Minnesota Pays Video Game Industry $65K In Fees

I Said More Ham writes "Minnesota's attorney general will drop the state's efforts to fine underage buyers of violent videogames after a high court struck down a state law as unconstitutional. The Entertainment Software Association, one of the plaintiffs in the case, announced Monday that the state paid $65,000 in attorney's fees and expenses."

Comments

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Xzzy]

This is America, no one's responsible for themselves anymore.

If something doesn't have oversight set up to protect you from yourself, it's only a matter of time before it does.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

"the age of consent is 17 in the movie world."

Does this mean you won't get charged with statutory rape if the chick is 17 and you were making out in the back row of the cinema?

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[indifferent children]

This is America, no one's responsible for themselves anymore.

We have made the world a whole lot more complicated, without somehow making people a whole lot smarter. Realistically, the only way for the majority of the population* to be able to handle that complexity** is to delegate the handling of that complexity to others. These others are either experts, or at least people who spend a lot more time than you are able to, following a topic (such as how much violence, gore, nudity, sex, 'foul' language there is in each of hundreds of video games).

To whom are you going to delegate these tasks? One approach is for "the people" to turn to an organization that they have already create of/by/for themselves, which is supposed to hold their interests paramount. Another approach is to hire a team of individual experts who are motivated to hold your personal interests paramount, by the cash that you throw at them (very costly option, out of the reach of most of us).

A third way (similar to the second way) is to delegate these decisions to corporations that are motivated by their own profits, and hope that the pittance that you throw at them for this service are enough make them consider your interests when they make decisions for you. For example, if you subscribe, for $19.99 per month, to a service that designs healthy meals for you, you have to hope that the high-fructose corn syrup industry isn't willing to pay them $2M to 'reconsider' their analysis of HFCS; ditto for a bunch of other interests that have a lot more money than you do. You can threaten to change companies, in an attempt to keep them honest, but on what basis do you make that decision? Many of these issues are complex enough that people can scarcely understand that they are being ill-served.

* I think that most /.ers are 'above average' when it comes to intelligence, awareness, and the ability to handle complexity. OTOH, how many /.-lawyers fail to understand the complexity of the legal system, and fail to understand that they fail to understand the complexity of the legal system?

** The consequences of 'not handling' this complexity are various, but depending on the topic, include: severe injury, death, poverty/bankruptcy, imprisonment, twisted kids (that's the theory, anyway), etc.