I'm not Entirely sure, but i suspect rapelay would be R18 if it were classified at all...
it may actually be objectionable enough to be outright banned, but I'm not entirely sure on that one. [mostly because i can't remember the actual upper limit of the R ratings. frankly, i don't even touch R16 stuff in the first place anyway, so anything over that i really couldn't care less about.]
actually, this particular law doesn't seem that stupid to me
we have r13, r16 and r18. which are a Different Thing from M rated games. it is illegal to sell those items to someone under the listed age. this also applies to movies in all forms [and pornographic magazines and the like], incidentally. this means things that are refused classification in Australia often aren't here. [I've seen things with 'banned in Australia' as a big selling point label on the cover].
while the boundaries between G, PG, and M[most games worth playing end up as M] are often debatable, i have yet to come across anything with an R rating that didn't well deserve it.
for years, people have been jumping up and down about how violent video games are bad for kids etc. the usual response is 'well, then, parent, stop being an idiot and actually pay attention to what your kid is doing'. none the less, people keep trying to get the things banned.
i would actually say this is a step in the right direction. with this in place, it is the Parents responsibility to look after their kid, and if they break the law [which has been the law for a long time] they are punished accordingly.
now, admittedly, it's also been well proven that single parent families don't do so well. putting a parent in jail will tend to result in such a situation, at best. as a consequence i would hope jail time were only used for unrepentant repeat offenders.
on the Other hand, fines make perfect sense. employed properly, the point in a fine is NOT to punish someone after the fact, though it does that too. it is to discourage people from committing the infraction in the first place.
admittedly, like any law, it needs to be enforceable. if you can't enforce it, it's just one more level of decay in the system.
oh, and whoever brought up the anti smacking thing? yeah. one of the stupider moves our government has made in recent times.
New Zealand is supposedly a constitutional monarchy. we have a governor general who is Supposed to represent the interests of the monarch [and by extension the long term interests of the nation as a whole], as well as run the executive.
every law must be signed by this individual.
so, you know, someone IS supposed to call them on this.
too bad no GG of NZ has ever refused to sign legislation presented by parliament, basically rubber stamps ministry appointments, and so on.
hell, our LAST GG [pretty sure it was the last one] was a republican :S [literally, not American political party.] HOW a republican is expected to represent the interests of a Monarch properly, i don't know.
thing is, no one wants to cause a 'constitutional crisis' by rocking the boat and actually, you know, following the constitution. [such as it is. we don't have a specific single document for that :S. oh, and the entrenching law which means such things can't be repealed? doesn't apply to itself]
closest we ever came to something like that was in WW1 when the GG OFFERED to make something an order in their role as leader of the armed forces so that the PM wouldn't have to worry about the political fall out of a particular decision. turned down, natch.
the Crazy thing about this whole situation is who opposes it. looking at our political blog space, it's interesting to note the people who are on the same side in this. whaleoil and NewZblog [or at least contributors there to], for example. these guys HATE each other... last i checked, anyway.
there's a reasonably long history of our government, both national and labour, doing stupid, stupid things in the pursuit of free trade deals, often with no conceivable gain for the long term for NZ... and of the governments of other countries, especially the USA, dangling very vague hints that if they do thing x, they Might get one...
what really sadens me is that, a long time back, some entity in the music industry, i forget who it was exactly, went up against TVNZ [state owned broadcaster, last i checked], objecting to, of all things, music videos. TVNZ won, quite handily, and it never went near the courts or parliament. the loss of advertising from that free distribution dented them that badly, that quickly.
i suspect, that if they ever find an Effective way to shut down the illegal sharing of such, something similar will happen quite quickly.
so it's almost too bad they won't.
ok, epic length post here. i may have some details wrong, of course. standard disclaimer: don't think I'm right? Do think I'm right? look it up yourself.
On the post: NZ Censor Threatens To Jail Parents Who Buy Violent Video Games For Kids
it may actually be objectionable enough to be outright banned, but I'm not entirely sure on that one. [mostly because i can't remember the actual upper limit of the R ratings. frankly, i don't even touch R16 stuff in the first place anyway, so anything over that i really couldn't care less about.]
On the post: NZ Censor Threatens To Jail Parents Who Buy Violent Video Games For Kids
we have r13, r16 and r18. which are a Different Thing from M rated games. it is illegal to sell those items to someone under the listed age. this also applies to movies in all forms [and pornographic magazines and the like], incidentally. this means things that are refused classification in Australia often aren't here. [I've seen things with 'banned in Australia' as a big selling point label on the cover].
while the boundaries between G, PG, and M[most games worth playing end up as M] are often debatable, i have yet to come across anything with an R rating that didn't well deserve it.
for years, people have been jumping up and down about how violent video games are bad for kids etc. the usual response is 'well, then, parent, stop being an idiot and actually pay attention to what your kid is doing'. none the less, people keep trying to get the things banned.
i would actually say this is a step in the right direction. with this in place, it is the Parents responsibility to look after their kid, and if they break the law [which has been the law for a long time] they are punished accordingly.
now, admittedly, it's also been well proven that single parent families don't do so well. putting a parent in jail will tend to result in such a situation, at best. as a consequence i would hope jail time were only used for unrepentant repeat offenders.
on the Other hand, fines make perfect sense. employed properly, the point in a fine is NOT to punish someone after the fact, though it does that too. it is to discourage people from committing the infraction in the first place.
admittedly, like any law, it needs to be enforceable. if you can't enforce it, it's just one more level of decay in the system.
oh, and whoever brought up the anti smacking thing? yeah. one of the stupider moves our government has made in recent times.
stupid rubber stamp...
On the post: YouTube Moves On To Blocking All Music Videos In The UK
guess who lost?
((hint: it was not the TV company :D))
On the post: Recording Industry, Politicians Continue To Give Bogus Reasons To Support 3 Strikes In New Zealand
sad part?
every law must be signed by this individual.
so, you know, someone IS supposed to call them on this.
too bad no GG of NZ has ever refused to sign legislation presented by parliament, basically rubber stamps ministry appointments, and so on.
hell, our LAST GG [pretty sure it was the last one] was a republican :S [literally, not American political party.] HOW a republican is expected to represent the interests of a Monarch properly, i don't know.
thing is, no one wants to cause a 'constitutional crisis' by rocking the boat and actually, you know, following the constitution. [such as it is. we don't have a specific single document for that :S. oh, and the entrenching law which means such things can't be repealed? doesn't apply to itself]
closest we ever came to something like that was in WW1 when the GG OFFERED to make something an order in their role as leader of the armed forces so that the PM wouldn't have to worry about the political fall out of a particular decision. turned down, natch.
the Crazy thing about this whole situation is who opposes it. looking at our political blog space, it's interesting to note the people who are on the same side in this. whaleoil and NewZblog [or at least contributors there to], for example. these guys HATE each other... last i checked, anyway.
there's a reasonably long history of our government, both national and labour, doing stupid, stupid things in the pursuit of free trade deals, often with no conceivable gain for the long term for NZ... and of the governments of other countries, especially the USA, dangling very vague hints that if they do thing x, they Might get one...
what really sadens me is that, a long time back, some entity in the music industry, i forget who it was exactly, went up against TVNZ [state owned broadcaster, last i checked], objecting to, of all things, music videos. TVNZ won, quite handily, and it never went near the courts or parliament. the loss of advertising from that free distribution dented them that badly, that quickly.
i suspect, that if they ever find an Effective way to shut down the illegal sharing of such, something similar will happen quite quickly.
so it's almost too bad they won't.
ok, epic length post here. i may have some details wrong, of course. standard disclaimer: don't think I'm right? Do think I'm right? look it up yourself.
Next >>