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