Slashdot Mirror
ESA Wants Money From Illinois
ESA President Doug Lowenstein is pushing the state of Illinois to pay for the ESA's substantial legal bills, the result of their fight to defeat the Illinois game ban. From the Next Generation article: "From the day Governor Blagojevich announced that he would seek anti-video game legislation, it was clear to everyone that the proposal would be found unconstitutional and would waste taxpayers dollars in a protracted legal fight that would leave parents no better off ... That is precisely what happened. As we said from the outset, we would have preferred to spend our resources on cooperative programs to help parents ensure their kids play appropriate games, rather than divert money to respond to politically motivated attacks on video games. But the State has left little choice, and this petition is consistent with the rules of the federal courts regarding award of attorney's fees to prevailing parties."
I sympathize with ESA's substantive postion, but: it's a bad idea for the courts to award legal fees for overturning laws passed by the people's legislature.
That's bad for democracy.
Of course, I REALLY would like my legal fees to be paid for overturning the laws that I know to be bad. That would be fair, right, just and valid! But I do not want people I disagree with to get the same sort of fees for overturning laws that I know are good.
Democracy is messy. ESA may deserve to win, but does not deserve to win without paying the price.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
I'm in Illinois too. The state may be hurting for cash, but the politicos shure aren't. I think that maybe a bill forcing politicians who pass unconstitutional laws to pay the legal bills associated with striking those laws down.
Of course that law would also be unconstitutional, so I guess that it would never fly.
It appears that you're the one asserting victory without proof.
He largely doesn't have to say anything because your point is completely, on its face, absurd.
It's not a matter of whether a law is good or bad. It's a matter of a law being unconstitutional, thus violating the protections that we put in place for the rights of entities in this nation. If those protections are provided only to those capable of funding a fight against the legislature, protection is only provided for the wealthy.
If the legislature is forced to pay for attempts at violating the rights of others, that legislature *should* be less likely to make such attempts.
Actually, I'd like to see a federal law where if you propose an unconstitutional law, or vote for enough of them, you are banned completely from politics.
Well, that's the point the ESA is trying to make. They don't need the money, they want people to realize that trying to pass unconstitutional anti-game legislation is a *bad idea*: it only costs the state money. They're doing this to raise awareness of that fact among voters, in the hopes that the next person to propose something like this gets shouted down by his constituents.
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Just make it an impeachable offense (it is abuse of the public trust), then the Constitution itself covers the banning.
The government is going to be in a tight spot with this lawsuit. If they've already agreed on the $600K ammount, their only defence is going to be that they were willing to pay the ESA extra money to hide how much this cost. I'm sure that they'll be happy to admit that.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.