Michael Atkinson explains his stance on a R rating for games

It looks like I need to rip the attorny-general's arguements to pieces. To do this properly, I'm reading from the full article from GameSpot.

"I don't support the introduction of an R18+ rating for electronic games, chiefly because it will greatly increase the risk of children and vulnerable adults being exposed to damaging images and messages."
Let me explain why it won't greatly, which is the key word in this sentence, increase the risk of children being exporsed to damaging images and messages. Firstly, a retailer can not sell an R18+ game to a person under the age of 18 unless they make a fault in judgement as to their age, though it is likely that the person believes that the content is suitable and they will not be disturbed by it, and most of the time, the customer is right. However, this can be alleviated by requiring identification before sale.
The second level is at home. All video game consoles have parental controls. Failure to set these controls is the parent's fault if they have bought a game that would receive the R18+ rating. This is not the government's responsability. PC is the only exception, though after reading, it looks like there are still parental controls offered.
The third is that if a child has possesion of a game when the above has failed. Some will be put off by the R18+ label, as they know what this means. Some will not know how to access the contents. In the event that a child does access the contents, if they are at all disturbed, they will immediately isolate themselves from the content. A distrubed person is not a stupid person. I myself have been disturbed multiple times by the internet, and y'know what? I've done exactly as I've described, isolate myself from the content. I don't need to impose my internet security's parental controls to stop myself accessing the disturbing content because I'm not an idiot.
As for "vulnerable adults", can't they access the exact same themes in other mediums and the internet? It's likely that they will also isolate themselves from the content like a common person would if they find it disturbing.

"The South Australian government takes a strong position on protecting children (and the public) from criminal behaviour, sexual abuse, and drug use. My stance on R18+ classification is in line with the policies of the Rann Government [current South Australian government] to protect children."
Now I'm not from South Australia. I'm from Victoria (and have no grudge against South Australians. Just sayin', 'cause I've heard there is some kind of rivalry between our states... or something). But I believe that all of the mentioned themes, criminal behaviour, sexual abuse, and drug use, can be found in media in South Australia. Video games are no different. Yes, there is the interactivity level, but really, does that matter? You can do all these in real life, and have been taught morals about them. Just because you can do them in a video game and get away with it doesn't mean you'll do them in real life. Only a stupid person will think along the following mentality: "I can get away with it here, so that means I can get away with it anywhere,".

"Retaining the present classification scheme for electronic games is necessary because: it keeps the most extreme material off the shelves; it prevents children and vulnerable adults from being exposed to sexual abuse, criminal activity, and extreme violence in video games; it prevents children and vulnerable adults from virtual participation in sex, criminal activity, and extreme violence; and it results in game developers modifying their product for Australian and sometimes international audiences."
Again, this same content is available in other media, so you're discriminating video gamers and video games from other media. I've explained about the preventions in response to the first quote. Again, so what if they're exposed to virtual participation in these themes? There has been no conclusive evidence that video games change the nature of a video gamer from non-violent to violent or a civilian into a law breaker. All other research has been biased or inaccurate. And, again, only an idiot would believe they could get away with these in real life. The last point is not necessary if an R18+ rating is introduced. Please, can anyone name a game where the Australian censored version has become the worldwide version? And how did Mr. Atkinson discover these changes?

"I see my children become physically and emotionally obsessed with games, and it is difficult to drag them away from the gaming console."
The same goes to other media. It's hard to drag someone who is passionate in watching a television program, reading a book, surfing the internet and the like, away from their appropriate media. Video games are no different.

"The repeated act of killing a computer-generated person or creature desensitises children to violence."
Does this matter? Because they're being desensitised by it in video games does not mean they would act differently in real life. Video games rarely depict real world situations. No, no, Grand Theft Auto does not, as it depicts the criminal world. That is not the real world in which the gamers lives. Besides, normal media also does this. Video games are no different. A gamer only wants to execute the actions given them in a game because doing such a thing provides some kind of positive consequence in the game and minimal negative consequence. The common gamer would not do the same in the real world. The ones that would are the ones that would do the same if exposed to the equivelent media, which is legally and can be freely accessed.

"It makes violence part of their everyday lives and what is especially concerning is that it is their re-creation."
Again, this doesn't matter. The video game world is not the real world, and all gamers know this. They will not do this in the real world. And violence can become an everyday part of your life with the equivelant media.

"A child being able to watch sex and violence in a movie is damaging to the child, but the child participating in sex and violence in a computer game is worse."
A child won't be participating in sex and violence because they will be disturbed by it and isolate themsevles from it. And if they're not, it's up to the parents do some censorship of their own, or put the contents into context. Really, parents aren't powerless. Parents can be careless, but are more often cautious than careless.
I played Doom (the PS1 version) when I was eight (or somewhere abouts), and even though I was scared by it, I wasn't negatively affected by it. Violence is certainly not my first answer to my problems. I handle guns as well, perfectly legally too. I have my licences, know the saftey precautions, and handle them with a lot of care. I have no intentions to use them unlawfully.

"Extreme violence, perverted sex, and criminal activity are not essential for adults to enjoy playing electronic games. There are plenty of sophisticated games that are of interest to adults."
This is true. And such extreme themes would still be Refused Classification. Honestly, what game that would be submitted to the Classification Board that contains the aforementioned themes, especially perverted sex, would pass with the R18+ rating? I haven't seen a game so extreme that it would pass the R18+ rating, and if it did, it'd be banned. The R18+ rating give game developers more room to move, but doesn't let them do anything they please.

"A game is not necessarily more interesting to an adult simply because it contains extreme violence, explicit sexual material, criminal activity, or offensive language."
Mostly no, however, according to a recent study, around 5% of gamers prefer the violence.

"Some of the most popular and highly recommended games for adults would not be R18+ rated."
This is true, but in the same breath, some would.

"Critics sometimes claim that I am ruining the game-development industry."
I believe this is a mis-interpretation. Atknison is making it harder than necessary for the video game industry, not ruining it.

"There are very few computer games that are refused classification each year. In 2007/8 just three computer games were refused classification (Soldier of Fortune: Payback, Dark Sector, and Shellshock 2: Blood Trails). This represents a very small proportion of the 961 decisions made last financial year. In fact, only 55 were classified at the top existing rating of MA15+."
That doesn't mean that that you shouldn't introduce the rating because it affects such a little amount of games. It's like saying that we shouldn't have accessability ramps because there's such a little amount of people who can't climb stairs.

"Last year the makers of Grand Theft Auto IV altered the game before submitting it for an MA15+ classification, and Silent Hill: Homecoming is under revision by its makers after being knocked back by the Classification Board. The lack of an R18+ classification is not preventing very many adult-themed video games reaching the shop shelves--but it is ensuring that scenes that don't comply with a MA15+ rating are removed."
This is a nice way of saying "Our laws are responsible for developers censoring themselves before we do,". Once you start censoring content when there are equivelants to the censored content, the line between what should be censored and what shouldn't be starts to fade. Since video games are the new media and are the only media being censored this way, preventing the introduction of the R18+ rating is discriminating video games.

"I think that's a great result for consumers and has little impact on the profitability of game developers."
Consumers don't want censorship. Remember Underbelly? Remember how it got censored for Victoria? Well, let me tell you a story about that. Victorians didn't like the fact that they couldn't get the uncensored version of Underbelly. So you know what they did? They got mates in South Australia and New South Wales to send them over copies of the uncensored version, complete with the sticker saying "Not for sale or distribution in Victoria.", thus proving the censorship failed. If someone sees a rule that they think is unnecessary, they will break it. Plenty of people take photos of signs saying "No cameras or camera phones," just because it's funny that they broke such a needless rule.
And it affects game developers when their game is Refused Classification and they have to move the release date back so they can change it. People sometimes lose interest during this time. Although Rock Band has nothing to do with the classification arguement, it does have everything to do with the released date arguement. Guitar Hero: World Tour was released worldwide and at the same time Rock Band finally arrived in Australia. Rock Band was pummelled in sales. Making developers release games later hurts them.

"Some games, such as Grand Theft Auto IV, have been modified to meet Australian standards. The present system encourages game developers to consider what is appropriate for an MA15+ rating and adjust their product accordingly. Sometimes this modified version has become the internationally distributed version."
This is a nice way of saying "Because we're censoring games to a level that exceeds the level the rest of the world are, the game developers are complying to our laws now instead of having their time wasted and complying later,". And, can anyone tell me which game that was modified only for Australia before its worldwide release where the modified version was released worldwide?

"Some of your readers may believe that the present system restricts adult liberty. It certainly does restrict choice to a small degree, but that is the price of keeping this material from children and vulnerable adults. In my view, the small sacrifice is worth it."
Yeah, material that they can be exposed to in another form that's not had this censorship imposed on it. I've already explained why it's not worth it.

"Classification exists for advertising, films, and books for the same reason--to protect children and vulnerable people."
Yet this "protection" has been taken one step futher with video games than any other media.

"In cinemas, the age of moviegoers can be regulated, and at the video store people must provide ID to hire R18+ videos. Once electronic games are in the home, access to them cannot be policed and the games are easily accessible to children."
Once films are in the home, access to them cannot be policed and the films are easily accessable to children. Oops! Did we forget that? Why is it any different with video games? And access to all media can be policed, by the parents. Oops, we must've forgot about them too. I swear, I reckon parents wouldn't like anyone who's saying that they can't do their job properly and doing their job for them, which, effectively, is what Mr. Atkinson is doing.

"These days, older children (18-30) are often living in the family home with younger children (under 18). This means games belonging to older children or parents can easily make their way into the hands of those under 18."
These days, older children (18-30) are often living in the family home with younger children (under 18). This means films belonging to older children or parents can easily make their way into the hands of those under 18. Oops! Did we forget about other media again? Oh dear. We aren't going too well today. Video games are not different to other media. You would hide a video game like you would hide the equivelent media.

"I'm concerned about the level of violence in society and the widespread acceptance of simulated violence as a form of entertainment. No doubt a legal restraint on the type of material available to the public in game form is only a small part of the answer, but I am loath to give it up."
This is an attempt to pretend that Mr. Atkinson is not discriminating video games. I've already proved that he is indeed discriminating video games, so this can almost be called invalid. We don't share your concerns about the level of violence in society. We must remember that human beings are inherently violent. And just because we're exposed to violent media doesn't mean we're influenced to mirror it.

"I am not alone in my view. Groups such as Young Media Australia oppose the introduction of an R18+ classification, saying that interactive violence can desensitise people to violence. Although I receive letters from the public opposing my stance on R18+ games, I also get letters of support."
We don't care if there's more than one person sharing this view. The desensitivity is not to violence itself, but to violence in video games, which is not an issue as it is yet to be proven that video games incite someone to be violent. The fact is that those people only agree with this view is because they haven't been educated on the subject enough, and could have also been misled.

"Some other classification ministers are also opposed to an R18+ classification but have not spoken about it publicly. I'm confident the proposal would be blocked by other classification ministers if I weren't using my veto power."
Until this has been proven, we don't care.

"The framework for our classification system is established in Commonwealth legislation. The process of classifying a work is done by the [Classification Board, an independent body]. Films and games are classified according to the same guidelines and using the same categories and symbols under the classification codes. Games that are entertaining and challenging to adults may be found in any classification category. The classification goes simply to the strength or impact of the content. In classifying a game, only the classifiable elements are considered: violence, sex, nudity, drug use, coarse language, and (controversial) themes."
If the games are being rated equally, they should also receive equal ratings. This means that to be truely equal, we need to have the R18+ rating for video games.

"In Australia there is merit in a national classification scheme. With state and territory borders being artificial for these purposes, once games classified R18+ are available in one state they will be readily available in others. It is important not to confuse the classification rating of a game with the game's sophistication, or the challenge or interest to the player. Depending on tastes and interests, adult gamers will find much to enjoy in all of the categories of games now available."
There's support for R18+ games, which means that adult gamers will be able to find and enjoy R18+ games now as well as all the other catigories. Don't think that just because there's an R18+ rating that someone who buys one game from it will never buy another game of any other rating.

"Classifications are overseen by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. SCAG includes attorneys general from all states, territories, and the Commonwealth. Most members are also the relevant minister for classifications in their jurisdiction. Under the Federal legislation, one minister can veto changes to our classification system in Australia. Hitherto, attorneys general have not agreed to create an R18+ category for computer games."
Translation: "All attorneys-general must agree before an R18+ catigory is introduced for video games. So far, I am the only attorney-general who is openly blocking the introduction,". And we already know this.

"A discussion paper will be released to the public shortly on the proposal for an R18+ classification for video games. I support the issuing of a public discussion paper that adequately represents both sides of the argument."
I thought this paper wasn't going to be released, but I'm glad it is. We're glad that the paper will be listing all the points for and against the issue.

As a final note, I'd like to point out a country that embraces video games more than anyone else, Japan. Gaming is embraced over there and there is minimal problems. As far as I know, no one there seems worried about video gamers and their actions, so why should it be different here? Japan seems to have been educated about video gaming, yet, at large, we have not. Japan has ratings that allow even perverted games to be released, and, of course, those games have their own classification and their own set of rules. I'm not saying that we should copy Japan exactly. What I'm saying is that we can learn from them. We can learn to embrace video games, become educated about them and, once we've done that, there will be a lot less stigma toward introducing an R18+ rating. Really, there isn't any need to prevent the introduction of an R18+ catigory.

He may be informed, but he still hasn't been properly educated about games. Also, he's one of those people who won't exactly back down from their ego (Jack Thomson anyone? (He's now barred from the courts after harrassing the judges. Yay!)). The only way to beat him is to get him in a live interview, ask him some very hard questions that break his arguement, like GameSpot tried to do, and whenever he tries to handball his way around any question, throw the question back on him and force him to answer it. Constantly ripping apart his arguements with more questions will ruin his rationale, and then you can prove his views as biased and invalid. As far as I know, polititians can't get away with believing in something and not having justified reasoning behind it. Prove his reasoning invalid and it's instant win.