Slashdot Mirror
Judge Blocks Louisiana Violent Games Law
kukyfrope writes "A Baton Rouge federal judge has today issued a temporary injunction against Louisiana's violent games law that Governor Kathleen Blanco just signed last week. According to local newspaper The Advocate, U.S. District Judge James Brady issued the injunction just hours after the Entertainment Software Association and Entertainment Merchants Association filed the lawsuit in Louisiana. "How would a person assess whether a particular video game appeals to a minor's 'morbid interest in violence'? And what constitutes a 'patently offensive' depiction of violence? Persons of ordinary intelligence are forced to guess at the meaning and scope of the act," said New Orleans attorney James A. Brown"
Perhaps you should brush up on how the Judicial system works...
At least someone has their head screwed on tight enough to realize that this is bullshit legislation. I'm glad we're not te only ones here at /.
I am Spartacus
Who didn't see that coming? And why is cash-strapped Louisiana wasting its tax dollars passing and then having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend blatantly unconstitutional laws that have no chance of holding up in court in the first place? It doesn't seem to be financially responsible to the state's taxpayers, if you ask me.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
At least we know the US judicial system isn't completely buggered yet. I can't imagine what the world would be like if any more of those fuzzy terms were introduced into law; It would make everything subjective, people could eventually be arrested for anything at all. Why this and other such stuff even got and continues to get passed is beyond me. I guess the courts and patent offices have a lineup at their door, so they have to rush things along. It's the only thing that makes sense, beyond bribery and blackmail, which I'm sure had a hand in it as well.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
I think he may be referring to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellate_jurisdictio n
You can tell I'm an aries because of my ram.
Yeah, who the hell does this federal judge think he is? Just because the law is "unconstitutionally vague" doesn't mean he can say "no" to it... I mean, it's like he thinks he has "federal question jurisdiction" (which means the complaint is based on a federal law (which may be the Constitution or a statute)) or something. ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_questio n_jurisdictionrel=url2html-31364http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Federal_question_jurisdiction>
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
The complaint is most likely based on the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech or something along those lines. Regardless, other than unjustly through the 14th amendment, the rest of the country does not have the right to tell Louisiana what they can and cannot do. I disagree strongly with the law but it is not my place as the resident of another state to force Lousiana by federal judges (or any other means) to do what I and the rest of the country may think is right.
the Political Inquirer
Meanwhile, Atari quickly makes one last effort to save their company by creating an ultra violent politically charged video game. Kids, err, um... 17 and older video game enthusiasts can choose between District Judge James Brady, Governor Kathleen Blanco, Jack Thompson or other interesting politician type characters. Cost is $49.99 or downloadable via piratebay... (No, wait... some other torrent site) 2 hours after release.
Funnypics
Good.
How is it unjustly? The states approved the 14th.
While I could see this coming as soon as I read the law itself (and I'm a layman), there's Another Law in the same stat that is receiving full support of the game industry.
The difference with this law is that it only targets sexual content - and thus is allowed to use the "Millar" test. The one that is blocked uses vague/ambiguous definitions that could (in theory) be used to ban the game of Chess.
Whatever you say, Sir Grand Wizard.
No state has the right to bypass Federal constitutional freedoms.
I would be bullshit if as a US citizen my -federal- rights were limited in any state I visited.
Given that, sadly, it seems lately nothing stops the federal government from stepping on my rights.
At least its even.
In any case, the judgement is right on.
The federal judicial system enforces the Constitution. Its their job to step in when a state law violates it. This law is patently against the first ammendment, and as such it is the duty of the federal system to block it. This is the system working like its supposed to. If it didn't, the constitution wouldn't be worth the paper its printed on, and we'd still have states where women couldn't vote and Jim Crow laws are the norm.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
In unrelated news, the state of Alaska has today signed the following bills into state law:
- All state elementary, middle school, high school, colleges and universities are now considered faith-based organizations, and can only be attended by white male catholics
- Black people can no longer vote, and only count as 3/5 of a person in the state census
- Slavery is now legal
- All media or speech of any type is subject to arbitrary censorship from by the state government
Looks like that wacky Ted Stevens is at it again!
Chums up, let's do this!
technically, the constitution only affects the federal government from doing the bad stuff to you. it was through what is probably best called a loophole that prescedents which affect all the states have been made. its really an argument of semantics and how one views the US's federal system (top down or bottom up)
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
In fact, we need to make a video game where you're a judge and you get to shoot down unconstitutional video game laws.
Aside from the legal meddling of state social workers, there are fewer problems that parents face today than they did before. Parents actually have the ability to extend their standards to places where they would normally have no control, like the television when they're working late. The V-Chip allows a parent who actually has to work late, rather than just to buy that new beamer, to control the content that is accessible. All media today is rated down to minute details to allow the rushed parent a fine-grained survey of all possibly objectionable content within ten seconds, literally. Anyone out of high school with a literacy rate above the fifth grade should be able to grok a ESRB rating in ten seconds or less.
We actually have lawsuits brought by parents who seriously think that others should do more of their job for them!. This is a generation of parents that is so self-indulgent that it wants to legislate its personal preferences onto content providers because it cannot even be bothered to buy the content it enjoys!
The irony of it is that most the people really pushing these laws are left of center! The very people who whine, piss and moan about "puritans" on the right! Last I checked, a puritan is someone who forces their views on someone else at gun point when they're not harming anyone or anyone's property. It's nice to see that the political social conservatives have competition, albeit in a dark sort of way.
I plan to be a full-time father, including sacrificing my material possessions for my kids. Someone once commented to the effect that it's not wise to try to gain the whole world at the expense of your spiritual life. I believe he also commented before some self-righteous liberals and conservatives of his day killed him for defying them, that there would come a day when parents would see their children so throughly abandon the right path that they would curse themselves for being fertile.
The Constitution affects whatever body or bodies is stated in each section. Many sections are worded to effect all levels of government, such as the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, amendments. Some prevent or authorize the Federal specifically to do/not do something such as most of the original body of the document.
IOW, no, the Constitution says things that the Federal can and can't do, and things that the States can't do. Precedents do exist to enforce powers across all States through loopholes such as the commerce clause. Direct wording of the Constitution also exists to enforce powers across all States. Everything else shakes out under the 9th and 10th. You shouldn't be so overly bold with such statements, because as written, you are wrong.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
People only pass laws to forbid others doing things that they themselves wouldn't do anyway.
We are notorious for money wasting projects, corruption (see Edwin Edwards, Huey P. Long, and his brother Earl K), and really bad legislators. This legislative session we've passed a law that changes the state flag (and requires them to be replaced on state buildings), forces the sale of ethanol within a few years (because our Agricultural Secretary runs the state with an iron fist), and increases state spending from $19 billion to $27 billion a year!!! Seriously, I think we would fare better as a federal protectorate.
No text.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
right, and since the bill o' rights doesn't mention the states, they aren't binding on the states. I don't have my references handy (at work) but the rights enumerated in the bill of rights have had to be challenged in court before the states were forced to respect them.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Well then you should have complained about this when the fourteenth amendment was passed. It's much too late now.
Ratification of the Civil Rights Amendments was extorted in most cases from the Southern state governments as the 'cost of readmittance' to the Union; they didn't 'ratify' them in any more significant a sense than a cashier 'gives' a robber money. In other words, the act is technically true as described, but emptied of all willful meaning.
Now, don't get me wrong, the 14th Amendment was one hot and happenin' piece of constitutional amending, enabling the protection of the rights of Corporations the country round (and later on, even some black people!) I just think that one ought to be honest about just how it became part of the Constitution. We should not fool ourselves into believing that it was in any way 'voluntary'.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Since Gitlow v. New York in 1925 the law of the US has been interpreted in such a way that the Bill of Rights is directly binding on the States. You may say that the 14th amendment was never meant to have that effect, but right now it does, and will continue to do so.
Most of the rights in the bill of rights have been incorporated to restict the states too, via the 14th amendment. If you have a problem with that, take it up with whatever late 19th century or early 20th century court made that decision, not the federal system now.
Do they take volunteers? Because in 7 years as a registered voter I've never been called. Google searching gives all sorts of suggestions for how to get out of jury duty, but nothing for how to get it.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
People only pass laws to prevent behaviors that they can imagine themselves desiring to do. There is, of course, a far far smaller class of laws that exist not to indulge the repressive instinct by proxy, but rather to maintain the social order (do not kill, rape, maim, or steal), but in that category there truly is nothing new under the sun. For everything else, there is the moral crusader.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
The First Amendment to the federal constitution gives him the right.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Trying to redefine the sacred institution of "freedom of speech." This just means we need to pass an amendment to the constitution defining speech as not including video games! After all if a majority votes for it, then it is always right. There are no natural rights! Only what the majority allows!
At what point do the people of Louisiana not stop stop and ask, "What are these jokers wasting our time and our dollars doing?"
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Anyone with two neurons to rub together knew the legislation was BS.
Which tells you, in case you'd missed it, exactly whom this legislation was meant to appeal to: fearful idiots.
Now we'll get the next phase in the fearful idiot plan, in which those who passed the legislation tell us scary, black robed judges are dictating our society to us. Does any of this sound at all familiar?
All these social wedge issues are microcosms of the "Southern Strategy" that's been winning the Republican Party national elections since 1968. Don't scoff. It's like the old moment with Adlai Stevenson. Told he had the support of all thinking voters, Stevenson replied: "That's not enough, I need a majority." Fearful idiots have a narrow majority in this country. Hence: thinly-veiled "race cards," our latest attempt to make immigration a hot button issue, the supposed gay marriage crisis, and so on.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
...that makes me think we did the rest of the country an enormous disservice by not allowed the South to secede. I suggest we correct that mistake by putting the ol' secession bug back up the asses of ignorant Southerners everywhere, then just giving 'em a big wave 'goodbye!' when they declare their independence. With any luck most of the other extremists in the country will take the opportunity to move to the new Christian States of America and the rest of us will breathe one big sigh of relief.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
The beer industry does not seem to be suffering from the fact that it's illegal to supply liquor to minors; the porn industry does not seem to have been stifled by the fact that Walmart does not stock hardcore videos.
Actually, both of those industries have suffered terribly from crappy local and federal laws designed to "protect minors". Ask yourself why you can't purchase wine over the internet from small vineyards in California or France. Ask youself where all the local breweries have gone. The control of alcohol has severely limited the quality and choice you have when you want any. I'm no friend of the porn industry, but they too suffer from an amazing and contradictory raft of both specific and vague legislation. You can read about their complaints in xbiz.
The state of both of those industries show that specific laws can suck too. In the case of alcohol, the federal government ruled that brewers must respect each local law. This is not only contradicts former notions of state interference with interstate commerce, it's also unreasonably complex and expensive to comply with. Even if you could comply, good luck finding a shipper. See UPS shipping terms for an example. The porn industry suffers similarly, even online where federal laws are being written specifically to burden the industry.
These laws waste enforcement resources for little public good.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
That 1925 decision aside, the wording of many amendments makes this rather obvious, as well. Here is the text of the 13th, for exmaple:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. "
That makes a blanket statement for *everyone* in the US, including states and private parties. Within in the US, no person can be a slave, for any reason, regardless of even direct contract. You cannot give that right up. The amendment makes the excemption so that a person can be punished by a court and forced to serve as a prison sentence, or community service.
Amendments that apply across everywhere the Federal has authority: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Amendments that directly mention power over states: 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26
So the Bill of Rights does explicity mention states in 10, and I think has always made it extremely clear "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people". That very much says that the Constitution and amendments are prohibiting the states from doing various things.
It doesn't surprise me at all that states would be willing to ignore the Constitution when it suited them. That's one of the reasons that we have always had Federal courts. As soon as the states gave all their power away to the Federal, it also started ignoring the Constitution when it was convenient.
Gitlow v. New York was a particularly big deal, because the 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law", and this case decided that it applied to the states, as well. This allowed the Federal to more directly apply the Constitution to matters of the states. You are right though, unfortunately, because before that decision, the states did try to weasel out of things that the Constitution directly restricts. Some things we never attempted until modern times, by any level of government (ie: ignorance or restrictions on 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th).
> This is the system working like its supposed to. If it didn't, the constitution wouldn't be worth the paper its printed on, and we'd still have states where women couldn't vote and Jim Crow laws are the norm.
And we'd still have states where gays aren't allowed to marry.. Oh wait..
Aside from the legal meddling of state social workers, there are fewer problems that parents face today than they did before. Parents actually have the ability to extend their standards to places where they would normally have no control, like the television when they're working late.
When I was a kid, there was no sex whatever on TV. Ed Sullivan (in)famously cencored the Rolling Stones, making them change the words to "Lets Spend The Night Together" (The Stones, IIRC, simply didn't play that song).
In the seventies it was considered "shocking" that you could hear a toilet flush in "All In teh Family".
And there were only 3 networks. And violence was never bloody, even gun battles. My parents didn't NEED a V-chip. There was absolutely nothing whatevcer on TV that was inappropriate for children.
There were no violent video games, because there were no video games.
We could run the streets, and our parents didn't have to worry abot gangs. Or drugs (until I was an older teen).
It was far easier for my parents to raise my sister and me (born 1954 and 1952) than it was for me to raise my daughters born 1985 and 1987. The only advantage I had as a parent was the cell phone. Great worry reducer when your kids are teens!
Of course, my parents had to worry about polio, TB, chicken pox, tetanus, swine flu, measles...
(Machine readable but non-himanly readable non-word non-mind reading capcha="levelly". For Christ's sake, don't you guys realize that non-words are hard for people but no harder for humans? Come on!)
...parenting? The most powerful censor in a child's life should be ever-vigilant, ever self-educating, ever loving Parent(s). Unfortunately, there are too many people who bear children but do not parent, thus presenting legislators with the question: should we try to Parent all of the Unparented Children with protective laws? I'm afraid that Governmental Parenting is something of a Lernaean Hydra - for every problem we solve via a new law, two new problems appear in its place.
The answer is education - not mealy-mouthed drivel, but honest efforts to improve society by building relationships, helping people understand their ignorance, and providing means by which that ignorance may be reduced and eradicated.
An educated electorate will direct their legislators to recognize that judging what is appropriate and inappropriate for children is the responsibility of the Parent. An educated electorate will also direct much of its attention towards educating itself as a means of self-perpetuation.
There are extraordinary problems with this, not the least of which is that ignorance is comfortable. If we are to be responsible for our own actions - which is perhaps the epitome of freedom - we must discard the comforts of ignorance and embrace the discomfort of responsibility and education. If we are to prevent legislation that would restrict freedom, we must embrace responsibilities that make restrictive legislation unnecessary.
In other words, you are arguing there should be a loophole so states can just ignore the bill of rights and reduce it to a meaningless bit of paper?
When asked how he felt about this victory, New Orleans attorney James Brown responded, simply, "I feel good!"
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
That's not how it works. If a state passes laws that restrict rights and privlidges of the people, the feds are supposed to remind them they can't do that. Other than that, the feds are supposed to stay off the states' backs and let them do their own thing. (IE, it could be argued that cars don't need to be registered in the state of Hawaii, and Hawaii is free to pass a law to that effect if they wish)
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
It was qutie clear during the initial debate and ratification fo the Bill of Rights that they were to be understood (and in fact were very clearly written) as restrictions on the Federal Government only. "Congress shall make no law", etc., emphasis on "Congress". There is no evidence whatsoever that there was any other intent (and very few legal scholars believe that without the Fourteenth amendment they ever would); in fact, it is extremely likely that the Bill of Rights would never have been ratified had the states believed that its provisions applied to them: the point of the Bill of Rights was only to assure the states that their own protections (which were uneven but substantial in most cases) would not be abridged by the new and large federal government.
There was a very early US Supreme Court case, quite famous, by the name of Barron v. Baltimore (1833) which asked directly the question of whether the Bill of Rights could be applied to the states (in this case the takings clause of the Fifth amendment). The answer was no; there was no dissenting opinion. Before 1833 there had been no challenge whatsoever to the principle (it was thought pretty obvious).
P.S., I'm a yankee.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
What you are basically arguing is that the first amendment is meaningless in the context of an individual state restricting free speech. If that were the case, then there would be all sorts of things the states could do: outlaw abortion, enforce segregation, etc. since the Bill of Rights would not apply to them.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I'm not positive this would apply as well but Louisiana's law seems to me to inhibit Interstate Commerce as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_commerce. Video games are products, after all.
Given that pretty much every one of these game bans has been tossed, I'd suggest to State Legislatures that they work on more pressing issues...
no, I'm saying that was the case until the 14th amendment which created a legal mechanism to force the states to respect it.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Ah, when reading back the discussion I see it wasn't you who was commenting on how this was unjustly forced upon the states, merely you explained what happened, sorry for the misunderstanding.
I don't see the relevance of the first amendement at all. I don't see what violence in video games has to do with speech, assembly or addressing grievances.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
The same thing it has to do with music, movies, books, newspapers, flyers, burning the flag, etc. All are forms of speech.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
well is isn't now. it just used to be. The constitution only affects the federal government, except when it explicitly involves the states. this has been changed through various court decisions, which have been pointed out in other comments. I probably could have worded things better as this is contrary to how people normally view the relationship (you can thank lincoln for that)
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Indeed, that was my point.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
I did a little more reading on the case, and first of all the article he posted is the worst article on the case I could find for arguing that this guy was unjustly sentenced.
I kind of threw that post together, based on my knowledge of the case, and just assumed that it read the same as the others.
The most interesting thing is how some of the jurors reacted upon finding out that he would get ten years with no parole. They all thought that he would get a slap on the wrist. They quite naturally assumed that the judge would have SOME discretion, and that since he basically admitted to the facts of the crime on the stand that they HAD to find him guilty.
Anyway, my point was that jury nullification is not the great check on the system that people may think.
I'll do better next time... promise.
Violent games are interactive simulations of acts of violence. I don't see what this "same thing" is at all that you're talking about. I don't see what a simulation has to do with any of the other things you are talking about, all of which are static representations of things (like speech). (Except flag burning but I guess burning a flag is a long-winded way of saying "I hate America" or something like that, and that's why it's speech.)
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
And that makes no difference. A movie is a simulation of violence. So is a TV show, a play, a book. I fail to see where the Constitution says "unless its interactive". Indeed, the most important form of speech is jut that- conversations, political rallies, debates, all of which are interactive. ALL speech is protected- period.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
And I don't know why you stress the ALL in your final sentence as your statement is plainly false and there are countless legal situations that trump the right to free speech, the most obvious one being that you have no right to shout FIRE in a crowded theater.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
A simulation is speech. Its a form of expression created by the people who wrote the simulation and those who participate in it. THe fact its interactive has no bearing on wether its speech or not.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
The court isn't being asked to rule on the legality of the intent behind the Violent Games Law, merely its vague wording. It isn't like the Lousianna Legislature can't fix the defects in the law & pass it again.
Until a Court declares that the intent of the law is Unconstitutional, I don't think this is over.
Yep, we'll have to wait for some one with a brain to get on the scene and realize (may never happen) that pulling a product meant to be for adults from the market simply because its not for minor (duh, see rating) isn't how you keep it from minor..Its how you keep it from being sold period, and the stated goal and what the BS legislation acomplish aren't even in the same ballpark.
(copied from yesterdays thread)
Anyone know if it would be possable to actually class-action or otherwise sue jack on behalf of all gamers and have a chance in hell of winning? I'd like to, I'm sick of his trash. 1st its dancing, then music, then movies, then television, then role playing games (pen and paper) now its video games. This guy has been riding the retarded histeria for a living for 17+ years. It's past time to stop him.
I'd love to see someone do it. We should start soem kind of fund where every adult GTA purchaser can send a few bucks to help get rid of jack.
The constitution says "speech". An interactive simulation isn't speech
...as you call it... "interactive". Are you suggesting that a pure English text magically loses it's "speech"-ness when a computer is capable of reading and following those pure English sentences? In fact any software can be described in detail in pure English (there exist tools to automatically generate pure English descriptions of programs), and a computer can execute that English text (there exists interpreters to directly read and execute appropriately written English descriptions).
This law is prohibiting the distribution of text speech.
I am a programmer, a software author. I write software - I write nothing but text. Whetehr it is English language or French language or Chinese language Pascal language or Cobol Language or 6502 opcode language or Pentium opcode language, it is all nothing but pure text. I sell copies of that pure text, and retail stores resell those copies of pure text. Just because you do not happen to be fluent in reading Chinese or reading Pentium opcodesdoes not make a difference. The fact that I can read the contents of a software CD better that you can does not change the fact that it is text and speech.
Your point is already legally dead. Courts have explicitly ruled numerous times that software is indeed "speech" covered under the 1st Amendment.
It just happens to be specially stylized text that some computers are able to read and follow. Text that, if you choose to do so, you can stick into your home computer and get an interesting result. You can "interact" with your own computer after sticking this text into it. So what?
The trying to divide software from "speech" is entirely nonsensical. Computers can read and carry out (some) pure English sentence texts. That pure English is
you have no right to shout FIRE in a crowded theater
That is one of the worst and most missleading cliches about free speech. It is in fact NOT illegal to shout fire in a movie theater. It's not even illegal for me to say I'll give you $10,000 to kill my wife. You know what, I'll give you $10,000 to kill my wife.
There are however entirely non-speech laws making it criminal to do things like deliberately causing the death or injury of people.
If you are in a movie theater with a script and film crew, it is as I said perfectly legal to shout fire in that movie theater because you have no intent or expectation that anyone will be injured. It is impossible to pass a law against the speech itself. It is only nonspeech crimes, or the intent to cause non-speech crimes to occur, which can be criminal.
Here's a link to an excellent report commissined by the US Senate from the DOJ stating that Congress does not have the power to establish any law prohibiting distribution of bomb making instructions. The report explains in detail why no such law can ever be created. It explains that distributing bomb making instructings is itself Constitutionally protected, and that the most congress can do is make laws against the non-speech crime of intending to cause a real non-speech crime by means of that delivering that bomb making information, and law against giving that information to some particular person with actual knowledge that that person intends to use it to commit an actual non-speech crime. (The latter is aiding and abetting the commission of a crime.) I can post (and often *have* posted) the recipie for Nitroglicerine right here on Slashdot, and no law can ever be created to prohibit it.
P.S.
I don't have a wife. I had no intent or expectation to cause the death of anyone when I said I'd give you $10,000 to kill my wife, therefore there was no crime. The speech itself was perfectly legal. And even if I did have a wife, I fully expect that you and everyone else was aware that I was making a point and that there was no intent or expectation to actually cause any death or injury to anyone.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
well is isn't now. it just used to be. The constitution only affects the federal government, except when it explicitly involves the states.
Agreed.
this has been changed through various court decisions
I'd say that it was changed through Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution changed, and the courts then started smacking down violations of that new Constitutional law.
I don't think it's a "legal loophole" that the Bill Of Rights is now binding upon the states.
You appear to be defending... or at least sympathetic to... the position that lower government should be free to violate Bill Of Rights protections and that there is something wrong or inappropriate with Federal courts 'meddling' and striking down state laws.
Maybe that's what you think, and maybe it's not... but that appearance does explain why so many people jumped on your posts.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
That, in a nutshell, is why the Democratic Party can't make any headway in "red states". (Which, by the way, used to be blue states. Do you think the population of Texas changed in any measurable way when they swung from Democrat to Republican? No.)
It's all very well to talk about "education" as opposed to "condescension." I don't really even disagree with you putting my post in with the latter... It's the truth, this sort of bill is blatant demagoguery, but I could easily have said it with less political troll to it.
But, getting to Texas, if you don't think the "used to be blue state" part has anything to do with the Civil Rights movement, you are plain kidding yourself. That's what Nixon's "southern strategy," mentioned in my parent, is all about: playing to racial fears in the south so the Republicans could win all those formerly "Dixiecrat" states.
Take a good long look at Zell Miller and his speech at the Republican convention last time around. That's the old Democrat, fomenting about "agitators." Recognize that Carter and Clinton have been the only Dems to win national elections since 1968, and that John Edwards ran last time largely on his ability to win "talkin' like this."
I have Southern Baptist relations who live in Oklahoma. You don't know how hard the "educate them" part can be; these people think putting numeric digits on our coinage would be a sign of impending world government. No kidding.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Good to finally see some common sense prevail. It's the people who complain about videogames nowdays that are the problem, they are too busy finding reasons for why their kids are naughty/messed up to bother actually being a proper parent to them. What parent honestly let's their children play GTA, and then has the ordacity to complain that it is too violent. Here's a tip for them all, the kid's can't buy the games themselves, they have to have come from somewhere... and it's usually the parents. It's a sad, sad day when some people expect others to look after their children, and it seems like this trend is spreading with the current news over the state of Myspace and the lawsuit.
Business Voyeur
Actually, the constitution affects all states and territories. It's known as the supremecy clause. Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Really, these idiots need to tend to their own affairs
Quoted for Truth.
Louisiana's got hurricane relief to handle, they've got crime rampant in their streets (I'm talking muggings, beatnigs, lootings, that sort of thing) and other highly important issues to deal with and their well-bought legislators are writing vaguely worded laws to deal with a "problem" that in my opinion comes dead last on the priorities list for a disaster area? AND that flies in the face of the Constitution?
This is true, thank goodness in this case! I do not always agree with the decisions made on a state or federal level. It suprises me however that the Louisanna lawmakers had not already considered that this would be struck down. Do they really understand the laws our country was founded upon? Or were they just trying to say to the voters "Hey we're doing this!" knowing that it will be struck down, so they still get a vot while blaming it on a liberal court.. it's thier fault - vote for me at least I tried to trample on people's rights for your interests?
If you don't like it here, leave. But that's completely out of character for me. But, seriously... the Constitution is, literally, what our government is based on. A looser confederation was tried first, and it didn't work. So all the states got back together, and decided that a national government stronger than any individual state was necessary.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?