GamePolitics reports that the 8th Circuit Court has declined an "en banc" review of the Minnesota "fine the buyer" video game law, meaning the only place left to run for the currently unconstitutional law is the Supreme Court of the United States. Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson hasn't said whether she'd go that far, but if she does pursue it and the justices decided to hear arguments, it would be the first time the Supreme Court dealt with a video game law case .
With the United States Supreme Court's current makeup, a game law case could go pretty badly for the industry. Justice Antonin Scalia has said if a game law banning the sale of mature-rated games to minors ever made it to the docket he would affirm it, but that's not what the Minnesota law is about. The question before the court would be whether Minnesota would have the right to fine a minor $25 for attempting to buy an M- or AO-rated title.
Reader Comments (17)
Posted: May 9th 2008 6:17PM MarkezJM said
I don't know about fining minors for simply trying to buy a M or AO title makes any sense. Enforce store policy that's already on the books and they shouldn't be selling to minors anyway.
I'm not a huge Scalia fan, but an actual law banning the sale of M or AO games to minors would give lousy parents one less cop-out when it comes to whining about children's access to M/AO games?
Silly it has come this far but it is what it is suppose.
Reply
I'm not a huge Scalia fan, but an actual law banning the sale of M or AO games to minors would give lousy parents one less cop-out when it comes to whining about children's access to M/AO games?
Silly it has come this far but it is what it is suppose.
Posted: May 10th 2008 8:57AM (Unverified) said
What!? No. That law can't be defended. If I was part of that state legislature i'd filibuster 'til i was blue in the face again and again. Shame the Supreme Court gets to interpret an out-of-date doccument that was never intended to deal with digital entertainment and basically assert their opinion justifying it with a few choice words.
On the up side, this is an awesome point to use in a politics exam. And so very recet, too :-)
Reply
On the up side, this is an awesome point to use in a politics exam. And so very recet, too :-)
Posted: May 9th 2008 6:21PM (Unverified) said
It won't pass its ridiculous, hell I didn't even know you could fine a minor I thought it was always his parents? It doesn't seems right at all. Fining a minor? Really I mean at what point would they be fined when they actually purchase it or in the process of purchasing it. In the latter you could just say you made a mistake and get away from the fine. In the former you would still have the game.
Its a dumbass law.
Reply
Its a dumbass law.
Posted: May 9th 2008 6:22PM rowd149 said
Before you all get your panties in a bunch, remember that for a case to be heard before the Supreme Court, they have to AGREE to hear it. And that means they have to look over it and say that the issue is important enough to the country's interests. Not "oh noes my chainsaw bayonets!" important, but "People's lives in this country may change irreversibly" important. Gun control, abortion, issues of constitutionality. And they only hear a certain number of cases a year; most get rejected.
Personally, this just doesn't look important enough. And if it is... well, the OP has it right: we're screwed.
Reply
Personally, this just doesn't look important enough. And if it is... well, the OP has it right: we're screwed.
Posted: May 9th 2008 6:35PM (Unverified) said
This law is extremely stupid and highly unconstitutional, however so was the Telecom act of 96' and that passed, thanks to that bitch Hillary Clinton...so don't be suprised if another unconstitutional censorship law stands. Not good news for gamers. Even though we're old enough to buy these games and it seems like it wont really effect us, keep in mind that this is just to get the ball rolling. Once there is a precident set, then more and more laws can pass and eventually we'll have game taxes, surgeon general warnings, and all types of other BS regulations.
Reply
Posted: May 9th 2008 7:02PM Nick the Hero of Canton said
If this law is passed, they damn well better pass one for film, music, and BOOKS.
Reply
Posted: May 9th 2008 7:24PM LaughingTarget said
Scalia != Supreme Court. There are eight others sitting there on the bench.
Reply
Posted: May 10th 2008 9:00AM (Unverified) said
Yes, shame most of them are extremely right wing.
Reply
Posted: May 10th 2008 9:19AM LaughingTarget said
Not that being left wing would help in this situation.
Reply
Posted: May 9th 2008 8:16PM In A World said
Well, I'll never be a minor again, so I guess I don't care. What confuses me though is that M-rated games are intended for 17 and older, while a "minor" is someone who is 17 and younger... so what's 17 year old to do?! Can they or can they not buy the game? The label on the box says one thing, the "law" says another. Would ESRB ratings have to be amended? What would the difference between M and AO be if they both meant 18+?
Reply
Posted: May 9th 2008 10:46PM (Unverified) said
I can see how this is a bad idea and a good idea. If they pass this law, yes it means were going farther and farther towards making this country about exactly the things it was founded to get refuge from. All of this is valid and good and I completely agree with. The thing is, I'm about ready for some respite from the religious right and the media... I'm about willing to accept a law banning the sale of Mature video games to minors just to get them to shut the fuck up and let me play GTA and all the other violent and fucked up video games I want to play. Also.... it will surely make online gaming more fun.
Reply
Posted: May 10th 2008 12:52PM (Unverified) said
The supreme court will never take this case. The chief justice decides what cases to take, and John Roberts has created the most minimalist court in recent history.
Reply
Posted: May 10th 2008 1:49PM OMGITSJAD said
Well, the ESRB isn't supposed to be a law thing. It was created so that if a mom wanted to buy little Billy "Guns and Sex 3", the mom would be properly informed by the M rating on the box and make a decision whether or not Billy was mature enough to handle it.
Though what I don't get is the fine thing. If little Billy went to buy the game...how would he get the $50-$60 to buy the game in the first place? Only a few 15-17 year olds have jobs and if your 14 and under you can't get a job.
The ESRB should make T ratings double in size and M ratings triple in size on a box or something like that. Then maybe some of the dumbass parents of America won't have to worry about what is in a game. Also, put tons of ESRB ratings advertisements on TV.
Reply
Though what I don't get is the fine thing. If little Billy went to buy the game...how would he get the $50-$60 to buy the game in the first place? Only a few 15-17 year olds have jobs and if your 14 and under you can't get a job.
The ESRB should make T ratings double in size and M ratings triple in size on a box or something like that. Then maybe some of the dumbass parents of America won't have to worry about what is in a game. Also, put tons of ESRB ratings advertisements on TV.
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- Vita 'UMD Passport' won't be offered in US 221 comments
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review: A tempting fate 161 comments
- Blizzard taking Valve to court over 'DOTA' trademark 116 comments
- David Jaffe leaves Eat Sleep Play, layoffs hit developer [Update] 107 comments
- Don't call it a remake: Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster,' to be clear 95 comments








