Slashdot Mirror
Indiana Tries to Pass Game Law Again
phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica has posted their take on Indiana's newest attempt at passing a game law that seeks to restrict the sale of violent video games. This, despite that fact that similar legislation has a track record of failing in every state it has been proposed in. From the article: 'The state capitol, Indianapolis, was one of the first cities in the nation to try and strike out at violent video games, first going after arcades and other entertainment vendors back in 2000. The quest ended up where they all do: in front of a judge, and left for dead. Now that California, Illinois, and Michigan have all suffered astounding defeats in their attempts to address PC and console game sales, Indiana wants to join the ranks of the failures.'"
It's a very good thing that the United States has a system of judicial review, wherein legislative folly can be overturned by courts. HOWEVER, there's a downside. Legislators know that they can pass anything they want, since their mistakes are subject to being overturned anyway. This lets them legislate recklessly. It's a free pass to allow them to pander to the religious right, for instance, by passing laws that will sound good to the party "base", and getting a double benefit by being able to rail against "activist judges" who are predictably bound by law and precedent.
Pandering to their "base" is their job. If they didn't represent their constituents, they wouldn't have a job any more. Judicial review exists as a system of checks so ensure the majority does not violate the rights of the minority.
But I do agree with you, it would be nice if legislators could be impeached for introducing laws that violate people's rights.
This, despite that fact that similar legislation has a track record of failing in every state it has been proposed in.
This will certainly get modded into oblivion. But the fact that gay marraige laws and gay marraige amendents were defeated in all 11 states which had them on the 2004 ballot has not stopped people from trying to get those laws passed. Everyone has something near and dear to his (or her) heart that he (or she) would really like to see change.
Quoth the replyee: Pandering to their "base" is their job.
No, representing their constituents is a politician's job. Their party base (which I assume is the "base" you refer to) represents only a tiny portion of said constituents.
So by pandering to their "base", they are NOT doing their jobs, they are serving the interests of a very small minority. Ergo, in this case, judicial review serves to protect the interests of the MAJORITY. The special interest groups don't like that, because then they don't get what they want. So they whine and moan about the "activist judges".
I could go on, but this s*** irritates me, and I don't like being irritated.
Yes, we *could* keep M and AO video games out of the hands of minors, at the request of the government. But think about that for a moment. Government would then be deciding what's best for our children, rather than parents. And if you agree with this law, then should government pass a similar law involving books?
One of my favorite books is Slaughterhouse Five. It's violent, sexual, but has a strong message. And I read it when I was fifteen. If Slaughterhouse Five were a video game, this law would prevent minors from buying it.
If we can restrict video games from minors, we can restrict movies, books, and other forms of entertainment and culture from minors. And then, we can control what the future generation thinks, and how it acts. If you hate Big Government, you should hate this law. If you love freedom, you should hate this law.