Minnesota fines minors $25 for M-rated games

by Christopher Grant { May 22nd 2006 at 10:15AM }

Despite constitutional setbacks regarding similar bills across the country (most recently in Michigan), Minnesota state representative Jeff Johnson seeks to limit the sale of violent video games to minors with a new approach: fine the underage consumers of M or AO-rated games and not the retailers. Bill HF1298 also requires that retailers display signs explaining (the evidently not self-explanatory) ratings system that prominently marks (mars?) the packaging of every game sold in this country.

While the bill has passed the Minnesota House, it still requires the signature of Governor Tim Pawlenty before it becomes law ... and before the gaming industry mounts its challenge. Speaking with GamePolitics, Johnson was cognizant of the constitutional issues saying, "...we are using the ESRB ratings. I can see a court saying you can't use private industry to create the law, but there's no way around that because everything else anyone has tried has been unsuccessful. The other piece is that so far no court has found a strong enough link (between game violence and youth violence)."

I would urge Representative Johnson so consider why that is. It's not for lack of trying.

Tags: ESRB, HF1298, Laws, Minnesota, Politics

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Tony @ May 22nd 2006 10:20AM

Good, if this bill only prevents one kid from turning into a nerd, I say its worth it.

CakeOrDeath @ May 22nd 2006 10:32AM

Why should computer games be treated any differently than movies, music or even books? This is blatant pandering to the people who believe violence in video games is the source of all wrongs in society.

Revadarth @ May 22nd 2006 10:36AM

Wow. What bullshit.

dsub @ May 22nd 2006 10:37AM

this won't prevent anything. If a kid's got $50 to buy a game...now he only needs $75. All little timmy has to do is save his allowance for a couple more weeks and he can still go buy GTA4 when it comes out.

This is still none of the governments business, and this is the most half-assed ridiculous attempt to stop mature games sales to minors I have seen yet. Fine the kids? Can you even fine a minor?

My opinion? Just check the kids ID...if he's old enough, sell it, if it's fake...oh well, you can't stop em' all, but you can at least try. The government doesn't impose fines on 15 year old kids that sneak into R rated movies, and I've never been carded when I rented an R rated movie from Blockbuster. Why do they attack games so much?

In my mind, this will always go back to the parents. It is there responsibility, to the fullest, to keep an eye on their kid. Not the governments, and not the EB games clerk.

32_Footsteps @ May 22nd 2006 10:39AM

Actually, don't movie theaters risk fines if they sell tickets to an R or an NC-17 movie to a minor? I seem to remember that was the reason I got carded when I went to see the South Park movie.

Either the MPAA and the organization that represents movie theaters (there is one, though I don't recall its name) are really slacking in their legal department, or video games' opponents are just really dumb for not basically copying those statutes word for word.

rhork. @ May 22nd 2006 10:42AM

So, let me get this straight- If a minor were to Try and purchase an M-rated video game, much like if they were to try and buy alcohol with a fake ID- they're going to get fined $25? How does this fine actually work?

I'm really disappointed that this is still a political issue. Violence in video games always seemed so trivial to me.

OfficialDecoy @ May 22nd 2006 10:45AM

I think someone should get camera and a real gun(unloaded). Then find some kids and tell them it is a real gun and that it is loaded and tell them to shoot somebody. This will show if the kids have any sense of reality. Of course this would have to be supervised by somebody qualified to do so.

Paul P. @ May 22nd 2006 10:51AM

I'm against any law that puts the burden of parenting on the state.

Though I admit, I like the idea of fining the kid a lot more than I like the idea of fining the retailer, because when you fine the kid, the parents end up paying and maybe learn something.

But, I don't think the government should be teaching anything to parents either, so I'm firmly agaisnt the law, though I think it is an interesting approach.

Paul P. @ May 22nd 2006 10:54AM

#7, I smell a Dateline NBC expose!

They'll take 30 kids, have fifteen play GTA3, and have 15 play Mario Sunshine, then see which ones would take the loaded gun and shoot somebody.

Then when there is no statistical difference between the two groups, Dateline can draw the obvious conclusion that even non-violent games can draw your children to murder.

Paul Cosgrove @ May 22nd 2006 10:54AM

I think this is a better way to go about it than any previous attempts, and it might not hit any First Amendment issues either - it doesn't prevent or discourage anyone from making adult-oriented games, as it's discouraging minors from buying games rated above them, and shouldn't affect adults.

I would question how effective it would be when it comes to reducing sales, though - by taking the responsibility off retailers, they've got no incentive to card people.

KilgoreTrout XL @ May 22nd 2006 10:55AM

First, I don't remember getting fined when I snuck into R rated movies when I was a kid. What's with the double standard for video games?

Oh, right. Ignorance.

Secondly, I'd like to state something about the fact that Jeff has gone on the record as saying that his bill is susceptible to an attack on constitutional grounds because "...so far no court has found a strong enough link (between game violence and youth violence)."

Well, I'm not sure I agree with his constitutional analysis, but there's a reason for the court's findings on that point Jeff- it's because no one else has either.

This isn't the Court's fault- the judge doesn't send out his own private investigators to find the links you need to substantiate your promotional laws and fear-tactics, Jeffy. You (meaning Jeff and his attorneys) bring the Judge in a study that gives us this missing link, and isn't junk science (most states apply what is commonly known as a "Daubert test" or its equivalent to keep the garbage out), and viola. You've proved all of us wrong. Thing is, Jeff, you can't, because such study doesn't exist.

Most importantly, if the courts haven't found a link, because the scientists haven't either, it seems that Jeff is simply legislating the link in himself just to get votes from the scared and uninformed masses. How irresponsible of you, Jeff.

Shivering at thought that the bill passed 117 to 14,
Kilgore

RocketSeason @ May 22nd 2006 11:01AM

Here is an Idea: How about educating people that there is infact a rating system for video games.

Treat games like you would movies. If it has an "R" or an "M" on it, don't sell it to minors.

There. Problem solved.

DarkSol @ May 22nd 2006 11:01AM

Why not just fine the parents some exorberant amount instead of fining the kids? Because either A) the kids are getting the money from their parents through an allowance or B) the parents are buying them. (I know that some kids around 16 and what not have part time jobs, but it's still a parent's responsibility in the long run)

I worked at a Kay Bee toy store once and I was helping this woman try to pick a game for her ten year old. She went straight to KillSwitch. I mentioned that it was rated M for Mature, but did she listen? Of course not. She bought the thing anyways.

And besides, who would be paying the fine most of the time? The parents. Might as well make them responsible for their children's action as they should be.

Jurgen @ May 22nd 2006 11:03AM

"First, I don't remember getting fined when I snuck into R rated movies when I was a kid. What's with the double standard for video games?"

Uh... Interactivity to the point that you are the one putting the bullet through the hooker's head?

As for constitutionality: making regulations on an industry is a state power in the constitution. The only issue that might arise is that the state used a previously existing ratings system to create its law.

And, Joystiq, was it really necessary to say that the ESRB ratings system mars the face of every videogame package on the market?

Dane @ May 22nd 2006 11:07AM

I can't say this wont be totally ineffective but if there is a snake in my basement I cut off its head instead of worrying about its eggs.

Tush @ May 22nd 2006 11:19AM

Hey Kids, order your games online! Yippee!

Revadarth @ May 22nd 2006 11:24AM

To 15:

Most kids don't have credit cards.

duerra @ May 22nd 2006 11:27AM

"Actually, don't movie theaters risk fines if they sell tickets to an R or an NC-17 movie to a minor?"

Not from the government. Possibly from the MPAA, though.

On another note, this bill makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever. I didn't even hear about it until it passed the house, and I'm from MN. Either way, my rep will be hearing from me about it.

KilgoreTrout XL @ May 22nd 2006 11:30AM

Jurgen: Thanks for the sarcasm! Allow me to retort.

First, please, if you're going to criticize me, then don't don't just regurgitate the GTA punditry. Get creative, think for yourself.

You know- shun ignorance.

And also, I going to have to go ahead and disagree with your statement that "regulating an industry is a state power under the constitution." Mostly because it's, well, completely wrong.

What our constitution does have, Jurgen, is what is known as the "commerce clause." We've been using this "commerce clause" rather rampantly to allow congress to legislate US industry since, oh, that whole "New Deal" thing. You may even have heard of it. It kinda obviates what you just said.

I welcome critcism dude, but not condescension. Thanks.

Jason @ May 22nd 2006 11:49AM

How can this be enforced? Is a store clerk going to demand the fine from a kid who walks in to purchase a M-rated game?

Christopher @ May 22nd 2006 12:37PM

You know that bill actutally makes more sense than the other bills around the country that fine the retailer. IF you really want to keep kids from buying games that are M or AO without their parents consent, hit the kids where it hurts them.

I'm all for not selling M or AO games to minors, unless parents aprove, but I'm not for laws that punish unecissarily. Unfortunately you really can't legislate responcibility or parental involvement.

C. Grant @ May 22nd 2006 12:55PM

Jurgen:

sure, it mars. A giant "M" telling me that I need to be x-yrs-old to purchase it. Why not a sticker on the plastic wrap? It's an exaggerated point, but the point is, the industry has already gone to some length to advertise the content of the game. If parents can't be bothered to perform the bare minimum task of reading the box the legislation must be the answer!

sam @ May 22nd 2006 1:00PM

Holy cow. If a 14-year-old wants to play an M-rated game, is it really going to damage him or her? There hasn't been ONE scientifically sound study done to show it makes any difference. Don't play the game of these stupid politicians, and these "parenting" lobby groups that make no more sense than the temperance movements that created the Prohibition-era disaster.

Additionally, it's blatant hypocracy and/or ignorance that leads these people to want to censor games when they don't censor movies.

Geez, politicians are creeps WAY more often than not.

BklynKid @ May 22nd 2006 1:09PM

I still don't understand what the problem is...

When a minor tries to go see a R-rated movie, they get carded.
When a minor tries to buy cigarettes or alcohol, they get carded.
When a minor tries to buy a CD that contains explicit lyrics, they [should] get carded.
When a minor tries to purchase a M-rated game, they should get carded.

It's that simple.

Relen @ May 22nd 2006 1:25PM

Is this the way it works with movies? Minors are forced to pay more for a ticket to a movie (or a DVD) than they would have had to pay as an adult? This is ludicrous and inneffectual. I could see kids telling their parents to factor the fine into the cost of the game. Problems more readily lay in determining if the game is appropriate for the age group, this is not easily done even by the ESRB, or the Politicians. (I feel that certain age restrictions are scewed by popular opinion.) It comes down to parental consent and parental considreation. The government's goals should be to provide businesses with incentives to help parents make appropriate choices for their kids. Parents should not and cannot expect the government of any state to do their job for them, ever.

AssemblyLineHuman @ May 22nd 2006 1:42PM

@BklynKid: It's not that simple.
"When a minor tries to go see a R-rated movie, they get carded."
IF it is part of the store's policy. There is no law about this. The R-rating isn't technically required by the government either; it's an MPAA thing.

"When a minor tries to buy cigarettes or alcohol, they get carded."
Yes, because cigarettes and alcohol have been proven to have harmful affects on the body. Since many people start out smoking cigarettes and teenagers are more likely to become alcoholics, this is perfectly logical.

"When a minor tries to buy a CD that contains explicit lyrics, they [should] get carded."
Again, it's a matter of store policy. The Parental Advisory stickers are an industry thing created by the RIAA.

"When a minor tries to purchase a M-rated game, they should get carded."
So if there are no laws about selling music or movies to minors, why should this be any different?

JM @ May 22nd 2006 1:44PM

When I was 16, If I tried to buy a video game and the retailer carded me and then said "Ok, now you owe me $25 for the fine" I would probably have told him to go to hell and left. Then again, when I was 16, I just got my mom to buy the games for me anyway, not having $40-$50.

Jason @ May 22nd 2006 2:06PM

I still don't understand how this law can possibly be enforced. Say that a 16-year-old walks into a store to get an M-rated game. Are we saying that a 16-year-old store clerk has the authority to demand a fine if the kid can't produce an ID.

What if there's a 17-year-old who doesn't have an ID with him/her? Will they have to pay the fine too?

Assume a 16-year-old gets "caught" trying to buy an M-rated game. What happens when the kid says "whoops, I don't have $25 on me." Is the clerk going to call the cops, or the kids parents? Seriously, I thought only people who enforced the law (ie, police officers) could "fine" people.

John @ May 22nd 2006 2:06PM

If this turns into a law,we all might as well throw our m rated games away because almost every family in tis country may have kids.Keeping m ated games from children can caue curiosity and thus leading thm to playing it when parents are away.

32_Footsteps @ May 22nd 2006 2:29PM

First, a big thanks to duerra for setting me straight on movie theaters possibly getting fined. I suppose I mistook saber-rattling in past instances to be actual action.

"Why not a sticker on the plastic wrap?"

That's because of the double whammy of lending games (either letting your friends borrow or through a rental place like GameFly or Blockbuster) and used games.

For the former, some parents wouldn't let their kids own an M title, but kids could get around that by just borrowing off of someone who was allowed them and just removing the sticker. Or going to a retail store and just making sure to remove the sticker from the box and presenting the game to the parent. If the rating can be removed, it doesn't serve its purpose.

For the latter, think how many used game retailers would be responsible enough to relabel all the games properly once they've been bought back. That depends on them both being on the ball with the relabeling as well as knowing which label to put on a game.

Now, there's a good argument for moving the rating notice on the box (perhaps on top, next to the console logo - there's plenty of blank space there, and putting it at the top makes it more prominent), but it needs to be printed directly on the box.

All Your Lost Socks @ May 22nd 2006 3:23PM

First off: As far as the ratings marring the packaging, the **explanation** of the ratings system is what the article says would mar the packaging, not the rating itself. Read carefully, people.

And, to the rest, it's this simple: card people.
I get carded when I buy/rent R or adult films. I get carded when I go to see R movies. If I don't, I should, and this is exactly the same thing. If you don't want minors buying games out of their restricted age brackets, -card them-. That way if the parents are willing to buy the games for their kids, they can be the ones to do it, and thus get a little involved in the process that it should be their responsibility to monitor in the first place. This fine stuff is just plain ridiculous, because it will not stop anything from happening.
Leave the rating on the box. Displayed prominently.
Explain it if you have to, although I agree with the article that it should be self-explanatory the way it is.
And then, finally, card the little buggers.
That's all there is to it.

And Jeff really needs to give a lot of thought to why there has been no connection made. While he's at it, he needs to take a look at horror/shock films (some of my favourites hang on in that category), television programming, advertising... and the world around them. Goodness, it's bigger than you thought, isn't it?

Marc @ May 22nd 2006 5:04PM

Wait, he's gonna fine minors?

GO TO HELL, DUMBASS!

PaleGringo @ May 22nd 2006 5:24PM

Interesting article, CG. Minor typographical error in your last paragraph:

"I would urge Representative Johnson _so_ consider why that is. It's not for lack of trying."

Probably should be 'to consider' instead of so consider.

Aaron @ May 22nd 2006 5:29PM

That's more like setting up a massive sting operation on young kids. Like;
Here you can go buy an M rated game, but if you get caught you'll be fined.
Here you can go have sex with a hooker, but if you get caught you'll go to jail.
Sounds pretty similar. It would be better to just not give them a chance to buy the games in the first place.

Fandel @ May 22nd 2006 6:11PM

Okay, I'll be quick here. This bill has multiple constitutional problems.

#1. By using the ESRB as a basis for the upcoming law. The state is violating the 10th(not the 1st) amendment of the U.S constitution. The state does not have the authority to give governmental power to a private organization. And by tying this law directly to the ratings set up by the ESRB rating board the state is giving the rules of a private organization the weight of governmental law.

#2. What if the parent gives the child permission to own an M rated game? It wouldn't matter, the child would still get fined the 25 dollars, which in real practice, the parent would end up paying the fine. Thus the state would be potentially overriding a parents authority when it comes to allowing their children to see content that has yet to be declared legally obscene.

#3: One aspect the state has not addressed, is that on one hand, the state is trying to regulate the possession of violent video games to minors, because minors do not have the maturity to tell from right from wrong. But yet, that same state has the authority to charge a minor as an adult when they commit a violent crime, under the reasoning that the minor should have known the difference between right from wrong when committing that crime.

On one hand, we need to protect minors from violent video games because they can't tell the difference from right and wrong. But when that same minor commits a real life violent crime, they will be likely charged as an full fledged adult, because the were "old" enough to tell the difference from right and wrong.

Until the state addresses that blatant double standard, these video game regulations will never stand up in court.