law posts

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) challenged a Minnesota state law that "sought to penalize minors for the purchase of rental of M- or AO-rated games." The judge ruled in the ESA's favor, calling the law unconstitutional, and saying that "there is no showing whatsoever that video games, in the absence of other violent media, cause even the slightest injury to children." The state was forced to cover $65,000 in attorney fees and expenses.

The ESA has won similar cases in nine other states. CEO Michael D. Gallagher said: "Courts across the United States have ruled consistently that video games are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other forms of art, such as music and literature."

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) rates each game's appropriateness for children, and its ratings are displayed on every retail box. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has found that 80% of parents are aware of the system, and the judge in the Minnesota case suggested that tax payer dollars would be best spent "to help support [the ESRB system], rather than continue to pursue unconstitutional legislation that works against it."

Haven't we been through this already? Well, maybe not exactly this, but the videogame industry has gone through lots of trouble to avoid having laws drafted on the restriction of game content and sales. In this case, however, it's a little more thoughtful, but still worthless. As we briefly mentioned a little over an hour ago, a new federal bill just proposed would seek to restrict the sale of M-rated (yes, it uses the ESRB ratings system) to minors through means of ID checks.

It's great that the government is putting more trust into the ratings system, but the MPAA doesn't have to go through this with its ratings system. In fact, it is regularly said that the MPAA ratings are a voluntary system and do not have the force of law. So why do videogames have to?