Minnesota Courts Dismiss M rated law restrictions.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/860/860128p1.html

March 17, 2008 - As originally reported by yahoo.com, the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with an earlier ruling that a Minnesota law meant to limit sales of M- and AO-rated games was unconstitutional.

Under the law, anyone under 17 who rented or purchased games rated M or AO would be fined $25. Shortly after it was enacted, retailers contested the law and won a July '06 court case. The ruling was later appealed, but has been squashed again by the appeals court. The court has consistently ruled that there is no concrete scientific evidence that violent videogames are harmful to children.

Minnesota can continue to appeal the decision if it chooses, so this story may not be over yet.

[Vincent 2,861]

there may not be a definite correlation between violent games and violent behavior but i don't think it also means we can allow anyone access to something rated M or even T. We restrict access to movies rated R (or at least there are policies up to restrict access) and i think video games should be treated with the same scrutiny.

[Strider Hiryu 2,704]

Crazy Minnesotans and their crazy laws they try to get passed.

Normally I might agree with Vinnie on this but since my future livelihood rests on the sale of games I'll have to disagree. Since I was 5 I have watched R movies and have played games rated M since that rating was introduced (I started gaming when I was 5 but that was the old Nintendo/Atari days where games didn't really have M ratings yet) and quite frankly see nothing wrong letting kids play games rated M. I certainly wouldn't restrict my kids from playing or buying them so I don't see why all this restriction is needed. It's really sad we put our kids in the closet, they'll be introduced to it at one point in their life so you might as well do it early. Thats just my 2 cents though.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

In my opinion, its no ones business but your own what you buy and and view. If the parents want to be neglectful thats up to them. I was buying Mortal Kombat when I was in middle school. Everyone likes to blame video games for todays problems, when its simply not the problem. Anyone at any age can watch an R rated movie, parental accompaniment my be required, but they can still watch it. I don't think it should be Best Buy's or Gamestop's job to babysit the local children.

[Vincent 2,861]

what's so wrong with saying underage children need some kind of accompaniment when buying a mature game or movie? just because you did it and turned out just fine doesn't mean that the same methods would work on the rest of america.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

I didn't say anything was wrong with it, I just implied that the policy really isn't much of a restriction. They'll get there hands on it either way. There is nothing wrong with the restriction, its the way it should be. But as we can see, some courts think parental responsibility should be shoved on the businesses that sell the product. Which is wrong.

The one idiot goes out and shoots a few people or breaks someones neck in a rare isolated incident shouldn't represent the entirety of the gaming society. The millions of people that play these games and aren't affected shouldn't be punished for the few mentally unstable that have severe issues caused by things other than the games they play.

[Myk JL 1,731]

If there were a statistic you'd probably find out there is less than 1% of crimes based on Video Games. The exaggeration that videos cause violence only can move toward laws that are unconstitutional.