Slashdot Mirror
Common Sense Beats Out MN Games Law
superdan2k writes "A federal court judge dropped the bomb on Minnesota's pending gaming law that would have fined minors for purchasing games with the mature or adults-only ratings. The lawsuit against the legislation was brought by video game manufacturers who claimed that it infringed on free speech. The judge agreed, and the ruling said that the state had failed to prove that graphic video games were harmful to children."
I don't understand why the minors would get fined anyway. Like cigarettes, the fine should go to the retailer - if a fine should exist at all.
This is great news. When are people going to realize that it is not the responsibility of the state to prevent bad parenting? Laws that restrict game play are unconstitutional.
"One of the most popular games in America teaches a little boy how to have sex with a prostitute and then beat her to death, and then rewards that," said Rep. Jeff Johnson, who sponsored the bill in the House. "I think some small restriction on that is reasonable."
Let's rewind about 30 minutes to where little boy's mother bought the game for little boy despite game retailer's warning that the game might not be appropriate for him.
What is the point of having ratings if they aren't enforced? If the game says M, only those only over 17 should be able to buy it. If you are under that age, there should be a penalty of some sort.
How can you fine somone under the age of 18? They are not a legal adult.
"Minnesota lawmakers hoped their approach - penalizing the minors who got the games, instead of the retailers who sold or rented them - would have fared better in court than overturned state laws that went after retailers in Illinois, California, Michigan and elsewhere."
That's real good, fine your customers. Who these lawyers talk to the RIAA?
The retailers should definitely do a better job of not selling to minors. Can they ask for ID?
Parents need to just step up and pay more attention to what their children are doing, until the become an adult, and do what they want.
What I don't get is why bad social policy is so frequently good political policy.
These lawmakers have to know after repeated rulings of unconstitutionality that this type of law won't stick around. Why do they insist on passing more of them, rather than educating the population on personal responsibility and the constitution?
Your opponent can't accuse you of being in bed with the videogames industry and trying to foist violence on minors if they understand why this type of law won't work in the first place.
Maybe I'm giving the average American too much credit.
It would have fined youths under age 17 $25 for renting or buying video games designed for adults - those rated "M" for mature or "AO" for adults only. The law also would have required stores to post warning signs about the fines.
If they're under 17, wouldn't the partents pay the fine anyways? thus not teaching the kids a lesson. Stupid law, glad it's dead.
The laws beat common sense!
Anyway, is fining kids really going to "keep them safe"?
The video game censorship law is just a symptom of a larger problem; the resurgence of social conservatism in the U.S. Whether in the form of media censorship, gay marraige bans, partial-birth abortion bans, flag-burning ban, etc., it appears that social conservativism has taken hold at the state level as well as the federal. I can only hope that dissatisfaction with the current administration impacts the midterm elections.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
The shops should have their business license removed for selling clearly Mature/Adult only materuial to minors.
Here in the UK shops are fined large amounts, and even risk prison for breaking age based laws.
Here is an overview from the trading standards:
Video cassette tapes/DVDs/computer games
You must not sell, rent or supply a video cassette or DVD unless the British Board of Film Classification has classified it.
You must not supply (including hiring out) a video cassette tape or DVD to a person who is under the age marked on the video cassette tape/DVD.
Most computer games are exempt from classification but if the game is classified then it must not be supplied to a person who is under the age marked on the game.
The age restrictions are 12,15 and 18 .
The maximum fine for selling or renting an age restricted cassette/DVD to a child under the specified age is £5000 and/or up to 6 months imprisonment.
Restricted 18 video cassettes and DVDs can be supplied only in licensed sex shops to persons 18 years of age and older.
liqbase
Wish there was some unsettled place on this hunk of rock the free thinking minority of this country could migrate to and start up a new country.
Your morals are not my morals and it's my freaking right not to get them shoved down my throat!!
Just some frustration oozing out, I'm better now...
It would have fined youths under age 17 $25 for renting or buying video games designed for adults - those rated "M" for mature or "AO" for adults only. The law also would have required stores to post warning signs about the fines.
I'm wondering how they were planning to enforce this. Obviously they can't rely on store clerks to ask for ID, since they were considering putting this law into effect in the first place. So what then? Have a cop watch the checkout lines? Oh, I know.....search warrants for all residences with children 17 or younger!
I'm thinking this is just another scare tactic. Another "this could happen to you!" situation to worry about, in the hopes that it'll stop kids from trying to buy/rent games that they shouldn't be.
Personally, I think a better solution would be to fine the store when this happens.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
think of the children!?
:)
Couldn't resist.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
Part of the problem is the ESRB is a voluntary ratings system done in association with the video gaming companies and is an industry guideline, Not a government mandated guideline as with alcohol or cigars. Thus the ESRB has no legal teeth behind enforcment and companies are free to sell it to whoever they please. Some businesses are starting to crack down on it be requiring an adult present before making the purchase. But the situation is akin to buying an R rated movie then giving it to the kid to enjoy. For some reason video games are not considered by parents in the same way as movies are. Whats the usual reaction to letting a kid see a movie like 8MM or Last Man Standing, sex and violence galore, people are horrified about that... let the kid play a game like GTA? sure its just a video game...
I'm a bit torn about this ruling. Part of it may be that I don't fully understand this bill, nor the implications thereof. As I understand it, this bill would have prohibited minors from renting/buying adult oriented games (M/AO) under threat of a fine. Is that it? I thought the objective here was to prevent retailers from selling these games to minors under threat of fines to the retailer.
I don't necessarily agree that video games are harmful to all children. However, I would agree that they can, somewhat, de-sensitize them. And, I would agree that certain children may be negatively influenced by some games. Granted, those children generally have a host of other behavioural issues that should have been red flagged long before video games really get into the picture.
Regardless of whether or not the games will "hurt" the children, however, they have been rated for adults. Because of this, I personally believe that retailers should be encouraged to prevent the sale of these games to minors unless an adult is present. Encouraged as in the guidelines given to them by the ESRB, not fines and laws. These guidelines are, of course, a deterant, and not something that will prevent a child from ever getting their hands on the game. That part is up to the parent.
As a parent, (yes, I'm a geek AND I got the girl.. I'm still trying to figure out how the hell that happened myself) I know what limits my children have. I pay attention to what they watch, read, play, and even who they hang out with. I'm not a dictator by any means, but I do attempt to influence what my children say and do without forcing my opinions on them. They are free to make their own decisions, within reasonable limits. I do not allow my children to play games such as GTA. I do, however, allow my older son (12) to play games such as Unreal Tournament, 007, and some of the M-rated racing games. Of course, I checked them out beforehand. And I have yet to see him driving down the street, with a BFG, taking out the neighbors.
I find it disheartening that our society seems so hell bent on not only allowing, but encouraging the government to set forth laws to regulate how I raise my children. I'm aware that there are parents out there who are completely useless and should never have been allowed to reproduce, but laws like this infringe on my rights as a parent. I should be able to raise my child as I see fit.
I think laws like this should be beaten down, but I think reasonable guidelines should be put in place. And I definitely don't like the free speach flag being waved around as an excuse for stuff like this.
XenoPhage
Technological Musings
"Minnesota lawmakers hoped their approach - penalizing the minors who got the games, instead of the retailers who sold or rented them - would have fared better in court than overturned state laws that went after retailers in Illinois, California, Michigan and elsewhere."
Ie, Minnesota lawmakers decided to target minors with their unconstitutional law because minors (ie, their parents) have a harder time fighting back. It's times like this I wish lawmakers could be brought up on treason charges for intentionally (and in this case, repeatedly) making unconstitutional laws. It's stupid that they can literally modify a few words in an overturned law which have no real effect on the original claim against it (in this case, freedom of speech) and then make it a new law.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Legislatures, especially state legislatures, pass some crazy bad laws. Some of them are inherently bogus, some of them conflict with other laws, some are plainly unconstitutional. Judges rule all the time on this insane hodgepodge of bullshit streaming out of legislature. I don't see any other way to do it. The alternative would be hundreds of conflicting laws, varying by city, regarding things like gay marriage, abortion, guns, etc.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Many/most places in the US will not serve alcohol to people who look under 30 or 35 and cannot prove it although the age limit is 21.
And in a roughly similar time frame, large amounts of the food supply start incorporating loads of corn syrup. An equally plausible explanation.
Also in roughly the same time frame, the country started a shift to the right politically. Not a plausible explanation unless you think being Republican makes you fat, but the structure of your argument would support that conclusion too.
I'm 6'2" and 170 lbs and have played video games since I was 4, for the past two decades. Just stop these knee jerk reactions.
Does this mean that they can't fine minors for buying stuff like Playboy because of free speech?
I agree that individual stores should have the right to refuse to sell whatever they want to minors: it's their call... but it's not right to have stuff be mandatory unavailable to minors under threat of breaking the law.
Actually, my understanding is that it is unlawful to serve alcohol to a minor, unless you are said minor's legal guardian, or sell alcohol to a minor. I don't think there's anything illegal about drinking as a minor.
However, I dare say that possession of a fake ID is at least worth a small fine...
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
If legislation like this were to be put into place, how would online retailers/distributors like Amazon or Valve (Steam) be held accountable, if at all?
When politicians (supposed role models) stop filling our televisions with news of blow jobs, fraud, and lies then maybe i'll worry about animated games that a kid has to ask his mother to pay for.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
You mean like the way no one has proven the harm of pornography to minors?
As a society (in the US anyway) we almost 'instinctively' assume that sexually explicit material is unsuitable for children to view. No one ever asks why or asks for proof of its danger.
And here we have another form of entertainment that many intuitively feel is a danger to children, and now a judge is asking for proof?
I hold that depictions of sex are not harmful to children any more than graphical violence is. Why are the two treated so differently? Is it our religious social core?
> "It is impossible to determine from the data presented whether violent video games cause violence, or whether violent individuals are attracted to violent video games." :)
... if you think about it, a fine on the child is a fine for the parents. There are things for which you can punish a parent, but I believe that teaching a minor to curse is not one of them, despite the fundamental pluralist's way of thinking.
I don't have the data that they have, but statistically it is impossible to distinguish the cause from the effect... all you can say is that they are correlated. Trust me, I am (going to graduate as) a mathematican, we know that stuff.
> Minnesota lawmakers hoped their approach - penalizing the minors who got the games, instead of the retailers who sold or rented them - would have fared better in court than overturned state laws that went after retailers in Illinois, California, Michigan and elsewhere.
So basically, they are saying that they tried the other way around, it didn't work, and they tried this way. I really don't believe that they expected it to pass
I guess I don't get the argument against this law. Company A makes a product that parents don't think their kids should have access to. In spite of this, kids still manage to get it. Legislature bans stores selling the product to minors. Somehow, Company A's inability to get their products into the hands of minors represents infringement on their free speech.
/. are those who just got back the ability to buy M video games in MN.
Tell me, who benefits from this law being reversed? Kids? Parents? Execs at and shareholders of the companies making offensive games?
The ratings system is subjective, and laws are never the best way to fix social issues, but there are reasons minors can't drink, smoke, vote, serve in the military, etc.
I submit that the most vocal supporters of this ruling on
If your 15 yr old daughter goes out to the mall and comes home 3 hours later without taking drugs, drinking booze or having sex, she's made a choice. If yer kid doesn't get (buy,steal,borrow from a buddy, get a buddy's big bro to buy, etc) that violent video game, he's made a choice.
All the laws prohibiting kids from doing things are attempting to do the impossible: take away choice. The fact is, once the kid knows it's out there, every minute he/she doesn't go for it is a decision made.
Choice exists no matter what the law says. All the law can do is surprise the kid at how nasty and unjust the consequences can be for making simple "mistakes".
And btw - I'll bet there's very few times that a kid sees something and is *shocked* cuz he's totally unprepared for it emotionally. That's the problem they're trying to get at - kids' emotional health being afflicted by shocking material they're unprepared for.
You know what a kid is prepared for when that dvd is slammed in the slot? Fiction. Fake action, trash talking, lights flashing. The shock that may happen is always limited to what the kid can imagine that fictional image may represent in real life - and that's a self-regulating mechanism. A person is simply unable to imagine something that harmfully shocks them. Their own emotional systems will prevent it - like trying to hold your breath too long. Eventually, the internal systems take over and correct for the kid's idiocy.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Seriously, it's actually why it's in the law books. They were debating bringing this up at a federal level, to hit drug dealers harder. Jokes about the IRS aside, they really do care about lost revenue.
In some (I think most, if not all) other countries judges can't strike down laws.
They can't here in the Netherlands.
Somehow we manage.
I can't help but feel that the video game publishers lucked-out on who heard their case. James Rosenbaum isn't inclined to assume that technology invalidates common sense application of the law. To this end, he has written several "thought articles" about search and seizure involving data. His article "In defense of the DELETE key" attempts to set some rational restrictions of mining a hard drive for incriminating evidence. He has expanded on this with several other "In defense of ..." articles:
In Defense of the Delete Key
In Defense of the Hard Drive
In Defense Of The Sugar Bowl
Show someone fondling a breast and it's an R rating and kids can't see it. Show someone shooting that breast and any little kiddie is welcomed in. Crazy. A game that shows someone having sex with a prostitute then killing that prostitute for points and favors in the game already has my undying emnity and shouldn't even be up for sale since in my opinion it has crossed the line into depravity. I know that company, I haven't bought any of their games nor will I ever buy any of their games and anything that any congress or legislature can do to make it harder for children to get them is fine by me. And the other part of that is that every damn parent shouldn't be waiting for their government to protect and supervise their child. Parents need to get off their butts and know what their kids are up to and take care of all of this themselves.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
I live in St Paul MN, and was just listening to a story about this on MPR. It sounds like the emphasis was on the lack of proof they cause harm. Mike hatch, the ex-attourney general currently running for govenor, is now attemping to get said proof according to the statement he made today... so dont expect this issue to stay dead.
Before elections I expect to see more of a fuss on this issue in MN.
The law creates the exclusive right of the broadcast oligopoly to television spectrum. The broadcast oligopoly tends not to accept advertisements for movies that are not rated.
The judicial branch got that power in the early 1800s, it isn't anything new, and it works pretty well for us in my opinion. I think it adds to the checks and balances, not detracts from it.
We don't want minors to watch certain content but there is no scientic proof that it does damage. In my view mainstream content is certainly more 'damaging' to minors than certain offensive content. Just think of Barbie or the Grimm Brothers.
Anyway, the EU asks for opinions on mobile commerce/cell phones and protection of minors.
Why is it that anytime any questionable happening goes on in the US we hear cries of "it's a police state" or "It's a new age christian death camp" but when the government basically dismisses the assertions of a few loose cannons that make us (no pun intended) look bad no one has a cool enough of a head to realize the next time a story like yesterday's police/camera phone story gets posted that basically it's the same bad noise from a very isolated group?
For fucks sake people, get it together. You look like a bunch of reactionary jackasses.
Is it staffed by people who are accountable to the electorate, even if only indirectly?
If not, why the fuck should they be allowed to have control over ratings and thus possible fines? Why should a non-governmental body have -any- ability to essentially make stuff illegal?
Say I set myself up as some kind of standards body for comic books - I give them ratings based on content. Would that suddenly give me the authority to rate things in such a way that the police/civil authorities should take seriously and fine people for?
Absurd. This is completely absurd. There shouldn't be fines, the government should stay the fuck out of this entirely. Let parents handle it. It's just a bullshit hotbutton issue like gay marriage and flag burning to get the mouth breathers all hot and bothered and distract them from real issues that are going on.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Or nipplegate.
Enough said, right?
You americans seem to have zero problems shitting on that precious "no law against free speech" if instead of death, gore and murder a single piece of anatomy is visible (outside a mutilated corpse, of course. Corpses are always fine).
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
The law doesn't require a rating in order for a film to be exhibited; it just requires a rating for the film to be exhibited to an audience.
Huh? What are you talking about? The law does no such thing. Yes, most of the movies advertised on television are rated by the MPAA, and yes, producers and directors are known to gerrymander their films around in order to make them fit into a certain ratings category, in order to attract a larger audience. But there's no law making it so. You could make a totally unrated movie, and then run it in theaters that didn't mind playing an unrated film (art houses, mostly), and advertise it. Assuming your advertisement itself isn't offensive, I can almost guarantee you that no broadcaster or other media outlet is going to turn you down, provided you can put cash on the barrel-head. (They run ads for Girls Gone Wild on late-night TV, you know.)
There are lots of "unrated" movies advertised all the time! Just a few days ago I saw an advertisement for an unrated version of some teen movie (something American Pie-ish) on television. It's advertising the fact that it's unrated; basically using the term 'unrated' as a euphemism for smutty.
The movie rating system works fairly well, I think, and could be a good example of what video games will probably end up going with, in the absence of unnecessary and heavy-handed government interference. The ratings and standards are handled by a private body, the retailers cooperate and limit their sales to minors based on those ratings, everyone is basically happy.
The only government regulation of movies is where it gets into true obscenity law (but it's pretty rare), or over-the-air broadcast regulations and the FCC rules. The justification for the FCC regulations -- and I'm not convinced it's a great justification -- is that the airwaves are a "public resource," and there's a resulting mandate for regulation as to what you can say there. [1] But there's no such regulation of non-broadcast TV, hence we have HBO and Cinemax running soft-core porn at night and shows that wouldn't past muster on the broadcast networks during the day. [2]
The movie system, for the most part anyway, works. It does so without a lot of regulation or government oversight, and it's a mistake to just ignore that when thinking about video games. Games already have most of the framework there; the ESRB does the ratings, and most of the stores honor them in terms of sales. If the few stores selling "M" games to minors is a problem that concerns that many people, then arrange boycotts or letter-writing campaigns to the stores. Using the governement to do the job is employing a bludgeon when a screwdriver (thumb screw?) would have worked just as well, and with less collateral damage to others' rights.
[1] I don't disagree with this sentiment on principle; actually I think it's a good one. But if the airwaves truly are a 'public resource,' then I think the FCC is doing an absolutely shit job of managing them for the greatest public good in other respects. I'd just like some consistency here.
[2] The limits of what's shown on cable is basically governed only by public opinion and not regulation; hence why I'm pretty sure what's on late-night cable in Utah is different from Las Vegas, Nevada -- as it should be.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This is so similar "Global Warming doesn't exist" attitude where blatant facts of gun violence in schools is completely ignored. Violent upbringing encouraging kid snipers to kill people in the inner cites and elsewhere. And these immature gamers are willing to take all their information directly from the lying perverted mouths of large gaming corporations over scientific evidence. Gee I wonder why GNU/open source gaming is so much more quality and less dependent on violence and garbage to sell.
Just because a guy works in a cave is no reason to prevent him from buying video games.
If you want to call yourself that, then go ahead. But you hold no values of what defines a conservative. Centrist, possibly, but certainly not a conservative.
Including the kids. Some day they may grow up to sell a product themselves. Also, the fact that the parents can complain is their right. Banning the games would soon erode into these parents not able to complain down this slippery slope. So yes, the kids, and even the parents benefit from this law being reversed. Their free speech has been protected, regardless if they realise it or not.
Now my girl friend an I can have sex on the bus as an expression of our freedom of speech!
maybe so, but there is atleast some recourse to correcting bad law, vote in new legislatures that will change them. When the courts decide good from bad laws there is no in put from anyone and no means to correct it. Very, very bad.
This isn't an issue of free speech. Thousands of kids are screened every day from seeing X-rated or R-rated movies, but why is it that when it's video games the rules are different? If parents want to buy M-rated games for their kids, just as if parents want to take their kids to see R-rated movies, that's fine. But there should be some sort of screening done.
Rep. Jeff Johnson is about par for the social conservative course here now. He's not evil, he's really something of a moderate in the context of today's MN Republican party.
We used to produce better, more decent sorts of Republicans, whom I have voted for in the past. Our formerly proud Minnesota tradition of "Independent Republicans" has died hard. The state party stripped the word "Independent" from its title, even, in an effort to close ranks with the national party. They had a very popular sitting governor in Arne Carlson -- fiscally convservative, socially liberal -- whom they failed to endorse on his way to a resounding reelection a while back. Carlson wasn't asinine enough on social issues.
This guy comes from the Twin Cities area -- notably liberal, nothing like outstate -- and says his priorities are "tax relief, education reform, and limiting government spending and regulation." Recent news items about him include eminent domain legislation meant to protect private land and a bunch of stuff about Meth laws. "Education reform" will mean vouchers for private school, almost certainly.
Probably this bill was a sop to "the base" given his relatively more moderate stances in general. We have much worse here now. (Meet Michele Bachman.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.