Minnesota targets minors in new gaming law; ESA to file suit
by Ross Miller 
{ Jun 2nd 2006 at 6:35PM }
Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty signed into law yesterday bill SF0785, which targets minors attempting to purchase M and AO-rated games. Such persons under the age of 17 (and thus, likely their parents) will be required by law to pay a We doubt the law, which theoretically could see 12-year olds receiving fines, will survive the lawsuit. According to Lowenstein, "to enact 'feel good' bills knowing they're likely to be tossed by the courts is the very height of cynicism." What both sides need to remember, however, is that they share one common principle: that children should not be playing ultra-violent games like Grand Theft Auto.
Call us cynical, but frivolous legislation (and the subsequent lawsuits that strike them down) will be around for a very long time, until lawmakers have another target or ideal they can use to exemplify their "pro-family" platform. Books, dancing, film, rock and roll, television ... video games is just the latest in a long line of entertainment decried as moral decadence.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Adam @ Jun 2nd 2006 6:41PM
Mr. Miller, I can tell you are neither a lawyer or a law student.
Galls @ Jun 2nd 2006 6:44PM
The ESA should enact an advertising campaign similar to the TV rating system ads in which the violence levels of games are told to parents.
Face it, it is all the parents fault, because they seem to think games are just semantics to a childs toy.
I wont let my son play a great game like grand theft auto until after a few years of him seeing r rated.
Geist @ Jun 2nd 2006 6:58PM
Okay, am I the only one that doesn't hate this? We're talking about little kids trying to purchase GTA. If they really want it, and their parents think they're ready, then their parents can buy it. All this means is that the kids won't be able to go behind their parents' back and get the game without them knowing.
Someone please explain to me why this law is a terrible idea, because there is obviously something that I am missing here.
kyou @ Jun 2nd 2006 7:17PM
But, Geist, giving a fine to a child is idiotic. The ones who should get the fine should be the stores for allowing such sales in any case. What if the child doesn't know it's a M or Ao game? That will cost him over 25$!
Ross Miller @ Jun 2nd 2006 7:19PM
Adam -- quite astute observation; I am not a lawyer or a law student. That said, to what point to you bring up this note?
DarkMavis @ Jun 2nd 2006 8:11PM
Geist - I agree with you. I think the law is fair. As for whether or not this will hold up in court... who knows? I'm from Minnesota and I like Pawlenty. He's always been fair IMO.
Dan @ Jun 2nd 2006 8:15PM
I honestly don't understand...
so if a child brings a rated M game up to the counter to buy it, they will charge him $25 and then not give him the game?
the_toad @ Jun 2nd 2006 8:21PM
well I am a child in Minnesota and all the game stores I go to already asked for ID form purchasing these games and wont sell them to minors baised on store policy. I am sure now they wont sell them to the kids and if they notice an adult who obviously is buying for a child will inform them of the 25 fine.
Scott @ Jun 2nd 2006 8:29PM
Adam,
I'll also bite at your bait. What's your point?
oldhat @ Jun 2nd 2006 8:34PM
My son can take comfort knowing that his old man will probably buy an AO or M rated game before he's even heard of it. I'm one of those 30 something yr old gamers that will let my son play whatever I play. I grew up with games and so shall he. He's also welcome to my beer and once in a while, the Playboy stack.
Embrace @ Jun 4th 2006 11:28PM
I live in columbia heights... My mayor is the one who proposed the bill.
I know where she lives, Somone should TALK to her.
Im non-voilent and a gamer?! lies....
DarkKnight @ Jun 7th 2006 1:32PM
I am also from Minnesota. Pawlenty has been going off at the bit with "fines" and "fees" just to throw the public off and to advoid the word "tax". I'd like to point out he's also up for re-election this year, so this is probably just another point for his re-election campaign. I'd also like to point out there was no mention of this in our local media. I had to find this out from a freaking podcast. Why does government have to control what a parent should be paying attention to? Get to work on some real issues. I had to buy a video game for my 16 year old brother not too long ago at a national chain because the chain is also located in a state with a similar law. This is getting ridiculous.