gamepolitics: Minnesota to Appeal Court Ruling in Video Game Case

Game Politics (

gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-08-29 12:26:00

Entry tags:

legislation, mike hatch, minnesota

Minnesota to Appeal Court Ruling in Video Game Case

According to the Associated Press, Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch plans to appeal last month's federal court ruling that the state's "fine the buyer" video game law is unconstitutional.

"If the parents aren't troubled by their kids playing these games, they can buy them for their children," the Attorney General said.

Hatch is running for governor in November.

(Post a new comment)

	Political grandstanding in an election year... brutilus 2006-08-29 04:48 pm UTC (link)
	Quelle suprise! (Reply to this)

Whose money will he be spending on the appeal?

verbinator
2006-08-29 04:51 pm UTC (link)

Let me guess. AG Hatch won't be spending his OWN money or his campaign's money to appeal the federal court ruling?

Didn't think so.

One can assume the passage of the law and the ruling against it has probably cost (or will soon cost) Minnesota citizens an easy million bucks already.

Citizens of the state of Minnesota, prepare to bend over and take ANOTHER one for Hatch's cmpaign.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Whose money will he be spending on the appeal?

dclam
2006-08-30 03:22 am UTC (link)

As a Minnesotan, I found your post highly misleading. If you look at the voting records, most politicians voted for this bill. In addition, current Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed the bill into law.

Both of these guys are going along with these "moral crisis" bills because it gets them votes from the social conservatives. And due to Minnesota's heritage, there are quite a few social semi-conservatives here.

Oh and for the record, Pawlenty seems to be taking notes from Hatch's campaign. Several recent interviews had him sounding much more like Hatch than anything he's said over the past four years.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Whose money will he be spending on the appeal?

verbinator
2006-08-30 02:48 pm UTC (link)

All of your points, in essence, make this situation almost exactly the same as the Louisiana case and very similar to the California case in which governor Schwartzenegger(sp?) signed a law into being which he no doubt knew was bogus.

You guys in Minnesota appear to have a classic dilemma ... as neither of your two most viable choices belong in the governor's office given their patent ignorance of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Maybe you could get Jesse Ventura back on a write-in campaign. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Whose money will he be spending on the appeal?

dclam
2006-08-31 04:26 pm UTC (link)

I guess I should've clarified that yeah, basically your reply here is what's happening. Which is unfortunate. And what's even more unfortunate is that Hatch is a lawyer, so he should KNOW crap like this won't stand up in court.

The part that gets to me personally is the fact that the citizens put up with this crap. Anyone who speaks out about how this type of legislation is a waste of time and money gets painted as an evil, immoral person. Of course, when the law gets overturned, people complain about the "activist judges" instead of the idiots who pushed it through in the first place.

I have to say though that I really enjoyed Hatch being a check on Pawlenty these past four years. He would often serve to counter the Governor's rhetoric, which is nice (hey, this is a democracy after all). I guess what I really mean here is that I really dislike how the entire Executive branch of the Federal government now consists of one party. Repeal the 12th amendment!!@#@

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	ianc14 2006-08-29 04:56 pm UTC (link)
	Way to waste tac payer money. Its unconstitutional, get over it. (Reply to this)

goodrobotus
2006-08-29 04:56 pm UTC (link)

Hang on, I thought parents were needing this law because they are 'Far too busy in this day and age' to bring up their kids and needed government interference?

And now that line didn't work they apparently are able to go to the computer game store every time their kid wants a new game?

Wow. Not that it's a bad thing for parents to travel around the computer shops with their kids anyway (They might learn something) but this guy really has got mobile opinions.

He doesn't seem to be able to figure out that the law wasn't quashed because of computer games, it was quashed because it went against the First Amendment of the USA, it will still be so when it reaches appeal.

Finally, it's already been admitted that the law would be unenforcable anyway, so what exactly is this about?

(Reply to this)

See, heres the thing...

scazza
2006-08-29 05:08 pm UTC (link)

Am I the only one who is kind of getting sick of this whole dog and pony show? Last year it was kind of understandable with hotcoffee, as the politicians were like moths to a flame to get on the "videogames are bad" bandwagon. But now its just getting boring.

If the oppisition actually changed up their stratgy and actually made more then a half assed attempt, I am sure they could at least not come off as complete idiots.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: See, heres the thing... caelum 2006-08-29 05:24 pm UTC (link)
	You're not the only one. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	elixer44 2006-08-29 05:20 pm UTC (link)
	"If the parents aren't troubled by their kids playing these games, they can buy them for their children," Hatch said. Right... so let the PARENTS DO THE JUDGEING!! (Reply to this)

	xhardcoretaterx 2006-08-29 05:35 pm UTC (link)
	I don't understand the criticism of this guy's ideas. Let the parents buy the games for the kids...what's so hard about that? (Reply to this) (Thread)

jabrwock
2006-08-29 05:51 pm UTC (link)

I don't understand the criticism of this guy's ideas. Let the parents buy the games for the kids...what's so hard about that?

Because HE's deciding through legal means what "ideas" kids are capable of consuming, and which ones they need parental permission for.

That's the stickler. The state is deciding which ideas are ok for kids, and which aren't. And higher courts have ruled that the state can't make that decision for minors. Only parents can, because parent's have 100% authority over their own houses.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Thank goodness jabrwock 2006-08-29 05:45 pm UTC (link)
	It's about time it went to a higher court. Then hopefully we can get this "games are protected speech" enshrined in a SCOTUS decision. A much more persuasive argument (not that the district judges have needed convincing, but it makes the case that much stronger) if a higher court has made a decision. Might make some politicians think twice about their chances. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Thank goodness mcfly0612 2006-08-29 06:08 pm UTC (link)
	Didn't think about it that way, but that's a good point. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Thank goodness blitzfitness 2006-08-29 06:31 pm UTC (link)
	We can only hope. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Thank goodness aerothorn 2006-08-29 07:11 pm UTC (link)
	We're living in an age where the President ignores the Supreme Court on a daily basis. I really don't think it would make a difference to politicians what the courts said - if they don't agree with it, they can just start spouting that "activist judges" crap. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Thank goodness

jabrwock
2006-08-29 07:22 pm UTC (link)

We're living in an age where the President ignores the Supreme Court on a daily basis.

Hmmm, true, I forgot about that.

I really don't think it would make a difference to politicians what the courts said - if they don't agree with it, they can just start spouting that "activist judges" crap.

Sad but true. If they agree with you, yaaay. If not, they were "activist"...

So maybe just the part about a higher court agreeing that games are speech. Then maybe it'll make future injunctions that much easier.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Thank goodness hayabusa75 2006-08-29 09:06 pm UTC (link)
	Wait, how does enforcing the Constitution make you an activist? I always considered people like JT to be the activists, not the judges. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Thank goodness zero_beat_x 2006-08-29 10:29 pm UTC (link)
	Exactly. Activists want a change somewhere. Enforcing something that's already in place is simply upholding the law. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Thank goodness jabrwock 2006-08-29 11:13 pm UTC (link)
	Wait, how does enforcing the Constitution make you an activist? I always considered people like JT to be the activists, not the judges. Shh! Quit using logic! :P Activists are OBVIOUSLY people who don't agree with your version of reality. ;) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Thank goodness gdex86 2006-08-29 07:16 pm UTC (link)
	I don't think the SCOTUS judges would really want to talke something like this. All though they did take anna nichole. So I could be wrong. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Unless they avoid the 1st Amendment issue... jabrwock 2006-08-29 08:30 pm UTC (link)
	Unless they just rule on it based on the 14th Amendment (the whole "using the ESRB ratings to decide who the law applies to" thing). Thus avoiding the entire 1st Amendment issue. You never know... (Reply to this) (Parent)

jdmdsp911
2006-08-29 07:12 pm UTC (link)

"If the parents aren't troubled by their kids playing these games, they can buy them for their children," the Attorney General said.

Since, at least according to the NPD Group, that the average age of the video game buyer is 37 years old, it would appear that parents already are buying these games for their children. Sorry Hatch, just like Jack Thompson, you lose.

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/feb2006/id20060224_885158.htm

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	pahsons 2006-08-29 07:55 pm UTC (link)
	Don't let logic get in the way of votes (Reply to this) (Parent)

cecil475
2006-08-29 07:14 pm UTC (link)

- "If the parents aren't troubled by their kids playing these games, they can buy them for their children,"

Golly gee whiz. What a smart cookie! Give the man a brownie! Yes, If there are parents who do not have a problem with their kids playing violent videogames then that parent can purchace those games for them to play. Which is what a parent is supposed to do.

Finaly a soon-to-be elected politician who isn't trying to milk votes using the blame videogames game.

On that earlier note, A brownie would be good right about now.

- Warren Lewis

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	yet.... jdecamp 2006-08-29 08:10 pm UTC (link)
	this nimrod is trying to appeal the court's decision regarding the 'fine the buyer' law. so he still wants to impose fines on minors for buying the games. (Reply to this) (Parent)

jabrwock
2006-08-29 08:36 pm UTC (link)

Golly gee whiz. What a smart cookie! Give the man a brownie! Yes, If there are parents who do not have a problem with their kids playing violent videogames then that parent can purchace those games for them to play. Which is what a parent is supposed to do.

Unfortunately he's muddling "If the parents aren't troubled by their kids playing these games, they can buy them for their children" with "If the parents aren't troubled by their kids playing these games, they can let their children play them in your house."

Parents can't legally stop kids from buying anything. They do however, have 100% control over their household, and so can prevent their kids from bringing said games into the house. Don't like the game your kid is playing in the living room? As a parent you have 100% authority to confiscate it. Don't like you child trading pr0n through their iPod or PSP? You have 100% authority to confiscate it.

This courts agree on. Parents already have final authority, and so legal restrictions are pure unnecessary unconstitutional overkill.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

cecil475
2006-08-30 12:49 am UTC (link)

- Unfortunately he's muddling "If the parents aren't troubled by their kids playing these games, they can buy them for their children" with "If the parents aren't troubled by their kids playing these games, they can let their children play them in your house."

Yeah I was also gonna put:

Unless he wants to pass a bill to keep those parents from buying those games to cater to those who want the goverment to decide what games their children should play. You need to let the parents BE the parents. Watching what kind of games the children play isn't YOUR job.
Except for YOUR OWN child, Becuase it's the PARENTS JOB!!!!!!!

Not the exact words but I read the entry again and decided that was going too far and decided against it.

- Warren Lewis

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	The next step... billboy2000 2006-08-31 01:42 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, I can see the next attempt at making a law will be to fine the parents for buying the games for their kids... (Reply to this) (Parent)

	leyviur 2006-08-29 08:35 pm UTC (link)
	Good! Let's waste some more taxpayer dollars on this bullshit! (Reply to this)

andrew_eisen
2006-08-29 08:55 pm UTC (link)

The attorney general said more than 1,000 studies have linked aggressive behavior in children to media violence.

There have only been a few hundred studies period. He’s either lying or has no idea what he’s talking about. I’m not comfortable with either option.

"If the parents aren't troubled by their kids playing these games, they can buy them for their children," Hatch said in the statement.

They already are. That’s why these laws are so absurd. Forget constitutionality, they’re simply ineffective. Not to mention the fact that they’re attempting to remedy a non-existent problem.

Andrew Eisen

(Reply to this) (Thread)

jabrwock
2006-08-29 11:11 pm UTC (link)

There have only been a few hundred studies period. He’s either lying or has no idea what he’s talking about. I’m not comfortable with either option.

Or he's been given bad advice. That "thousands of studies" quote sounds awfully familiar...

Not to mention the fact that they’re attempting to remedy a non-existent problem.

Since when have politicians ever focused on a *real* threat? Imaginary ones are so much easier to deal with. :P

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

goodrobotus
2006-08-30 08:40 am UTC (link)

Oh, I'm sure that in the fullness of History there have been thousands of studies that have linked *media* to violence. Much of that Media may have been anything from 'The Destructive Influence of Baroque on His Majesties' Youth by Earl Fontague Smithings of Canterbury (That's made up btw)', to some of the studies done on Rock and Roll or Television.

They're all true to a given value of true. He didn't say they were relevant to computer games, impartial or even correct. Some of them may have been, Baroque always makes me want to strangle someone for a start....

If asked to identify causal evidence that Computer Games have an effect on teenage minds that is in any way different to the way Television, Music or Roleplaying or any other past-time would do, he would be lost for words.

The whole purpose of 'play' is to stimulate the mind, it's our greatest defence, if an activity fails to stimulate the mind in any way it is what we call 'boring' and therefore not something we would choose to do in our own time.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	hayabusa75 2006-08-29 09:03 pm UTC (link)
	And haven't pretty much all the studies only shown correlational data anyway? I've yet to see one that shows actual causality. (Reply to this)

Games and Politics: the Production?

bustermanzero
2006-08-29 11:05 pm UTC (link)

Okay, seriously, we need to put together something to send to this uninformed people about the facts involving where video games sit in the political world. And I don't mean an interview with a couple of people, I mean pretty much everyone here submitting a short clip (I'm thinking using a webcam) stating a fact about VGs and politics. Then we compile it and send it to anyone eager to look at the issue.

Anyone interested?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Games and Politics: the Production? billboy2000 2006-08-31 02:02 pm UTC (link)
	That might be feasible if people cared to hear the opposition. Unfortunately, we're dealing with two groups of people: Those that are set in their negative views about video games. Those that jump on the bandwagon to gain votes. We're dealing with plain ignorance and greed here - at the risk of our given rights. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Games and Politics: the Production?

dclam
2006-08-31 05:04 pm UTC (link)

I disagree. The reason the debate sounds so skewed is that there are very few people working to present "our" side of the case. If you look at the grassroots "media" organizations in the US, you get ones like Minnesota's own mediawise.org, which paints a near-uniformly bad image of not only video games but all media. What we need is a healthy ecosystem of organizations and individual people who present many sides to the issue.

I think one of the problems is that many of these organizations try to do everything at once. They promote policy changes, provide articles based on "studies" that favor their conclusions, and also present their own ratings of specific media. So instead of being one organism in the ecosystem of democracy, they are promoting an ecosystem that has been constructed by one group of like-minded people. You've probably figured out where I'm going with this. If you haven't, the point is this: one voice does not provide a good basis for public policy.

What gamers need to do is very simple: get involved. Get involved in community organizations. Write well-reasoned editorials to your local and regional newspapers. Find other people who agree with you, as well as some who don't agree with you.

Start an organization. It doesn't have to be focused on advocacy. In the US, you can start a non-profit organization for the purpose of "recreation". This means you could found a group whose purpose is to get together and play games once a month or something. You could then host "community events" where you introduce people to video games, without any of the political BS. Simply have demonstrations of games, and let people try them. Maybe have a "history of video games" presentation or something.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	finaleve 2006-08-30 12:21 am UTC (link)
	...why? The election that important that you wanna crap out more money that the citizens gave you? Seriously, it's hitting a low next to JT. Just give up while you are nowhere near being ahead, because the grave can keep getting deeper. (Reply to this)

	One Major Problem For Mike Hatch beardoggx 2006-08-30 01:19 am UTC (link)
	He's appealing to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down St. Louis County's "law" in 2003. Good night. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: One Major Problem For Mike Hatch lost_watcher 2006-08-30 02:26 am UTC (link)
	Ooh, now thats going to be interesting. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: One Major Problem For Mike Hatch hayabusa75 2006-08-30 02:50 am UTC (link)
	Che. What a choad. Maybe he's some kind of masochist and enjoys the punishment. "We must appeal! Not enough people saw me get owned!" (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