Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Entertainment Games News

Minnesota Pays Video Game Industry $65K In Fees 142

Posted by kdawson from the don't-let-the-door-hit-you dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Minnesota Pays Video Game Industry $65K In Fees More

Minnesota Pays Video Game Industry $65K In Fees

Comments Filter:
  • So, what's the point of having those ratings in the first place? Aside from letting people know if a game is gruesome or not, there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.

    • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:35PM (#24009277)

      Uh, why do movies have ratings?

      • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Vectronic ( 1221470 ) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:38PM (#24009317)

        ooh ooh...my turn...

        Why does food have listed ingredients?

        • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by kitsunewarlock ( 971818 ) on Monday June 30, 2008 @09:35PM (#24010439) Journal
          Because allergins can lead to severe medical problems?

          • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by jmac1492 ( 1036880 ) on Monday June 30, 2008 @10:29PM (#24010827)
            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 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.

            • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by KGIII ( 973947 ) <uninvolved@outlook.com> on Monday June 30, 2008 @11:07PM (#24011131) Journal
              Holding parents responsible? Pfft! We can't do THAT now can we?

            • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by xalorous ( 883991 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @02:35AM (#24012467) Journal

              Which is exactly the point. Ultimately parents are responsible for their children, and they should be held accountable.

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by leuk_he ( 194174 )

              Then sell them alcohol.

              before you know it the analogy police is going to get you!

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by CauseWithoutARebel ( 1312969 )

                There's a causal link between decreased motor and mental faculties and alcohol, and between cigarette smoke and various diseases. Hence the prohibition on selling them to people who, in theory, are unable to make an appropriate decision regarding the use of those products because they haven't reached the ages of 18 and 21 where magical fairy-thinking kicks in and you suddenly gain 50 IQ points so that...

                OK, wait... tangent there...

                Anyway, the whole argument here is that the state couldn't prove a causal lin

            • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Lunarsight ( 1053230 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @06:22AM (#24013537) Homepage

              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 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.

              Therein lies the problem - there are a lot of 'not responsible' parents out there.

              I play Grand Theft Auto IV online via X-Box Live, and a lot of the people playing sound WAY too young to be playing it.

              Ironically enough, it's often the high-pitched ones that sound like they're barely out of grade school that are the biggest troublemakers. Some of them cuss more foully than the adults do! (It's not to say the adults won't shoot you dead, but they're typically more polite about it.)

              If a parent thinks their kid is mature enough to handle a game like this, then I'm okay with them buying it on their behalf. But I'll level with you - I don't think many parents know their kids half as well as they think they do, and some don't even make the effort to 'know' them at all.

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by loafula ( 1080631 )

                If a parent thinks their kid is mature enough to handle a game like this, then I'm okay with them buying it on their behalf. But I'll level with you - I don't think many parents know their kids half as well as they think they do, and some don't even make the effort to 'know' them at all.

                Then these kids have far more to worry about than video games.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Von Helmet ( 727753 )

              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 yo

            • However there are many cases in which allergens are not so easily found. It is the person's responsibility to know if they are lactose intolerant, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to find out if a product does or does not contain dairy. It is easier to sell to someone with these allergens if the products are listed (it is, in a big way, a service), so the consumer with allergens can splurge shop without having to stop before buying anything to check the internet, a book, etc... to ensure their
      • In Mexico, the ratings are used by movie theatres for access. If you don't show ID you won't get to see the "C" movies (unless of course you look like you are old enough).

        And it's actually backed up by law, so, in theory (a very big "in theory"), the state can prosecute those movie theatres that let minors inside a restricted movie.

      • Uh, why do movies have ratings?

        So "NC-17" movies can be rendered financially untenable and getting an "R" rating involves dealing with a secretive private committee of short sighted inconsistent morons who answer to no one all because of the threat of congress unconstitutionally taking regulation of movies into it's own hands?
        --
        IP Finding [ipfinding.com]

    • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by maglor_83 ( 856254 ) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:37PM (#24009305)

      So that parents can have some idea of the content in the games they buy their children. And stores can implement policies preventing the sale of violent games to minors independent of the government.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by CastrTroy ( 595695 )
        Wouldn't it be just as easy for the parents to do a little research on the game to figure out of it was right for their kids? OK, it probably wouldn't be just as easy, but the parents could make a much better judgement call if they downloaded the demo, or just went to a few review sites to see what the game was like. Instead of trusting the ratings blindly.

        • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Thugthrasher ( 935401 ) on Monday June 30, 2008 @09:08PM (#24010211)
          That would be a best case scenario. But if you are a parent, and you have 3 children all aged of 12-18 (mine did at one point about 15 years ago, not the mention the 10 year old they had at that point) and the children are all interested in different things, it becomes a nightmare to try to keep track of every individual thing they want. Now, if one of the children is interested in video games, the parent should probably try to keep some handle on what the more popular games out there are, so they can easily make calls if the kid asks "Can I have this game?" However, if kid suddenly asks for "Obscure Game X" the parent might not be able to make an easy call while at the store...it's quite convenient if there are ratings in that situation. If the game is rated "E for everyone" or "T for teen" then the parent should be safe assuming it is an acceptable game for their 15 year old child. However, if the game is rated "M for mature," the parent can THEN say "Well, not right now, let me look into it a bit and I'll decide for you." Again, these are close to ideal parents in this case, but just an example of how ratings are useful, even if there isn't a law governing how games are sold based on ratings.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Proteus ( 1926 )

            if the game is rated "M for mature," the parent can THEN say "Well, not right now, let me look into it a bit and I'll decide for you."

            Sorry to pick on you*, but while this is oodles more reasonable than most parents, it still misses the point of parenthood by a huge margin.

            The core responsibility of a parent is to turn your kids into responsible and healthy adults. Sometimes, true, this means protecting them or making decisions on their behalf; but telling a 15-year-old kid "let me research this rated-M g

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Belial6 ( 794905 )
          No, it wouldn't be just as easy, or even come close to working. Shopping often involves looking at what a store has BEFORE you make a decision. Your method would require the parent to download demos of EVERY game ever produced, so that when they showed up at the store, the parent would already know what each and every game on the shelf is like. This doesn't even bring in the issue of consoles, which would require the parent to go out and rent every single game released so that they would be prepared when

        • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday June 30, 2008 @09:24PM (#24010327)

          It ain't that easy.

          Do you remember the Quake ad? Unfortunately I can't find that picture online, but it depicted one of those "ideal families", mommy, daddy, two kids, gathered around the computer, all smiling, the only thing that was missing was some sort of halo around them to make it a poster for some religious group.

          Now imagine someone buying Quake based on that ad.

          But even aside of ads, it isn't easy to find real information about a game online. If anything, you get opinions, praise and slander alike, but really little info what it's about. You also can't say that you go by producer, there is no studio that produces "only" a certain kind of games. Playing it yourself may also yield no sensible information within a few hours, or at least can't rule out that sooner or later you run into something you don't want your kids to see.

          Not to mention that there are few parents who actually play well enough to get far...

          So I do see ratings as a good thing to give parents guidelines. What's important, though, is to also note why a game got a certain rating. Why has a game a certain rating? Violence? Sex? Drug use? Language? I think I'm not alone when I say that a PG13 (language) is not the same for me as a PG13 (violence). I laugh at the former, you hear worse on the average schoolyard. I would at least take a look at the latter.

          But what stands is that the final arbiter when it comes to what a kid can or can't see is the parents. No state, no government, no "opinion group", no lobbyist, no organisation, no company.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by xstonedogx ( 814876 )

          The ratings are a very convenient first step. If it is rated M, I know it is not okay for my daughter; no need to look into it. If it is rated E, I know it is probably okay. I'll still look into it, but being able to "eyeball" and rule out an entire class of games makes life easier. On top of that, once the games are home, it's easier to set clear boundaries. My kid knows that any games rated E that I've allowed in our house are fair game, but that games rated M or whatever are daddy's games.

        • I agree, though I think the ratings are a good thing in that they gave you probably a quick idea as to whether or not you should do the extra work.

          If I had kids, I would have no problem with them seeing a 'G' rated movie. If my eight-year-old wanted to go see a 'PG' movie, I might at least check it out, where I wouldn't if my 13-year-old wanted to see it. If my 15-year-old kid wanted to see an 'R' rated movie, I'd want to see whether it was worth going with him.

          The ratings system can give you a quick refe

    • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by m0rph3us0 ( 549631 ) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:39PM (#24009335)

      To provide the customer an objective analysis of things they or the party they are purchasing for may find offensive in the game before purchasing the game in an effort to reduce returns or unsatisfactory feelings arising from the purchase.

    • obviously, because you don't _think_of_the_children_, you must be a terrorist. the proper channels have been notified and you will be swarmed by federal agents shortly.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I'm sure terrorists think children make fantastic targets. So even they are "thinking of the children".

    • So, what's the point of having those ratings in the first place?

      Aside from letting people know if a game is gruesome or not, there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.

      Presumably the repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games is that they're punished when their parents find out. Voluntary ratings systems ostensibly exist to inform the consumer about content, not to restrict it. Methods of enforcement are left up to the end users.

      • What if a 14 year old buys himself an M rated game for the DS? A kid could easily hide a DS game and never have his parents find out about it. Also, while only playing while outside the house, it would be pretty difficult for his parents to catch him playing.

        • Who cares? I sure as hell don't. Your kid, *your* responsibility.

          • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Yeah, I don't want you in my society either?

            So who's going to leave?

        • Time to tell your kid about the birds and the bees, or do you want some hentai game to do the job for you? I mean, he could start wondering why his doodle ain't vanishing when it gets hard.

          How about a completely radical and novel idea, like... I dunno, preparing kids for the real life instead of trying to shelter them from it?

        • If he's 14, then I really don't care. Personally, by the time a kid is 14, I think we're past any content that's gonna harm him. By that age you're wrapping up the whole parenting gig and getting ready to send them out alone to find out the rest. A video game isn't going to screw them up at that point if they're not already there.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by cliffski ( 65094 )

            really?
            You are postulating that an interactive media will not affect behaviour past age 14?
            Whereas everyone on earth would accept that a passive media (advertising) has a massive effect on the behaviour of people of all ages. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry.
            It may have *less* effect, but it DEFINITELY has some effect.

    • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Adambomb ( 118938 ) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:40PM (#24009351) Journal

      So, what's the point of having those ratings in the first place? Aside from letting people know if a game is gruesome or not, there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.

      Well, highlighted IS the reason for the rating system. Although the "people" in question are supposed to be the parents who are supposed to,you know , be parenting their children.

      If children are buying these games without parental supervision, then they are already being trusted by their parents to have enough assets available to them to be able to do so. If their children are able to obtain the funds without their parents knowing, then they should be able to realize this when unknown 40$ games appear around the house.

      Busy or not, theres correlatable signs to be able to track your childrens actions. And as a parent, no cry of correlation isnt causation will fly as you don't need a warrant to check their room.

      Do apologize if you're wrong though.

      • Hell, when I was younger, I sure didnt ask to get some "mature game". That mark wasnt even around then. You bought/downloaded/copied a game to see if it was good.

        Whoops. That Leisure Suit Larry is mature, I guess. Oh well.

        These days, people just download what they cant buy. If 16 yr old cant buy said game, just rip it from piratebay. Really, who cares?

    • Possibly to inform the parents that should be making the purchase to begin with?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by shadylookin ( 1209874 )
      To give parents who don't have time to play video games a general idea of the type of content in them so they can make a somewhat informed decision about whether they want their children to play the game. If nothing else it certainly wasn't made so the government could fine children $25 unconstitutionally.

    • The same reason insulation must display a resistivity value: so the customer knows what the hell they're buying. It might not be illegal to sell mature games to young kids, but it's illegal to put a teen rating on those games (or it should be!).

      • The same reason insulation must display a resistivity value: so the customer knows what the hell they're buying. It might not be illegal to sell mature games to young kids, but it's illegal to put a teen rating on those games (or it should be!).

        So you think it should be illegal to put an arbitrary rating on the game other than the arbitrary rating decided by some (arbitrary) people?

        While I'd agree with you if the box says "Contains no violence" when the game does in fact contain violence as that is clearly mislabeling a product. However, something being labeled that it is acceptable for a teen is a rather arbitrary distinction.

    • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Monday June 30, 2008 @08:34PM (#24009915)

      ...there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.

      Just because there are no legal repercussions, doesn't mean there are no repercussions. Likewise, if your kids watch an X rated movie, the police don't bust them, but you might ground them. It's the job of the parents to raise kids, not the police.

    • I remember running into wal-mart 'real quick' to buy Diablo II when I was younger. The cash register reminded the woman to card me, so not only did I have to get my dad from out of the car, but I had to give him the money to give to her (a little extreme). Anyway, my parents never cared what I played because they trusted me, and I was open about it. Kids are either going to sneak it, or they are going to have an open conversation with their parents. Denying kids to go off and purchase whatever they want

    • Ratings are there so that sales clerks and parents can stop children from buying inappropriate items.

  • As the lawyer was leaving he was pulled from his BMW and thrown to the street as a 15 year old told him what for..as he jacked his car and ran over a hooker leaving the garage.
  • The money goes to the lawyers, not the game companies. That's just not right. Game companies are paragons of virtue. But lawyers, man, they just make me hope that I find an RPG on a rooftop and a couple of handgrenades in an alley so can run them down in the street and frag those lawyers.
    • Utopia called, they want their ideas back.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The hand grenades I can see, but what would you do with the role-playing game?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PhxBlue ( 562201 )
      Of course money doesn't go to the game companies. If they want money, they'll have to go to court and show actual damages -- and since they probably weren't selling M-rated games to minors in the first place, that would be a pretty tall order.

  • Oh Boy now I'm a babysitter! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:47PM (#24009431)

    What about my right to play M-rated games online without prepubescent rants about how my mother is a slut who sleeps with any guy who can pwn her n00b of a son who can't even sploit his way to the 1337 sn1p3r spots? Or listen to little Billy discuss how he discovered the joys of masturbation!

    Thanks Minnesota attorney general. You really saved the day, you jackass.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by osu-neko ( 2604 )
      Hehe. Well, it's the job of the Attorney General to enforce the law. When Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed the law, it was incumbent upon the state's offices to pursue it. Now that the courts have struck it down, those same people should act accordingly, unless they really feel that it's worth pursuing further. In this case, it really isn't. Good for Lori Swanson for recognizing that and not dragging this through the courts further.

  • Your tax money at work! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday June 30, 2008 @08:08PM (#24009675)

    Realize where that money comes from they're now paying, and what it was being used for in the first place.

    Such things affect everyone, no matter how much he doesn't care about games. Or whatever other trivial matter that should be handled by people individually is being made a public issue.

    Nannystates aren't just interfering with your privacy and free decision, they also cost a ton of money that could be spent better.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Harmonious Botch ( 921977 ) *

      Realize where that money comes from they're now paying, and what it was being used for in the first place.

      Such things affect everyone, no matter how much he doesn't care about games. Or whatever other trivial matter that should be handled by people individually is being made a public issue.

      Nannystates aren't just interfering with your privacy and free decision, they also cost a ton of money that could be spent better.

      Actually, the money was spent very efficiently. It gave Pawlenty national exposure as the good guy fighting evil and protecting the children. And at a very convenient time, just when McCain sewed up the nomination and it became obvious that he might need a more straight party line guy as his VP.

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 )

        Care to tell me what my benefit is?

        If anything, it told me that Pawlenty guy wastes my tax money. Now, I don't know him, but should he be a politician, I wouldn't vote for him. What the US needs right now is politicians who can spend money wisely and know where it's put best to help the economy recover.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by homer_s ( 799572 )
          What the US needs right now is politicians who can spend money wisely and know where it's put best to help the economy recover.

          And how would a politician know "where it's put best to help the economy recover"?
          Even if he/she was a good honest person with no special interests pushing him/her in one direction, how would that person have all the necessary information to make a wise decision?
          Look at the mess they made with ethanol.

          • Of course you can't predict with certainty which projects are "good" for the economy. But it doesn't take a genius to know what kind of projects aren't. Care to tell me what beneficial effect should have come out of this suit?

            What this reeks of is a cheap (or rather, not so cheap) attempt to appear hardcore and protective of our kids. Why people consider this a good thing is beyond me. What your kids may or may not do should be first of all your business. That's what parenting is all about. If you don't wan

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by homer_s ( 799572 )
              Care to tell me what beneficial effect should have come out of this suit?

              What made you think that I thought this suit was a good idea? Really, my response was just to this one statement of yours:

              What the US needs right now is politicians who can spend money wisely and know where it's put best to help the economy recover.

              And my point was that there is no one person (or a group of people) who can determine which projects are good and what is bad. It takes the collective intelligence of people broug

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by T3Tech ( 1306739 )
      Exactly, had the legislature been doing their job to begin with and not passing laws that fail to pass Constitutional muster, the government wouldn't have wasted thousands of dollars in tax money.
      Hmmm.. kinda the same issue with the DC/Heller thing.

      Although, more to blame than .gov and the legislators are the people that think .gov is the be-all and end-all arbiter/solver/fixer of societal ills; along with those who vote for elected officials that hold such a nannystate philosophy, if there be such a sep

      • As stated above, if you get rid of responsibility, you also invariable have to hand over freedoms. Why someone would want to do that is beyond me.

        My theory is that people follow this train of thought: "I don't play games/watch $genre/use the internet, so if they regulate it it's fine by me, since I don't have to take care that my kids don't play violent games/watch $genre/get lured by some molester".

        So the only solution would be to get more people online, more people to play games, more people to watch porn

  • Interesting to see other plaintiffs here: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fluffeh ( 1273756 ) on Monday June 30, 2008 @08:15PM (#24009733)
    Considering that the "Entertainment Software Association" was listed as one plaintiff, it seems that this case was not levied in reality against the "buyers" but against the "sellers" of the software. Well, not actually even the sellers, but people associated with the selling and manufacture.

    I am just a silly Slashie, but it seems to be like trying to sue the Motion Picture Association of America [mpaa.org] for when some kids sneak into cinema to watch an M rated movie if they are a few months shy of the age limit. Maybe sue Paramount because some teenage girls ducked in and saw Johnny Depp in Pirates III?

    *slap forehead*

    • Ummm...I think that you might be confusing plaintiffs with defendants.

      The ESA sued the Minnesota AG, as a proxy for the state. The analogy here would be that this is like being sued by the MPAA. It is my understanding that that is something to be avoided. Perhaps the lesson here is that being sued by the ESA is also to be avoided.

  • What's needed is a law to lock up the parents (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Monday June 30, 2008 @08:29PM (#24009863) Homepage

    Why not lock up the parents who allow their offspring to possess "mature" material.

    Enforcement of parenting skills would go a lot further than trying to ban everything in sight.

    I wonder if the religious do-gooders who started this suit will have to foot the bill personally.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by spydabyte ( 1032538 )
      What kind of law is that? One of morale judgment? I'm not going to get started into laws, but the parents are not doing anything illegal. They're making the decision we, the United States, have decided to give them once they have lived for 18 years. We've stated that once you've been alive for 18 years then you are physically and mentally mature enough to understand the situation you make your conscious decision in.

      Whether or not that's correct or not is a whole other ball game.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 )

      Who the heck are you to tell me how to raise my kids and what I may or may not show them?

      • I'm the same person who's telling the publishers what they may or may not publish. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    • If you imprison parents, who's going to watch their kids?

      Parents have the right to raise their children any way they want, and stepping back outside of the imagination of morals, it's the point of the more darwinian aspect of intelligent life to leave it to parents to make the decisions they want.

      If their children then 'succeed at life', then they're influence may have helped. If their children 'fail at life', then that's just nature taking it's course.

      We can't have winners without losers, and worse, we can

    • Why not lock up the parents who allow their offspring to possess "mature" material.

      Ok, you go lock up the parents of every teenage boy (or girl) who possesses some form of pornography.

      Let's see how well our economy continues to function once 80-90% of our citizens age 35-55 are in jail...

  • Suddenoutbreakofcommonsense and Haha

  • Does this mean minors can now buy porno, too? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BobMcD ( 601576 ) on Monday June 30, 2008 @08:57PM (#24010119)

    I mean, there's no provable, causal link between violence and porno either. AND porno has been found, time and time again, to BE protected.

    There's something schizophrenic going on here...

    • Sure it is. For some odd reason it's more acceptable to show how people hurt each other than to show how people pleasure each other.

      Don't ask me why. But take the average PG13 action movie, with gunfights, people "dying", explosions... if you showed the same detail in sex, the movie would get an M. If it wasn't outlawed for too extreme display of weird sexual practices in the first place.

  • Film Ratings in the USA are not enforced by law (Score:4, Informative)

    by bigbigbison ( 104532 ) on Monday June 30, 2008 @09:59PM (#24010625) Homepage
    Every time videogame rating laws come up people ask why they shouldn't be legally enforced the way film ratings are. This is an incorrect assumption.

    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.
  • They mine as well also write a law fining underaged kids who sneak into R movies . . . why they are treating video games any differently from other forms of media is still beyond me o_O

  • $65k fine? (Score:2, Funny)

    by DrMrLordX ( 559371 )
    Why did they bother with a $65k fine? I would have been more impressed if they had made it a $65,535 fine or something.

    • Why did they bother with a $65k fine? I would have been more impressed if they had made it a $65,535 fine or something.

      But that's only $64k (a dollar less than it, actually), which is clearly less than $65k.

      (ducks)

      • Why did they bother with a $65k fine? I would have been more impressed if they had made it a $65,535 fine or something.

        1 word: Excel

  • so what thats like.. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    3hrs of the lawyers time?

  • Money well spent (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ghostalker474 ( 1022885 ) <Ghostalker@gDEBIANmail.com minus distro> on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @04:38AM (#24013103)
    I'm sure the residents of Minnesota are thrilled where their tax dollars are going.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dbmasters ( 796248 )
      yes, we are indeed very pleased with out gov't in the last year voting for tax hikes for pet projects, voting themselves a 62% raise in "daily spending allowance" (they now get about $100 a day for lunch and parking expenses) and now they take kids to court and fine them for buying violent games... Yep, we Minnesotans are popping buttons with pride.

      • And now we get a .25% sales tax increase in the cities to buy more buses, or some shit. Nevermind that they just jacked up our taxes not that long ago to build a goddamn stadium that nobody but the wealthy team owners wanted. Good thing we don't have bridges falling down or anything...

  • Minnesota Pays Lawyers $65K In Fees

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close