Another Setback For The Nanny State
Federal judge has thrown out a Minnesota law designed to fine youngsters who purchase video games rated for adults. (The text of the law can be found here.)
The Minnesota law differed from laws already struck down in other states in that instead of fining retailers, the Minnesota law tried to fine the minors who attempted to purchase the game. Obviously, that approach failed.
Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch once again demonstrated why we should all be glad he stands little chance of being elected governor:
Attorney General Mike Hatch said he was disappointed by the ruling and will probably appeal.
“There’s been some pretty good evidence that children who use these excessively violent video games really learn inappropriate behavior and they’re rewarded for inappropriate behavior - how many people do you kill and things like that,” Hatch said.
One wonders if AG Hatch ever played Cops and Robbers when he was a kid.
Unfortunately the ruling doesn’t appear to be on CourtsWeb at the moment, however, Judge Rosenbaum found little persuasive evidence of Hatch’s contention that violent video games are at all correlated with antisocial or violent behavior:
“There is a paucity of evidence linking the availability of video games with any harm to Minnesota’s children at all,” he wrote.
He also said: “It is impossible to determine from the data presented whether violent video games cause violence, or whether violent individuals are attracted to violent video games.”
This is another case of how the nanny state continually attempts (often with success) to infringe upon our civil liberties. Laws such as this are ultimately futile (how many violent video games are purchased by parents rather than children?), and only foster a climate of further government interference into the private affairs of citizens. Retailers can and should enforce the voluntary video games rating system and refuse to sell violent games to minors – but using the resources of the state of Minnesota to legally enforce such a thing is both an infringement on civil liberties and a waste of taxpayer money. There is no compelling government interest in such an affair, and Judge Rosenbaum’s decision to strike this law down was the correct decision.
6 Responses to “Another Setback For The Nanny State”
Leave a Reply
Due to the massive amount of comment spam, you must be logged in to post a comment. Registration data will not be used to spam or otherwise annoy you.
Comment By Mark
August 1st, 2006 at 9:03 am
A rare moment of political wrongheadedness on the part of Mike Hatch….and admittedly an ominous sign of the kind of nanny state he may seek to impose if he becomes Governor. Does that make the incumbent any more attractive? Hell no!
Comment By Mark
August 1st, 2006 at 9:05 am
But as an aside, how does this constitute “another” setback for the nanny state? From my perspective, anti-nanny staters don’t have a very good batting average lately.
Comment By Jay Reding
August 1st, 2006 at 9:10 am
Sadly, I can’t really disagree with that one…
PingbackComment By Federal judge throws out Minnesota’s video game law » The Allen Almanac
August 1st, 2006 at 9:29 am
[...] A federal judge has struck down a Minnesota law that would have fined minors (instead of the retailers) who purchase video games rated for adults. It is not the government’s place to determine what video games children should be playing. This isn’t a governement issue. It is a parenting issue. This would have never worked anyway. Cigarettes (and alcohol) are illegal for minors to purchase too (but even then we don’t fine the minors, we fine the companies selling them. At least in AR, we do.), and look how well that works. How many people did you know in High School that smoked? About a quarter of the people in my class, at one point or another. And that is on an issue where there is a real reason for the ban (health issues). There are no proven ill-effects of playing violent video games. There is a lot of conjecture out there and studies timidly claiming one way or the other. But there is no way to know for certain. Which is why it should be up to the parents to decide what to do. If parents care so little about their kids that they are letting them play anything they want, then what difference is some law going to make. It only addresses a symptom of a much deeper, incurable problem. And if parents are playing these games with their children and discussing the issues that come up, I have a feeling that would actually be beneficial for children. But it is just my feeling. I have no right to tell other people how to raise their kids based on my own feelings. And if children disobey their parents and play these games even though they aren’t not allowed to, that is a family discipline issue that the government has no right to intervene in. To sum up my feelings, the government has absolutely no reason to be passing laws like this. To read another opinion on this issue, check out jayreding.com Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
PingbackComment By No Fines for Playing Halo in Minnesota - from The Zero Boss by Jay Andrew Allen
August 1st, 2006 at 10:15 am
[...] Jay Reding has a good post up about how a Minnesota law that would impose fines on teens buying "adult"-rated video games was struck down in federal court. Christopher Grant at Joystiq sums up the current scorecard on state video game bans…and finds the puritans are sucking constitutional tailpipe. [...]
Comment By Seth
August 1st, 2006 at 11:41 am
“Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch once again demonstrated why we should all be glad he stands little chance of being elected governor.”
1. This law bears the signature of none other than Tim Pawlenty. So if Mike Hatch takes a stand on a law and that makes him a nanny, it would stand to reason that the person who actually made the law a law has slightly more nanny responsibilities. And I guess we should all be horrified that guy actually is the governor.
2. How sure are you about that? Pawlenty’s approvals are high, but his performance numbers are low. It’s not a Republican year. The DFLers should know they need to lace into Pawlenty a little to take down other GOPers a little. He’s the first governor in modern state history to decrease money to education, and the white suburban voters know it.
Pawlenty is likely to win, and I’m happy the GOPers are counting their eggs before they are hatched (there really was no pun intended when I started writing that sentence), because this one has the potential to get close. Keep in mind both Dem and GOP incumbent guvs in the upper Midwest are in a little trouble this year.