Minnesota's game bill loses again on appeal

by Alexander Sliwinski { Mar 17th 2008 at 6:30PM }

The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld a ruling from 2006 stopping a Minnesota bill which attemped to fine minors $25 for trying to buy M- or AO-rated games. The Star Tribune reports a three-judge panel concluded that violent video games fall under First Amendment free speech protections and therefore the law can only hold if it is proven as "necessary to serve a compelling state interest and ... is narrowly tailored to achieve that end." The state introduced evidence, but could not prove a causal relationship between violent video games and aggressive behavior in children. Massachusetts politicians should probably take note, as they drive eyes wide open into a similar legal wall.

In a statement sent to Joystiq (full text after the break), the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) stated it is both "pleased and encouraged" by today's ruling. The organization believes a combination of parental choice and oversight is the "only legal, sensible, and most importantly, effective way to empower parents." Expect a bill for the court fees soon enough, Minnesota.

[Thanks Chris, Via GamePolitics]

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) is both pleased and encouraged by todays Eight Circuit Court ruling. The court underscored what others also determined after exhaustively reviewing all relevant research: there is no causal link between video games and real-life violence.

However, we maintain a deep level of respect for legislators concerns and believe that with the ESRB ratings, parental education, and the parental controls available on all new video game consoles, there are myriad ways that those concerned can ensure that children play appropriate, parent-approved computer and video games.

In sum, we believe a combination of parental choice and parental control is the only legal, sensible, and most importantly, effective way to empower parents, and we dedicate ourselves to working with all parties to accomplish this goal.

-- Rich Taylor, Senior Vice President for Communications at the Entertainment Software Association

Tags: bill, esa, law, minnesota

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Maverick Saturn @ Mar 17th 2008 6:34PM

Sounds stupid to me, I used to get older people to buy my games for me, if not, I just borrowed from someone else and kept the games :)

How many 13 year olds walk into a shop and try to buy GTA, come off it ¬_¬

Shagittarius @ Mar 17th 2008 6:40PM

Its really more of an attempt to threaten game developers with more rigid sales laws in order to curb their use of violence in games. Its censorship through financial presures. Its a way of circumventing the 1st amendment and thank god none of these laws have succedded.

Maverick Saturn @ Mar 17th 2008 6:48PM

Lol, tell me about it.

Luckily they haven't introduced that law here....yet.

They are already thinking about making '101 Dalmations', 'Pirates of the Carribean' and 'Who framed roger rabbit' 18 certificates, simply because they feature smoking...... :|

Zarim @ Mar 17th 2008 6:56PM

It's also an attempt to show ignorant people that they're doing their best to "preserve morality" or somesuch nonsense without having to actually do anything controversial. Video games are the morality punching bag; blamed as the root of all young people's problems just like rock and roll was a generation ago.

Maverick Saturn @ Mar 17th 2008 6:58PM

There will always be something to blame, when and if games go away, next it will be sports or something :P

Kujel @ Mar 17th 2008 6:48PM

Someone should propose a bill to ban politicians! "Scorpion tank ready"

Batzarro @ Mar 17th 2008 6:51PM

Hey
http://www.vgmusic.com/music/console/nintendo/snes/Sm4perdu.mid
Game over, bill!

Batzarro @ Mar 17th 2008 6:55PM

Crap, never mind the link...

Mecandes @ Mar 17th 2008 7:18PM

Truth be told, the games industry doesn't seem to be working hard to respect the point of M ratings. Explain to me why Halo, an M-rated game, now has a Lego Halo kiddie video game in the works...?! Face it, Lego-age children in a normal household should not have any knowledge of the M-rated Halo franchise. (Same goes for the Lego Indiana Jones game, really -- those aren't children's movies, but Lego is a children's product.) Who is to blame? Bungie and Lucasfilm for exploiting their brands to ridiculous extent, or parents for buying children's products based on M-rated games, and R/PG-13 film properties?

Corbo @ Mar 17th 2008 7:24PM

If that was sarcasm and I've somehow missed it, I apologise. But you do know that the LEGO Halo thing was an April Fools' joke, right?

Nessman @ Mar 17th 2008 9:38PM

Yeah in case you missed it, it was EGM's 2008 April Issue prank. Every year they include a mock-up story, some of the more famous ones were Toad being in Melee and something about Wind Waker including OoT or something like that.

Senator Dracula @ Mar 17th 2008 11:25PM

Indiana Jones isn't a kids movie?

Robobagins @ Mar 17th 2008 7:34PM

I wonder if the ESA has started to turn a profit on being taken to court...

Mr Khan @ Mar 17th 2008 7:46PM

That would be funny

"Hey, we're a little light on the funds,"
"Dude, we should call Jack, he'll write up some bogus law for some state, then we rake it in."
"Kickass"

deadjesterx @ Mar 17th 2008 9:12PM

*sigh* More tax-payer money wasted.

This "link" between video game violence and actual violence/aggressive behavior is pure bunk.

In addition to playing violent video games as a teenager, I also listened to tons of heavy metal and would also play DnD. If these studies and politicians are to be believed, I would be a Satan-worshipping mass murderer by now.

A child is going to grow up violent due to certain social interactions (abuse at home, bullying at school, etc.) and environmental factors (like growing up in a gang-infested neighborhood). Of course these problems require an actuall plan and a whole lot of effort to solve, two things that most politicians don't bother worrying about. They're more concerned about getting elected again.

Nessman @ Mar 17th 2008 9:37PM

Woo Minnesota! Well being 17 the bill wouldn't really affect me, but i have some friends who haven't turned 17 yet who this could have affected. It's pretty outrageous.. There's some strict carding for game purchases here anyway so i don't think a fine is necessary.

I wrote a letter to my congressman about violent video games and the banning of sales freshman year and he was really opposed to allowing children purchase them, and wanted stricter laws. I personally think it's all in the parents.

vidGuy @ Mar 17th 2008 10:01PM

This was the bill closest to getting upheld and I'm glad to see that its unconstitutionality was not hidden from the court. It was a well designed bill due to the cleaned up language which kept it from being overly broad and vague and the proximity it kept to the established porn legislation.

The most telling fact is the statement about the lack of causal evidence. Without this scientifically established link, the state has no legal interest in the regulation of the sale of video games. There's no footing for a claim that such a bill would be protecting the public. It would be an arbitrary law encouraging arbitrary enforcement. No such law would be upheld by a state supreme court, much less the biggie bigs of the US Supremes.

More and more, it seems to me that those drafting these bills have very little experience in or understanding of constitutional law. I think most of us would agree that the aim of these bills - to restrict the sale of 'harmful' (violent) material to minors - as ok, but these bills are plain old unconstitutional. Minors have fewer rights than legal adults but they still have fundamental rights that no paranoid, middle-aged lawmakers can take away.