Slashdot Mirror
ESA Fights Minnesota Game Sales Restrictions
BaldManTom writes "ZDNet is running a story about the ESA's suit against the state of Minnesota regarding a bill which would fine anyone under the age of 17 for buying a game rated 'M' or 'AO'." From the article: "Lowenstein said that the average game buyer last year was 40 and the average player was 33. He also questioned how lawmakers reasonably expected retailers to collect the $25 fine from children."
Come on, with Ventura at the helm, what did you expect? :)
He also questioned how lawmakers reasonably expected retailers to collect the $25 fine from children.
That's easy: they'd kill a hooker and steal her money, or murder someone for their wallet. We're talking about gamers here, after all.
This is a sig. It is appended to the end of comments I post.
I agree that underage children shouldn't be able to buy M or AO rated games. But giving a fine to the child that the retailer is supposed to collect? That's ridiculous. What incentive is there for the retailer to do so? They lose a sail, and somehow they have to enfore a law? What if the child can't/won't pay? Are they supposed to detain (kidnap?) the kid?
Either ZDnet isn't giving a very good overview of the law, or this belongs on one of those dumbest law lists.
FTA
The association's most recent legal victory came in April when a federal judge in Michigan issued a permanent injunction halting the implementation of a state bill that would ban the sale of violent video games to minors. The judge rejected the state's claim that the interactive nature of video games makes them less entitled to First Amendment protections, the ESA said.
cause you know... conversations arn't interactive in the least. Guess some politician got too used to hearing themselves talk and everyone else just sit there in silence.
When any non-government agency is supposed to collect any money for the government, they usually get a cut of the money. That's how it works for sales tax, which is analogous to a fine here.
What concerns me is that, depending on how this bill is written, retailers may be given an incentive to entrap minors. What's to stop a retailer from trying to convince kids to buy these games, then charging them an additional $25 'fine' at the register when they but it (besides bad publicity, although it might garner them good publicity from some sources). Since the description of the bill FTA seems to indicate that it's not a finable offense until after the purchase, the retailer makes a profit off of the sale, and more profit off of the fine. Something just doesn't add up with this scheme.
Hurray for Political Pandering, it seems like this is an epidemic facing our states today... passing silly laws with little chance of succeeding in court, in order to increase your own political clout. Perhaps it's just that these lawmakers can't possibly believe that kids have rights under the constitution too.
If these states really wanted to protect kids, the best thing to do right now is to get into talks with the ESRB and work out a good solution to the problems they have with the rating system. If you don't think it's enforced enough, fine, but it they must realize that the rating system has to be enforced at the retail level, like the movie industry, if it has any chance of success, not at the government level.
Well I'm a Minnesotan gamer and I don't think it is that silly to prevent kids from playing rated M games. It shouldn't be a law though, I'd rather see it be a simple store policy. The movie industry doesn't have this kind of ridiculous legislation.
Shouldn't you be fined if you are under 18 for Ao games? Has anyone else noticed that some shops, like EBgames and GameStop won't sell mature games to anyone under 18, even thought M games are 17+ and meant for 17 year olds?
... would you find capitalism at its finest.
"Sorry, we can't sell you that game son but we're going to take your money anyway!"
"What do you mean you can't pay? We know you got the money because you were just about to buy that $60 game!"
I'm a Minnesotan, so it's trippy to see this here :) I was paying closer attention to our "ban gay marriage" thing honestly.
Retailers have the right to refuse sale, for any reason, but adding a fine to minors makes things a little more fuggy. First of all minors do not have a right of contract, they can bail out freely. Things like alchohol and cigarrets are prohibited, but it's more giving minors access to them that's banned, not them using it. There's a similar policy with alcohol, but it turns different because of that muggy age between 18 and 21, where people ARE liable for using while underage.
This law is essentially unenforceable, and would have a nasty time if ever challeneged in court. Now if we persecuted retailers for selling to minors without clear parental permission, there might be some merit to it. That's another issue though, and something we dont want to see.
So, even IF this bill would actually stand, I foresee certain retailers adopting a "$50 or $75 if you're under 18" rule.
Simple, you fine the child, but their guardian is responsible to pay the fine.
I say fine the store, they are guaranteed to be there for the transaction. Works for booze, guns, porn, gambling, movies, why not games too?
What is amusing is that this basically just raises the price of a game by $25. The child can still buy the game, they just have to pay more for it.
I don't know what the specific law says, but here's my opinion on the matter.
If the law is simply preventing businesses from selling games which are rated for adults to children, and if the fines are imposed on the retailers (not the customers), then I guess it's okay. An adult, any adult, could simply go in and buy it for the minor, but hopefully that adult is the legal guardian. However, game ratings should always be optional, meaning if the video game manufacturers wanted to get around this law, they could leave the video game unrated.
... so this means that a retailer gets $50 (or $60, or whatever) from a minor when they purchase an M or AO game; then they immediately charge $25 because the minor purchased an M or AO game?
Doesn't that mean they are abetting the breaking of the law, then enforcing the punishment of it?
IANAL, of course...
--darren