Did Minnesota Negotiate Away Taking Its Video Game Law to the Supreme Court?

July 1, 2008 -

As GamePolitics reported yesterday, the ESA announced that Minnesota would reimburse $65,000 in legal fees to the video game industry over the state's failed 2006 "fine the buyer" video game law.

In our coverage, we mentioned that the move apparently signalled that Minnesota would not be taking the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, its only remaining legal recourse. We've got a call into the office of Attorney General Lori Swanson (left) on the Supreme Court issue, but Finance & Commerce now seems to have nailed that part of the story down:

Attorney General Lori Swanson’s decision not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was “practical,” according to spokesman Benjamin Wogsland, who pointed out that the nation’s highest court takes “less than 1 percent of discretionary cases every year.”

But Paul Smith, an attorney representing the [video game industry] plaintiffs, said Monday that the state decided not to pursue the case further because of a deal that would require the attorney general’s office to pay a reduced amount in fees owed to plaintiff’s lawyers. Smith could not say what the reduced amount was, though a court filing from May 19 shows that the plaintiffs’ lawyers were owed nearly $84,000. Woglsand did not return calls Monday.

 

GP: If Paul Smith is correct, Minnesota essentially bargained away - for $19,000 plus future legal fees -  its opportunity to take its argument before the U.S. Supreme Court. Given all that the state had already invested in the case, that would seem a rather curious decision.

It would have been fascinating - and, yes, risky - for the Supreme Court to consider a video game law, especially given Justice Antonin Scalia's comments to Law of Play blogger Anthony Prestia that game legislation might be constitutional.


Comments

Re: Did Minnesota Negotiate Away Taking Its Video Game Law to

I'm all for freedom of ttnet vitamin speech and allowing rent a car game makers to put whatever they want in games, but there's one thing about this app that has me scratching my head.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but from araç kiralama the previous article araba kiralama on this I gathered that players can use Google maps in-game to find the other (real-life?) dealers in their area.  If this is the case, has travesti anyone considered what's stopping someone from using this app to actually move drugs between hands for reals?

But majority araba kiralama of their outrage araç kiralama stems from what it could DO TO children, not the content itself.  Talk to one of these people and you'll find they don't think any books kiralık araba should be banned from children.  Mention American Psycho and they talk about kiralık araç the redeeming value of using imagination to construct a story.  Reading, no matter what the content, is largely viewed as a consequenceless activity for people of any age.  The reason why I mention American Psycho is because of the content itself.  Gaming never has and likely never will have any scenes where someone has sex with a severed head.  Not gonna happen.  Yet despite this, they'll fight tooth and nail to protect their children from two boys kissing in Bully but whatever they read is harmless... yeah.

The entire arguement is kiralık oto based upon a social normality inflicted by luddites who can't figure out the controls for Halo so it's frightening and terrifying and obviously the cause of youth violence on the rise even though, in reality, it's in decline (which is actually a HUGE suprise given minibüs kiralama the economies status).  In  a perfect world, we would have parents that actually parent.  The idea of sales restrictions on media on oto kiralama any form to accomidate parental unwillingness to get involved with their child's life is the real problem to me.  Here I am, 32 years old, and being held up at a self-scan rent a car needing to show ID before I can buy a $10 M rated game all because Soccer Momthra can't be bothered to look at the crap Billy Genericallystupidson does in his free time.  It's too hard for her, so I have to suffer?

Re: Did Minnesota Negotiate Away Taking Its Video Game Law to

This strikes me as a rational decision.  If they had petitioned for the Supreme Court to hear the case, it is a near certainty that the Court would decline.  Aside from the statistical infrequency of cases being accepted, this one presents very few of the circumstances that the Court looks for when it decides whether to accept the case (I count only one: that it pertains to a constitutional rule of broad application).  Given that it would almost certainly never be heard by the Court, this settlement is like free money.

Re: Did Minnesota Negotiate Away Taking Its Video Game Law to

We need to gut shrubs cronies in the supreme court... I'd rather have those that follow the spirit of the law and the rights we hold dear than big biz shills who get there rocks off playing ultra fundie...............

I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
(in need of a bad overhaul)

 


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

Patreon

Deviantart

Re: Did Minnesota Negotiate Away Taking Its Video Game Law to

So Scalia thinks regulating real guns is unconstitutional but regulating virtual guns is a-ok.  Unsurprising, but still irritating.

I imagine it was an exercise

I imagine it was an exercise in damage limitation. They had already blown a large amount of money on this futile effort, bringing it to the Supreme court would have just extended the whole thing, costing them even more in attorneys fees.

Re: Did Minnesota Negotiate Away Taking Its Video Game Law to

So what about all the tax payers who had their money wasted? (New York, your next)


----
Papa Midnight
http://www.otakutimes.com
http://www.thesupersoldiers.com

 

----
Papa Midnight

Scalia

Keep in mind that what Scalia said was just a maybe. If presented with all the information he may decide otherwise. Also, regardless of his stance, he's only one of many Justices.

 -If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we'd all be livin' large. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard Medical School researchers Larry Kutner and Cheryl Olson

Reality/////////////////////////////////////Fantasy. Seems like a pretty thick line to me...

Re: Did Minnesota Negotiate Away Taking Its Video Game Law to

Frankly I'm kinda glad it didn't go to the Surpeme Court yet, with its recent 5-4 ruling on keeping the second amendment in Washington DC...If the 2nd amendment came close to being restricted, what's stopping the 1st from the same treatment?

Re: Did Minnesota Negotiate Away Taking Its Video Game Law to

I'm going to take this one and be thankful.  Saves tax dollars in the long run, and despite the missed opportunity to see the Supreme Court rule on VG legislation...we won't have to see the Supreme Court rule on VG legislation.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Infophile(cont'd) their audience of almost-entirely-non-bankers?07/31/2015 - 1:15pm
InfophileIt's frankly an implausible belief that the original title was meant to offend gamers. It appeared on Gamasutra, which targets the industry, not gamers. If you saw a title like "Bankers are dead" on this site, would you think they were trying to offend...07/31/2015 - 1:15pm
Infophile@Big Perm: I agree; calling out hypocrisy within your own ranks is a good thing07/31/2015 - 1:11pm
Big PermI definitely agree that yes, the titles alone were meant to provoke people who identify as gamers. It also worked07/31/2015 - 12:59pm
Infophile@Matt: I'm talking about people I've seen on this site arguing that the title alone justified the reaction to the article, that it was deliberately offensive. Not even a new YouTube video by a risen-from-the-dead Albert Einstein would change that.07/31/2015 - 12:52pm
Big PermI just didn't care for the wording. I don't think it should be changed or anything.07/31/2015 - 12:46pm
james_fudgeIf I am misunderstanding your point expand on it in the comments and i'll talk about it in there.07/31/2015 - 12:23pm
james_fudgeIt's clearly part of a broader internal fight against people like Sargon.07/31/2015 - 12:21pm
james_fudgeBig perm: fair point. On the other hand that's its origins and not saying that in some way would be a disservice to our readers07/31/2015 - 12:21pm
Andrew EisenMatt - What is the argument that Sargon supposedly debunked?07/31/2015 - 12:06pm
Big PermThat said, I don't think it's a shit article.07/31/2015 - 11:22am
Big PermNot really a fan of "one individual aligned with Gamer Gate attempted to shame a prominent figure within its own ranks". It should be encouraged that we call out hipocracy, and instead I feel that shines a negative light on such a thing.07/31/2015 - 11:21am
james_fudgeI'm curious what our GG-aligned readers think of our Necromancer story? Was it fair? Unfair?07/31/2015 - 11:11am
E. Zachary KnightMatt, That the whole stink over the articles is a bunch of BS? Because that is the only part that is BS.07/31/2015 - 8:29am
MattsworknameOh btw, info, are you still refering to that "gamers are dead" argument? Cause sargon of akkad just did a 3 video series that proves it's based on bullshit07/31/2015 - 6:46am
MattsworknameInfo: thats what you call clickbaiting to the highest level07/31/2015 - 5:43am
InfophileAnd here's why you never judge an article by its title: "Microsoft Gives All Windows 10 Users the Finger" - http://www.themarysue.com/microsoft-windows-10-middle-finger/ (I'm looking at you, people still mad about "Gamers are Dead")07/31/2015 - 5:09am
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-07-31/khan-academy-s-sal-khan-studio-1-0-full-show-7-30- not game related, but this is a good interview.07/30/2015 - 8:52pm
Goth_SkunkFinally, I never misspelled Chipman's name. So, feel free to try your luck again, but pick an opponent you can beat.07/30/2015 - 8:32pm
Goth_Skunk@Technogeek: I paid for the experience of the seat, and upon completion of the movie determined that the extra for the seat wasn't worth it. Additionally, your opinion is not law. You thinking the movie is crap does not make it so.07/30/2015 - 8:31pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician