A bipartisan bill proposed in the House seeks to require video game retailers to check IDs before selling M- or AO-rated games to minors. Variety reports Reps. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Lee Terry (R-Neb) have proposed the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act to protect children, as Terry puts it, from some games where "scores are often earned by players who commit 'virtual' murder, assault and rape."

As GamePolitics points out, both representatives have tried and failed at taking on video games before. If the bill becomes law, retailers who don't post a sign explaining the ratings system or sell an M-rated game to a minor would be charged a $5000 civil penalty.

[Via GamePolitics]

As Massachusetts legislators meet today to discuss HB1423, a bill that would restrict access of minors to video games deemed too violent by the state, the normally obtuse Boston Herald has weighed in on the issue with a shockingly sane editorial.

The newspaper lays out that the bill is another example of Boston Mayor Menino, who drafted the bill with Jack Thompson, trying to throw a "big idea against the wall in the hope that it might stick." The paper points out that just yesterday a similar, constitutionally murky bill failed, and asks if "lawmakers sponsoring the bill [are] willing to find money in their budgets to fight the inevitable court challenge?" The Boston Herald piece concludes that the mayor needs to make better use of his time than going after "such low-hanging fruit." We don't know about low-hanging, but it's definitely rotten and is going to cause taxpayers financial pain later between court costs and inevitably paying back the ESA for wasting its time.

[Via GamePolitics]

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]

A new bill to be proposed by Florida Rep. Robert Wexler (D) would seek to exempt "games of skill" from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). While the obvious goal is to protect poker from the UIGEA, the bill would presumably allow for the establishment of online betting networks for most video games. While casinos in Second Life (featuring games of chance, like slots, roulette, etc.) would remain illegal, theoretically, a company could establish a site that took round by round bets on Halo 3 matches, inviting leet slayers to put they monies where they mouths at.

Of course, the UIGEA was established in part to quell the enormous debt that online poker players have amassed, so don't expect this bill to float on by Congress. Still, just imagine the hustler-like subculture that would grow from out of the basements of red-eyed gaming junkies if the bill did pass. Sorta terrifying. Sorta tempting.

[Thanks, dark54555]

The Indiana State Senate has elected to stall legislation that would have made the sale of M- and AO-rated games to minors unlawful and punishable by up a $1,000 fine. Despite being approved by a Senate committee earlier this week, the bill has been deemed unconstitutional in its current state and will be passed along to a study committee for further evaluation -- and, as co-sponsor Sen. David Ford (R) hopes, revised to pass under the First Amendment. "Eventually we're going to have to deal with it," warned Sen. Vi Simpson (D), the bill's other co-sponsor.

[Via GamePolitics]

Earlier this week, Utah's Jack Thompson-authored video game bill was pulled by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff because he believed the bill would be found unconstitutional. This, of course, sent Thompson into a whirling tizzy and caused him to do the typical press release pimp-slap against Shurtleff.

Thompson writes, "This is a constitutional bill. I ought to know. I drafted one nearly identical to it for Louisiana, and we got it passed unanimously... The federal judge declared it unconstitutional because, he said, 'there is no evidence that these games are harmful. The Attorney General has provided me no evidence.' And the judge was right, because the Louisiana AG took what we call 'a dive.' ... because he wanted the law to fail."

Thompson is in Utah today giving a speech at the ultra-conservative Eagle Forum in Salt Lake City -- so we're sure some lovely barbs will be thrown at Shurtleff. AG Shurtleff probably wasn't too keen on having Utah suffer the same fate as Illinois, which was forced to pay back the gaming industry the half-million they spent fighting a similar bill that was deemed unconstitutional. Next stop on the Thompson anti-game express: Massachusetts. All aboard!

California Assemblywoman Lori Saldana could soon introduce a bill into state legislature that would halt companies like EA from including spyware technologies in their games. Battlefield 2142 has come under scrutiny for requiring players to install software that collects personal data from users' PCs and transfers it to foreign servers for advertising purposes. Consumers aren't warned of the adware application until opening the game box.

Beth Givens of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse calls EA's methods "particularly vile," prompting Saldana to consider legislation. "A parental notice telling them private information might be at risk is important to have," Saldana told a local news station.

[Via GamePolitics]

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) has proposed a bill that would require the ESRB to play games in their entirety before providing a rating. This, like so much other legislation, establishes how little the government knows about games, making us concerned when it tries to legislate gaming.

The punch-line, as you've guessed, is that there's not enough time for the ESRB to play every game. That's like asking a chef to make every possible meal before rating a restaurant. And how do you decide when an MMO, or even a repetitive game like Tetris, is complete?

Under the current rating system, publishers provide the ESRB with video of the gameplay and detailed information about a game's content. The ESRB may also play the game, but the group relies most on publishers' full disclosure. If the publisher lies about the game, that company faces fines and the possibility that the ESRB won't rate its future releases. (Most major chains won't stock unrated titles.)

Legislation like this, where our representatives don't understand the subject of their bills, makes us uncomfortable. We hope that logic will end this proposal, but logic seems to evaporate the closer we get to Congressional elections.

[Via: Digg]