The R18+ debate is heating up in the public forum ahead of July's decisive SCAG meeting , where Federal Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O'Connor will ask fellow state and territory attorneys-general to take a long-awaited vote to decide once and for all if Australia should have an adult classification for video games.

　　By now, both sides have presented their arguments: Nearly everyone, from gamers and politicians to academics and industry leaders, has had their say, and nearly every aspect of the issue has been covered time and time again. Or so it had seemed.

　　In an article published yesterday on ABC's The Drum, CEO of the Australian Council on Children and the Media Barbara Biggins argues that public opinion on the R18+ issue (which she acknowledges as being largely pro-R18+) has been wrongly shaped by a "crusade for the kiddies."

　　According to Biggins, gamers have been misleading the public with the argument that an R18+ classification for games would provide better protection for children from inappropriate violent content. She believes that an R18+ classification for games would not protect children because it is "practically impossible for even the most conscientious of parents to keep their children away from exposure to portable R18+ items like DVDs." In short, Biggins argues that an R18+ classification for games will in fact increase exposure to harmful content. (Sound familiar?)

　　Rather than going down the freedom of speech route, Biggins accuses gamers of abandoning that argument in favor of one that would be more likely to capture the hearts and minds of the public and politicians, thus ensuring that we get what we want. She labels it propaganda. It is, in fact, propaganda. Or it would be, if the pro-R18+ lobby were in fact doing what Biggins is accusing it of doing.

　　What the pro-R18+ lobby is actually doing is presenting a series of arguments for a cause it sees as being worthwhile. The point is, and always has been, freedom of speech. Australian adults, just like adult citizens of other developed countries, should be free to choose what they consume and how they consume it, as long as their actions do not harm others. It's a simple, democratic idea founded on the basis of British philosopher John Stuart Mill's harm principle. So if gamers are using propaganda in their methods of coercion, then Biggins and the rest of the anti-R18+ lobby can justly be accused of doing the same: they frequently argue that an R18+ classification for games should not be allowed in Australia because of its potential to cause harm to children.

　　Biggins also points to the fact that we haven't had an R18+ for games in 18 years, and everyone has been fine with that--"a wise position of caution that has only been strengthened by increasing evidence of harm from very violent games--desensitization, loss of empathy, a lack of appreciation of the real life consequences of violence, increases in risk taking activities." She says, in fact, that the lack of an R18+ rating has only become a problem because gamers can't shut up about it. Yet, she clearly doesn't think much has changed in the past 18 years; at least, not enough to warrant the update of a classification system that ignores the monumental impact of technology on modern life.

　　Biggins accuses gamers of "ranting" and "raving." It's clear by her wording that this is something the Australian Council on Children and the Media has never been known to do. Right? But her organization, just like others out there, has an agenda. Gamers have an agenda too. We all have an agenda, in one way or another; we all struggle to protect our rights as citizens, and we all try to influence others to think the way we do. It's not propaganda: It's human nature. The only thing Biggins has been successful in demonstrating is that gamers are human.