New York Governor David Patterson has signed some of the most ... well, put it this way, if you like the government wasting time, then you're going to love the recently signed New York game bill. GamePolitics reports the legislation establishes an advisory council to conduct a study between games and real-world violence. It also requires -- here's the kicker -- new video game consoles to incorporate parental lockout features by 2010 and retail games to disclose ESRB ratings. News flash: All consoles already have parental lockout features built in and ESRB ratings are prominently displayed on each game's box and disc.

For its part, the Entertainment Software Association believes the law ignores "legal precedent, common sense and the wishes of many New Yorkers in enacting this unnecessary bill." It points out that the mandates required are already voluntarily in place and the bill unfairly singles out the video game industry. The ESA asks if New York would like to convene a government commission on books, theater and film as well. It's still up in the air if the ESA will sue New York, but the lobby group has gotten good at getting game laws overturned in several states and making its money back for doing so in the process.

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) announced today that the state of Minnesota has paid $65,000 – that's $6.50 for every lake – in attorney's fees and expenses to the organization over its unconstitutional game law. The ESA claims it has now been awarded moneys totaling almost $2 million for fees and expenses incurred by defending the industry in other jurisdictions.

Bringing out fightin' words, ESA CEO Mike Gallagher said that Minnesota's taxpayers should be "outraged" by having to pay this bill after its elected officials ignored precedent and pursued a political agenda. Gallagher wants politicians to get behind the efforts of the ESRB "rather than continue to pursue unconstitutional legislation."

GamePolitics has an interview with Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb), one of the congressmen, along with Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah), attempting to pass a federal law forcing retailers to check IDs before selling M- and AO-rated games. One of the better moments in the interview is when GP asks Rep. Terry what game he was talking about when he stated there are titles players could score point for virtual rape. Terry responded, "That's a good question. I don't know of any [specific games] offhand... I just used the rape, pillage and plunder line..."

The ESA has publicly come out against the bill, with CEO Mike Gallagher saying that the bill is unconstitutional. He states the ESA shares the representatives' goals of "ensuring children are playing parent-approved computer and video games," but points out that all consoles now have parental settings which can be used to make sure kids play only the games their parents allow.

Tomorrow the Massachusetts legislature will discuss a bill that would make it illegal for minors to buy video games deemed too violent by the state (not through ESRB ratings such as M or AO). No similar law exists for movies, music or books. House Bill 1423 is dubbed a "games-as-porn" bill because the rationale used to prevent minors from buying violent video games is the same used on porn. The original bill was drafted by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino (pictured) with assistance from Jack Thompson and legislative sponsor Rep. Linda Dorcena Forry (D).

GamePolitics points out HB1423 is based on a failed Utah bill and, given the history of other similar bills, it seems odd that Massachusetts would potentially be putting itself (and taxpayer dollars) at risk of repaying the ESA for fighting this bill in court.

LawsofPlay's Anthony Prestia gained audience with US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to ask him what he thought about the game laws we've seen shot down one by one, by two, by three, over the years. Scalia, traditionally one of the most conservative members of the court, believes that constitutional precedent holds that minors may be subjected to prohibitions that adults aren't.

Scalia's remarks imply that if a game law banning the sale of mature-rated games to minors ever made it to the docket he would affirm it -- really, no shock there. He clarifies that this would not put a ban on parents buying M-rated games for their children and that he believes video games (as long as it isn't declared "obscene") are protected by the First Amendment. As stated before, many lower courts clearly don't hold Justice Scalia's beliefs.

[Via GamePolitics]