ABC Radio’s National Interest (clearly inspired by Law of Play coverage) recently hosted a mini radio debate between Mr. Atkinson and David Doe, founder of political party Gamers4Croydon, concerning the addition of an R18+ rating for video games.  There was no back and forth between the men because Atkinson’s interview was prerecorded, but each man was individually interviewed by host Peter Mares and allowed to argue one side of the debate.  The full show can be found here and is definitely worth a listen.

The similarities between the two men are definitely apparent: They both have a similar look, a staunch ignore-the-facts attitude, and an inexplicable need to limit free speech.  Oh, and did I mention the children?  They are both adamant that their attempts to quash free expression for the good of the children.  How can anyone argue with that?

However, there is one major difference between Thompson and Atkinson: Michael Atkinson is winning.

While Jack Thompson’s attempts to pass laws censoring or limiting the availability of violent video games were consistently foiled by U.S. courts, Atkinson is winning the fight against violent video games by simply refusing to do anything.

You see, Australia currently has a video game rating system that tops out at “MA15+,” which is material classified as not being “suitable for people under 15.”  Anything beyond the MA15+ rating is refused classification by Australia’s Office of Film and Literature Classification (“OFLC”) and, because classification is mandatory, games warranting a rating beyond MA15+ are banned from sale and public exhibition.  In essence, this means that Australian gamers are unable to purchase any games that contain content that would be unsuitable for a 15 year old.  This holds true despite the fact that the average age of Australian gamers is 30.

So, what do shortcomings with the OFLC’s rating system have to do with Atkinson?  Well, Australian gamers and politicians have realized for a long time now that an R18+ rating for video games would allow adult gamers in Australia access to the same mature content that gamers around the world are able to enjoy.  However, in order to make any changes to the OFLC’s rating system, there must be unanimous agreement by the Commonwealth and all state and territory attorneys-general.  Atkinson, Attorney-General of South Australia, is now the sole Attorney-General who opposes the addition of an R18+ classification for video games.  Additionally, Atkinson has blocked the release of a government-sponsored paper that canvasses the opinion of the Australian public on whether or not an R18+ classification should be introduced.  He shows no signs of changing his mind and has even directly challenged gamers:

I am next up for election in March 2010. The state district I represent is called Croydon. I would welcome advocates of R18+ computer games testing public acceptance of my policy by standing a candidate against me.  I think you will find this issue has little traction with my constituents who are more concerned with real-life issues than home entertainment in imaginary worlds.

While I can understand the desire to keep certain materials out of the hands of children, the complete censorship of adult-oriented material is inexcusable.  Worse yet, some more popular franchises seem to “slip in” to Australia’s MA15+ rating despite being universally rated 18+ around the world.  In these circumstances not only does it become easier for children to get their hands on violent material, but it would also seem that large publishing companies are given special consideration beyond what is afforded to smaller developers.

The R18+ debate is sure to rage on, but for now Mr. Atkinson can sleep soundly knowing he is the new villain du jour.