GamePolitics.com

An exclusive GamePolitics interview with Rep. Lee Terry (R) demonstrates that the Nebraska Congressman, co-sponsor of a new video game ratings enforcement bill, has a grasp on some video game rating issues, yet a flawed understanding of others. 

As reported earlier this week by GamePolitics, Terry and Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) introduced the Video Games Rating Enforcement Act. If approved, the bill would mandate that game retailers check IDs of mature-rated game buyers. The measure would also require that information detailing the rating system be posted in view of customers. Terry spoke to GP about the proposal:

This is a rather simple bill in that it focuses on making sure that retailers ID young folks when they try to buy an M or A[O] rated game. And this is kind of my approach instead of trying to micromanage by legislation the standards or content…

What we’d rather do is just make sure that parents are empowered with information, what the standards really mean and then what’s specifically in that game and then to make sure that retailers don’t subvert the parent’s decision… If they don’t want their child to have an M-rated game, the retailers don’t sell it to them…

Based on the timing of the new legislation, we asked Terry whether it was planned to coincide with the intense publicity surrounding the April 29th release of Grand Theft Auto IV. Terry, however, maintained that the timing was purely coincidental:

As a matter of fact, I almost thought about waiting another week or two. I will have to take some responsibility. Mr. Matheson brought this to me several months ago and… it kind of got pushed to the back burner. So it was more coincidental… but [the GTA IV hype] probably did heighten the scrutiny of the bill within the press, which is a positive thing. But we did not wait until Grand Theft Auto IV came out to drop the bill. That was coincidental.

Oddly enough, the Terry-Matheson bill, which addresses video game rating enforcement, was introduced on Wednesday, less than 24 hours before the Federal Trade Commission’s latest report gave glowing marks to the video game industry for its retail ratings enforcement. Terry, however, was clearly not acquainted with the results of the FTC report, citing 69% as the rate at which FTC secret shoppers were able to purchase M-rated games. That figure, however, is from the FTC’s 2003 survey. In 2006 the number dropped to 42%. Yesterday’s figure was an impressive 20%. We asked Terry about the FTC report: (more…)

As GamePolitics reported last month, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson (left) appealed a decision by the US 8th Circuit Court which held that a lower court was correct in ruling the state’s 2006 “fine the buyer” video game law unconstitutional.

In her appeal, Swanson was seeking what is known as an en banc review of the case, in which all of the 8th Circuit’s judges would review the decision made by a three-judge panel in March.

GamePolitics has now learned that the 8th Circuit has declined to hold the en banc review. This means that the only legal recourse available to Minnesota is an appeal to the US Supreme Court.

If that happens, it will be the first time that the Supreme Court has considered a case involving video game legislation. Making this possibility especially intriguing are comments made by Justice Antonin Scalia to Law of Play’s Anthony Prestia in February of this year:

Justice Scalia replied that he did believe such legislation was constitutional. He began by explaining his belief that sound constitutional precedent holds that minors may be subjected to prohibitions that adults are not – he instantly drew the parallel to regulation of pornography sales…

Justice Scalia did not suggest that violent and/or sexual content in games rises to the level of unprotected speech. In fact, he did not even suggest that video games themselves are not protected by the First Amendment…

We’ve got a call in to A.G. Swanson’s office to see whether an appeal to the Supreme Court is planned. In the meantime, you can view the 8th Circuit’s denial of Minnesota’s en banc request.

Politicians just can’t seem to get it right, so attorney and avid gamer Mark Methenitis, who pens the excellent Law of the Game blog, has written a guide for elected officials with a yen to legislate games.

Why? Methenitis explains:

I’m not opposed to keeping things out of the hands of kids that their parents don’t want them to have. On the other hand, I’m also not opposed to letting the parents make the choices. About the only thing I am opposed to is letting the government decide what I or my eventual kids can play. I am an adult, and I can make those decisions for myself and for my children when I become a parent.

Methenitis pens a nine-point plan. Hit the Law of the Game for the details, we’ll just summarize:

1. Forget the idea that you’re only regulating games.
2. Use the industry’s rating systems.
3. Forget ‘banning’ anything.
4. Forget basing this on obscenity or harm to children. Use commerce.
5. Forget the ‘AO’ rating for games.
6. Enforce it only on products that have to be sold to those over 17.
7. Enforce it only on sales to those who can’t present ID or present fake ID.
8. This should be a fine only offense, and only a fine against the store.
9. Once it’s done, leave it alone.

GP: While we don’t agree with everything Methenitis has to say here, it’s definitely a worthwhile read.

Thanks to: GP correspondent Andrew Eisen for the heads-up!

Michael Gallagher (left), CEO of the Entertainment Software Association, which represents a number of US video game publishers, has commented on a bill introduced in Congress earlier this week.

The Video Games Rating Enforcement Act, proposed by Reps. Lee Terry (R-NE) and Jim Matheson (D-UT) would require retailers to conduct ID checks on buyers of games featuring mature content. Of the measure, Gallager said:

The [ESA] shares Reps. Matheson and Terry’s goal of ensuring children are playing parent-approved computer and video games. That is why the ESA consistently works with parent groups, encouraging caregivers to check each game’s ESRB rating and content descriptors—a system three-quarters of parents rely on regularly according to the Federal Trade Commission.

We also urge parents to make use of the parental controls available on all new games consoles. 

Empowering parents, not enacting unconstitutional legislation, is the best way to control the games children play.

GP: Don’t miss our exclusive interview with bill co-sponsor Rep. Lee Terry…

Variety reports that a new legislative attempt to regulate video game sales has been launched in Congress.

Undoubtedly spurred on by the publicity surrounding the recent Grand Theft Auto IV launch, Reps. Jim Matheson (D-UT) and Lee Terry (R-NE, seen at left) have introduced legislsation that would require game retailers to check a buyer’s I.D. before selling a game with adult content.

Of the “Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act,” Rep. Terry said:

[The bill seeks to ensure that kids] can only access age appropriate content without parental permission… The images and themes in some video games are shocking and troublesome. In some games high scores are often earned by players who commit ‘virtual’ murder, assault and rape.

Many young children are walking into stores and are able to buy or rent these games without their parents even knowing about it. Many retailers have tried to develop voluntary policies to make sure mature games do not end up in the hands of young kids, but we need to do more to protect our children.

In addition to mandating ID checks, the proposal would require retailers to post information about the rating system. Violators would face a $5,000 fine. Despite the abysmal record of such legislation on the state level, Terry expressed confidence that the bill would pass constitutional muster:

This bill doesn’t involve itself in content or defining the standards for ‘mature’ or ‘adults only. It simply requires the retailer to post what the industry has defined as ‘mature’ and ‘adults only’ so that parents can know, and requires checking of identification.

The proposal enjoys the support of the Parents Television Council.

For his part, Rep. Matheson has attempted to legislate video games in the past. As GamePolitics reported in 2006, a Matheson proposal by the same name failed to gain traction.

Rep. Terry was made to look a bit silly by The Daily Show host Jon Stewart following a congressional video game hearing in 2006.

By the way, GamePolitics challenges Rep. Terry to support his claim that rape is a feature in any commercial video game.

UPDATE: Omaha’s Fox News affiliate has a report on the bill. Rep. Terry told KPTM-42:

This bill is all about empowering parents so they can make more informed decisions about what games they’re kids are playing, knowledge is power and the more we know the better off we’ll be.

GameCyte has scored a video interview with California State Sen. Leland Yee (D), and is soliciting questions for Yee from readers.

The Senator, a child psychologist and frequent critic of video game violence, is the architect of California’s 2005 video game law, which was overturned by a U.S. District Court judge last year. California has appealed the decision. From GameCyte:

In the interests of stimulating mature discussion about video game violence, GameCyte contacted the offices of California State Senator Leland Yee, an outspoken critic of Rockstar and the ESRB — and received a rather unique opportunity. Want to know if the Senator really saw GTA IV before denouncing it? How Senator Yee feels about current game regulation? What he thinks adults should be able to play? Just ask.

GameCyte readers and fellow gaming journalists are invited to pose questions which the Senator will answer on camera next week, the resulting video to be available here and freely distributed to other interested game publications.

GP: If you want to suggest a question for Sen. Yee, you should jump over to GameCyte…

It took a few days, but GamePolitics has tracked down some background on the process which led Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) officials to pull ads for Grand Theft Auto IV.

As we reported late last month, the South Florida transit agency yanked GTA IV ads from bus shelters following pressure by anti-game attorney Jack Thompson.

While following up on this story GP communicated with MDT Deputy Director Hugh Chen and Marketing Director Michael DeCossio. It was media relations official Manuel Palmiero, however, who ultimately supplied the information below. What follows are GP’s question, MDT’s verbatim answers and a few bits of commentary:

GP: The GTA IV ads themselves are inoffensive. Is Miami-Dade Transit making a value judgment as to the underlying product? If so, this judgment is based on…?

MDT: The Miami-Dade County Commission has adopted three resolutions in the last five years dealing with violent video games — R-1447-03, R-248-04 and R-573-06. You may look up all three at www.miamidade.gov/govaction/searchleg.asp?Action=searchleg.

The first resolution specifically condemned the “Grand Theft Auto: Vice City” video game for its “hate-filled messages” and for appearing “to encourage or condone violence against ethnic minorities” and called on retailers to remove the game from their shelves. The other two condemned violent video games in general and urged retailers not to make such games available to minors. 

Miami-Dade Transit is a department of Miami-Dade County and as such follows the policies set by the Miami-Dade County Commission and Mayor.

(GP comment: This seems a rather bureaucratic justification. None of the three resolutions address public transit. Nor do they direct county agencies to take a hands-off posture with regard to video games. Nor does MDT answer the question as to whether they made a value judgment concerning GTA IV, although it seems obvious that they did.)

GP: Which official made the final decision to remove the ads?
 
MDT: After receiving and evaluating the request for removal of the ads, MDT staff made the recommendation to remove them.  [Ad company] Cemusa was instructed to remove the ads last Friday, April 25.

(GP: we received this info from MDT on Friday, May 2nd)
 
GP: Is MDT familiar with Change the Climate vs MBTA, in which the US First Circuit Court ruled that a quasi-governmental transit agency could not restrict ads based on viewpoint?
 
MDT: Miami-Dade Transit is a department of Miami-Dade County and as such is a unit of County government, not a quasi-governmental transit agency.

(GP comment: This answer is puzzling. The First Circuit Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for a quasi-governmental agency to restrict free speech. Since MDT is organized as a full-fledged unit of government, it has at least as much - and probably more - of an obligation not to restrict free speech. Nor does the answer acknowledge the Change the Climate case.)

GP: Is MDT aware of [complainant] Mr. [Jack] Thompson’s longstanding contentious history with the publisher of this game [Take Two Interactive], including his involvement on the plaintiff side in a pair of wrongful death lawsuits seeking $1.2 billion?
 
MDT: We were not aware of this information but it is not relevant to the matter at hand and would not have affected our decision to remove the ads.
 
GP: Other than Thompson’s, were any other complaints received about the ads?
 
MDT: We are not aware of any others to date.

GP:  Would you characterize MDT as a unit of government, as opposed to quasi-governmental? (I note the .gov website address)
 
MDT: As stated above, MDT is a department of Miami-Dade County government and therefore is a unit of government, not a quasi-governmental agency.

GP: What other types of ads are restricted? Alcohol? R-rated movies? How about a cable show along the lines of The Sopranos or Sex in the City? 

MDT: MDT’s contract with CEMUSA lists several types of ads that are restricted, including:

-Advertising that contains traffic-related symbols or words like “Stop,” Drive In” or “Danger” that are designed to distract vehicular traffic

-Ads containing immoral, lascivious or obscene material as well as ads promoting businesses engaged in any activity that requires that exclusion of minors

-Ads for alcoholic beverages
 
In addition, the contract states that MDT may “at its sole, absolute discretion” disallow any questionable ads, such as those that may violate community standards as we understand them based on our knowledge of the community and the feedback generated by certain types of ads in the past.

(GP comment: Now that Take Two has sued the Chicago Transit Authority over that agency’s removal of GTA IV ads, a similar suit against MDT seems highly likely…)

Video game legislation proposed by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino - and authored by Jack Thompson - has stalled in the Massachusetts legislature.

In March legislators heard testimony on HB1423, a bill which would equate violent video games with pornography.

However the Boston Business Journal now reports that the measure has been “sent into study,” which essentially means it is on life support. From the Business Journal story:

Menino’s proposal, which would make it illegal for minors to buy video games with graphic content, was sent into study in March — a big win for the state’s burgeoning video game industry…

But the mayor, seeing a link between violent content and violent behavior, still is in favor of the proposal, and plans to continue to push for it on a grass-roots level, said Larry Mayes, chief of human services for the city of Boston. “To get this through, we’re really going to have to do a statewide push. We want to go to the communities, particularly to the parents and sit with them and show them the material.”
 
Mayes said members of the mayor’s office plan to hold community meetings starting this summer to educate parents about such violent video games.  
The hope is those parents will then advocate for the ban.

Reuters is reporting that Grand Theft Auto IV publisher Take Two Interactive is suing the Chicago Transit Authority over the CTA’s recent decision to remove ads for the game from its vehicles and facilities.

As reported by GamePolitics, the CTA pulled the ads about a week before GTA IV launched. The move followed a sensationalistic Fox News report which seemed to draw a linkage between GTA and a rash of local shootings. From Reuters:

Take Two accused the authority and its sales agent, Titan Outdoor LLC, of violating a $300,000… ad campaign agreement that included running “Grand Theft Auto 4″ poster ads on the sides of buses and transit display spaces throughout the Chicago transit system scheduled for six weeks between April and June.

The suit seeks an order for the transit authority to run the ads as well as monetary damages of at least $300,000.

GP: Congrats to Take Two for standing up for its rights. Let’s hope they bring the same kind of legal pressure to bear on Miami-Dade Transit as well. There, GP readers will recall, Jack Thompson pushed the agency into removing ads from Miami bus shelters.

Iraqi-born artist Wafaa Bilal’s controversial video game exhibit, which culminates in the player attempting to shoot President Bush, has triggered a lawsuit against the city of Troy, New York, according to the Albany Times-Union.

As GamePolitics readers may recall, Bilal, a faculty member at the Art Institute of Chicago, was invited to present his Virtual Jihadi exhibit at Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute in March.

RPI’s Republican Club, however, objected to Virtual Jihadi, which Bilal said was designed to show how US policy in Iraq has encouraged terrorism. School officials subsequently ordered the exhibit off campus. A local venue, the Sanctuary for Independent Media in Troy, then offered Bilal the opportunity to display his work.

On opening night local Republican leader Robert Mirch, who also happens to be Troy’s Public Works commissioner, led a protest outside the exhibit. The following day, Troy code enforcement officials (who work for Mirch) shut the Sanctuary down over building code violations involving its doors.

The Sanctuary, assisted by the New York Civil Liberties Union, has notified Troy that it will file a lawsuit against the city as well as Mirch. Said Melanie Trimble executive director of NYCLU’s Capital Region chapter:

City officials cannot selectively enforce building codes to shut down an art exhibition they find distasteful… City officials cannot chill free speech in this city by using their official powers.

Bob Mirch is the head of Public Works which oversees the code enforcement. Code enforcement came the next day and shut the building down even though they had approved the building’s opening the day before. It’s no coincidence.

Sanctuary co-founder Steve Pierce added:

There is a climate of fear in the city.

For his part, Mirch said:

This is nonsense. And a publicity stunt. At no time was the sanctuary closed. The two situations are not connected. Not connected.

Capital News 9 has a video report.

While public transit agencies in Chicago and Miami have pulled ads for Grand Theft Auto IV, it looks as if GP’s local bus company will permit the ads to stay.

According to a report by all-news radio station KYW-1060, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA) won’t bow to (unspecified) pressure to remove the ads. From the KYW story:

SEPTA… is standing firm in its decision run the ads on hundreds of its buses…

SEPTA officials would not be interviewed, but they issued a statement saying while some might consider the game offensive, “the advertisement is not.”

The ad campaign is slated to run for six weeks, with 350 posters on buses and other locations, generating $83,000 in revenue for SEPTA.

SEPTA last year was criticized for accepting ads for the movie “Hitman,” ads featuring images of guns.

GP: It’s not yet clear how SEPTA came to deal with the GTA IV ad issue. However, after I posted a picture of a SEPTA bus carrying a GTA IV ad last Friday, Jack Thompson, who was then in the process of persuading Miami-Dade Transit to drop its GTA IV ads, indicated he would pressure SEPTA to take a similar course of action.

In any case, if Thompson did try with SEPTA, he failed. GP has a call into SEPTA management for more details. In the meantime, it’s good to see SEPTA standing firm on this issue. There are obvious First Amendment implications and, hey, SEPTA is strapped for cash. As a regional taxpayer, I’m happy to see that $83,000 in revenue coming in.

Ars Technica has a report on Jack Thompson’s claim that the sexual content in Grand Theft Auto IV is essentially pornographic.

As is his custom, Thompson once again invokes law enforcement by writing to his local US Attorney about the game’s hooker and strip club scenes:

Indictments should be returned against Take Two corporately and its Chairman, Strauss Zelnick, along with other Take Two officers. Indictment should also be against Sony and Microsoft which are making this pornographic game available to minors, and openly so, on their PS3 and Xbox systems.

Further, indictments should be handed down against Wal-Mart, Best Buy, GameStop, and all other retailers distributing this game to minors at their retail stores, openly, to kids who are only seventeen.

So, lock everyone up, then? Are the feds even talking to Thompson yet? The controversial attorney’s rant continues:

Grand Theft Auto IV is the gravest assault upon children in this country since polio.

Since polio…

While Ars Technica concludes that an IGN video (NSFW) which rolls a number of the game’s sex scenes into one segment gives Thompson ammunition, we’re not so sure.

For one thing, these are animations, not real people. But even so, protagonist Niko Bellic’s encounters with hookers in cars (notably unsexy pic at left) and strippers in clubs are all simulated; no genitalia are visible. The participants do not even appear to be unclothed. We’ve seen more graphic content in any number of R-rated films.

What’s more, the ESRB content descriptors for GTA IV list “strong sexual content” and “partial nudity.” We’re quite sure that, given the industry-rocking 2005 Hot Coffee scandal, both Take Two and the ESRB had their legal experts closely review GTA IV’s sex scenes.

Will Thompson get some publicity mileage from GTA IV’s sex scenes? Sure. Will anything come of it?

No.

A complaint by Jack Thompson has prompted Miami’s transit authority to remove ads for Grand Theft Auto IV from local bus shelters.

Miami thus joins Chicago as the second major US city to pull GTA IV ads from its public transit system in recent days.

GamePolitics reported on Thursday that Thompson had complained about the GTA IV ads to Miami Mayor Carlos Alvarez. The GTA IV ads were apparently removed sometime on Friday afternoon. Hugh Chen, Miami-Dade Transit’s deputy director of operations, told GamePolitics on Friday evening, via e-mail:

The posters were removed after a review of our approval process and contract… Be assured that the circumstances around placing and removing  these specific posters were reviewed before action was taken. We are governed by our contract with our shelter contractor and County ordinances.

A spokesman for GTA IV publisher Take-Two Interactive said the company was still reviewing the situation. A spokesman for the ESA referred inquiries back to Take-Two.

For his part, Thompson wasted no time in crowing about the removal of the ads in a news release:

…Jack Thompson has today persuaded the Miami-Dade Transit System to pull all advertisements for the Grand Theft Auto IV cop-killing simulation game from its bus stops.

In the wake of this success, Thompson is proceeding to get all GTA IV ads pulled from all US transit systems since such ads clearly violate promises made by the [ESRB], found right at its web site, not to place “Mature-rated” game ads in venues that will be seen by teens. 

However, Thompson’s contention about the ESRB appears to be incorrect. An ESRB spokesman told GP on Friday, “Considering the overwhelmingly adult demographic profile of mass transit riders… the placement of GTA IV ads in these types of outlets would typically not be in violation of [Ad Review Council] guidelines.” Nor do the advertising guidelines listed on the ESRB website appear to support Thompson’s contention.

Thompson may be confusing the ESRB ad guidelines with a 2002 report on the marketing of media violence by the Federal Trade Commission which addressed limiting the advertising of M-rated games in media where children constitute a specific percentage of the potential audience. The FTC report notes that the video game industry has a self-regulatory standard prohibiting print ads when children comprise more than 45% of the likely audience.

In his news release, the embattled Thompson also alleged a conspiracy between the video game industry and the judge who presided over his nine-day trial on Florida Bar ethics charges last November. That judge’s recommendation on Thompson’s future status as an attorney is expected in August.

GP: Readers, don’t forget to Send Us Your GTA IV Bus Pix (Before they’re all gone)…

So I’m out and about this morning when I stumble upon a Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) bus idling in a nearby strip mall.

The bus was sporting the (non-violent, non-obscene) GTA IV ad seen at left.

With bus ads now gone in Chicago and, apparently, Miami (more upcoming about that), I was pleased that the censorcrats haven’t yet pressured my local bus company to remove the ads. So, I couldn’t resist snapping this pic with my mobile phone.

GamePolitics readers, how about photographing GTA ads on your local buses or bus shelters and sending them in. Be sure to let us know where you took the pic. Put yourself in the pic, if you like. Be creative. We’ll post as many as we can!

And… be sure to let your local transit authority and elected officials know that you value the First Amendment…

Jack Thompson, Fox News and the Chicago Transit Authority want to ban bus ads for Grand Theft Auto IV.

But these multi-story ads adorn the graceful Hotel Figueroa in downtown Los Angeles and, somehow, the republic still stands…

Via: Xbox 360 Fanboy

With the Grand Theft Auto IV launch less than a week away, the expected wave of anti-GTA publicity continues with an alert issued by watchdog group the Parents Television Council.

According to PTC president Tim Winter:

Since the first version was released in 1997, the Grand Theft Auto series has lowered the bar for appalling video game content…

In past versions, players could re-enact having sex with a prostitute, beating her bloody, taking her money and running her over with a car; shooting at police officers; and, by using a code easily accessible on many internet sites, having a realistic sexual encounter on screen — complete with audio commentary.

In the alert, PTC urges its members to pressure retailers not to carry GTA IV. Or, if retailers do choose to stock the game, PTC suggest that it be displayed where minors will not see it. Apparently concerned about another Hot Coffee situation, the PTC has also called upon retailers to:

…insist that Take Two… and the [ESRB] actually review all playable content before issuing a rating for the game. Given Take-Two Interactive’s reckless or intentional misleading of the ESRB and ESRB’s failure to respond quickly in the aftermath of the “hot coffee” mod fiasco… retailers must be reassured, in writing, that the rating given the game is accurate and that there is no hidden or modifiable content in the game.

GP: While it is inevitable that GTA IV will be scrutinized carefully for any Hot Coffee redux, PTC oversteps by suggesting that content not be modifiable. There is an active GTA mod community just waiting to tinker with GTA IV. In fact, it was the mod community which revealed (but did not create) Hot Coffee in the first place.

The PTC alert also references the uproven theories of serial video game critic Dave Grossman.

As police and city officials in Chicago deal with a rash of recent shooting incidents, the local Fox News affiliate has questioned the posting of ads for Grand Theft Auto IV on buses and buildings of the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA).

And, just like that, CTA president Ron Huberman folded on the issue, telling Fox News through a representative that the ads would be removed.

It’s not the first time that Chicago’s buses have provided the setting for a GTA controversy. In 2004 Gov. Rod Blagojevich railed against transit ads for GTA San Andreas.

Over the years, GTA transit ads have come under fire in other cities as well. In 2006 Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and others forced the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) to pull ads for GTA Vice City Stories. The transit chief there justified his decision by issuing a policy which equates M-rated games with X-rated movies.

In the past, GTA bus ads have also come under fire in Portland, Oregon and Denver.

GamePolitics is awaiting comment from GTA IV publisher Take Two Interactive. We also sought comment from the ESA, which referred us back to T2.

GP: The GTA IV transit ads shown by Fox News depict neither violence nor sex. Does the CTA reject ads for R-rated movies? Suggestive or violent television programs?

As I’ve written before, the video game industry needs to assert its First Amendment rights in these cases, which essentially come down to selective censorship by quasi-governmental entities.

UPDATE: I should add that in 2003 a group called Change the Climate successfully sued the MBTA when it refused to run ads calling for a debate on marijuana laws. In that case, the U.S. First Circuit Court held that:

There is direct evidence through statements made by MBTA officials that the reason for rejecting the advertisements was actually a distaste for Change the Climate’s viewpoint.

This suspicion of viewpoint discrimination is deepened by the fact that the MBTA has run a number of ads promoting alcohol that are clearly more appealing to juveniles than the ads here.

The state of Minnesota has filed an appeal of a recent 8th Circuit Court decision which invalidated its 2006 “fine the buyer” video game law.

Perhaps more than any previous case, the unusual Minnesota law, which would fine underage buyers of violent games $25, has a chance to beat the video game industry’s legal challenges.

As previously reported on GamePolitics, the Minnesota statute was signed into law by Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) on June 1st, 2006. The game industry immediately filed suit to block its implementation on constitutional grounds.

Eight weeks later a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional. Then-Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch (D) filed an appeal.

In February, 2007 a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit heard arguments in the case. As GamePolitics reported at the time, audio of the hearing revealed the panel to be skeptical of some game industry arguments.

Last month the 8th Circuit issued its finding that the law was unconstitutional. But, as we noted in our coverage, the Court expressed a certain degree of sympathy for Minnesota’s position, accepting research put forth by the state to a degree that no previous court has:

We believe that the State’s evidence provides substantial support for its contention that violent video games have a deleterious effect upon the psychological well-being of minors…

We are not as dismissive of that evidence as have been some of the courts that have found similar evidence to be inadequate to establish the causal link between exposure to violent video games and subsequent behavior.

Because the three-judge panel was bound by a prior 8th Circuit ruling in the 2003 IDSA vs. St. Louis County case, there was never really a doubt that they would find in favor of the video game industry. However the opinion written by Judge Wolman could be viewed as inviting the state to appeal en banc. If that were to occur, the case would be re-argued before the full 8th Circuit as opposed to a three-judge panel. This might be an attractive strategy for the state because only an en banc decision could reverse the earlier IDSA vs. St. Louis ruling.

Indeed, this process is already underway. We note that the Media Coalition’s tracking of the case indicates that Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson (D, pictured) filed a petition for an en banc hearing on March 28th. This excerpt is taken from the state’s en banc request:

The panel [stated] that it was bound by the precedent set by another panel of the Court in [IDSA] v. St. Louis County… Nevertheless, the panel questioned the analysis of the [IDSA] decision. (stating that [IDSA’s] “requirement of such a high level of proof may reflect a refined estrangement from reality, but apply it we must”).

Because of the importance of the issue of whether the State can lawfully restrict minors’ access to extremely violent and patently offensive video games, this case should be considered by the entire Court.

The video game industry has until April 21st to respond the Minnesota’s petition for an en banc hearing.  

In related news, the video game industry is seeking to recover $60,458.91 in legal fees from Minnesota, but A.G. Swanson has filed a motion to delay any action on that request while the en banc issue is resolved.

The bottom line?

Don’t count Minnesota’s video game law out just yet.

As GamePolitics detailed yesterday, the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on HB2660, a measure which would potentially hold media content producers liable for violent acts committed by consumers of books, movies, video games and the like.

According to a report in this morning’s Arizona Republic, the measure, which was approved by the Arizona State House in March, was defeated in the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 4-2 vote. From the newspaper account:

Saying they had too many unanswered questions, members of a state legislative panel on Monday snuffed out a proposal that would make companies financially liable for creating or distributing books, movies and other media that eventually led to a serious crime.

Bill sponsor, Rep. Warde Nichols (R), said that he planned to reintroduce a more concisely-written version of HB2660 in 2009. He told the Arizona Republic:

At the end of the day, companies will have to stand before their customers and shareholders and explain why they are OK with the production and distribution of violent, forced, non-consensual sex acts.

Wendy Briggs (left), a lobbyist representing various entertainment industries - including the video game sector - at the hearing, said:

The First Amendment is not a defense, it’s a right. It is a right to have the freedom to speak and to not have that speech chilled in any way because of your fear of the collection of civil penalties.

Sen. Ken Cheuvront (D) explained his vote against the measure:

[Makers of movies depicting rape] are atrocious in what they create. But at the same time this bill is so broad based, we have to be careful about unintended consequences.

The Arizona Daily Star has more on the story…

UPDATE: Click here to watch video of the hearing (approximately two hours long). Click on HB2660 below the video window to jump directly to the hearing on the media content bill.

A piece of legislation under consideration today by the Arizona State Senate has video game industry representatives concerned.

HB 2660, which was passed by a 36-23 vote in the Arizona House of Representatives last month, would make content producers, publishers and distributors liable for monetary damages if any written, audio, visual or digital material from which they profited was judged to have been “dangerous” or obscene and motivated someone to commit a felony or an act of terrorism.

The Arizona Daily Star reports that Keith Perkins, an attorney who runs the victims advocacy group Never Again Foundation, said that those who profit from such material should be held responsible. Perkins wrote the measure, which is sponsored by Republican Warde Nichols (left).

Representatives for content creators, however, say the measure goes too far:

A representative for the Motion Picture Association of America, Wendy Briggs, said House Bill 2660 is overly broad. She said the legislation… could result in lawsuits against people involved in mainstream movies. Briggs, who also represents video game producers, said they, too, could be liable for items she would consider harmless.

Briggs used a flight simulator game as an example:

Should I now be reasonably sure that that’s going to incite somebody to commit an act of terror? What about a movie, or a book, that teaches you how to shoot a gun straight?

The Video Game Voters Network, operated by the Entertainment Software Association, which represents U.S. video game publishers, has issued an alert to members, urging them to contact their elected officials about the bill.

GP: The industry is legitimately concerned about this bill, which would have a chilling effect, certainly on game developers. Who gets to decide, for example, whether content is “dangerous”? What does that mean, exactly? Does violent content make media dangerous? Is Manhunt 2 dangerous? Call of Duty 4? Saving Private Ryan? Beowulf? The Bible?