Minnesota's game law ruled unconstitutional
The sagacious sponsor of the bill, Minnesota state representative Jeff Johnson, correctly predicted Judge Rosenbaum's ruling in May when he said, "... 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)."
So they tried to circumvent the constitutional problems by relying on ESRB ratings to determine inappropriate content, to which Rosenbaum returned, "The First Amendment ... was certainly established to keep the government from becoming the arbiter of what constitutes 'worthless' or 'disgusting' speech." Zing! Johnson also acknowledged the shaky scientific grounds his law was predicated on, to which the ruling said "the state has shown no convincing evidence that children are harmed by [video games]."
For those keeping score at home, let's review:
St. LouisunconstitutionalIndianapolisunconstitutionalWashington StateunconstitutionalIllinoisunconstitutionalMichiganunconstitutional- Maryland (doesn't really count, so we'll let 'em have it)
- California (currently under review by Federal District Court Judge Ronald Whyte)
- Louisiana (lawsuit has been filed)
- Oklahoma (lawsuit has been filed)
Minnesotaunconstitutional
[Thanks, Nick]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
blahman @ Jul 31st 2006 10:42PM
...and as seen in the photo above, the Federal judge then lost his esteemed position and now works for waste management.
The reasons why one should not go into politics.
ejflex @ Jul 31st 2006 10:43PM
I appreciate the humor in the picture. Made me laugh out loud.
HylianTom @ Jul 31st 2006 10:53PM
My own prediction on how the U.S. Supreme Court's members would vote on such a case..
Voting to strike-down the gaming law for 1st Amendment reasons:
Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter.. and swing vote Kennedy.
Voting to uphold the gaming law for "morality" reasons:
Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito.
Hmm.. seems about right.
William @ Jul 31st 2006 10:54PM
This is ridiculous, it's simple, Minors should not play M or AO games, who cares about all the political mumbo jumbo on such a small issue (relatively speaking) Minors SHOULD NOT SHOULD NOT! play M or AO GAMES. Period. Why we can't fine the kids or parents is beyond me because it will serve as a small incentive to not have them. Minors+Violence=Not so good stuff. For those of you who think that isn't true you really need to wake up. Sure some people, (myself included) have not been negatively affected by the M or AO games, but many people are. I'm no Jack Thompson but god damn we need to keep the children from playing Halo 2.
A kid at the Daycare I volunteer at, who is 7 years old, owns a ($&()$#&#^)# XBOX, and he plays CALL OF DUTY AND HALO ONLINE!?!? WTF!?!? He's 7... That's crazy, he's hearing foul language seeing violence, and by god how the controller fits in his hand is beyond me...
Rob @ Jul 31st 2006 11:04PM
William,
It is the PARENTS job that they don't get the M games. Period.
Regulate all media or none. Games can not be the only regulated media if you expect the regulations not to be struck down.
carg0 @ Jul 31st 2006 11:12PM
As long as it cost's these politician's nothing in personal finances, people like Hillary Clinton have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The millions of idiots who re-elected Bush to a second term are the exact kinds of people these politicians are trying to endear themselves to. Can you really blame them for trying? All they need is just one precedent.
As I always say, 'a stupid person can be ignored but never underestimate the power of stupid people in great numbers.'
AssemblyLineHuman @ Jul 31st 2006 11:13PM
William: It's not that simple. There are tons of things wrong with the laws. For one thing, they're blatantly unconstitutional. I don't care how much it seems like common sense to you or anyone else that kids shouldn't be playing these games; it's not the government's role to parent children. When the government decides that children can't play violent video games, what's going to stop the government from saying children can't watch violent movies? What about the books? What about the music? What about television? You can see the same things kids are seeing in the games by simply changing the channel at an inopportune moment. Are we going to make it illegal for kids to pick up the TV remote?
We have ratings systems like the ESRB (and the MPAA) so that parents can determine which games are inappropriate for their children. I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but I think that if a parent decides their kid should be allowed to play Halo, that isn't necessarily an example of bad parenting. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that all parents should let their kids do whatever they want. I just mean that all children are different, and there is no definitive set of rules for parenting. In the end, it comes down to the parents' moral values and whether they believe that their child is mature enough to handle the type of material in a game. Personally, I think the ESRB and the MPAA should put a little more emphasis on descriptors. If I were a parent, I might not like my 12-year-old playing a game with a level of violence like God of War, but I really could care less about the language in the game (believe me, they're hearing it every day at school anyway).
I understand that it is easy to see this as a tool that gives parents more control, but there is a reason this kind of legislation does not exist for any form of media beyond pornography. It defies the First Amendment and opens the doors to government control over things the government has no business controlling.
Phil @ Jul 31st 2006 11:14PM
"Minors+Violence=Not so good stuff"
True, but unfortunately, no matter how much you regulate something, we'll still be living on planet Earth.
Stu @ Jul 31st 2006 11:14PM
Based on precedent, you'd think that courts would merely look at previous rulings and go from there.
Russell @ Jul 31st 2006 11:15PM
Why should I care if some 10 year old cant play GTA again?
polly @ Jul 31st 2006 11:31PM
Minors + Violence = Not so good stuff
Agreed. Very bold of you to take that stance. I must say though...
Minors + Simulated Violence = Exquisite high that can only be rivaled by a drunken night with cocaine laced hookers.
But seriously...we really DO need to keep the children from playing Halo 2! God damn! Think of the children!! What? They want to take away my constitutionally protected right to teach little Johnny how to shoot frolicking deer with a rifle? God damned libruls! Somebody call the NRA.
HylianTom @ Jul 31st 2006 11:34PM
For this issue, what I would fear more than anything is more GOP presidents appointing Scalia clones to the lower courts and then the Supreme Court. Once you get that precedent from a lower court, it's go-time for the Supreme Court.
Take a look at that theoretical 5-4 ruling I gave above. Kennedy is going to be 86 years old soon - serving since Gerald Ford was president, before many of us were even born! You get a Scalia clone in his place, and these game laws are suddenly kosher according to the Supreme Court.
Hillary, Lieberman, and others might be pushing this crap, but they're doing it because the voters have recently taught politicians that policing morality is to be rewarded (see: Elections 2000, 2002, 2004, etc). In the end, you're going to have to determine who will and who will not be putting Scalias onto the bench. Long-term thinking in the voting booth..
Eric @ Jul 31st 2006 11:34PM
Well saying the parents should be responsible for the purchase of video games being the reason why this law shouldn't be passed is like saying the drinking/driving/smoking/whatever law shouldn't be there because the PARENTS should be the ones monitoring the childs actions.
Bryan T @ Jul 31st 2006 11:41PM
I, for the record, played my first M game at age 5 (Mortal Kombat, for the SNES).
Believe it or not, it brought me and my dad (my mom doesn't play video games, of course) together. I am sure that is how it is with many other kids.
It's usually a case of one person screwing it up for the rest. If one incident happens because of a video game, all gamers become under attack. IMO, at least.
Pince @ Jul 31st 2006 11:50PM
Woot Minnesota!
Um...that's really I have to say. Sorry.
AssemblyLineHuman @ Jul 31st 2006 11:56PM
Eric: Smoking and drinking are illegal for minors because they are physically harmful, not as parenting tools. Allowing people under a certain age to drive puts themselves and others at risk; once again, it's not something for a parent to determine is right for their child. The comparison is hardly valid. If we let the government pass laws regulating what is appropriate for children, what's to stop them from trying to say that it's inappropriate for children to read things that challenge established ideas. We have to draw a line, and I think the courts have done a good job so far of making that line pretty clear.
There are other issues with a law like this, one being that video games are very market driven. A law like this would likely reduce the sales of M-rated games because the inconvience related to purchasing them. Then, if publishers see the sales of M-rated games going down, they try to stop making M-rated games, which comprimises the designer's vision because he's now stuck within the boundaries of a T- or E-rating. I'm not saying all games should be M-rated, but when you try to delve into certain topics or themes, a lot of times content that pushes a game beyond the T-rating becomes necessary. Laws like this aren't necessarily just going limit the minor's ability to buy great M-rated games; they could also affect the older market that that majority of people DO believe should be allowed to play whatever they want.
molecule @ Aug 1st 2006 12:02AM
"...to impose a $25 fine on minors who purchase M- or AO-rated games."
As far as I know, there is already a law that prohibits minors from purchasing "M- or AO-rated games"; so why was there the need to push this bill in the first place?
Nathan M @ Aug 1st 2006 12:06AM
"Minors+Violence=Not so good stuff"
I resent that. A minor is anyone under 18, which means that you're saying that so long as you're under 18 you are not capable of handling violence. So 17 year olds can't handle violence? Come on.
"Well saying the parents should be responsible for the purchase of video games being the reason why this law shouldn't be passed is like saying the drinking/driving/smoking/whatever law shouldn't be there because the PARENTS should be the ones monitoring the childs actions."
No, it isn't, because public intoxication affects OTHER PEOPLE. Drunken driving is part of the law for adults as well as minors, and has consequences that extend beyond the intoxicated person. Oh, and the smoking law is there because smoking has been proven to kill/hurt people. ;)
HylianTom @ Aug 1st 2006 12:10AM
Correction: Stevens was appointed by Ford. Oops.
Jason @ Aug 1st 2006 12:30AM
There's a law floating around the NC State Legislature prohibiting the sale of obscene and/or violent video games to minors.
Here's a link: Senate Bill 2
According to the idiots in my state legislature, this is obscene: "Touching, in an act of apparent sexual stimulation or sexual abuse, of the clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, or buttocks of another person or the clothed or unclothed breasts of a human female."
Does that mean no football players smacking each other's butts in Madden?
This, too, is obscene: "An act or condition that depicts torture, physical restraint by being fettered or bound, or flagellation of or by a person clad in undergarments or in revealing or bizarre costume."
No Castlevania either?
And a video game is harmful to minors if... "The video game lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
Bingo. I say this is DOA if it's ever passed.
AssemblyLineHuman @ Aug 1st 2006 12:30AM
molecule: No, there is no law like that. Minors can't legally buy most AO-rated games because they are pornographic, but that's not directly related to the AO-rating. There's also no law that minors can't buy R-rated movies. There's no law that minors can't buy excessively violent books. There's no law that minors can't buy music with a Parental Advisory label. Most stores do have policies regarding minors; however, they are not always followed. That's one of the problems most gamers have with these laws. For some reason, games are getting special treatment.
Rare Hare @ Aug 1st 2006 12:35AM
" I, for the record, played my first M game at age 5 (Mortal Kombat, for the SNES). "
Exact same situation for me, only I played the Genesis version. Which actually had blood and gore. And I turned out fine.
Anyways, I'm off to plan a school shooting, maybe rape an innocent citizen or two.
Rare Hare @ Aug 1st 2006 12:46AM
"As far as I know, there is already a law that prohibits minors from purchasing "M- or AO-rated games"; so why was there the need to push this bill in the first place? "
Aha, but that's where you're wrong. There is no such law. It just so happens that major game retailers, including Wal-Mart, K-mart, EB Games, and GameStop, have rules written into corporate policy against it.
For example, if an employee is caught on camera selling an M-Rated game to a minor, he or she can not be punished by law, but can lose his or her job.
The only difference most of these laws would make is that there would be legal ramifications involved. Which is stupid, considering there are already rules in place AT THE SOURCE to stop it from happening. What many people seemingly fail to realize is that when kids are getting a hold of violent games it's because their parents are buying the games.
Whether the parent is making the purchases for his/herself or for the child in question, it is in fact the parent who is making the purchase (IN MOST CASES.. I do realize that there are probably those rare cases in which an employee is careless enough to sell an M Rated game to a minor). Children simply don't have the means to make these purchases themselves. To be totally honest, if anyone should be fined at all, it's the parents.
molecule @ Aug 1st 2006 12:52AM
@ AssemblyLineHuman and Rare Hare
Hmm, then I guess "law" was a poor choice of words on my part. Thanks for setting me straight!
Aram @ Aug 1st 2006 12:54AM
do we have to go through the same discussion over and over whenever a new state passes a similar law and subsequently a court strikes it down???
just make sure those damn politicians who sponsor these bills don't get reelected!
John Musco @ Aug 1st 2006 1:11AM
I think this law is great. I like the idea of punishing stupid minors directly rather than not being able to play a game because it's been banned. I'm totally for this - fine all of you stupid minors that are screwing up gaming!
josh @ Aug 1st 2006 1:26AM
Hell no kids shouldn't be playing halo 2! I'm sick of them kicking my ass!
Geist @ Aug 1st 2006 9:39AM
Violent video games killed my father! And raped my mother!
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
32_Footsteps @ Aug 1st 2006 10:32AM
Actually, I wouldn't be so quick to immediately put Scalia on the "pro-gaming fine" side. He's actually known to take some stances heavily restrictive of governmental power (we are talking about a guy who repeatedly has said that flag desecration laws are unconstitutional), and relying on a private industry's system to restrict or fine people sounds like a level of governmental intrusion that Scalia might have serious issue with.
Granted, I take great issue with quite a few things Scalia has said, but I think he'd actually be voting the way we'd want him to vote.
j @ Aug 1st 2006 11:06AM
st louis is a state?
MrBlank @ Aug 1st 2006 11:09AM
So, why is okay to sell mature games to kids but wrong to sell them porn? If the first amendment excuse works for games, why doesn't it work for pornography? How are they different?
Julford @ Aug 1st 2006 2:35PM
I don't know to much about the pornagraphy issue, MrBlank; my guess is that people see porn as something that would be harmful later on to children; They would be able to see sex in such a manner (i.e. no foreseeable consequences) that it could increase the chances of them becoming rapists later in life. It is probably seen as something necessary to hide from a child until they are better able to understand what is involved... And what the potential consequences are.
ANYWAY, onto the topic of the game law. One of the major points I've heard from others (I have just recently talked with a group of friends, many for this law and just as many against) is that we need to think of the children, and that by removing this law means we show that we don't care about the children.
So, one question that I feel is important; When should a parent be seen responsible for thier child's activities? Should the government watch what a child plays from there, or should the parent?
Morally, I agree with this law at it's core; prevent underage children from purchasing violent and/or sexually explicit material. Exposure to such things CAN de-sensitize a child to them, if exposed regularly from an early age. However, it is not something that should be passed into law; the governments job is not to BE our morals, but instead to encourage us to find these morals ourselves.
32_Footsteps @ Aug 1st 2006 3:35PM
"So, why is okay to sell mature games to kids but wrong to sell them porn? If the first amendment excuse works for games, why doesn't it work for pornography?"
Ah, but pornographic games are under the same limitations as other forms of pornography. It's not a question of why does porn get treated differently than games. It actually muddies the issue.
Basically, the difference is this: porn is a genre, while video games is a medium. A particular genre is allowed to be controlled in the manner of pornography, but a medium is not. Moreover, in order to control a genre, you must apply those controls equally across all media. Moreover, according to Supreme Court precident you must establish said control exists because there is no artistic merit at all to the piece in question on top of it having a derogatory effect on the public at large.
Thus, you can restrict pornography evenly because you restrict all varieties thereof - books, magazines, movies, games, websites, and so forth. However, you cannot ban (or heavily fine) a medium in general, and you cannot ban/fine a subset of that medium (such as aggressively violent video games) unless you attempt a similar action against all media that fall within that genre (such as aggressively violent movies, books, magazines, and so forth).
All American @ Aug 2nd 2006 12:55PM
"So, why is okay to sell mature games to kids but wrong to sell them porn? If the first amendment excuse works for games, why doesn't it work for pornography? How are they different?"
It's very simple. Sex and nudity are the devil, and will cause irrefutable harm to all involved. They are both completely unnatural, taboo, and should never be discussed or viewed by any decent people. Violence, however, is completely natural, moralistically acceptable, and will not likely harm anyone. That's the American way.