Yesterday, GamePolitics reported on Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch's plans to appeal a July federal court decision which ruled that the state's "fine the buyer" video game law was unconstitutional.

Hatch, of course, riled gamers earlier in June with language in a court filing which described some games as "worthless, disgusting speech" and "speech of very low societal value."

Hatch, a Democrat, also happens to be running for Governor and faces an uphill battle against incumbent Republican Tim Pawlenty, who signed the bill into law, thus triggering the legal battle with the video game industry.

In overturning the Minnesota law, Federal Judge James Rosenbaum issued a stinging rebuke to Hatch, writing, ""The First Amendment... was certainly established to keep the government from becoming the arbiter of what constitutes 'worthless' or 'disgusting' speech. The Court declines the State's invitation to enter into an evaluation of this kind."
( Read more... )

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.

Our first stop on today's journey through game-related editorials takes us to Oklahoma, where Oklahoma political blog Red State offers high-fives over the recent Congressional primary defeat of Republican Fred Morgan (left), author of the Sooner State's contested video game law:

"Gone is Fred Morgan, blow-dried blow-hard of negative campaigning and irrelevance whose lifetime goal of banning violent video games is unconstitutional..."


Next we turn to the halls of academia, where an op-ed in the University of Georgia's Red and Black declares "America is under attack..."

But author Blake Miller offers no terror warnings. Instead, he disses political correctness and advocates a "hands-off" view of censorship, including video games:
( Read more... )

In the wake of the video game industry's resounding legal victory in Minnesota, industry lawyers are seeking to file a copy of Judge James Rosenbaum's decision with the Federal District Court considering Louisiana's video game law.

On Tuesday, attorneys representing the ESA and EMA filed a motion with Judge James Brady, hoping to introduce the Minnesota decision into the record.

As of yet, Judge Brady has not ruled on the video game industry's request.

Even though a Federal District Court judge trashed Minnesota's video game law in a sharply-worded ruling yesterday, one of the sponsors of the legislation is ready to try again.

As reported by the St. Paul Pioneer-Press, State Sen. Sandy Pappas (D, seen at left) may propose new video game legislation in next year's session.

"The whole ruling defied common sense. I am so disappointed," she told the Pioneer-Press.

"The federal court said we don't have a right to protect our children, but we protect our children from other things. We don't let them smoke or buy liquor. You score points (in video games) for how many women you rape, how many cops you kill. How could that not affect them psychologically?"

GP: The ruling by Judge James Rosenbaum said nothing of the sort. Sen. Pappas is clearly politicking here. And by the way, we'd like to know where she gets her information about games. Is there a game that awards points for raping women? If so, GP hasn't seen it...
( Read more... )

It seems that gamers weren't the only ones troubled by Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch's rather bizarre take on violent video games, which he referred to as "worthless, disgusting speech" and "speech of low societal value."

Federal District Court Judge James Rosenbaum today issued a permanent injunction against Minnesota's "fine the buyer" law. The unusual statute turned traditional video game legislation on end by levying $25 fines against underage buyers of M- and AO-rated games.

As reported by the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune, Judge Rosenbaum ruled that Minnesota failed to prove any harm to kids caused by violent games. The Judge also ruled that the law violated the First Amendment, writing:

"The First Amendment . . . was certainly established to keep the government from becoming the arbiter of what constitutes 'worthless' or 'disgusting' speech. The Court declines the State's invitation to enter into an evaluation of this kind."
( Read more... )

For today's editorial roundup we turn to a pair of articles inspired by GamePolitics' exclusive revelation of Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch's reactionary statements about video games.

Writing for the Globe and Mail, Scott Colbourne said:

"Nothing makes me happier to be Canadian than a sustained dose of U.S. politics. Somewhere along the line... the practice of throwing out enormous falsehoods to begin a debate became standard operating procedure...

Each month seems to bring new laws... often quickly overturned by courts because they contravene the U.S. Constitution's free-speech clause. Minnesota is one of the latest jurisdictions to go down this path..."

"As usual, there are no titles - or any factual substantiation - to go along with (Hatch's) list of virtual horrors. And I have seen the same list, almost word for word, repeated time and again. I can only assume there is a memo of talking points making the rounds."

"It is true that a portion of video games... do trade in violence... It can be disturbing and it should be taken seriously, but that brand of scare tactic - slaughtering babies? rape? - does not invite thoughtful conversation. In fact, it begins the debate at such a remove from the actual issues in play that most sensible people, gamers or not, will be turned off."
( Read more... )

Even though he is currently embroiled in a First Amendment battle with the video game industry, Minnesota's Attorney General Mike Hatch - unlike some other high profile critics we could mention - is a big enough man to admit that games are speech. Just one problem, though - he finds them to be a "worthless, disgusting" variety of speech.

Hatch filed a memorandum earlier this week with the Federal District Court in Minneapolis, There, the video game industry is seeking to have Minnesota's "fine the buyer" law overturned on constitutional grounds. In his memorandum, Attorney General Hatch is unsparing in expressing his revulsion toward violent video games. Hatch's wording is so over-the-top, in fact, that you can almost hear him retching in the background. Check out this purple prose:

"In balancing the applicable interests in this case, the court should err on the side of protecting minors rather than protecting their limited right of access to such low value speech..."

"...the Court here must ultimately balance the State's compelling interests in protecting the psychological well-being and ethical and moral development of minors against the limited First Amendment right of minors to access speech of very low societal value..."

"...there may be few, if any, other forms of speech, even though protected, that are of any lesser societal value than repulsive video games depicting the bloody slaughter of babies and animals, urination and defecation, rape, decapitation, dismemberment and disembowlment."

"...the Court should consider and weigh the societal value of the worthless, disgusting speech at issue..."

After reading Hatch's memorandum I feel so... unclean. I also confess that, even though I have written about games for more than a decade and played them for longer, I am at a loss to understand some of his points. Slaughter of babies and animals? Defecation? Rape? When? Where?

Download Attorney General Hatch's memorandum here.

This Sunday's editorial roundup focuses on legislative happenings in Minnesota and Washington, D.C.

In the Gopher State, the video game industry has filed suit to block implementation of a new state law that would fine underage game buyers $25. On Capitol Hill, the Senate is considering Hillary Clinton's Family Entertainment Protection Act (FEPA).

Let's start with the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune, where columnist John Reinan writes, "The Legislature wanted to protect Minnesota kids from violent, sex-filled video games. So it went after the kids... Even the law's chief sponsor thinks it won't be enforced. But... the game business fought back with the fury of a mutant zombie in Resident Evil... Video games are as much a part of today's childhood as hi-fis and comic books were in previous generations, and it's doubtful that kids are being warped by them, said several metro teens."

The Mankato Free Press was critical of the Minnesota statute, saying "The law is almost certain to be overturned. It should be... Game makers and retailers... argue the law is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech and that video games are as much an artistic expression as film, music and literature. It's a good argument, and one that is presiding in court cases across the country.
( Read more... )

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.
( Read more... )

The ESA, seeking to overturn video game legislation signed into law by Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) last week, has just announced that it will file suit in Minnesota Federal District Court. An ESA press release notes that "Similar laws have been struck down by six courts in five years, including the Eighth Circuit which governs Minnesota, costing taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal fees."

ESA president Doug Lowenstein was unsparing in his criticism of the Minnesota law, which takes the unusual approach of fining underage game buyers $25.

"The bill's tortured effort to end run the First Amendment by punishing kids directly fails under the Constitution because children have rights under the First Amendment, like all other citizens, said Lowenstein.

"The State is attempting to impose liability on children because they know that courts have consistently held that they cannot penalize retailers... If this law is implemented... it will create a huge amount of confusion for retailers, parents, and children."

Joining Lowenstein in attacking the Minnesota law was Bo Andersen, President of the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA).

"Legislators in the state of Minnesota have enacted a video game restriction law that they apparently do not want enforced and understand cannot constitutionally be enforced," said Andersen.

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

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...

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...

My wife always tells me, "GP, don't be so cynical."

Easier said than done, honey. When you're wading through the muck of the political arena day-in and day-out, it's tough to avoid looking at things with a slightly jaundiced eye. And, yes, I make her call me GP.

So why am I a cynic? Here are a couple of reasons:

In Oklahoma, Rep. Fred Morgan (R, seen at left) has succeeded in getting his video game legislation, HB3004, passed by both the House and Senate. It is now on its way to Gov. Brad Henry who seems likely to sign the bill into law.

As for Morgan, due to Oklahoma's term limits, he's currently staring at the end of his career in the State House. As part of his plan to reduce unemployment (his own), Morgan is running for Congress in his Oklahoma City district. He faces a July 25th primary. His campaign website, naturally, touts the video game bill.

And then there's Minnesota, where Rep. Jeff Johnson (R) has rammed through his own video game bill. Instead of the more traditional "Let the buyer beware" approach, let's call Johnson's measure "Let the buyer be scared," since the Assistant Majority Leader has turned the tables on typical video game legislation by making underage game consumers - not retailers - subject to civil fines for attempting to buy M-rated games like Halo 2 or The Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion.

Did we mention that Johnson is running for Attorney General of Minnesota? His campaign site trumpets Johnson's testimony on video game violence before a U.S. Senate Judiciary sub-committee hearing chaired by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) in late March.

Morgan and Johnson aren't the only ones, of course. In California, Assembly Speaker pro Tem Leland Yee (D) faces a June primary in his bid for the State Senate. And of course, Sen. Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential aspirations are well known.

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

Lots of editorial opinion to check out today, so here goes:

Strong stuff in the Washington Post, where writer Jose Antonio Vargas offers more info on the highly-controversial Super Columbine Massacre RPG game, including the revelation of the real name of its creator, Danny LeDonne (seen at left). By the way, I think GP is first to reveal LeDonne's MySpace. The WaPo's Vargas also spoke to the widow of Columbine victim Dave Sanders, a popular teacher killed in the 1999 school shooting. Vargas reports that, upon learning that a video game based on the massacre had been created, Mrs. Sanders was, quite understandably, unable to continue the conversation.

In the Peoria Journal-Star, columnist Phil Luciano blames poor writing skills on video games. Luciano writes in part, "Many of my college students... seem to be less familiar with books than earlier generations. In part, you can blame the influence of video games in pre-teens' lives. If the choice is 'Moby Dick' or Playstation, I think we know which one a kid will pick... In other words, good writing means good salaries. Think about that the next time you choose between taking your kid to the video store or the library..."

GP: For many reasons, we think Luciano couldn't be more wrong on this point. We'd advise him to do a little research next time, and encourage him to read Marc Prensky's excellent Don't Bother Me, Mom - I'm Learning!!.
( Read more... )

The phrase, "Let the buyer beware" may soon take on a special meaning for gamers in Minnesota.

Yesterday, by a 114-17 vote, the Minnesota House passed a measure introduced by State Rep. Jeff Johnson (R), who is also a candidate for Attorney General.

As reported by Minnesota Public Radio, Johnson's bill, HF1298, requires retailers to post signs which explain the video game rating system. Of greater concern to gamers and the video game industry, however, is a $25 civil fine which can be assessed against underage buyers of M or AO-rated games. This approach is quite novel, since video game legislation typically places the onus on retailers, not customers.

GamePolitics spoke to Rep. Johnson about his unusual bill last night.

"We were trying to pass the narrowest bill possible just to try something different from a constitutional challenge standpoint," he explained. Johnson expects the Minnesota Senate to approve the bill sometime on Saturday. Should that happen it will be sent to Gov. Tim Pawlenty for signature. While Gov. Pawlenty has not said so publicly, according to Johnson he has given some indications that he would be receptive to signing the bill into law. Should the Guv sign the proposed legislation into law, Johnson fully expects the video game industry to challenge its implementation.

"It's a little frustrating," he said, "when you take their own rating (system) and you try to create what is really a pretty insignificant restriction and they say, 'well, we're still going to come in and fight and it's going to cost you a million bucks. They claim it's because of the First Amendment."
( Read more... )

Making the rounds of today's editorials, GP finds two items certain to be of interest to readers.

First stop is the Wichita Eagle, where Opinion Editor Phillip Brownlee gives kudos to Kansas' Republican Senator Sam Brownback for encouraging state legislatures to pass video game restrictions. Brownlee also questions why a bill proposed by Democratic State Rep. Jim Ward hasn't progressed. Brownlee concludes:

"In the end, of course, it's up to parents to act like parents and not let their children play inappropriate video games. And, no, playing a violent video game doesn't mean that a teen will go on a shooting rampage. But it is reasonable and responsible to expect that games rated for adults only are sold only to adults."

Next, Minnesota State Rep. Jeff Johnson, (R - pictured at left), chairman of the House Civil Law Committee, pens an op-ed for the Minneapolis-St. Paul StarTribune in support of video game legislation which he has proposed.

Johnson, who testified before Sen. Brownback's U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing on video games last month, is the sponsor of HF1298, a bill which would assess $25 fines against under-17's who attempt to buy M-rated games.

Johnson writes, "My intent is not to make criminals out of kids or to make money for the state $25 at a time. But I hope the new law will catch the attention of at least a few of the painfully oblivious parents in our state who are paying absolutely no attention to some of the garbage their little kids are playing on their video game machines."

Johnson enumerates several games that concern him, including usual suspects GTA, Postal and Manhunt. Oddly enough, he includes Clock Tower 3, a so-so 2003 survival-horror game in his list. GP doubts the game gets played much by anyone these days, much less the under-17 crowd, but Johnson must have come across it somewhere. He also mentioned Clock Tower 3 in his testimony before the Brownback subcommittee.