gamepolitics: BREAKING - Game Industry to File Suit in Minnesota

Game Politics (

gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-06-02 14:08:00

Entry tags:

doug lowenstein, esa, first amendment, legislation, minnesota

BREAKING - Game Industry to File Suit in Minnesota

This just in from ESA president Doug Lowenstein:

"The ESA is deeply disappointed by the actions of the Minnesota legislature and Governor Pawlenty. We believe that SF785 is unnecessary and will restrict the First Amendment rights of Minnesota's citizens. To enact 'feel good' bills knowing they're likely to be tossed by the courts is the very height of cynicism. The computer and video game industry intends to file suit in Minnesota federal district court shortly, asking that the state's new video game law be overturned."

"Six courts in five years, including the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals which governs Minnesota, have struck down similar laws, ruling that they were unconstitutional. This has resulted in legal costs of nearly one million dollars to the taxpayers of the states in which these bills were passed, and countless wasted hours spent by government officials attempting to defend the laws."

"...We hope that sooner or later state legislators and candidates will stop trying to seek headlines by subverting the constitution and frittering away desperately needed taxpayer dollars and instead enter into a constructive partnership to educate parents about the tools available so they, not government, can raise their kids as they see fit and buy the games that are right for their unique families..."

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)

	Couldn't have said it better myself skemodan 2006-06-02 06:22 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you Doug. I was getting worried there for a second. (Reply to this)

mandike
2006-06-02 06:25 pm UTC (link)

Ah, oh no, logic hurts Doug Lowenstein. Are you saying that our lawmakers shouldn't pass crappy laws just as political ploys to please their idiot constituents in election years?

Damn you and your blue state logic. We better cut education funding so you start asking less quetions.

BTW Did I mention that we need more tax cuts for the rich? And that Jesus rocks, and if he were to run for president I'm sure he would support a similar doctrine of hate, racisim, sexism, and death. Jesus loves death.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	elricbrother3 2006-06-02 07:24 pm UTC (link)
	I hope that is sarcasm (Reply to this) (Parent)

	jbourrie 2006-06-02 07:27 pm UTC (link)
	You're GOD DAMN RIGHT he does! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	ruekayarou 2006-06-02 08:08 pm UTC (link)
	Oh man, how many of you extremists must we endure? This phenomenon of passing doomed game bills for political capital has been played out excessively by both Republicans and Democrats. Neither party has a monopoly on stupid (or, more relevant to this subject, cynicism and hypocrisy). (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Right on. shaun_skipper 2006-06-02 06:25 pm UTC (link)
	I couldn't agree more with Mr. Lowenstein. It's time to for legislators to start reading the writing that is on the wall, rather than simply banging their heads against it. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Right on.

jabrwock
2006-06-02 07:09 pm UTC (link)

It's time to for legislators to start reading the writing that is on the wall, rather than simply banging their heads against it.

Read this interview. The legislators are reading the writing that is on the wall, they just don't care. It's better PR come election time to bash your head to a bloody pulp on the wall through repeated smashings, than to step back and admit the wall is an immovable object...

Soccer moms don't want you to admit the 1st is the end-all-be-all rule. They want you to say you'll "do something to protect the children!" I guess hollow gestures speak louder in politics than actually getting something concrete done...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Not surprising

bigman_k
2006-06-02 06:30 pm UTC (link)

But, i wonder if the ESA has clout in this case to file a suit. Seeing as neither the industry or the stores are being targeted (fined/jailed, ect) it could be that the industry might not be able to challange the law in court. I think that's what Minnesoda was going for in all this. Of course even if they couldn't, some group like the ACLU or a some minor themselves could file suit and have the law thrown out.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Not surprising

skemodan
2006-06-02 07:00 pm UTC (link)

He phrased it porperly which was nice because it means he actually issued a statement instead of just copying and pasting a state's name into some pre-fabricated press-release.

He says it violates the citizen's First Amendment Rights. The law is unenforceable so whether or not they actually have clout, it needs to be brought to the court's attention for a summary dismissal. Because I can't imagine a judge that WOULDN'T look at this bill and go "What the fuck?!"

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Not surprising -

rformer, 2006-06-02 09:43 pm UTC

Re: Not surprising -

barfo, 2006-06-03 12:18 am UTC

Re: Not surprising -

hsilman, 2006-06-03 02:21 am UTC

	Re: Not surprising akbarthegreat 2006-06-02 07:15 pm UTC (link)
	Has the clout? Wouldn't the constitution be the clout they need? I think what the lawmakers were hoping was that the industry wouldn't have the {inclination} to fight it, not the clout. Since they obviously do, then they merely have to stand with the constitution to fight this one. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Not surprising -

bigman_k, 2006-06-02 09:20 pm UTC

Re: Not surprising -

ceruleansquall, 2006-06-02 11:52 pm UTC

	Re: Not surprising phantompvp 2006-06-02 08:31 pm UTC (link)
	Ah, but stores are required to comply with the law, and post signs warning of the penalties. (Reply to this) (Parent)

I can't see the usual folks supporting this

jabrwock
2006-06-02 07:01 pm UTC (link)

This one will go down even faster, because it doesn't go after the retailer. I mean, how can JT et al sue a retailer for harming the children, if the retailer isn't at fault? Obviously it's the retailers fault for letting kids buy "The Punisher" video game.

"The Punisher" DVD? That's ok to sell to 10 year olds. No restrictions needed there... /sarcasm

So you can count on none of the usual "experts" standing up to defend this.

(Reply to this)

	It's an interesting topic taggartaleslaye 2006-06-02 07:06 pm UTC (link)
	I'm glad the game industry isn't being rolled over yet like the comic book industry was. It's only a matter of time, though. The problem will only get worse before it gets better. (Reply to this)

	goodrobotus 2006-06-02 07:12 pm UTC (link)
	Whoomp! There it is ;) I don't always agree with Lowenstein and his opinions on violent games, but I do respect the mans determination to get it done whilst still respecting the American Law and People, not trying to evade it or demonise those he is against. That's why he's 100x the man that certain anti-gamers are. (Reply to this)

turbopunk
2006-06-02 07:24 pm UTC (link)

OK, perhaps I'm just an old gamer. As Gabe from Penny Arcade said, it's not my problem. I've been able to buy these games for longer then there have been ratings. However, I don't see this bill as a bad thing.

First, let me point out that there is no censorship going on here. Retailer are fully able to sell M and AO games as they do now. Hopefully, the retails will actually card games for content with M and AO ratings. Of course, underage gamers could always use a fake ID. I work at a nightclub as a second job, so I fully understand that these things happen. The retailers should still ensure that every rational measure is used to prevent the content from slipping into the hands of minors.

That being said, this is a great way for the state to 1) increase awareness of the issue, 2) produce revenue for the state ( which will hopefully be use, at least in part, for education on the subject ), and 3) punish the true offenders in the issue. The retailers should be doing everything in their power to inform consumers of the content descriptors and to help consumer get the products that are right for them. Granted, this is not universally happening. However, a clerk in a store is a much better judge of the situation than an anonymous web form.

This law punishes the person who does what they should not being doing. No one contests that minors should not receive AO rated games and should not receive M rated games with parental knowledge and consent. If the minor tries to get around this restriction, punish the minor.

If anything, the scope of this law is to limiting. If this same law was passed with further restrictions to R, NC-17, and X rated movies, stickered music albums, and the like, then nobody would have taken notice. This is nothing more then a responsible attempt from a state government to punish the offenders and raise awareness of the issue.

Older gamers like myself have no need to worry. Parents of gamers that are under 18 have now had the issue brought to their attention. Let's face it, the amount of the fine is completely negligible. Even for minimum wage workers, $25 dollars is a drop in the bucket. It's less the one day's work. Little Johnny can mow the neighbor's lawn to pay back $25. However, it is just enough to get somebodies attention. Parking tickets here are $5. Nobody cares about them. However, I once got a $30 parking ticket for parking in a private stop. Let me tell you, I've always paid attention to that since then.

Overall, the ESA is starting to dig itself into a whole. I'm very grateful that there is an organization that looks out for these types of issue. However, the ESA has been crying wolf lately. This is an example of a state law that seems to be written in a way that it should. Punish the offender, raise awareness, make the punishment reasonable. The ESA should be using this law as an example, not yet another springboard.

Chris Gardner
NintendoInsider.com

(Reply to this) (Thread)

bigman_k
2006-06-02 08:55 pm UTC (link)

WOW! i just totally disagree with you. Personally i think that older minors and teenagers should have the right to buy, rent or play any games they want to. Seriously what's the problem with that. There is no evidence that these games are harmful or cause aggressive or violent behaviour in normal children. I personally feel that any under 18 today is being infantized. People treat them as if they have no mind of their own and can't think for themsleves. It's fucking retarded. It absolutly perposterous that these politiancs claim they're trying to protect 16 and 17 year olds minds from fake depictions of violence that they claim do them harm but 18 year olds that are just 1 or 2 years older are be sent off to War to do the real thing. Idiotic.

	In Other News... terminator44 2006-06-02 07:42 pm UTC (link)
	Scientists may have discovered that the color of the sky is blue. Seriously, was anybody suprised by this news? (Reply to this)

	Parental Education mephistote 2006-06-02 07:53 pm UTC (link)
	"...partnership to educate parents about the tools available so they, not government, can raise their kids as they see fit..." Now that is a statement, though too long overdue, that that tells the public Exactly what needs to be done. (Reply to this)

	ruekayarou 2006-06-02 08:03 pm UTC (link)
	You tell 'em, Doug! (Reply to this)

	jdmdsp911 2006-06-03 05:20 am UTC (link)
	Nothing like admitting that all he is doing is wasting taxpayer money (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Mabie we've got this one all wrong rsteinke 2006-06-03 04:27 am UTC (link)
	I'm no Jack Thompson here, but if it's enforced properly it'll keep violent content out of the hands of children. I mean, I like games as much as the next person here but I agree their are some that shouldn't be in the hands of minors. Again, if the minors have a problem with it they should just get older, it only takes time. (Reply to this)

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