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 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.

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]

Each week Dennis McCauley contributes The Political Game, a column on the collision of politics and video games:

Picture a crisp Saturday morning in early November, 2006. Elections are only three days away. A flatbed truck draped in red, white and blue bunting cruises slowly through the parking lot of a busy shopping mall. A four-piece brass band, its members seated on bales of hay, belts out John Philip Souza tunes from the back of the truck. Signs on both doors read "Mike Hatch for Governor."

It's a campaign stop. A middle-aged man dressed in a pinstripe suit works the crowd of shoppers near the mall entrance. He is the candidate.

"Hi, I'm Attorney General Mike Hatch and I'm running for Governor of Minnesota."

"Hi, Mike, my name is Dave and I'm a gamer."

U.S. District Judge James M. Rosenbaum exercised his judicial muscle today, striking down Minnesota bill HF1298, a bill that sought to impose a $25 fine on minors who purchase M- or AO-rated games. Like a gamer to an automatic weapon a moth to a flame, the ESA filed a lawsuit shortly thereafter.

The sagacious sponsor of the bill, Minnesota state representative Jeff Johnson, correctly predicted Judge Rosenbaum's ruling in May when he said, "... we are using the ESRB ratings. I can see a court saying you can't use private industry to create the law, but there's no way around that because everything else anyone has tried has been unsuccessful. The other piece is that so far no court has found a strong enough link (between game violence and youth violence)."

So they tried to circumvent the constitutional problems by relying on ESRB ratings to determine inappropriate content, to which Rosenbaum returned, "The First Amendment ... was certainly established to keep the government from becoming the arbiter of what constitutes 'worthless' or 'disgusting' speech." Zing! Johnson also acknowledged the shaky scientific grounds his law was predicated on, to which the ruling said "the state has shown no convincing evidence that children are harmed by [video games]."

For those keeping score at home, let's review:

• St. Louis unconstitutional
  
• Indianapolis unconstitutional
• Washington State unconstitutional
• Illinois unconstitutional
• Michigan unconstitutional
• Maryland (doesn't really count, so we'll let 'em have it)
• California (currently under review by Federal District Court Judge Ronald Whyte)
  
• Louisiana (lawsuit has been filed)
• Oklahoma (lawsuit has been filed)

... and now ...

• Minnesota unconstitutional
  

Your move, opportunist politicians of all stripes.

[Thanks, Nick]

Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty signed into law yesterday bill SF0785, which targets minors attempting to purchase M and AO-rated games. Such persons under the age of 17 (and thus, likely their parents) will be required by law to pay a fine "civil penalty of not more than $25." ESA president Doug Lowenstein has expressed his intentions to file a lawsuit to have the law struck down, citing how "six courts in five years ... have struck down similar laws, ruling that they were unconstitutional."

We doubt the law, which theoretically could see 12-year olds receiving fines, will survive the lawsuit. According to Lowenstein, "to enact 'feel good' bills knowing they're likely to be tossed by the courts is the very height of cynicism." What both sides need to remember, however, is that they share one common principle: that children should not be playing ultra-violent games like Grand Theft Auto.

Call us cynical, but frivolous legislation (and the subsequent lawsuits that strike them down) will be around for a very long time, until lawmakers have another target or ideal they can use to exemplify their "pro-family" platform. Books, dancing, film, rock and roll, television ... video games is just the latest in a long line of entertainment decried as moral decadence.

Despite constitutional setbacks regarding similar bills across the country (most recently in Michigan), Minnesota state representative Jeff Johnson seeks to limit the sale of violent video games to minors with a new approach: fine the underage consumers of M or AO-rated games and not the retailers. Bill HF1298 also requires that retailers display signs explaining (the evidently not self-explanatory) ratings system that prominently marks (mars?) the packaging of every game sold in this country.

While the bill has passed the Minnesota House, it still requires the signature of Governor Tim Pawlenty before it becomes law ... and before the gaming industry mounts its challenge. Speaking with GamePolitics, Johnson was cognizant of the constitutional issues saying, "...we are using the ESRB ratings. I can see a court saying you can't use private industry to create the law, but there's no way around that because everything else anyone has tried has been unsuccessful. The other piece is that so far no court has found a strong enough link (between game violence and youth violence)."

I would urge Representative Johnson so consider why that is. It's not for lack of trying.