The great divide: UK vs US censorship
When listing the differences between the UK and the USA one usually thinks of spelling, gastronomy and driving on the wrong side of the road, rather than film and game censorship. However, this fascinating post at Terra Nova (along with its thriving comments thread) delves into the differences between the BBFC and MPAA, as well as cultural factors, to try and establish why American consumers are less happy to have age restrictions on games.The whole thread gives an international perspective to current debates over the censorship of violent games. While sexual content in games can be treated as pornography, the lack of existing US legislation covering violence across other media means that singling games out is plain unfair. In the UK, however, ratings of violent and extremely realistic games fall under the Video Recordings Act, which covers any recorded video media.
We have to wonder when games will get a category of their own and stand alongside more established media such as film and TV. In the meantime, to find out more about international game classification, Wikipedia's a great place to begin.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Amir @ May 23rd 2006 8:04AM
The video game ratings here can be perplexing, with ELSPA (less common), PEGI and BBFC ratings (mostly for 18 rated games like GTA and Evil Dead) for video games. The BBFC is in my opinion superior to the MPAA, which throws a hissy-fit over NC-17 movies (the 18 certificate is far from a kiss of death here), and seems to be concerned with money more than anything (letting kids into R-rated movies provided they're with an adult). The only similar rating here is the new 12A rating, which is a sensible addition as kids can now watch Spider-Man with parental supervision. The BBFC used to be infamous (the video nasty era, and cutting headbutts out from The Matrix, to Attack of the Clones, to even Shrek 2!), though now they've become far more lenient and in my opinion sensible (when I complained that a headbutt was missing from the Matrix in the Ultimate Collection, they said it had been reinstated for all future editions).
Woody @ May 23rd 2006 8:32AM
In Canada our rental ratings use a similar system to the MPAA however, its skewed differently than the US. Movies that are more sexually explicit will get an 'R' in the US vs a 'PG14' in Canada. In the other direction, we have movies move up the rating for violence.
GlitchCog @ May 23rd 2006 8:41AM
I'd rather let some kids have access to violent and pornographic video games than hinder the art form with regulation. I despise the concept behind sheltering children. It's like lying to them. The only thing encouraged by pretending kids are mentally insufficient to understand this world is a delayed ability to actually handle it. Contrary to popular belief, kids live in the same world as adults, and in my opinion the very worst video games aren't really that bad. Exposure to any art with proper parenting can only help them further comprehend their world.
Prof-KOS @ May 23rd 2006 8:48AM
Censorship has always been a touchy issue. The reason being that most people fall in the middle while vocal minorities stand on the poles of the issue whether for or against. There are those that want everyonr to have free access to all media and that it should be up to parents to tell the difference between what is appropriate and what is not. Others would like o regulate all aspects of media to such a degree that it infringes on both the artist and the viewer (or player in this case).
As with most of these debates sanity rests very close to the middle. Most rational people understand that children should not be given free access to pornography or ultra-violent content. It is also incumbent on the rational members of society to realize that parents are not capable of judging media since it is almost impossible to pre-screen all possible media before it reaches children and also that word-of-mouth amongst children is a powerful motivator. In this games are no different than movies or T.V. It is therefore important that regulations are put in place that inform parents and guardians as well as restrict access. The biggest problem, however, with censorship is that it becomes a political tool for those such as our dear friends Jack Thompson, Joseph Lieberman and Hilary Clinton.
When politicians and activists use media to form the crux of a political message a few things occur. One, is that the message, even if right, becomes garbled and easily misunderstood. Two, people become cynical of the message because it is distributed by politicians. We believe, and often rightly so, that the message is less important than the name attached to it. In this vein it is almost impossible to create a ratings system that is devoid of politics and therefore credible.
The ESRB ratings found on video games are not bad as guidelines for parents and should be enforced better at retail outlets. This has started, but I watched a 10 year old child talk his parents into purchasing "25 to Life" for him at a local EB Games the other day. In those cases, really, the best that can be done is that the employee should then take the time to educate the parent in the content of the game. If the parent then says that it is alright for their child, we run out of options. Short of totalitarian censorship there is no way to limit the acess to these games more than that.
If Britain's system works better, then perhaps it is something that the ESRB and MPAA can learn from if they truly believe in protecting children while not limiting the content's access to its intended audience.
Eric @ May 23rd 2006 9:12AM
Clithcog-
It was my understanding that they wouldn't be changing the content of the game, or any game for that matter, but only raising the rating.
I really don't see the problem with that. Maybe because I've hit my mid twenties and I'm "old enough" to do and buy pretty much everything (except run for president and get my damn senior discount).
I just don't see why raising the rating a notch is such a world shattering, emotional debate inducing, worthy of putting American culture under the microscope.
I figured everyone by now has accepted the fact that "no one" likes boobies in any kind of media---ala Janet's Superbowl "malfunction" causing stuck-up conservatives everywhere to raise hell.
martin @ May 23rd 2006 9:21AM
#3. It isn't about censoring games and or content, it is about informing parents. Just because you aren't against sex and violence, doesn't mean that all parents aren't against it. A child is that parent's kid and the parent should have the right to decide what their kid sees and doesn't see. Me personally, I don't think it is a big deal for a kid to see sex and violence. I think too much is a little overboard. When and if I have kids, I will probably let them play plenty of games that are rated M. I wouldn't force my views on other parents though, just like I don't want them to force their views on me.
Censorship is bad, but rating and informing parents is good. The only problem with this whole thing are that there are parents who don't parent and blame everyone else for what their kids play and watch, and there are stores out there who don't abide by the ratings.
GalileoAce @ May 23rd 2006 9:23AM
Why does everyone forget about Australia? We truly are the forgotten video game market.
In Australia we have the "Office Of Film And Literature Classification". Everything that either Film or Literature, including computer games, must be classified to be sold within Australia. Or indeed even shown pubically..Such as a few years back when a particular artsy film (I don't recall it's name) was refused classification because of it's incest content. Several film critique groups wanted to see and/or show it. But to do so was actually against the law, and many were fined for doing so.
GTA: San Andreas fell prey to this as well, but for a better reason. The content which was accessed by the Hot Coffee mod was already in the game, just locked. It was not part of what was originally shown the OFLC for classification, so the OFLC removed GTA:SA's classification (then M), and as such it became illegal to sell the game. Rockstar never applied for re-classification, but it remains questionable if they would've even gotten a new one, as video game classifications only go up to MA15+, and the "hot coffee" content may have been deemed worthy of a higher classification, in which it would've been unclassified and illegal for sale, as it is now.
In Aus we have 6 ratings:
G
These films and computer games are for general viewing. However, G does not conclusively mean a children’s film or game because many of these productions contain content that would be of no interest to children.
The content is very mild.
PG
These films and computer games contain material that a parent might need to explain to younger children.
The content is mild.
M
These films and computer games contain material that requires a mature perspective.
The content is moderate.
MA15+
People under 15 must be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian for the duration of the film in the cinema. Parental permission to see an MA 15+ film is not sufficient. People under 15 are not permitted to hire or buy films or computer games classified MA 15+.
The content is strong.
R18+
People under 18 cannot see these films in the cinema or buy or hire them.
This classification applies only to films.
High impact content.
X18+
People under 18 cannot buy or hire these videos and DVDs.
This classification applies to films that contain only sexually explicit content.
The top three (G, PG, and M) are merely recommendations, and not enforced legally. But the bottom three (MA15+, R18+ and X18+) are enforced legally. The labels themselves will display the rating's symbol (G,PG, etc) followed by a short listing of what the content contains such "Mild Coarse Language" "Strong Animated Violence" "Some Sex Scenes" etc etc...
I think the OFLC could be better, but overall they're not too bad I think.
Prof-KOS @ May 23rd 2006 9:28AM
I'd like to clarify my comment above. I don't believe in censorship at all. But restriction to access is not a terribly bad thing, if the restriction is fair and informative. It is up to those enforcing the restrictions inform retail outlets that education is of as much importance the restriction itself.
Paul Cosgrove @ May 23rd 2006 9:41AM
I don't mind the BBFC's ratings, generally speaking. I think the fact that they're legally enforceable is a minor issue.
However, I don't like it when they censor things.
They should be able to classify things, but there is no good reason why an adult like me should be dictated to about what I may and may not watch.
For instance, the anime show Paranoia Agent had 80 seconds cut from one episode because it featured (attempted) suicide by hanging. The episode was rated 18 anyway, but they still cut it in case children saw it.
The BBFCs guidelines do make special mention of hanging as something that's Not Allowed, but they then passed a Buster Keaton short a few weeks later with a PG certificate despite the fact that it also featured a hanging.
To me, that smacks of a system that's inherently flawed.
GlitchCog @ May 23rd 2006 9:45AM
Eric,
The rating system doesn't directly change game content. But game makers choose to self-censor because of them. If they can get an M instead of an AO, they get to sell their game in WalMart. If they get a T instead of an M, more parents who blindly trust the government or independent rating systems will buy the game for their kids. Game producers force the artists to compromise some of their freedom of expression to make more money. That's how the rating system censors video games.
Eric @ May 23rd 2006 10:42AM
GlitchCOg-
I see your point.
But I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
What I mean by that is, I don't think they'd be changing the content of a game for the worse, only for the better.
So Rockstar won't be putting in another "hot coffee" mod into their next installment of GTA...so what?
So there won't be huge tits in the next Oblivion...so what?
These two small examples are, as fun as hell as they are, are completely unnecessary when it comes down to it regardless of their "artistic" implications.
What rating did GOW get? That had murderous porn written all over it, and it still sold like hot cakes.
Paul Cosgrove @ May 23rd 2006 10:47AM
Eric,
I think the worry when it comes to the cooling effect of censorship is that people will shy away from creating actually challenging games, rather than discouraging simple titilation.
There's any number of films (or paintings or sculptures) where nudity or what could potentially be interpreted as sexual content is used to great effect for moods and to bring across a message; by limiting a developer's options when it comes to including a similar method of building atmosphere in games, you're stunting their growth as an artistic medium.
dotun.o @ May 23rd 2006 10:51AM
@ #3,
By your "logic", I could very well say that since kids live in an adult's world, we might as well start teaching them - from kindergarten - about the intricacies of politics and the stock market, those of them who wish to become nuclear scientists should be introduced to the principles of cold fusion, they should start driving as soon as their feet reach the pedals, infact they might as well get a job now; they will be working as adults anyway!
The reason these don't make sense is because a child is just that - a child; still learning, and learning through controlled exposure. No one ever grasped a concept by opening all the pages of the germane book at once; one page, then the next. It's not without reason children cannot even engage in intercourse for instance, so why expose them to it?
Any media - games alone should not be targeted like some sole curse on society - with content designated as adult should be censored from the underage. While it is true that the primary responsibility falls to the parent and many parents will protect their children from objectionable content with or without legislation, others will be irresponsible; The Law needs to protect children of such parents. Consider: it is not left to parents to decide when their children start driving; a minimum age is stipulated for the safety of all. Imagine calling a driving age requirement censorship...
Brock @ May 23rd 2006 10:51AM
GlitchCog I feel sorry for you and especially for your kids. Just because something exists in reality and is a true fact of life doesn't mean you should expose a child or anybody for that matter to it. You could mess a kid up real quick for the rest of their life. Just because child molestation or child rape occurs doesn't mean you should take him or her to go see it to help them "understand life." Just because people have sex doesn't mean you should let them in and watch you do it. Maybe you should buy him or her some instructional videos on how become a suicide bomber just for knowledge sake so they "understand why" people do it. I completely disagree with you that people should be exposed to things just for knowedge's sake. I'll send your kids some gasoline and matches along with a video on how to burn their parents alive.
Me on the other hand, I'm glad there are rating systems in place so i know exactly what i'm buying and am going to be exposing to my kids.
Eric @ May 23rd 2006 11:05AM
"There's any number of films (or paintings or sculptures) where nudity or what could potentially be interpreted as sexual content is used to great effect for moods and to bring across a message; by limiting a developer's options when it comes to including a similar method of building atmosphere in games, you're stunting their growth as an artistic medium."
Yes, I see your point there too. However, I must also disagree slightly.
If the nudity that you describe is required to set certain moods or undertones of a game, then kids won't understand the artistic meaning of it. They will see "BOOBIES!! OMG!!", and not the meaning of why they are seeing them.
For this point, nudity as an art form should be reserved for adults. Not because of "oh god we have to protect our children from this filth", but because of maturity to appreciate the message behind it.
I don't see why developers can't make the game they envision without holding back, so long as they understand what demographic they are making the game for and the appropriate rating that goes along with their vision.
Larry @ May 23rd 2006 11:07AM
I think that censorship must be identical all over the world.
Gonzo @ May 23rd 2006 12:21PM
This is why I agree with Bill Mahr and George Carlin when they say we do too much "for the children."
Why are we going to "protect" the children from video games, when we don't even protect our national morons from get rich quick schemes, religious cults, politicians, and other dangerous forms of BS. They are in far greater danger: real danger. Sometimes we should really let Darwinism run its course.
IanC @ May 23rd 2006 12:41PM
Oh yeah, i emailed the BBFC about the Oblivion thing, and they bascilly said that they wont be bothering to re-rate it, due to the locked content (the topless skins) would be covered by a 15 anyway.
GlitchCog @ May 23rd 2006 12:48PM
dotun.o,
You have a valid arguement concerning what children should be exposed to. I simply think we err much too far on the side of protecting them, and it frightens me that lately government has been protecting everyone from themselves too much. It's to the point where if someone follows all laws, they feel like they have no responsibility to be cautious. The government thinks for people, tells them how fast to drive, what to buy their kids, what sort of drugs to take, etc. That's a bad thing for society.
Brock,
If you go by the ratings, you have no idea what you're buying or exposing your kids to. If you do that you're letting the government or a corporation raise your kids and pick what media they consume. Are you arguing that as good parenting? I feel sorry for your children. My kids will be the ones who get to tell them on the playground that their daddy lied to them about the stork. I hope you've prepared them to hear the truth before my kids find them, or they'll wind up pretty disillusioned and confused.
coalhalo @ May 23rd 2006 12:49PM
#3..."Contrary to popular belief, kids live in the same world as adults..." What world do you live in? When was the last time you saw an eight year old driving a Mack truck? Paying his/her mortgage? Negotiating a heroin purchase?..."Exposure to any art with proper parenting can only help them further comprehend their world."...How do you propose that a parent can properly help a child comprehend hardcore porn? Snuff films? Please tell us, because millions of people would like to know. Don't confuse the concept of age appropriate with censorship. Some things are for "children" and some things are for "adults". It has nothing to do with being "mentally insufficent", (children are much more resilent than adults), but kids need time to be kids. You say you despise the concept of sheltering chidren, but I'm willing to bet your parents sheltered you with a house, clothing, and food.
GlitchCog @ May 23rd 2006 12:56PM
coalhalo,
Kids can get hit by Mack trucks, so it's probably a good idea if you tell them what it's like to drive one, how it's hard to see over the hood and remind them about how short they are. If you could put a kid in the driver's seat and show him what it's like, it would probably be a beneficial lesson for him about playing near the road.
My parents didn't shelter me very much at all. They didn't go out of their way to introduce me to things, but if I approached them with any question they answered it honestly and completely. If I wanted to watch a violent film, they explained that it might frighten me and let me make my own decision.
You said, "I'm willing to bet your parents sheltered you with a house, clothing, and food." These are different types of sheltering. Sheltering from harm and sheltering from information deemed inappropriate are two very different things. You're arguing that information that your government decides is too much for kids can be harmful. I'm arguing that with good parents to help guide children, any information is helpful.
Kasumi-Astra @ May 23rd 2006 12:59PM
I think enforcement by law of the BBFC ratings for games is neccessary, at least in the UK, because many parents are too ignorant to understand that some games are not suitable for children. The belief that videogames are children's toys persists, and some parents will happily buy Grand Theft Auto thinking that it's just another game like Sonic the Hedgehog. There are games that are just not suitable for children.
Fortunately, some parents do reconsider when advised that Grand Theft Auto contains murder, drugs and prositution. I think it's in every parent's interest to understand exactly what their children are doing, and any rating system that makes them aware of content such as sex, profanity, violence and drugs then it has done a good job. I feel that enforcement by law is neccessary because there are some parents who could not care less.
Sadly, in the UK it is the store's responsibility to make sure no classified game or film is bought by, or on behalf of an under-age person. Whereas this has created a lot of awareness of the issue in the industry, it has also caused a lot of anxiety for shop assistants. If you are caught selling a classified game to an under-age person, you can be disciplined by your employer, or worse, face prosecution. You can become a criminal and ruin your chances of finding another job in retail.
This is simply unnacceptable when there are people out there who will genuinely try to deceive you of their real age or threaten you. Some parents have even threatened a friend of mine after she refused a sale to their child.
I think fining the minor or their parents is a step in the right direction for law enforcement of classified videogames. It is difficult to enforce, but it is wrong to implicate the shop staff when there is no compulsory proof of age or identity, when it is so easy to mistake a person's age, and when so many people take offense to being IDd.
abigsmurf @ May 23rd 2006 1:47PM
The UK system actually results in less cencorship as a whole. Save for the R18 certificate (which is for harcore porn) you can buy any rated game in any store.
There's non of this self cencorship carried out in the US where supermarkets and theatres need to ban games/films with certain ratings from being stocked/shown. Yes there are occasional enforced cuts and very occasionally the BBFC will ban a film but ultimately, if you're old enough to view something, your access to the film isn't restricted by supposed 'family values' by chains.
Brock @ May 23rd 2006 2:52PM
"If you go by the ratings, you have no idea what you're buying or exposing your kids to."
The ratings specifically state what's in the game: i.e. violence, sex, nudity, gore, language etc. You know exactly what you are going to get. Secondly, you're kids aren't going to make it to the playground. They are going to be so messed up, walk around in fear their whole life and be stoked up on meds. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you are on some mental medication. You're psycho for torturing your kids. How in the world can you justify letting/making a child see horrific things that go on in the world. They are children man. A childs mind cannot comprehend certain aspects of life. It's not that they haven't been exposed to it, it's that they literally can't understand. They think different. They think as children. You can't force adulthood on a child. You can teach them vocab words about what things are in their heads but they will still be children at heart.
GlitchCog @ May 23rd 2006 3:34PM
Brock,
"The ratings specifically state what's in the game: i.e. violence, sex, nudity, gore, language etc. You know exactly what you are going to get."
I think you missed the point of my argument. There are varying degrees of violence, sex, nudity, gore, and language. You are trusting someone else's opinion that some of these things exist in a game with a sticker on the box. You don't truly know anything about the content and are blindly following guidelines the government or regulating corporation gives you. We are talking about the very media you're allowing your children to consume. You are letting a corporation or the state decide what is acceptable for your children. Not only is relying on these labels a clear example of bad parenting, it is generally a socially irresponsible practice to not form your own opinions. My choice as a parent would be to help my child understand, even at the expense of a loss of innocence. Your choice is obviously to protect them, even at the expense of leaving them unprepared. The problem is that your choice is affecting me through legislation. I don't like to loose my freedoms, so I am standing opposed to you.
"you're [sic] kids aren't going to make it to the playground."
Maybe we should leave the hypothetical kid situations out of this. You're obviously getting a little over-emotional, as you're slinging wild accusations of psychosis and claiming that I torture children. Sometimes it helps to imagine a peaceful place and breathe deeply when you feel like you're feeling now. And just for the record, I'm not a big proponent of medication. I don't even take Aspirin for headaches.
Actually, this is an important point here. The reason this is such an issue is because of knee-jerk reactions from people who have let their protective maternal instincts get the better of their logical judgment. The bottom line is that you cannot protect your child from the world. They're stuck in it with all the hate, killing, and evil video games. They need to be ready for it, and it doesn't rob them of innocence to know it exists. It's the cowards' way out to censor information for children.
GlitchCog @ May 23rd 2006 3:43PM
Oh, and Brock, I disagree that children can't understand things the way adults can. They're just not permitted to because of parents like you. It takes longer, and it's a progression, but if a child seems to be incapable of understanding something, it's the parents' fault, either because they can't explain it properly or that the genes they gave the kid aren't up to par.
Kasumi-Astra @ May 23rd 2006 4:40PM
How are parents (who, let's assume they care) supposed to decide which games they want to let their children play if they cannot make an informed decision? Most parents aren't going to read magazines (and let's face it, most gaming mags aren't written for parents) so they look at the ratings.
Children should be aware of certain issues when they are approaching adulthood, but they shouldn't learn about it through games. When I choose to have children, I'd like to think that I can answer those questions myself. If I let my kids play Grand Theft Auto, I'd be handing over a portion of my responsibility to a game.
Do you really think games such as Grand Theft Auto can reliably teach children about what prostitution is, what gangs, violence and firearms are? Do you think it will tell children about the danger that comes with each of these? If you think that violent videogames will accurately teach children about the world, I think you are wrong. I would see being a parent as a responsibility to answer these questions from your children yourself. Kids are impressionable. They instinctively remember and copy things they see around them.
Videogames are increasingly being used to keep children occupied for their parents convenience. It's sad, because parents are becoming less willing to spend time with their children. They are letting television and videogames to do the parenting for them.
I believe that is far more lazy than chosing which games to buy by using the content advice and age ratings.
Gareth @ May 23rd 2006 5:21PM
I'm always intrigued by the way Americans have a hissy-fit over some polygonal boobs in games and make all sorts of claims on how games companies are corrupting the youth, how they're funding terrorism and how they're being un-American, yet they don't think twice about their kids carrying knives and guns to school as the murder rate of the country sky-rockets.
If they really did care so much about their kids' future then surely they would put aside the craving they have for making money from lawsuits and rethink their priorities?
Paul Cosgrove @ May 23rd 2006 11:49PM
Re: Eric (#15)
"If the nudity that you describe is required to set certain moods or undertones of a game, then kids won't understand the artistic meaning of it. ... For this point, nudity as an art form should be reserved for adults. Not because of "oh god we have to protect our children from this filth", but because of maturity to appreciate the message behind it."
That's ludicrous. They don't ban children from museums and art gallerys that feature nudes - and if they did, it wouldn't be about "maturity".
Regardless of that point, I'm not saying games with nudity should be available to children, I'm saying that certain types of legislation involving the censorship of nudity and sexual content regardless of the age rating is potentially harming to videogames as a developing artform.
Sex can be an important part of a story without being needless titilation, and there are numerous movies, books and other works of recognized "art" that use sex and sexual messages to great effect in defining characters and setting tone.
The cooling effect created by censoring videogames more harshly than other media could eventually lead developers to abandon any new, challenging ways to apply videogames to address social issues.
Eric @ May 24th 2006 1:45AM
"That's ludicrous. They don't ban children from museums and art gallerys that feature nudes - and if they did, it wouldn't be about "maturity"."
I think you've gone off the deep end. This is clearly a more emotional debate than a philosophical one for you---my opinion was not ludicrous, and your utter refusal to see the merit in it is questionable. (And yes, I went to museums as a kid, was not restricted in seeing the models of the cavewomen/indians/africans, saw the big tits on them...and do you know what I was thinking, along with everyone else my age..."OMG BOOBIES! HA HA HA")
I saw the point you were trying to make--you seem to think that developers will start to feel "boxed-in" by restrictions. My conclusion was that you were completely overreacting. And your latest post clearly proves me right.
Sockatume @ May 24th 2006 4:24AM
Interestingly more publishers are submitting games to the BBFC which don't need to be submitted - I think just about every EA game in the past year has had a BBFC certificate. I've seen a few "U"s and some "PG"s, but no "12"s yet. I suspect that BBFC rating for all games will become the norm for major publishers in a few years time. Funnily enough the 18 certificate logo's doubled in radius (quadrupled in area) over the past couple of years as well.
I think the important distinction is that the BBFC rating has legal heft, and a parent buying an 18- or 15-rated game for their child takes on responsibility, compared to the advisory system in the US.