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"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Jury nullification is seen by many legal scholars as a very necessary democratic check on the legal process, and many just outcomes throughout the 200 year-long history of the United States depended precisely on some citizens asserting this right. See Clay S. Conrad's Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine (Carolina Academic Press, 2000) for a history. Your notion that only judges should decide is not in keeping with the actual facts.