filter.html] shows that 80% of Australians favour the Internet filter scheme. I have a bit of trouble believing that those in favour of an Internet Filter scheme would oppose there being no R18+ rating. This discussion paper that is being released soon should show what the majority of people want, I hope. It could be biased, Atkinson is correct in saying that the majority of people who fill it out will be gamers but it should swtill be considered and discussed at the next Attorney General meeting, which I think is on March 28th.

but with members of the very demographic that are fighting for the loosening of state control spitting bile at those who are actively taking a stand, I can't see it happening any time today.

I would happily support an organisation, group of people or just a person who goes about taking a stand on this matter (or spreading public awareness, collecting information, communicating with the government etc.) if they didn't make themselves and other gamers look like raving idiots in the process. Gamers4Croydon, for example, do make gamers look like idiots and hence don't get my support. Some random guy from Colarado who comments on how backwards Australia is how they should all go and beat up the Australian President doesn't get my support either. Australiangamer.com had my support for a while but lost it when they figured insulting Atkinson would work better. Bob Debus ,Federal Home Affairs Minister of Australia, one of the men responsible for getting the Disscussion Paper out has my support as he is trying to resolve the issue in a mature and sensible way.

Yeah, I suppose I do spit a lot of bile regarding this matter but it's the one time that gamers need to act mature and adult but no one is doing that and is only hurting their cause.

The majority don't give 2 shits honestly and if we're talking about introducing policy that only 50.1% of Australia want then why did the alcopop and beer tax's come in I grantee you there was less than 25% off Australia that wanted that development, Even More ironic is that it didn't solve any problems.

It is ironic. I don't support that beer tax. But just because the Government wanted to put a tax against the will of the majority in one instance doesn't mean that they should do so again.

http://apcmag.com/internet-users-ponder-voting-liberal-over-forced-internet-filtering.htm
this survey was done on whirlpool so it is a mostly a general net user type survey and they don't seem very receptive to your points

Hmm, you're right. That piece of news does change my opinion. I would expect most people who go to the length to fill out an online survey to be against the filter but it does strike against the survey I provided above. I'll think about it. This post continues with the assumption that most are in favour of the filter, but that might not be the case so I'll go away and think about it.

Also I am yet to meet a person who Agrees with the internet filter that actually is informed about what it will actually do, Any political person will tell you it leads us down a slippery slope of the government being able to control any and all information into Australia. Even goes as far as removing information that could be detrimental to their political campaigns.

I've met some that know about it yet are in favour of it. Most don't believe that it will be misused by the government. There are plenty who don't know about it though, it isn't argued against because doing so is very closely linked with arguing for the increase in access to child porn. I'm hoping that in the upcoming election Tony Abbott will use that against Kevin Rudd and even if he doesn't get elected pressure to take it down will cause it to be taken down. I can't see that happening though, arguing against something that (supposedly) keeps away child pronography is difficult.

In theory the Filter is a Good Idea, Piss off child porn and the unsavory things that no one in Australia should see. But in practice it runs into the faults of having a poorly implemented system not to mention what are these Perverts going to do without their precious child porn I hardly see them going oh well back to being normal. They removal of materials from them could actually cause them to do something in the physical world( I'm not saying that this is a reason to kill the filter but there must be a dual attack you can't just remove drugs from a junkie and hope he gets Sober again)

Personally, I'm against the filter. I don't want for it to be put in place and if Tony Abbott claims to not want to put it in place if he is elected than I'll probably vote for him.

Also worth noting that the filter does nothing to stop child pornography being distributed. Nothing at all. Child Pornography is typically distributed over P2P file sharing, chat rooms and places like that. The filter doesn't apply to those so it wont help.

Ok I have 2 problems with this
A) whether or not we are a minority or not The introduction of R18+ games does not Affect any non gamers in any way shape or form it purely allows the system to rate games correctly

it is completely different than a change to P-Plate laws because there are a few terrible crashes each year there are allot of P-plater's who don't do stupid things but the laws were changed and actually affect them. Where in comparison allowing R rated game merely allows people who wish to be able to play there violent or games with adult related themes deemed inappropriate for teenagers the opportunity to do so.

It also means that the laws can be clearer about the way games are rated Because at the moment as much as some like to deny it there are games that are coming into the MA15+ rating that shouldn't be there AvP , MW2, CoD:WaW (this one makes it in off dismemberment of limbs which is something soldier of fortune was banned for) and GTA IV teeters precariously close depending on who you talk to

It's true that an R18+ only affects a minority group of people, essentially gamers (and younger gamer's parents) and it doesn't have a great effect of society but I still don't want for a minority of people determining the laws for the whole nation. That just doesn't sit well with me.

You provide a good reason for the introduction of the R18+ rating, one I agree with, but not one so good that we can oppose an R18+ on the majority who don't want it.

B) it's hardly being a tyrant to be able to have access to the same sort of material that other countries can take for granted. Some games can be considered art forms in terms of story and game play ( Fahrenheit /Indigo Prophecy) which was censored

I admit that calling gamers tyrants was a stretch but really I was calling them more tyranical than Atkinson. Although on reflection Atkinson seems to act on his own personal opinion rather than on what the majority thinks, maybe he would continue his campaign even if it was revealed that everyone wanted an R18+ rating? Interesting point: Fahrenheit was censored in the states to remove a sex scene, I don't think that it was censored here. Not according to wikipedia anyway. I remember having an old review from a magazine saying it has a sex scene in it.

What I Assume you trying to say here is that if the R18+ rating was introduced That it would be easy to Buy an R18+ Game. This is More of the standard Atkinson Babble "oh we can't have R games the 10 yr olds would buy them". IF these R18+ games can be purchased by an underage kid that isn't a problem with the Ratings Laws , It is however a telling Example that the punishment for selling games to minors needs to be improved. I mean by your argument we should just ban Cigarettes, Alcohol and Sex because Minors might get a hold of it.

No, that wasn't what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that if I was 15 I would not buy an R18+ rated game, I would be willing to wait. Not much point in wanting an R18+ rating (if the majority wanted it and it was impossed due to the wants of the many blah blah blah) if you are just going to break it.

I am thinking For Myself and did you ever think that maybe just maybe that all the points you say the Pro R18+ people put out are there because they are legitimate reasons to implement and R18+ so that the ratings system can work properly instead of allowing people access to games that clearly should in the R18+ rating

I am well aware that there are legitimate reasons for putting out an R18+ rating, in the past I brought them up myself, but I don't consider any of them important enough to do away with democracy and let a small minority choose the laws for the majority.

You are entitled to your own opinion like I am mine. But you come off petty damn arrogant in that paragraph that anyone who supports R18+ games is wrong and being some mindless slave to society(which kind of goes against the whole minority thing) which is why this has turned into a rant(Hell I may have done the same in this reply, it may be slightly the booze)

While I wasn't trying to be arrogant or call someone a mindless slave to society I was annoyed that someone assumed that I, as a gamer, decided for keeping out an R18+ rating easily without considering the facts and arguments for both sides. I know why having an R18+ would be good, you don't need to tell me why, is what I was trying to get across. I should have made that more clear.

But My Belief Is still that The Introduction of an R18+ Rating hurts no one and benefits everyone people still need to Remember there is an RC rating which prevents all content just being shipped into Australia

Having the rating probably wont hurt anything, it should have been put in when the ratings were created so that people today would see why it would be a good thing. However putting it in now when most people don't think it would be a good thing is wrong in my opinion.

Damn that was Big

Sure was. Apologies if my responses aren't of equal quality. You genuinely did change my mind, or at least encourage it's change, with that link.

 

[Andronicus]

Snip

Wow, long post is loooooong.

Fire Daemon makes the extremely good point, that if there's a possibility that less than 50% of the population is against the idea, then it's not the right of the minority of gamers to impose their own will on the rest of the country. There's no doubt in my mind that the ratings system can be improved with the introduction of an R-rating, but the fact that there is doubt in plenty of other people's minds needs to count for something.

While I'm too lazy to do a complete journey from one corner of the internet to the other to make an informed decision based on what little suspiciously whimsical statistical information there is out there, it is my personal belief that most people, had they taken the time to review the information, would have voted in favour of the introduction. I'm not saying that simply because that's what I want to believe, it's just that I think that this would be the case. Of course, it's just my opinion, and is entirely relative and subjective. I'm certainly not going to tell someone unfamiliar with the subject that that's the right answer; there is no right answer, only opinion.

That said, the reason this problem hurts me the most is the circumstances under which it is being contested. While I am not about to tell someone what the right anser is, instead of letting them decide for themselves, this is exactly what Atkinson has refused to do. Atkinson has always been self-righteous in his opinion that he is all-knowing, and that he speaks for all of Australia when he says that Australia does not want an R-rating. When a large amount of attention was given to the issue, around the times of Fallout 3's and L4D2's bannings were announced, most of it was diverted to Michael Atkinson and his position, but instead of reviewing Australia's opinion, all he did was say "I'm right. I've always been right, and always will be right". Instead of initiating some sort of government poll, he just assumed that he was right all along, and disregarded any possibility that he was wrong.

The issue has never really been about the R-rating for me - if that's what people really want, and enough people want it, then it should come of its own accord - but more about the way in which laws and rights in Australia are allowed to be controlled by one person alone, rather than being subject to the will of the public. If enough people don't want the R-rating, fair enough, tough luck guys, this is a democracy after all. But the fact that Atkinson never took any steps in allowing the public to decide for itself made me see red.

The same applies to the internet filter, although anyone willing to give the government that much freedom in controling material in Australia, in my opinion, needs a labotomy.

 

[Milney]

Thanks.

It's refreshing to see someone with the strength of thier convictions, especially when expressing them on a clearly biased forum (I doubt any of us here are non-gamers).

There is a discussion paper released but I don't believe that 98.6% of the admissions are in favour of the R18+ band. I don't even think that submissions have stopped being accepted for that discussion paper. If you have a link that can prove that information, that would be great.

I was referencing the statistics posted in this article: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98200-Australians-Overwhelmingly-Support-R18-Rating

Napkin math showed current disapproval at roughly 1.4% hence the "98.6% approval rate" I stated. I've given a quick look around and can't find an updated figure on the processed figures, so I don't know if this figure has drastically changed recently, but it does indicate that the large majority of interested parties are in favour of R18+ as a rating.

I bolded interested as Atkinson had a point in stating that only "Gamers" would bother replying to the discussion, but in a democracy your voice only counts if you use it - if an issue is to "trivial" to matter to non-"gamers" why should the law cater to them rather than the consumers who have to live with the ruling.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Michael Atkinson is actually doing the world a favour. He knows that as a group of people who are descended from convicts that crime is in their blood. Plus being stuck on a desert island with little to do of course their minds are weak and more succeptable to brain washing than other countries citizens. He has proven this with countless phrenology studies.
He is undertaking a noble task. He absorbs their hatred, redirects their rage towards him and places himself directly in harms way to protect the innocent.
We should not hate this man. We should praise him for taking on this burden to keep the world safe.

Vote Michael Atkinson in 2010!
This is clearly satire for those not bright enough to follow.

White text. Clever. You had me going for a minute.

Anyway, the reason I get ticked about censorship in Australia can be best described by severely misquoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"Censorship anywhere is a threat to video games everywhere."

 

[Fire Daemon]

I was referencing the statistics posted in this article: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98200-Australians-Overwhelmingly-Support-R18-Rating

Hmm, best to wait until all the forms have been accounted for. On the same day that that information was posted on Gamestop UK a story was posted on how the Australian Christian Lobby [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98128-Australian-Christian-Lobby-Compares-Games-to-SAS-Training] are against the R18+ rating. I would imagine that they would get some people to fill out the discussion paper and the results would move away from 98.6.

I bolded interested as Atkinson had a point in stating that only "Gamers" would bother replying to the discussion, but in a democracy your voice only counts if you use it - if an issue is to "trivial" to matter to non-"gamers" why should the law cater to them rather than the consumers who have to live with the ruling.

A vote would be the best thing here. Atkinson can't dismiss ballot results and it would bring education regarding the matter. It is probably a bit too trivial to funnel money into though so that will probably never happen.

 

[Soushi]

-applauds Khitten-

Oh, you couldn't be more wrong. Faith in the youth of Australia is completely irrelevant, since the average gamer in Australia is 29, we don't need any. Anyone who objects to any sort of censorship in Australia is clearly a paedophile and a terrorist, since those are the only sorts of people who could possibly want that kind of filth.

Okay, enough Dropbearing.

Australia acts like this because we have political failure. Our current choices of government are a right-wing government who want to implement censorship or a right-wing government who like the idea of censorship and are also climate-change denialists.

The first group are called the Labor Party and ostensibly represent the Unions, workers' rights and the common people. In the US they'd be seen as the Democrats, in the UK, they'd be, well the Labour Party. Once upon a time they had values akin to Socialism and are still accused of it to this day. What they actually have in Australia is a party split where about half the party is composed of people with consciences who want to do the right thing (Socialist Left) and the other half is composed of morally righteous people with some reasonably fundamentalist Christian beliefs and the conservatism which comes with that (Labor Unity). Atkinson is from Labor Unity, so is Prime Minster Rudd, the Treasurer and Senator Conroy (the Communications Minister backing the Great Firewall of Australia). Atkinson is a State Attorney General, everyone else I've mentioned is Federal, but legislation for changing ratings requires all the states to agree, hence he can stonewall it. The Labor Party makes all its decisions in party meetings (caucus) to set policy then votes as a block. Labor Unity currently has the majority in the party and is unlikely to ever lose it, which means socially conservative decisions. Voting against the party line is grounds for ejection from the party. Incidentally, this inability to accurately represent their constituents is in direct violation of our Constitution, but somehow it never gets called out as it would result in massive upheaval of the political system. Also, the Labor party is spelled incorrectly by modern standards in the American manner despite being a British Colony as there was a movement at the time it was established to simplify spelling which never caught on.

The Liberal party as a whole are not liberal at all, being closer to the Republicans in the US and the Tories in the UK. They are currently led by a far-right wing arch-conservative Tony Abbott, who is known as the Mad Monk for some of his more Fundamentalist beliefs. Up until recently, they were led by a centre right pro-green businessman Malcolm Turnbull, which ironically made their leadership more left wing than the supposed Socialists. They stand for big business, selling off national assets and getting the Budget into as much surplus as they can while attempting to ignore things like 1/10 of the second largest city in the country turning up in the same place at the same time to protest against abusing Workers' Rights. This is probably the faction all the Labor Unity people SHOULD belong to.

TL;DR: Australian politicians in positions of power are all conservatives afraid of getting shot by gamers influenced by violence or finding paedophiles who've been on an unfiltered internet near their children.

Thank you, this was the kind of informative thing i was looking for.

 

[Soushi]

Trust me peoples, i understand that only about 5-11% of people make 95% of the rules. And sometimes, in that small percentage, people fuck up. I am NOT blaming the mainstream Australian people. I am not trying to suggest that the vast Majority of you guys are backwards or childish or whatever else you are accusing me of. What i am saying is this: Censorship, of any kind, in any place, is bad. It is pointless in this day and age.
That is all.

And to those of you who provided me with the information is was looking for, without needlessly insulting me, thank you. And the rest... well.... meh.

 

[Ian Caronia]

As a Kotaku member once posted on the subject of Australia's (videogame, internet, porn) bannning:

"I'm happy I live in [INSERT NAME OF COUNTRY OTHER THAN AUTRALIA]."

-They ban/heavily edit games, ban small tit porn (not child porn but ADULT WOMEN WITH SMALL BREASTS), and have an internet banning-thing which will in part be governed by the public's (yeah, right) suggestions. I gotta say, though our PATRIOT Act can get us prison time just for importing comic porn, I'm glad as a ************ I don't live in Australia.

--Not to say the U.S. doesn't have its share of, "Oh, FUCK THAT NOISE!!"

Ignore the beaches, the people, the weather, the girls, the music and everything else that's awesome about this place.

I'm glad as a ************ I live in Australia.

Okay, first off, that "happy as a ************" comment came from the fact that I rely heavily on the internet and...it's advantages. Thus I'm glad I don't have to deal with as much censorship.

-Secondly, I could care less about a country's beaches, and ALL people everywhere are shit, even there. As for the "women" point... Well, I can't call myself a man if I lied about that. Yes, Australian women look fantastic. Also the weather is gorgeous most of the time, at least in comparison to New York.

--Look, zen5887, I'm not trying to rag on Autralia here. I thought my mention of the PATRIOT Act would clear that up, but I guess not. You can't deny that the internet banning thing is fucking stupid; just as I can't deny that your women and climate are amazing. If there weren't stupid people in office, we'd both be basking in the sun's rays with delight...

...Well you'd be, while I'm under a storm cloud that cuts off my internet connection YET AGAIN!!

 

[Eggsnham]

Don't really care anymore, this controversy about videogames is pretty annoying and as many people I know have said before, videogames are the new rock and roll.

 

[Kurokami]

As an Aussie gamer I have to say.

I don't really care. Yes, an R18 rating will make things run smoother and I'll sign, rally and march whenever I can bit I'm really not losing sleep over it. With the exception of L4D2 (and maybe a few more I can't really remember), all the games that have been banned or censored are rubbish. I mean, I don't really care that BMX XXX was banned.

The problem lies with the Politicians having their facts wrong, as they still believe that games are for kids (when the average aussie gaming age is 29). And they believe it is their job to protect the children from things that they shouldn't be seeing, which is in fact the parents job.

Also - Its already been brought up but I feel its quite important. Gamers arn't showing their maturity by attacking Michael Atkinson, they are actually helping his case. The same thing happened when Jack Thompson was all the rage. Prove your maturity gamers of Australia by not being dicks.

This.
Oh, by the way, it's not really Australian gamers attacking Michael Atkinson, it's overseas gamers attacking the entire Australian government. I've never complained about Atkinson, but I've directed attackers to the fact that it's just one.

People feel the same way about Anime and its damn hard to get them off that rail, what can you do? Other than put someone else at the wheel anyway. =]

 

[alinos]

"Note Heavily Snipped"

There was a university study done a while ago that claimed 95% of people want an R18+ rating but I've never been able to find it, it seems like a rumor to me. If that study did exist than I would have to question the validity of it, a study that I know to exist [http://blogs.abc.net.au/abc_tv/2010/02/hungry-beast-reveals-australians-support-proposed-internet-filter.html] shows that 80% of Australians favor the Internet filter scheme. I have a bit of trouble believing that those in favor of an Internet Filter scheme would oppose there being no R18+ rating. This discussion paper that is being released soon should show what the majority of people want, I hope. It could be biased, Atkinson is correct in saying that the majority of people who fill it out will be gamers but it should still be considered and discussed at the next Attorney General meeting, which I think is on March 28th.

http://apcmag.com/internet-users-ponder-voting-liberal-over-forced-internet-filtering.htm
this survey was done on whirlpool so it is a mostly a general net user type survey and they don't seem very receptive to your points

Hmm, you're right. That piece of news does change my opinion. I would expect most people who go to the length to fill out an online survey to be against the filter but it does strike against the survey I provided above. I'll think about it. This post continues with the assumption that most are in favor of the filter, but that might not be the case so I'll go away and think about it.

As I pointed out Bias in The APC article on the whirlpool survey. I must also point out my problems with Hungry Beast in
A) they work for a government company(which to me considering there talking about political Policy nearly throws it straight out the window
B)its phone Survey with only a 1000 people survey which is a small survey size hardly indicative of the general population
C) Depending on how the survey is done you can actually get a biased result not saying that what's happened but if I rang you up and you had no knowledge of the survey and I asked the simply question
"Do you support the government's plan to implement a mandatory internet filter to block child porn?"
you are going to get yes's from that(which brings me back to the govt's involvement in the ABC it's very easy to cause a survey to skew one way or the other
D) Based off that same survey

also found that 91% of Australians were in favor of making public the list of websites that would be blocked by the internet filter. This sees the overwhelming majority of the population opposed to the Government?s current plan to keep the list of blocked websites secret.

The majority want that to which the govt is vehemently opposed to as it apparently gives us access to the sites(I thought they were going to be blocked though)

My largest problem with the system is that sites are not reviewed before taken offline and each site isn't individually examined to ensure that there hasn't been an abuse in the site being reported
I mean based off Conroy's hungry beast interview the sites that should have been family friendly had porn hacked into them by organized crime(why I don't know) but one would think it would be easier to tell them look you've had a breach you have a day to fix it up if the problems still there were blocking your Site

The majority don't give 2 shits honestly and if we're talking about introducing policy that only 50.1% of Australia want then why did the alcopop and beer tax's come in I grantee you there was less than 25% off Australia that wanted that development, Even More ironic is that it didn't solve any problems.

It is ironic. I don't support that beer tax. But just because the Government wanted to put a tax against the will of the majority in one instance doesn't mean that they should do so again.

yeah the point here was more that the govt rarely does things on the basis of the majority since the majority would say that there to highly paid and why the hell should they get a special pension when many of them already have decent financial assets while all the extra money they've given themselves could be better spent

Also I am yet to meet a person who Agrees with the internet filter that actually is informed about what it will actually do, Any political person will tell you it leads us down a slippery slope of the government being able to control any and all information into Australia. Even goes as far as removing information that could be detrimental to their political campaigns.

I've met some that know about it yet are in favor of it. Most don't believe that it will be misused by the government. There are plenty who don't know about it though, it isn't argued against because doing so is very closely linked with arguing for the increase in access to child porn. I'm hoping that in the upcoming election Tony Abbott will use that against Kevin Rudd and even if he doesn't get elected pressure to take it down will cause it to be taken down. I can't see that happening though, arguing against something that (supposedly) keeps away child pornography is difficult.

Ohh yeah the best argument I had used against me in my anti-filter views is that only pedophiles could possibly ever want the filter removed when it does so much more

I would prefer Abbot win the election for 2 reasons, this and the NBN(the NBN has become a bad idea and unluckily rudd will be able to use it as a giant pull for the next election(oh that and all that free money he gave the new voters. While they sit and argue over the NBN the telephone companies have made no improvements to the current internet infrastructure as it would be completely wasted money on their part making our slowly advancing broadband network the Non-Advancing one.

As for Fahrenheit I know my Australian copy was named indigo prophecy and was censored so I was basically going of personal experience

and as to the whole age thing I didn't really understand what you were trying to say I felt like there was another line missing from the paragraph so I made an interpretation

and that makes it alot clearer although as I said if you were hypothetically 15 then you shouldn't be able to buy the game whether you want to or not, that where I see the real problems with the laws not with the content allowed but in its regulation on the market

its gotten long and out of hand again I was planning a short concise reply because these posts have been to long I guess it's impossible or maybe I need to just stop quoting so much