‘Material likely to harm or disturb them’: testing the alignment between film and game classification decisions and psychological research evidence

Abstract

This article analyses the practical operation of Australia’s National Classification System (NCS) for films and games, to evaluate its alignment with the findings of psychological research.¹ Twenty-nine decisions of the Classification Review Board are examined to determine the factors applied in assessing the impact of violent content and drawing the line between the different classification categories. The language used in referring to violent content is analysed to determine the concepts that influence the Board’s view about the correct classification. These concepts are then tested against the research evidence on the depictions of violence that create the greatest risk of adverse outcomes for viewers and players. Not all of the concepts used in classification have a basis in the research evidence, and some are directly at odds with that evidence. The article concludes by recommending changes to the rules that could lead to better alignment between classification decisions and the research evidence.

Key words:

• content factors
• evidence-based policy
• film and game classification
• media effects
• media law
• media violence
• obscenity

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this article was presented at the conference Violence in the Media: The Stories and the Science, at NSW Parliament House, on 18 July 2016. The authors would like to thank the organisers of this conference. Special thanks to Barbara Biggins OAM, Hon CEO of the Australian Council on Children and the Media, for her consistent support of critical engagement with classification law and advocacy for an evidence-based approach to protecting children’s interests as media consumers. Thanks also to Fay Bird for her able research assistance. Numerous colleagues have provided feedback, for which we are grateful, on earlier versions of this paper. All errors remain our own.

Notes

1 An earlier version of this article was presented at the conference Media Violence: The Stories and the Science, at NSW Parliament House, on 18 July 2016.

2 National Classification Code 2005 (Cth), s 1(b).

3 R v Hicklin (1868) LR 3 QB 360, 371 (Cockburn J).

4 The use of the term ‘effects’ is controversial in some quarters, because it is interpreted as necessarily implying a causal relationship. However, it is used as a term of art in psychological literature to identify an association between a stimulus and a mental state that may or may not be causal. This is not to state or imply that psychologists never draw causal inferences from their research, but even when they do, it is usually in a more subtle and tentative way than is portrayed in other discourses. In particular, causal inferences are generally framed in terms of risk factors, rather than mechanical or automatic consequences.

5 It is worth noting in particular that news and current affairs on television are not subject to any classification restrictions: Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2015, 2.3.3.

6 Only the classifications of MA15+ and R18+ are used for online content: Internet Industry Codes of Practice 2005, 4.1 (definition of ‘Restricted Content’).

7 Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995 (ACT); Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 (NSW); Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Act 1995 (NT); Classification of Films Act 1991 (Qld); Classification of Publications Act 1991 (Qld); Classification of Computer Games and Images Act 1995 (Qld); Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995 (SA); Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 (Tas); Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995 (Vic); Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 (WA).

8 This is dealt with largely by a list of exemptions for those and other classes of content – that is, there is no ‘general character’ test built into the classification guidelines themselves.

9 Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Cth), s 11.

10 National Classification Code 2005 (Cth), s 1.

11 Guidelines for the Classification of Films 2012 (Cth), Part 2; Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games 2012 (Cth), Part 2.

12 Guidelines for the Classification of Films 2012 (Cth), Part 2; Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games 2012 (Cth), Part 2.

13 Guidelines for the Classification of Films 2012 (Cth), Part 2; Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games 2012 (Cth), Part 2.

14 Decisions 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 28.

15 Decisions 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 27, 28.

16 Decisions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.

17 Decisions 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27.

18 Decisions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 23, 25, 29.

19 Decisions 2, 4, 10, 13, 15, 24, 26.

20 Decisions 1, 3, 12, 21, 26, 28, 29.

21 Decisions 1, 3, 12, 26, 28, 29.

22 Decisions 5, 19, 23, 24, 29.

23 Decisions 26, 27.

24 Decision 4.

25 Decisions 2, 4.

26 Decisions 2, 26.

27 Decision 29 (sexually, paedophile, sexualised, sexual).

28 This is an important borderline because it represents the difference between advice and restriction. For this reason, having material classified on the MA15+ side is the outcome most likely to be of assistance to parents who wish their children to avoid violent content.

29 Decision 7 (emphasis added).

30 Decision 24 (emphasis added).

31 A detailed analysis of the alignment between the provisions and the research is for another day, but for now it can be noted that the NCS itself uses a number of concepts that have no foundation in the research literature, for example morality, decency, propriety, literary/artistic/educational merit, the general character of the content, offensiveness and community concerns. Whether such concepts, particularly merit, should be included in classification as a matter of public policy is a separate question, but there is no research finding to say that content of high merit carries any less risk of harm than other content. Nor is it easy to make an objective assessment on most of the concepts listed. On the other hand, one concept identified as relevant by the research, but little used in the NCS, is audience characteristics such as age, gender and race. Although s11(d) of the Act says that ‘the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom [content] is published or is intended or likely to be published’ is one of the matters to be taken into account in classification decisions, thereby seemingly providing a warrant for measures that would align with the research on this point, the most the NCS does to incorporate such a concept is by using an age cut-off (15 years) for access to restricted content; and the general concept of audience characteristics is not picked up in the guidelines or the decisions themselves. One possibility for achieving better alignment here would be to introduce younger age categories that recognise the stages through which children under 15 develop. On the other hand, the use of gender and race to determine appropriate audiences for content is unlikely to be acceptable to the Australian public.

32 Decisions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28. Note that the concept of ‘accommodated’ was sometimes applied to categories other than violence, and sometimes it was used in a negative sense, i.e. ‘cannot be accommodated’.

33 This is rarely if ever stated because it is not an official category. The review is ‘de novo’, meaning that the CRB is not, strictly speaking, deciding between only two classifications. Rather the whole field is open to it. However, in reality, distributors seek review because they want a lower category, and the Minister (or in one case a community group) does so in hope of getting a higher one. The classifications given in this column reflect that dynamic.

34 + and – are used to show where the CRB’s use of the adjective appeared to support a higher or lower assessment of impact, respectively.

35 This one had written and oral submissions from a law firm on behalf of the applicant; 87 submissions from the general public; and Microsoft intervening.

36 Application by mental health group.

37 The CRB reviewed classifications on 2 versions of this film, 2D and 3D. For these purposes only the 3D one has been counted.

38 An earlier version of this article was presented at the conference Media Violence: The Stories and the Science, at NSW Parliament House, on 18 July 2016.