Post by: Jonnyboy117 on August 01, 2006, 06:58:41 AM
Minnesota Judge Overturns Unconstitutional Video Game Law, the Entertainment Software Association Announces
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 31, 2006--The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) today hailed a ruling permanently halting implementation of a Minnesota law designed to fine minors for buying video games rated "M" for mature or "AO" for adults only, making this the seventh court since 2001 to rule such laws unconstitutional. The opinion was issued by James Rosenbaum, Chief District Judge, Court of Minnesota.
"Judge Rosenbaum's ruling proves once again that banning the sale of violent video games to minors is a direct violation of Constitutional rights," said Doug Lowenstein, president of the ESA, the trade group representing U.S. computer and video game publishers. "This ruling is of particular interest because lawmakers tried to skirt the First Amendment issue by fining minors themselves for buying the games, not retailers, as they have tried in other states. We will move immediately for reimbursement of the substantial legal fees incurred in this court fight, which the state cavalierly launched knowing that every other court in America had struck down these kinds of statutes," said Lowenstein.
In his decision, Judge Rosenbaum stated that "there is no showing whatsoever that video games, in the absence of other violent media, cause even the slightest injury to children." The Court then raised questions about the Legislature's motives in passing such an obviously unconstitutional law, stating "several other states have tried to regulate minors' access to video games. Every effort has been stricken for violating the First Amendment....The Court will not speculate as the motives of those who launched Minnesota's nearly doomed effort to "protect" our children. Who, after all, opposes protecting children? But, the legislators drafting this law cannot have been blind to its constitutional flaws."
Regarding evidence presented by the state purporting to show a link between violent games and violent behavior and thoughts, the court said, "there is a paucity of evidence linking the availability of video games with any harm to Minnesota's children at all."
"Instead of squandering taxpayers' money on frivolous lawsuits and attempting to enact such clearly unconstitutional legislation, we encourage lawmakers to invest in what we have asked for from the beginning -- a cooperative effort on behalf of the industry, legislators, retailers, parent groups and health groups to work together to educate parents about the ESRB ratings and content descriptors, and the parental controls available in all next generation consoles to help parents make sound choices about the games their kids play," said Lowenstein.
The ESA is the U.S. association dedicated to serving the business and public affairs needs of the companies publishing interactive games for video game consoles, handheld devices, personal computers, and the Internet. ESA members collectively account for more than 90 percent of the $7 billion in entertainment software sales in the U.S. in 2005, and billions more in export sales of entertainment software. For more information about the ESA, please visit www.theESA.com.
Post by: 18 Days on August 01, 2006, 08:13:05 AM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on August 01, 2006, 08:15:48 AM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on August 01, 2006, 08:47:09 AM
I didn't expect it to be effective so soon
Post by: TJ Spyke on August 01, 2006, 09:17:03 AM
Post by: Ceric on August 01, 2006, 10:17:59 AM
Post by: wandering on August 01, 2006, 12:21:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nintendogamecube86
Video games are unfairly targeted, a 11 year old kid can buy The Passion of the Christ or Monser's Ball...
Part of the problem is that I don't think that's true, actually. At least, when I went to see Kill Bill Vol. 2 (16 at the time), sneaking past an angry security guard was involved.
...while EB games could care less about selling an M rated game to a kid (at least, last time I checked. Maybe they've gotten better?) I suspect this is because most parents of videogame-playing children don't play videogames themselves, and so there's less market pressure.
In any case, I'm glad that this law was shot down, yes. And appreciate the judge's comments about lawmakers who, for political reasons, waste time on laws they know will fail.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 01, 2006, 01:15:42 PM
Post by: legendofganon on August 01, 2006, 03:01:37 PM
Post by: nolimit19 on August 01, 2006, 07:20:02 PM
18 Days: why are you so dumb?
Post by: Berto2K on August 01, 2006, 10:38:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nolimit19
as a constitutional scholar, let me say that this is a bad decision. minors do not have a constitutional right to buy explicit material. you can be against the law and against this ruling.
Nah, they have a right because each game is different and each person's definition of what explicit means is different. I could say that Space Invaders is explicit violence since it involves shooting. Shooting is a violent act. But does that make it not appropriate for a 10 yr old to play? Its the same as movies. There is no legal laws regarding movie purchasing or ticket purchasing. Those rules are all setin by the theaters and the MPAA.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on August 02, 2006, 07:02:45 AM
Post by: edgeblade69 on August 02, 2006, 07:33:52 AM
This proves why this law and all others like it have constantly been struck down. Because it's pointless.
Like someone else said video games are just the latest trend to be campaigned against by politicians. They think just because something is popular with kids and young adults (for the most part) and because it's something they don't understand that it is inherently evil and out to corrupt everyone. They did the same thing to rock and roll and other media forms and they will do it again to the next big thing after video games. Because they're ignorant and think they can get away with censoring anything and everything.
And furthermore, how would they prove a minor bought a game they weren't supposed to? Would they staff enforcement agents in every retail outlet that sells games in the entire country? That is highly unlikely. Surely a kid who is doing something "illegal," wouldn't report themselves for doing said thing. So it's left up to the parent(s) and/or the retailer(s) to report the "crime." Again, highly unlikely. It's not hard for a kid to hide a video game from his parents and retail clerks generally don't care about anything at work except getting paid and going home. The majority of them don't know the first thing about video games so they would be more than likely to pay little to no attention to a rating.
Post by: vudu on August 02, 2006, 09:23:03 AM
QuoteWait a sec ... you're only 18? What's up with all the late-night drunk posting then?
Originally posted by: wandering
... when I went to see Kill Bill Vol. 2 (16 at the time) ...
Post by: wandering on August 02, 2006, 09:46:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: nolimit19
as a constitutional scholar, let me say that this is a bad decision. minors do not have a constitutional right to buy explicit material. you can be against the law and against this ruling.
....but what about free speech? What gives the government the right to determine what material is and isn't appropriate for certain people? And, if they do have that right, how far do those powers go? Can you fine a kid for picking up a flyer that the government deems innapropriate? For staring too long at a wall with graffiti that has curse words? For owning a Che Guevara t-shirt?
Quote
Originally posted by: vuduQuoteWait a sec ... you're only 18? What's up with all the late-night drunk posting then?
Originally posted by: wandering
... when I went to see Kill Bill Vol. 2 (16 at the time) ...
erm....um....uh oh....
...Oh! Didn't I say that was just, um, a spoof of someone posting drunk? I'm pretty sure I did. Yes. That explains it.
edit: wait, what do you mean 'all'? Are you insinuating I post drunk in the funhouse regularly?
Post by: vudu on August 02, 2006, 10:26:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Man, I'm so drunk.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 02, 2006, 10:33:00 AM
Post by: nolimit19 on August 02, 2006, 12:47:01 PM
As for it being unconstitutional, I still think its kind of shaky. Minors have not reached the age of consent, and that is why there are a lot of limits on what minors can do/buy. Our judicial system distinguishes between adults and minors in most instances (sentencing, alcohol, curfews, driving, etc.)
If you want to protect the constitution, worry about the 2nd amendment, not the 1st. The US has just about the most liberal free speech laws in the world...almost to a fault. You can say anything about anyone, and it’s almost impossible to prove libel or slander. For instance, some books have to be edited from the US to UK versions for legal liability reasons (UK has much stricter laws on libel).
The US produces more "garbage" (if it’s ok for me to call it that) than any other nation.
Anyways I'm babbling about nothing. Just remember, a bad/dumb/poorly thought-out law is different from an unconstitutional one.
Post by: nolimit19 on August 02, 2006, 12:52:06 PM
Post by: Rize on August 03, 2006, 10:04:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: 18 Days
Why is USA dumb?
For the same reason every other democracy is dumb... which is that most people are dumb. I'd take dumb over despotic any day though.
Post by: Rize on August 03, 2006, 10:23:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: nolimit19
I take back everything I said. And I was kidding about being a constitutional scholar. I didn’t bother reading the first sentence of the story. If the law had been fining retailers, it would have been different, but fining the people who buy the game is dumb.
Our judicial system distinguishes between adults and minors in most instances (sentencing, alcohol, curfews, driving, etc.)
If you want to protect the constitution, worry about the 2nd amendment, not the 1st. The US has just about the most liberal free speech laws in the world...almost to a fault. You can say anything about anyone, and it’s almost impossible to prove libel or slander. For instance, some books have to be edited from the US to UK versions for legal liability reasons (UK has much stricter laws on libel).
No it would not have been different to fine retailers. In fact, all previous attempts at this kind of law have tried to fine retailers and they've all been struck down as unconstitutional. The government should not be supervising all of America's children in anyway unless an overwhelming majority of Americans want said help. And even then it's questionable if the government ought to be involved. If an individual wants to raise their kids on violent video games, that is their own business unless someone can prove that raising a kid in such a manner significantly increases their chance of directing violent energy at other people or property. It's unlikely that such a thing will ever be proven. Most sane people, children included, can easily tell the different between reality and fantasy. It's as simple as that.
As for constitutional amendments, I'd say the first, the second, the fourth, the sixth, the seventh, and tenth are all being trampled on in one way or another. The first isn't just about speech. We're supposed to have freedom of religion and yet drug law and attempts to illegalize abortion and stem cell research suggest otherwise. As for the second, gun control law is out of control. As for the fourth, police are always trying to search without a warrant, generally by coersion (usually in order to enforce our unconstitutional drug laws). The sixth, a right to a speedy trial, is greatly hindered by courts clogged with drug related cases. The seventh, meant to protect trial by jury, is relatively ineffectual with 95% of all cases never going before a jury (because the defendent often has no practical choice). Finally, the tenth is meant to reserve as much power as possible for the individual states, and yet the federal government has grown to behemoth size and grabs and retains as much power as possible as often as possible. And no, I'm not a constitutional scholar either, just an amateur.
Post by: Athrun Zala on August 03, 2006, 01:18:00 PM
Quotefor some reason I fail to see a problem with that.....
Originally posted by: vuduQuoteWait a sec ... you're only 18? What's up with all the late-night drunk posting then?
Originally posted by: wandering
... when I went to see Kill Bill Vol. 2 (16 at the time) ...
Post by: Renny on August 03, 2006, 08:31:29 PM
Post by: Bloodworth on August 03, 2006, 09:09:20 PM
As brought up by others, I don't think the constitutionality of this law is as much of an issue as the uselessness of it. There just aren't that many kids walking out of Wal Mart with M rated games. Either they're getting them from parents or they're getting them second-hand at garage sales, etc. And there's no chance of a law changing any of that.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 03, 2006, 09:19:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bloodworth
ugh, I hate videogames in politics simply because it drags politics into the forums and starts to spiral into other divisive political discussions. I am trying SO hard to use restraint and not comment on some of the off-topic political remarks.
As brought up by others, I don't think the constitutionality of this law is as much of an issue as the uselessness of it. There just aren't that many kids walking out of Wal Mart with M rated games. Either they're getting them from parents or they're getting them second-hand at garage sales, etc. And there's no chance of a law changing any of that.
Lol I am in the same boat as you, I wanted to comment on the political statements made by some but I'm avoiding it. I'm with you, my problem is that these laws are useless and personally I think the parents should be responsible for what their kids buy and not the state (within reason of course). It is funny, these laws pushed yet I believe teen violence (and violence in particular) in the U.S. has been going down!
