Minnesota Pays Video Game Industry $65K In Fees 142
I Said More Ham writes "Minnesota's attorney general will drop the state's efforts to fine underage buyers of violent videogames after a high court struck down a state law as unconstitutional.
The Entertainment Software Association, one of the plaintiffs in the case, announced Monday that the state paid $65,000 in attorney's fees and expenses."
Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:2, Informative)
Film Ratings in the USA are not enforced by law (Score:4, Informative)
In the USA films are rated by the MPAA which is a trade association of the film industry, not a government agency. The film ratings are enforced by the MPAA themselves not by law. States or the federal government do not enforce the ratings. There is no state or national law preventing the sale of R-rated films to minors.
This is the same situation as videogame ratings. The games are rated by the industry and enforced by the industry.
Re:"objective analysis".. riiight (Score:5, Informative)
PSOGC
Phantasy Star Online for the Gamecube for those of us left baffled.
Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:3, Informative)
Of course they can. But it's not illegal to sell someone milk, even if they are lactose intolerant. It's the person's responsibility to know they can't handle milk.
I'm going to be slightly pedantic and point out that a food intolerance is very different to a food allergy. Food intolerances typically just cause you a lot of paid, food allergies can kill you. Lactose intolerance generally just gives you a sore stomach or maybe the runs. A full blown milk allergy would be the sort of thing that could kill you. It's a common misconception - I only really know the difference because my wife is lactose intolerant. This leads on to...
I can just hear you asking, "But wait! Kids don't realize that their allergens are bad for them. We currently handle selling video games EXACTLY how we handle selling milk: Making the kids PARENTS responsible for preventing them from getting their hands on things that their parents think are bad for them.
The comparison could get interesting at this point. If you regard children as having some sort of intolerance to violence, etc, then the comparison holds - we don't restrict access to things that we're merely intolerant to and the responsibility rests with the consumer. However, if we regard violence in the media as something to which children are allergic and which could result in death (be it theirs, or whoever they choose to kill while under the influence of GTA or whatever), which is arguably how things are treated, then we find ourselves in a position which is harder to compare to food allergies. It would be like saying that a shopkeeper can't legally sell, say, peanut butter to someone that they know has a severe peanut allergy, because it will likely end in death. I wonder what the legal position would be on that one?