gamepolitics: Judge Fires Up the Xbox in Minnesota Video Game Court Case

Game Politics (

gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-07-12 08:00:00

Entry tags:

jade empire, jennifer dekarske, judge rosenbaum, legislation, manhunt, minnesota, postal 2, ted price

Judge Fires Up the Xbox in Minnesota Video Game Court Case

There's no word on how well Federal District Court Judge James Rosenbaum did at Jade Empire or whether he preferred Full Spectrum Warrior to Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six 3.

Nonetheless, GamePolitics finds it noteworthy that Judge Rosenbaum, hearing arguments in the video game industry's constitutional battle against Minnesota's "fine the buyer" video game law, took the time and trouble to have one of his clerks bring an Xbox into chambers for a little hands-on jurisprudence.

According to the Associated Press, Judge Rosenbaum heard preliminary arguments in the case yesterday in a federal courtroom in Minneapolis. The video game industry (ESA & EMA) were seeking a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to block Minnesota's law from taking effect as scheduled on August 1st.

The AP report indicates that Judge Rosenbaum expressed a number of concerns about the law, which takes the novel approach of fining underage game buyers $25. Previous laws have been directed at retailers.

As he did in the ongoing Louisiana case, Insomniac CEO Ted Price filed an affidavit in support of the video game industry's opposition to the Minnesota law. GP has also learned that the game industry and various publishers submitted copies of Jade Empire, Resident Evil 4 (PS2), God of War, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (Xbox) and Full Spectrum Warrior (Xbox) to the court, along with gameplay video footage from each.

Interestingly, the Minnesota Attorney General's Office submitted some of the same games as evidence to support the state's video game violence law. Resident Evil 4 and God of War were provided to the court by Assistant A.G. Jennifer DeKarske, as well as Postal 2: Apocalypse Weekend, The Punisher and Rockstar's Manhunt.

Judge Rosenbaum issued no ruling, but gave both sides another week to submit additional written arguments.

For GamePolitics coverage of the Minnesota video game law, click here. GP also has available to readers the video game industry's complaint.

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)

seth_z0r
2006-07-12 02:06 pm UTC (link)

What I want to know is how exactly they would intend to enforce such a law?

Child: I want to buy this game
Clerk: Do you have ID?
Child: No, but I am over 15 (lets say he is really 14 and 7 months).

How then does one prove that the child is indeed underage and thus would receive a fine. However what if he was 16 but didn't have ID? Finally how do they intend to collect these fines?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	chenry 2006-07-12 02:42 pm UTC (link)
	simple enough; you issue the fine in the form of the ticket. if you do not wish to pay, simply challenge said fine by faxing the ticket and a copy of your valid ID, or proof of age. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

anticron, 2006-07-12 04:57 pm UTC

(no subject) -

chenry, 2006-07-12 05:55 pm UTC

(no subject) -

dustin1986, 2006-07-12 09:21 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kajex, 2006-07-12 09:14 pm UTC

They can't issue tickets -

ace_of_sevens, 2006-07-17 02:57 am UTC

barfo
2006-07-12 04:00 pm UTC (link)

Well all your points are valid, but i dont think they are concerned. One of the sponsors on the bill said in an interview with gamespot that they dont really expect the law to be enforced anyways but they wanted to have the bill ont he books anyways cause its the "right thing to do" (for their political careers, presumably). They even had the cajones to offer this fact that the law probably would not really be enforceable as an argument for why the ESA shouldn't challenge the law in court.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	irrelevant evidence kroninokiller 2006-07-12 02:12 pm UTC (link)
	What does Postal 2 have to do with this? I thought that game could only be purchased online. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: irrelevant evidence chenry 2006-07-12 02:44 pm UTC (link)
	You mean Postal 2: Loading Screens? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: irrelevant evidence -

terminator44, 2006-07-12 04:18 pm UTC

	Re: irrelevant evidence marbledog 2006-07-12 02:57 pm UTC (link)
	Nope. I've seen it at GameStop. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Well, actually... ferrarimanf355 2006-07-12 03:09 pm UTC (link)
	... you can buy a boxed copy at retail, it's just that RWS appears to be shifting to digital distribution... (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: irrelevant evidence slyfoxx 2006-07-12 03:49 pm UTC (link)
	Even so, they're probably hoping the court doesn't know that and will just look at it as a violent game that will be controlled by their law. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: irrelevant evidence -

gatz111085, 2006-07-13 02:15 pm UTC

	Re: irrelevant evidence jabrwock 2006-07-12 03:52 pm UTC (link)
	Depends where you live. I've seen some copies at my local game store. They still have it in stock... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: irrelevant evidence -

terminator44, 2006-07-12 04:18 pm UTC

	Dead on arrival bigman_k 2006-07-12 02:14 pm UTC (link)
	While there is other major reasons this law is unconstitutional, The mere fact that this bill uses a voluntary private companies rating system to determine what is on and off limits makes this bill dead on arrvial. It violates the Due Process clause right there. (Reply to this)

rhanlav
2006-07-12 03:00 pm UTC (link)

What? No Halo 2? What sort of Xbox experience is the judge getting without at least a few hours of kicking the Covenant aliens around? Other than that though, most of those games sound like the Judge is gunna have a very busy week of gaming ahead of him. Heh, makes me wonder if this "additional week to submit additional written arguments" is just an excuse to slack off and play games for a week.

And you know, now that I think about it, it would be awesome to sit home and play games all day and when your SO yells at you that you're slacking off and not doing any of the chores and you just tell them that you're working on deciding a judicial verdict while whooping up on some badguys in video games. Sweet deal! Now that's a judicial system that I can get behind!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	slyfoxx 2006-07-12 04:46 pm UTC (link)
	I admire and envy the judge. At least he's taking the time get acqainted with the games. I hope he has a best mate there to tell him to "go there bo not there! ... there!" and support him and play multi with him. Nods sagely (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

terminator44, 2006-07-12 08:33 pm UTC

	jerrydavid 2006-07-12 03:16 pm UTC (link)
	For what it's worth, at least they brought in an XBOX to try out some of these games. Calling this law "novel" is right; as is the approach of actually going and bringing in some of the games to play. I guess everyone's trying to figure out more than one way to skin a cat. (Reply to this)

slyfoxx
2006-07-12 03:47 pm UTC (link)

Wait a min... is this law-wannabee saying that the underage buyers should be fined if they are successful in buying the game, or not?

So a minor buys a violent game and are then fined because they are underage? That seems alot like A) age discrimination, and B) bribery- "you aren't supposed to play this because you're underage, but for and an extra $$$ we'll let you anyway."

-Or-

A minor attempts to buy a violent game but is denied and then fined for trying to? "You're too young to play this game so we aren't going to let you have it, but we're still going to make you pay."

Either way, it just seems wrong to me.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	bigman_k 2006-07-12 04:22 pm UTC (link)
	That's exactly what i'm saying. I think this is one of the worst of the anti-gaming laws because it specifically targets the minors themselves for trying to or for buying their favorite games. It's punishing the minors themselves for trying to or for buying Free Speech materials. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Your Right.

shaun_skipper
2006-07-12 04:33 pm UTC (link)

It is wrong, and it's wrong on so many levels both constitutionally and from your policy standpoint. In regard to policy, I think both your points are valid, but what is really scary is that this legislation will punish people, in the form of a fine, simply for buying (or listening?) to speech that they themselves want to be exposed to (i.e. if they didn't wish to be exposed to it, they would not have bought the game).

How scary it that?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Your Right. -

jamesweis, 2006-07-13 01:06 am UTC

Re: Your Right. -

stufff, 2006-07-17 08:53 am UTC

warriormouse
2006-07-12 06:15 pm UTC (link)

Plenty of other laws "discriminate" by age. This is usually a good thing. Admittedly, if the law prevents a competent 14-year-old from getting a learner's permit, that's a bit arbitrary, but I do know that I don't want anyone who is under the age of, say, ten, driving a car.

Still, that's a great observation about how weird this approach is: if the fine-paying minor still gets the game, then it's really just a tax. if the fine-paying minor doesn't get the game, then there hasn't even really been a crime committed.

So, hang on, who is even supposed to enforce this wacky law? And how?? I need more information.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

barfo, 2006-07-12 07:03 pm UTC

(no subject) -

terminator44, 2006-07-12 08:38 pm UTC

(no subject) -

warriormouse, 2006-07-12 06:20 pm UTC

(no subject) -

gamepolitics, 2006-07-12 06:22 pm UTC

(no subject) -

warriormouse, 2006-07-12 06:25 pm UTC

Played the games?

nightwng2000
2006-07-12 04:12 pm UTC (link)

I wonder if the judge immersed himself in the storyline by watching the cutscenes and movies in these games or if he skipped them (if possible) and just played the playable parts?

I think his impressions may vary depending on how much he got into the game.

Of course, it is also true that one person's favorite genre may be another person's most hated one. I mean, there's a big difference, to me anyway, between a first person shooter, an RPG, and a driving simulation (among others). It sometimes even takes a particular mood as to what genre I'm interested in playing at any given time.

So his impressions may be affected by personal choice, or even ability.

nightwng2000

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Judges are practically in cosplay... gamepolitics 2006-07-12 05:34 pm UTC (link)
	...if they're a mage or something, with those black robes. I'm just sayin'... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Judges are practically in cosplay... -

kincyr, 2006-07-12 06:26 pm UTC

Re: Judges are practically in cosplay... -

terminator44, 2006-07-12 08:40 pm UTC

Re: Judges are practically in cosplay... -

loopychew, 2006-07-13 08:35 am UTC

Re: Judges are practically in cosplay... -

gatz111085, 2006-07-13 12:31 pm UTC

Re: Judges are practically in cosplay... -

gamepolitics, 2006-07-13 12:57 pm UTC

	terminator44 2006-07-12 04:21 pm UTC (link)
	Hm, I wonder if the judge tried RE4 or God of War? I'd doubt it, and if I'm right then he's really missing out. (Reply to this)

Good Luck or Precedent?

getwellgamer
2006-07-12 05:27 pm UTC (link)

You know, I can't think that Minnesota is unique in terms of a judge wanting to actually play the games for themselves, as good a move as it is for us. I'd be willing to bet that news of video game legislation must be making its way around the judicial circles, especially now that we're up to, what, eight different states with legislation, and virtually all of them have failed or are failing? I think this probably contributes to a precedent- not necessarily a legal one, but more of a reputational one. If these laws keep getting signed in and struck down later, perhaps there's something that everyone's missing at first blush?

I think the judge actually playing the games is finally getting the due process they deserve, and will only help to strengthen the industry's case.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Good Luck or Precedent? gatz111085 2006-07-12 06:40 pm UTC (link)
	I agree, and maybe once an for all they will find these games pretty much harmless. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Good Luck or Precedent? -

terminator44, 2006-07-12 08:51 pm UTC

Re: Good Luck or Precedent? -

mjolnirjack, 2006-07-13 02:42 pm UTC

	Re: Good Luck or Precedent? theshroomguy 2006-07-12 09:23 pm UTC (link)
	It makes me glad that this judge has the sense to actualy play the game before he makes the ruling.After playing halo 2 for a while he will most likely rule in the vg industry's favor. If for some reason the judge rules in favor of minnesota then i will be very dissapointed. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Good Luck or Precedent? gatz111085 2006-07-13 01:21 am UTC (link)
	I dunno about that, I could see a judge "DAMN YOU SNIPERS!" as he's waving an angry fist into the air. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	repton_infinity 2006-07-12 09:44 pm UTC (link)
	Judge Rosenbaum issued no ruling, but gave both sides another week to submit additional written arguments. "Damnit, die you .....!" "Uh, yeronner, the defence counsel wants to present his arguments?" "Tell them to come back in a week, I still can't get past this —ing boss!" (Reply to this) (Thread)

	hayabusa75 2006-07-13 12:17 am UTC (link)
	Alas, poor Judge Rosenbaum...we may never see him again... (Reply to this) (Parent)

O rly!

praetor_edge
2006-07-13 12:54 am UTC (link)

Will it be a fine-able offense to be in possession of a "child restricted" video game, or is it just the act of purchase? Is it the purchase of the video game, or the sale of the game which is being restricted? Punishing the buyer certainly makes it seem like it's illegal to buy, not to sell. What if a parent buys a game for their child? What if, after the fact, the parent says that it was okay for their child to buy the game? And are they REALLY going to fine the child, or is that just a way of fining the parents? And how is this going to be enforced?!?!?!?! Are parents going to storm into the police station waving a copy of some M rated game asking "How could this be sold to my son!" And the officer says, "It couldn't, it's a fine-able offense for your son to buy that game." And then the parent will yell, "Well good! Fine them!" and the officer will hold out his hand and say, "Okay, that'll be twenty five dollars, cash or check?"

Freaking absurd.

(Reply to this)

	Legal questions. brainswarm 2006-07-13 02:56 am UTC (link)
	With this law in place, since it's the minor breaking the law, could the guy behind the counter selling the kid Grand Theft Auto be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor? At what level does that charge become possible? Infraction, misdemeanor, or felony? And what do they charge the convenience store clerks with for selling alcohol and tobacco? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Legal questions. gamepolitics 2006-07-13 10:53 am UTC (link)
	no - this law puts the enforcement action (i.e., the $25 fine) entirely against the buyer (i.e., the kid) An adult could be charged with offenses related to a minor for underage sales of tobacco, smut, or alcohol but those offenses are not linked in any way to the MN law. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Yeah, reasearch. cyberskull 2006-07-26 12:40 pm UTC (link)
	At least the judge is taking the time to actually play and investigate the games. (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