gamepolitics: BREAKING - Minnesota Guv Signs Video Game Bill Into Law

Game Politics (

gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-06-01 18:00:00

Entry tags:

jeff johnson, legislation, minnesota, sandra pappas, tim pawlenty

BREAKING - Minnesota Guv Signs Video Game Bill Into Law

As of August 1st, underage buyers of "M" or "AO" rated games may face $25 civil fines in the state of Minnesota.

This afternoon, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) signed into law SF0785. The bill, sponsored in the Minnesota House by Rep. Jeff Johnson (R) and in the Senate by Sen. Sandra Pappas (D) uses the video game industry's ESRB ratings to define which games minors are ineligible to buy.

The bill is unique in that it places the onus for purchasing or renting adult-oriented games on the buyer rather than the seller. Retailers are, however, required to post signs explaining the consequences of violating the new law.

So far GamePolitics has no word regarding an industry appeal. We are attempting to get that information now.

Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...

(Post a new comment)

	jargon_john 2006-06-01 10:06 pm UTC (link)
	You know, really, it's kinda a 'no shit' that they would sign it into law. I mean, do they really want to come off as looking pro-game? I mean, that's almost as bad as being pro-gay! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jbourrie 2006-06-01 10:50 pm UTC (link)
	Pro gayme? Targeting the buyer? You mean the 12 year old kid? I thought their parents were responsible until they were 18? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	crimson_mage 2006-06-01 10:17 pm UTC (link)
	In a way, I'm almost excited. It's good to know that just a few months from now, we'll have yet another judicial opinion to back up our claims as to the free-speech protected status of interactive media. That it comes at a cost to Minnesota taxpayers is a shame, but I suppose it's the price they pay for their lawmakers' hubris. (Reply to this)

	kyhwana 2006-06-01 10:21 pm UTC (link)
	This just in! Game companies challenge constitutionality of new Video Game Law! (Reply to this)

	zynth 2006-06-01 10:30 pm UTC (link)
	(Reply to this) (Thread)

	terminator44 2006-06-02 12:47 am UTC (link)
	ROFL (Reply to this) (Parent)

	elricbrother3 2006-06-02 01:00 am UTC (link)
	Nice one zynth (Reply to this) (Parent)

	goodrobotus 2006-06-01 10:38 pm UTC (link)
	'So far GamePolitics has no word regarding an industry appeal. We are attempting to get that information now.' If they don't appeal, they may as well open the floodgates. (Reply to this) (Thread)

ss_ebonclaw
2006-06-01 11:10 pm UTC (link)

In a way, I think it'd be good if they DIDN'T appeal it. This law targets the people who want to challenge the ratings, directly. These games are NOT targeted at children, and in turn, children should NOT have the money to even buy these games on their own.

Really, I would say it'd be better to have some sort of contract to sign, when purchasing M or AO rated games. At least, when it's at some sort of major-style retailor, like Blockbuster video. Explain to the parents what they're signing and make sure they're informed.

Then again, at the Blockbuster I worked at, there were almost more ESRB rating guides posted around, than anything else. Not only in the game section, but at the endcap of every other row of movies, plus posted 2-3 times at EACH TILL, as well as on a huge banner behind the tills, on the wall. The only thing with more advertising was that whole "No More Late Fees" fiasco.

So, please.. explain to me how the hell people could NOT know about it, when there would be no less than 30 places in just that one store, that fully explained the system? O_o

If kids want to buy the games themselves, I say they should be charged a full extra $100. $200 if it's a used copy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	thelastpaladin 2006-06-01 11:30 pm UTC (link)
	I agree! I like this bill. I want one like it in NC. (Reply to this) (Parent)

goodrobotus
2006-06-01 11:33 pm UTC (link)

It would be interesting to see where this law stands in using the ESRB ratings, it means you have two sets of laws moving around, one of which is anti-ESRB and the others actually using it as a guideline, they are mutually exclusive, if I law must exist, then better it be based around the ESRB system than 'Acceptable Social Norms' as defined by people who make up a tiny percent of society.

My problem with this bill, as with all the others, is it's blatant unconstitutionality, it's still singling out one form of Media. The Games Industry must fight this, not because it is neccessarily a bad idea in itself, but to not do so is to basically allow themselves to be singled out as a seperate type of Media compared to TV, Film and Books. Until that basic prejudice in these Bills can be dealt with, the Industry really has a responsibility to itself and to it's customers to defend itself.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

crimson_mage
2006-06-01 11:56 pm UTC (link)

Good call. As gamers, our only real footing here is a sincere desire to uphold the spirit of the First Amendment. If we're not in it for that, well ... any other argument against game-related legislation is ideologically bankrupt.

I mean, think about it. Why are these laws wrong except that they constitute censorship? There is no other reason. If we as a society were okay with being told what media were permissible to consume, then we would have to be okay with laws restricting the sale of violent video games to minors. There's no two ways about that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	phantompvp 2006-06-02 12:14 am UTC (link)
	The law will be challenged. I'm not sure if the ESRB necessarily needs to do it, but it's a law which serves as official government endorsement of a private ratings system. It's like having a law which fines someone $25 for ordering a Big Mac. (Reply to this) (Parent)

dustin1986
2006-06-01 11:08 pm UTC (link)

This law doesn't seem that unreasonable, but I still have some problems with it.

1. It's a double standard. There are no fines for DVD movies or books or music. Only Video games are considered "dangerous" and I take offense to that. If this legislation was applied to all forms of media, that would be interesting.

2. I thought that it was illegal to give independent ratings boards like the ESRB the power of law? It's clerly unconstitutional and will likely be struck down on that point. Why bother making a law that has no chance of surviving? It makes me think that all they care about is "sending out a message to parents" rather than doing something practical. I believe that they actually said that about this bill, that sending a message to parents was more important than the bill itself.

The ESA is going to challenge this in court, and due to the fact that this is a profoundly flawed bill they will very likely win. The courts will order the state to reimburse the ESA for it's court costs, and the state will spend thousands of dollars defending this doomed bill. Why do they want to waste all of this money? YOu see that picture of Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) signing the bill in the article above? That's what they're paying for, tousands of dollars of taxpayer's money for a little photo-op.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

bigman_k
2006-06-01 11:43 pm UTC (link)

I agree with everything you said in your post but i'd like to add something. Personally i feel this law is worse then the others as if specifically punishes the minors themselves for buying the games. I feel this is even worse then punishing the retailers as it directly targets the minors themselves for buying Free Speech materials they have the right to receive under the constitution. Not to mention it's incredibly ageist and discriminatory. I don't know if the video game industry will challange it themselves (they might not be able to as it doesn't specifically target them in any way) but i assure you some group like the ACLU or some youth rights organization will.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

kyz146
2006-06-01 11:17 pm UTC (link)

I thought it was anticipated that he would sign it. I am interested to see how fast a lawsuit is filed (if one is filed), who the industry uses as their local counsel, and what judge they get. Also (whoa is my standing knowledge not up to date), do they need to add a potential under-age purchaser as a plaintiff? I really should read the Michigan pleadings...

Does anyone know of a website that posts the pleadings filed in these cases (other than the court's pay-per view system)?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	gamepolitics 2006-06-01 11:23 pm UTC (link)
	GamePolitics routinely posts PDF's of court filings. We've done that for every First Amendment case as well as juicy tidbits from Miami Jack's Alabama lawsuit. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	semperar 2006-06-02 05:22 pm UTC (link)
	Whatever happened to that million-dollar FL Bar harassment suit? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	gamepolitics 2006-06-02 06:07 pm UTC (link)
	We never had a PDF on that as the federal court in Florida never posted one. It's entirely possible that an actual detailed complaint wasn't filed, just a notice of intent. However, I am not certain whether a complaint was actually filed. The court records now show this suit to be withdrawn by the complainant. Not sure what to make of that... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	semperar 2006-06-03 02:26 am UTC (link)
	So... all we know for certain is that he announced intent to file suit? And now, whatever he filed has been voluntarily withdrawn? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	gamepolitics 2006-06-03 03:01 am UTC (link)
	last two entries in the case file are: 5/17/06 8 NOTICE of voluntary dismissal by Jack Thompson (bs) [Entry date 05/18/06] 5/17/06 -- CASE CLOSED. Case and Motions no longer referred to Magistrate. (bs) [Entry date 05/23/06] (Reply to this) (Parent)

	finaleve 2006-06-01 11:35 pm UTC (link)
	I'm not so sure of this bill. Sure, it would do a good job, but sometimes parents are with the kids, and they buy these things because they spoil their kids. And this bill will tend to have the retailers slack off on carding the people again. (Reply to this)

A series of questions

kharne83
2006-06-01 11:39 pm UTC (link)

One must ask three things right now:

1) Will this be enforced? Because I don't see any viable method of making sure such is the case.

2) Where does the money go? I'm not implying anything by this, just being curious little me. Though I do admit this also eads into the last question.

3) Where will the money go? Trying to enforce enforcement is already a crapshoot, one must wonder how they'll know the fines are going to the right pockets. Assuming of cource they even have a means of knowing the fines exist.

(Reply to this)

	kyz146 2006-06-01 11:40 pm UTC (link)
	It looks like the MIchigan law was signed on 9/14/05 and the lawsuit was filed on 9/21/05, and the motion for preliminary injunction followed on 9/27/05, so we shouldn't have long to wait. Most of you probably know these timelines, but I have not been following these issues until recently. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	gamepolitics 2006-06-01 11:46 pm UTC (link)
	Michigan is dead and buried. The judge issued a final ruling on the case. The state is not appealing. See: http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/tag/michigan The April 3rd story has the Judge's ruling. Some of the earlier stories have briefs of industry and state arguments. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

kyz146
2006-06-01 11:56 pm UTC (link)

My point was teh ESA filed the lawsuit only 6 days after the Michigan legislation was signed into law. So, if the attorneys are as prompt this time around, we should see the complaint on around 6/8 - or next Thursday. Perhaps I should have specified that that was my point.

And, the Michigan case may be dead in the sense that the ruling has been issued - but the battle over who pays the attorneys fees continues on, and the judge has not yet ruled on that. While not relevant as to the enforceability of the law, it is relevant to Michigan taxpayers - and if the judge awards fees in that case to the ESA, it's one more decision to throw in the mix here in Minnesota when the time comes for them to demand that the State of Minnesota pays its attorneys fees in a case commenced in Minnesota.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

gamepolitics
2006-06-02 12:25 am UTC (link)

the ESA has been a little uneven on the timing of filings. In Illinois the filed the day after. Too six days as you said in Michigan. In California they seemed to be caught off guard. I think I actually broke the news to them that Arnold had signed the bill.

I'm sure they knew this was coming and are probably ready for Oklahoma guv to sign that bill within days.

As far as attorney's fees, that's something the elected officials should have considered beforehand.

Honestly, I'm not sure what posture the industry will take on this one. Opposing it will send a signal of their commitment to the first amendment issues.

Not opposing, perhaps because it doesn't place their members in any jeopardy - only the buyers - will send another type of signal, indeed.

Rep. Johnson has told me that the industry did put some lobbying efforts into bill already, so I'd bet a suit is imminent.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

semperar
2006-06-02 05:31 pm UTC (link)

Opposing it will send a signal of their commitment to the first amendment issues.

Exactly. If they DON'T stand against this one, it's a sign of their shaky, even profiteering resolve; this law is another attack on the gaming medium, and if they let it pass by, then they will be admitting to all of us that the only thing they are protecting is their own arse.

I suppose not many folks are putting the priority that I do on this law, but I think whether or not they stand against it will make a HUGE statement for their further endeavors.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Kinda knew this would happen. lost_watcher 2006-06-01 11:44 pm UTC (link)
	Well, was obvious that this would go thru. Anywho, I still cant access www.gamepolitics.com or the forums. Been going on for abut 3 days now. :( (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Kinda knew this would happen. gamepolitics 2006-06-01 11:47 pm UTC (link)
	what? what happens? (Reply to this) (Parent)

any miners here?

evirustheslaye
2006-06-01 11:54 pm UTC (link)

you should all take a road trip to this state and buy as many R rated dvds as you can and call attention to it.

as far as overturning there must be damages involved, someone would have to "foot the bill" and buy a game, get the fine, refuse to pay it, then go to court about it.

contrary to republican beleif courts arnt activist, they have too and will wait untill the case has proper marit(the pledge in school thing was dodged because the "father" didn't have custody of the kid, and the kid didnt agree that there was a problem, as such the father was in no position to bring the case)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: any miners here? duran 2006-06-02 12:38 am UTC (link)
	And how exactly does THIS solve any of the problems? Additionally, you might want to look for some spell check software or something. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: any miners here? terminator44 2006-06-02 12:55 am UTC (link)
	Miners? I thought the bill only applied to minors. Besides, I don't think the miners would have time to travel just to get DVDs. The're too busy trying to overthrow Ultor and discover the cause of The Plague. "Better Red than dead!" (Reply to this) (Parent)

	jay_apex 2006-06-02 12:43 am UTC (link)
	This doesn't really seem that bad. There are worse bills out there. Hopefully this one doesn't spark even worse laws to come about, though. (Reply to this)

	doctorgoku 2006-06-02 01:10 am UTC (link)
	Why would the kids even attempt to buy a rated "M" or "AO" video game in the first place if there's a sign right on the window. Anyway the ratings are obviously there for a reason so the parents and the game stores should follow it. (Reply to this)

	grab some popcorn, this is gonna be fun enmitywithin 2006-06-02 02:10 am UTC (link)
	just watch how many kids buy the M rated games, get screwed, and then angry parents start coming in. the law will be repealed, especially when little miss soccer mom finds johnny now has a criminal record. (Reply to this)

	kajex 2006-06-02 04:51 am UTC (link)
	I remember those ESRB messages on videos that featured people like Tiger Woods and other athletes, telling parents that they need to pay attention to the ESRB ratings. If only parents paid more attention to them. (Reply to this)

Its unenforceable, and thus constitutional.

2bitloser
2006-06-02 05:49 am UTC (link)

From my understanding any law that is unenforceable or serves as no real deterrent is unconstitutional

I very much doubt that we are going to have police casing the electronics sections of department stores or waiting outside of EB trying to catch kids buying games so that they can take them with a $25 fine when they could be out fining speeders for triple the amount.

I bet that when Auguast 1st, 2007 rolls around we could count the people that were fined in the last year with on one hand.

(Reply to this)

	electrodruid 2006-06-02 09:31 am UTC (link)
	How many kids under 17 actually buy games for themselves anyway? The law doesn't seem to say anything about parents buying the games for their kids, so doesn't really do anything to educate them about what they're buying. (Reply to this)

Glad I'm not in Minnie

magicman9er
2006-06-02 12:09 pm UTC (link)

Especially considering that laws these days actually target parents of juvenile offenders for things like this...

So, when my son comes home with Halo 3, I could have to pay $25 bucks for it? (Minors get off pretty easy, but parents of minors always end up paying in legal cases like this.)

I remember when I was growing up if you came home with a dirty magazine, dad just took it and hid it under 'his' bed.

(Reply to this)

~Interactive Entertainment~

mephistote
2006-06-02 02:05 pm UTC (link)

The whole reason video games are being singled out is because society still deems Interactive Entertainment as children's entertainment. They believe that all games are child's toys, and any mature game made is targeted to those same children.
That, along with Hilary's "It takes a village to raise an Idiot" remark, has thrown out Parental Jurisdiction, and instead placed proper child raising techniques to be provided by the government. Basically, if a child does something wrong, {school shootings, etc}, the parent's no longer seems to be seen as irresponsible, instead the whole of society is at fault. Parents have grown lax in their duties.
Why are school shootings so popular in these last several years? Why not in all the years prior?
It wasn't lack of "Violent Entertainment". I saw violent films like 'The Godfather'; I read semi-violent comic books.
Instead it was the parents. If we did anything, remotely, wrong, most of us got our @sses handed to us. Shooting up the school with dad's rifle? Hell, jail would be a safe-haven after that.
But, I digress. The issue here is society needs to learn that Video Games have matured since Pong and Mario. They are no longer Technological Babysitters. Minors shouldn't have the ability to purchase a M-rated game on their own. But neither should the Gaming Industry be singled out from all other forms of entertainment.

(Reply to this)

kyz146
2006-06-02 03:05 pm UTC (link)

This was linked in the forums and I thought it was noteworth to link here: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6151782.html
This is an interview with Minnesota State Senator Sandra Pappas. The most notable quote:

GS: If a law is not enforceable, how does it still stand?

SP: We pass lots of laws that aren't enforced or enforceable. [laughs] ... Sometimes what government does is say, "And I said so. This is what you should do, and I said so."

To me, this comment from a representative of my state is an embarrassment to Minnesota. I read this as a politician flaunting her status and saying "I am a politician, so I can do what I want, regardless of the law or the cost to taxpayers."

At least she is not my representative. However, the state senator from my district, Mady Reiter, voted in favor of it. The house representative from my district, Philip Krinkie, voted against the bill, and he deserves credit for that.

(Reply to this)

	this is great! juniperwak 2006-06-03 02:27 am UTC (link)
	i hope it doesnt get challenged, to prohibit the sales of games to minors but still have them available is just what the law should be. we can find common ground here, what can the critics say about "murder sims" and "adult material" now that they could not be sold to minors, then we just fire back, same laws as porn and cigarrettes apply, change them first. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: this is great!

terminator44
2006-06-03 03:08 am UTC (link)

Video games are not like porn and cigarrettes. There is no strong scientific evidence that video games are more harmful than other forms of media that would not be restricted under the law, or that they cause any significant harm at all for that matter. It's a blatant double standard and would likely lead to harsher legislation and more frivolous lawsuits against game companies. That is because, if this bill passed, it would lead people to believe that violent video games are an imminent threat to our precious youth yet violent movies and music are OK. If the bill applied to all violent media instead of just video games, then I might support the bill. Until then, the politicians need to keep their laws off my games.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs