The do-gooder brigade stands ready to march on video game classification

Still, with the sharpened blade of her bayonet pressed hard against the jugular of the "pro-classification" games lobby, Professor Handsley claims that "It is simply impossible to argue, with intellectual honesty, that the legalisation of R18+ games would mean better protection of children" (emphasis added).

And she is probably right. It would be an intellectual dishonesty to argue that classification would be more effective than a ban in preventing access of R18+ video games to children. And so I don't try and argue it nor do I suggest that the video games lobby attempt to do so either.

But it is also an intellectual dishonesty to accept that it is respectable for adults to hold the view that, in a liberal democracy, they're allowed to see, hear and play what they want while also claiming that holding such views is not sensible. Such views are respectable because they are also sensible.

What isn't sensible is the view that we should ban something, anything, simply because it helps parents parent. Professor Handsley argues that children are children, that violence is violence, and that parents need the parenting support a ban on ultra-violent video games would afford them.

But this is a non-sequitur and many parents and non-parents alike will recognise that an outright ban is really about parenting the parents. And on this our trusty moral brigade of moral do-gooders should come clean. Because, really, if the moral brigade had their way we'd all go marching two by two, hurrah hurrah.