Minnesota game law's only recourse is Supreme Court
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ May 9th 2008 at 6:00PM }
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 (Page 1 of 1)
Sora267 @ May 9th 2008 6:10PM
If the Supreme Court accepts it, I'll hop the border to Canada due to the failure of our court system.
Markez (MKWii 4339-2878-5120) @ May 9th 2008 6:17PM
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.
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ May 10th 2008 8:57AM
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 Shame the Supreme Court gets to interpret an out-of-date doccument that was never intended to deal with digital entertainment and basically assert their opinion justifying it with a few choice words.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 :-)
Volomon @ May 9th 2008 6:21PM
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.
rowd149 @ May 9th 2008 6:22PM
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.
Mr Khan @ May 9th 2008 6:23PM
Ahh, Scalia
Figures he'd side with it. Guy's never done anything to merit the water, food, and air he's consumed
License to ill @ May 9th 2008 10:56PM
Scalia = Douche...
born2kill @ May 9th 2008 6:35PM
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.
Nick the Hero of Canton @ May 9th 2008 7:02PM
If this law is passed, they damn well better pass one for film, music, and BOOKS.
LaughingTarget @ May 9th 2008 7:24PM
Scalia != Supreme Court. There are eight others sitting there on the bench.
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ May 10th 2008 9:00AM
Yes, shame most of them are extremely right wing.
LaughingTarget @ May 10th 2008 9:19AM
Not that being left wing would help in this situation.
Microswirl @ May 9th 2008 8:16PM
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+?
Ben @ May 9th 2008 8:54PM
That's not what Scalia said. He can't prejudge a law's constitutionality either way before the case gets there. No judge can.
hai2u @ May 9th 2008 10:46PM
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.
john @ May 10th 2008 12:52PM
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.
TheOverlord#2 can has Mario Karts?(MK:2578-3517-9859) @ May 10th 2008 1:49PM
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.