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"

Comments

Finally

[ToasterofDOOM]

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 /.

Re:Finally

[EggyToast]

Of course! He's James Brown!

Re:Finally

[TubeSteak]

Anyone with two neurons to rub together knew the legislation was BS.

Now what if they had gone ahead and instituted some arbitrary standards of 'patently offensive' & 'morbid interest in violence'?

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.

Re:Finally

[Haeleth]

Now what if they had gone ahead and instituted some arbitrary standards of 'patently offensive' & 'morbid interest in violence'? 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.

Which is just fine. There's nothing wrong with legally enforced ratings. They don't hurt anyone. 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.

The problem with this law was nothing to do with its stated intent; it was that it was vaguely worded. The wording was designed to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, where game manufacturers were not able to be sure whether their games would be treated as "violent" or not, and where game retailers were not able to be sure whether they were allowed to sell certain games to minors. That would have stifled people's free expression by encouraging self-censorship. That would have been bad.

But the stated intent itself is not bad. It's not even censorship. A well-written law of this sort, with very precise and rigid definitions and easily-understood effects, would not be a problem. If they want to institute some "arbitrary" standards, then that's fine. If the people change their standards, the law can be changed to reflect that. The people will get what they want, which is what "democracy" means.

It's only vague or over-broad laws, like the DMCA, that have chilling effects.

Re:Finally

[maxpublic]

The people will get what they want, which is what "democracy" means.

It's a good thing we don't live in a democracy, for then we'd be truly fucked. Democracy is called "a tyranny of the majority" for good reason. Our founding fathers knew that, and opted for a constitutional republic instead.

But the stated intent itself is not bad.

That's a matter of opinion, not fact. In my equally unimportant opinion, as a parent I'm the only person on this Earth who gets to decide what sort of video games my kids can and cannot play. And I don't see it as a very big step between legislating who can and cannot *buy* a video game to who can and cannot *play* a video game. I think it's fairly obvious that the folks who want to barge into my home and tell me how I should parent my kids are using this as a first step towards putting *me* in jail if I go and buy the 'violent' video game for my child myself.

Really, these idiots need to tend to their own affairs, and stay the hell out of mine. We're talking about computer games, not crack.

Max

Re:Finally

[plague3106]

There's nothing wrong with legally enforced ratings. They don't hurt anyone.

Sure it does. R rated movies have a smaller target audience, and thus become less profitable to make. Therefore, the numbere of R rated movies decreases. It still ends up being censorship. Personally it hurts me because G and PG movies I automatically rule out as the same tripe over and over again. As a rule, I don't find them entertaining (sorry, I guess I don't find what entertains 8 years olds entertaining to me). Same things goes for M and AO rated games.

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.

These industries also have stores which exist soley for that market. There's plenty of adult stores and liquor stores around. Hell, I can buy beer at convience stores here in Vermont. The same is NOT true for M rated games. Walmart may sell beer, but it won't sell an M or AO rated game. And what this law is attempting to do is make it so that no other stores will carry M or AO rated gamse either, because they FEAR they MIGHT be prosecuted under this law. In the end, its still censorship, just like the FCC indecency fines are still censorship. The government can't tell FreeFM what to bleep on O&A, but they CAN fine FreeFM is someone complains. The end result is that FreeFM bleeps things because of a POSSIBLE government imposed fine. Its still censorship. In some respects its actually worse, because the FCC can't give any guidelines on what can or cannot be said, so FreeFM is many times overzealous, and censors MORE than if there were hard and fast censorship rules.

The problem with this law was nothing to do with its stated intent; it was that it was vaguely worded. The wording was designed to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, where game manufacturers were not able to be sure whether their games would be treated as "violent" or not, and where game retailers were not able to be sure whether they were allowed to sell certain games to minors. That would have stifled people's free expression by encouraging self-censorship. That would have been bad.

The intent of the law is to censor games, no matter how you slice it or try to justify it. The law must be vague, because it would be struct down as an attempt at censorship. See above where I talk about why the FCC won't tell radio stations what is acceptable and what isn't.

But the stated intent itself is not bad. It's not even censorship. A well-written law of this sort, with very precise and rigid definitions and easily-understood effects, would not be a problem. If they want to institute some "arbitrary" standards, then that's fine. If the people change their standards, the law can be changed to reflect that.

Bull. It is censorship, no matter how you try to justify it. And children don't stop having rights just because they are young.

The people will get what they want, which is what "democracy" means.

Its too bad we are NOT a democracy, and nor would I want this country to become one. Democracy = mob rule. There are plenty of things people have the right to do even though the majority doesn't agree that it should be a right.

For example, free speech. Popular speech doesn't need free speech protection at all. Its the unpopular speech (such as video games) that the first amendment is meant to protect.

Re:Finally

[miskatonic alumnus]

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes." -- Abraham Lincoln

Re:Finally

[TacNuke]

Hold on a minute there Slashdotians. Most of us understand that the Judge's temporary injunction is a good thing. The Legislation is crap and is really a bunch of clueless legislator's attempt to score points with the public for re-election. But what the unwashed masses will only see it as "Evil Judges and Court System Puts Brakes on Law Meant to Protect 'The Children'".

BTW the temporary injunction is pretty much SOP in any sort of civil case like this. The Court will review the necessity of the temp injunction at a later date and may even rescind the injunction while the case is still pending. My quick read of the situation is that the petitioners will seek to have the law struck as unconstituionally vague. And yes the legislators can go back and redraft it, but that doesn't mean they will get it right the second time either...........

Oh well, back to reality.

Re:Finally

[hunterx11]

Sure it does. R rated movies have a smaller target audience, and thus become less profitable to make. Therefore, the numbere of R rated movies decreases. It still ends up being censorship.

The MPAA ratings are not government-mandated, nor are there any laws requiring theaters to uphold them. If this is "censorship," then so is the ESRB itself.

Personally it hurts me because G and PG movies I automatically rule out as the same tripe over and over again. As a rule, I don't find them entertaining (sorry, I guess I don't find what entertains 8 years olds entertaining to me).

To be honest, if you think that something can't be entertaining without sex, violence, or profanity, maybe you're not the go-to guy for judging the quality of movies.

Re:Finally

[plague3106]

The MPAA ratings are not government-mandated, nor are there any laws requiring theaters to uphold them. If this is "censorship," then so is the ESRB itself.

The MPAA exists because the government was about to start stepping in and outright censoring. So Hollywood formed the MPAA in an attempt to self-regulate to stave off government stepping in. The same goes for the ESRB; the government was going to step in, they created ratings (hey, it 'worked' for hollywood). The problem is that the government still isn't happy, because there are still quite a few M rated games out there.

To be honest, if you think that something can't be entertaining without sex, violence, or profanity, maybe you're not the go-to guy for judging the quality of movies.

I think its really difficult to come out with something new and groundbreaking if you automatically rule out any possiblity of sex, violence or profanity.

First, the movie leaves the realm of the real world, since in the real world, there is sex, violance and profanity. Second, most G rated movies amount to the 'funny' scenes amounting to 'look at the squirell get hit over the head! HAHA AHAHA AHAH HAHA'. Please. You think THAT makes a quality movie? The EXACT same drivel over and over and over again? Yes, I'm sure that Over the Hedge is a truely groundbreaking movie, and Saving Private Ryan or the Green Mile or even T2 are just plain junk.

You may still be entertained by playing with Legos and Matchbox cars, but I just don't find them entertaining anymore.

Re:Finally

[hunterx11]

So what you're trying to say is that Freddy Got Fingered is a better movie than Spirited Away?

Not all movies rule out the possibility of sex, but sometimes sex isn't appropriate to the film. There is just as much R-rated drivel as there is G-rated drivel. If you made the argument that most great R-rated movies would be terrible if they were bowdlerized, you'd have a point, but something doesn't have to have R-rated content to be good. Your argument is precisely as shallow as an argument that only G-rated movies are good because R-rated movies only exist to titillate shallow audiences.

It's also interesting that you use the example of Over the Hedge as puerile junk. It is puerile junk, but it follows in the footsteps of that other studio, Pixar, which has put out some of my favorite movies...none of which are rated R. Blood and breasts don't make a good movie, they just happen to be in a lot of good movies.

More on topic, the Production Code existed before movie ratings, and it actually was a form of self-imposed censorship. As much as it had a negative effect by holding back filmmakers, there was a silver lining even then. A lot of the great innuendo and subtlety of older movies probably wouldn't have existed if they had the chance to be explicit. Frankly, I think that something sexually implicit can be a hell of a lot more erotic than a lot of things that are sexually explicit.

You may still be entertained by playing with Legos and Matchbox cars, but I just don't find them entertaining anymore.

Perhaps Twain was wrong; maybe youth is best spent on the young, after all.

Re:Finally

[bunions]

I'm the only person on this Earth who gets to decide what sort of video games my kids can and cannot play.

Right. And ratings are designed to help you with this, so your kid can't sneak off and buy Blood Drinking Hell Guys 4 without your knowledge and play it at his friends house. What's that? You want him to play Rabbit Slaughter 5000? Then go buy him a copy. Did I really need to explain this?

And I don't see it as a very big step between legislating who can and cannot *buy* a video game to who can and cannot *play* a video game.

Oh please. It's a huge difference, enough with the slippery slopes.

Re:Finally

[bunions]

the issue is not whether children should be allowed to play certain video games, that's up to the parents. The issue is whether stores should be allowed to sell them to children directly, as opposed to selling them only to the parents.

So to answer your question, the victim when a child plays a violent video game is the parents because their parental authority is usurped. Replace 'video game' with 'beer' or 'porn,' it's the same argument. Some things I just don't want my kids exposed to, and I don't think it's onerous in any way to ask game shops to not sell a copy of Blood Drinking Hell Monkeys to my 9 year old on his way home from school.

Re:Finally

[miskatonic alumnus]

And I refer you to my reply. Murder, rape, arson, burglary are crimes against the public and have real victims who suffer real losses. It is in the interest of society to capture, reprimand, jail these individuals so that they do not claim more victims. Someone selling a videogame injures no one.

Taking your logic to the extreme, I don't want my children to spray grafitti on bridges or buildings. Is the answer to petition Congress to forbid Wal-Mart from selling paint to minors? Where do you stop with this absurdity? I'll answer that for you: You stop legislating at the point where people do not lose life, limb, or property. That is, when there are no victims.

Re:Finally

[DM9290]

very clever. However pointlessly trite. "democracy" is an abstract form of government which doesn't actually exist, never has and can not be implemented.

The word democracy however includes many particular forms of government, none of which are technically true democracies. And that is what the grandparent post was referring to.

It's a good thing we don't live in a democracy, for then we'd be truly fucked. Democracy is called "a tyranny of the majority" for good reason. Our founding fathers knew that, and opted for a constitutional republic instead.

well... they opted for a CONSTITUTION. It is the Constitution which prevents the "tyranny of the majority". Representatives are no less apt to become tyrants than anyone else. However Representatives are as close to a true participatory democracy as could be implemented. They imagined there would be 1 representative for every 10000 people or so. A Far cry from what America has today. Todays America is NOT what the founding fathers envisioned. The founding fathers did not give corporations the right to be people nor give them "limited liability". They didn't allow 70 year copyrights.

Don't let your hatred for people of modest or no wealth (the majority) blind you to the fact it is the Constitution and not the benevolence of the minority (the moneyed elite) which keeps you free (if you would call what little freedoms you have left in "freedom").

It is NOT a good thing you dont live in a democracy. It is a good thing you live in a country with a constitution. You would be better off with a "Constitional Democracy" except that the technology and knowledge of how to implement such a system on a practical scale doesn't exist.

In the mean time you will have to rely on bribing or begging your representative rather than exercising any political influence on a personal level (because unless you are part of the monied elite.. you have none).

It is known to the Military Industrial Complex, that people should not have any cathartic outlet for their aggresive tendencies. If realistically violent videogames are available then very few people would ever dream about using real weapons. More and more of us, having been scared shitless playing games such as Medal of Honour (and getting killed over and over again) would never dream that being in real war is glorious in some way.

The "Tyranny of the Minority" already exists. And it is because of the lack of democracy.

Re:Finally

[miskatonic alumnus]

And I told you that your authority as a parent is going to be injured anyway. That is not the problem of the state and federal governments. That is your problem. Be a better parent, and discuss things with your children instead of whining to the government whenever you stub your toe.

Re:Finally

[miskatonic alumnus]

I love how everything comes down to "be a better parent," especially from people who are obviously childless.

I have two children, thanks.

You'd think more people would want to help me raise a good kid, especially when it costs them nothing. I can't watch him 24 hours a day, and he's not being raised in a vaccuum. You want more roaming gangs of uncontrollable children in the future?

Oh, where do I begin? First, show me how access to violent videogames produces "roaming gangs of uncontrollable children". How do you account for gang violence before the advent of video games, hmmm? Gun control advocates make the same error. Violence has been, is, and always will be regardless of whether people play violent video games or read the Bible, whether they use a gun or a knife.

In the second place, even if your thesis is correct, you are admitting that you are incapable of instilling morals and ethics into your children, enabling them to make informed decisions about their entertainment and lifestyle; and therefore need the government to intervene. Ergo, you are admitting that you are a bad parent. Furthermore, this law won't prevent other bad parents from purchasing the games for their children, thereby leading them to "roaming uncontrollably".

In conclusion, the law does not accomplish your objective. Talk straight to your kids. Voice your concerns to them. Don't burden society with it.

Re:Finally

[miskatonic alumnus]

I am admitting no such thing.

Sure you are. If you cannot raise your child without government intervention, you shouldn't be having children.

What I am admitting, however, is that I am incapable of raising a child who always makes good decisions, which is exactly why we don't let minors buy beer or watch R rated movies.

Because if we disallow beer, video games, and R rated movies, all children will make good decisions, right? Just like they did in the days before any of those things existed.

And yes, I view violent videogames as harmful for small children the same way I view violent movies as harmful, and would therefore appreciate some help from society at large with helping to keep my children from making obviously bad choices.

Maybe society doesn't want to help you --- I certainly don't. How about you take responsibility for raising your own children. Maybe you are afraid of taking responsibility. The Columbine duo didn't kill because of poor parenting. Marilyn Manson was to blame. It sounds better that way, especially for the parents.

Re:Finally

[hunterx11]

Plenty of people shun childish things and are irresponsible. Plenty of people enjoy childish things and are responsible. Hell, plenty of people are both responsible and irresponsible both ways. The point is that your argument is a total non-sequitur. How does one get from enjoying children's movies and playing with toys to not taking responsibility for oneself?

Now Honestly...

[Greyfox]

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.

Re:Now Honestly...

[Cheapy]

Elections are coming up.

Re:Now Honestly...

[nacs]

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

I think the answer and reason is in your question somewhere...

Re:Now Honestly...

[aaronl]

As the other poster points out, the state must send lawyers to argue the case, and Louisiana residents pay for that. However, as was not mentioned, Louisiana residents also help pay for the Federal judge and courthouse that the case is being heard in. It's amusing, in a sick way, that Louisiana helps finance having their laws thrown out, in this case.

A bit of good news, at least

[Runefox]

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.

Re:A bit of good news, at least

[EGSonikku]

How is the 14th ammendment 'unjust' exactly? Last I checked your state ratified it.

You can't have a state taking away constitutional rights and then expect the feds just to look the other way.

Someone needs to re-read the:

Constitution
Bill of Rights
The Hungry Catapillar

Re:A bit of good news, at least

[Planesdragon]

people could eventually be arrested for anything at all

And this is why you MUST serve on jury duty. Because only with reasoned, concientious jurors does our system of laws really work.

When you get right down to it, the law isn't what Congress says, or the President, or the police, or even the judge. The law is what the people, through a jury, say.

Re:A bit of good news, at least

[bar-agent]

And this is why you MUST serve on jury duty. Because only with reasoned, concientious jurors does our system of laws really work.

And that's why we can't serve on jury duty. Lawyers don't want reasoned, conscientious jurors. They want gullible, biased jurors.

Re:A bit of good news, at least

[CRCulver]

Juries do not interpret the law

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.

Re:A bit of good news, at least

[cpt kangarooski]

You reminded me of a very funny story about the Court that is in Woodward's book 'The Bretheren.' Basically, prior to the current obscenity standard being fixed, they tended to get a lot of cases on the subject. In the serious interest of being informed, they'd hold a big porn movie watching session, with all the films that were in cases before them. A joke among the clerks was that periodically J. Stewart would go "I see it, I see it!"

Re:A bit of good news, at least

[spiritraveller]

If, as a lawyer, you argue to a jury that they should exercise jury nullification, you may be found in contempt.

You are not even allowed to tell the jury what the penalty will be for a conviction.

That's how a 17 year old in Georgia can be found guilty of "aggravated child molestation" after having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old... and get sentenced to a mandatory minimum 10 year sentence with no allowance for probation and no chance of parole.

Re:A bit of good news, at least

[hex0016]

When I served on jury duty over a year ago here in Philadelphia, the judge in the case brought up the important check against tyranny that jury nullification provides while he was briefing us during the selection process. There may be some controversy amongst the legal community, but the judge in the case I sat on as an alternate obviously had a positive attitude toward the concept of jury nullifcation. As a Philadelphian, this is of special interest to me, seeing as the founder of this city and of Pennsylvania, William Penn, was at the center of one of the cases in English law that set the precident for jury nullification, as seen in the article linked above.

Re:A bit of good news, at least

[Alsee]

False. People can argue the principal of jury nullification all they like, but jury nullification is a De Facto power of the jury and a De Facto result. Once done it can neither be undone, nor punished.

Our Constitution places the jury as the absolute, final, and unchallengable power in declaring 'not guilty'. Once twelve mostly-random citizens have unanimously chosen to vote 'not guilty' double jeopardy attaches, that verdict cannot be undone, and those jurists cannot be punished for that verdict. I invite you to cite any jurisdiction in the US where where a jury can be punished for deliberating and turning in a verdict of 'not guilty'.

As for prosecutors suggesting it, I think you meant the defense... chuckle. It would be rather self defeating for a prosecutor to suggest jury nullification. But yes, many jurisdictions... nearly all jurisdictions... prohibit raising jury nullification as a defense argument. Defendants are not allowed to ask for it, but juries have the De Facto legal power to preform it.

-

Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want.

[bassgoonist]

I think he may be referring to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellate_jurisdictio n

Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want.

[MrSquirrel]

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>

Can't wait for the game...

[crazyjeremy]

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.

Meanwhile... A video game law is supported

[Sigma 7]

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.

Re:Meanwhile... A video game law is supported

[Opportunist]

Why don't you use that?

Go file a suit against the next chess club for giving minors access to this violent game. Don't forget to inform the press.

How long do you think a bs law like this survives if the press gets involved? Especially if there's nothing really going on and they NEED a story?

Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want.

[AuMatar]

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.

Did you hear?

[fernandoh26]

Quote:

The authority of the Federal government to declare state statutes that affect only that state unconstitutional is something I am against.

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!

Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want.

[k_187]

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)

This is cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, we need to make a video game where you're a judge and you get to shoot down unconstitutional video game laws.

It's not that hard to be a parent today

[MikeRT]

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.

Re:It's not that hard to be a parent today

[Opportunist]

You will be a father.

The other people you mentioned are simply propagators of their genes.

And one of the reason why our world is so f'ed up today, and why more and more teenagers flip, is that less and less people are actually willing to be parents, and instead hand the responsibility for their kids over to state, technology or school. That doesn't work out. Neither of those 3 gives a f..k about the kids.

Re:It's not that hard to be a parent today

[Aceticon]

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.

Contrary to what many people seem to think, Left-Right is not the only axis in political thinking, there is actually another axis, Libertarian-Conservative.

These axis are orthogonal, meaning that being left-wing or right-wing is independent of one being conservative or libertarian.

Contrary to popular believe, being libertarian does not imply being pro-business (a characteristic mostly associated with being right-wing), nor does being left-wing imply not being conservative.

Any true libertarian (both right-wing and left-wing) would be against this kind of legislation - libertarianism = pro-freedom: the guys that passed this law are conservatives, plain and simple.

Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want.

[aaronl]

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.

Why? Because that's who we are !!!

[mrbrown1602]

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.

Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want.

[k_187]

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.

Not to rain on your parade, but...

[Elemenope]

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'.

Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want.

[EvanED]

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.

Volunteers?

[ElleyKitten]

And this is why you MUST serve on jury duty.

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.

Quite the opposite.

[Elemenope]

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.

Which only tells us who the audience was...

[ianscot]

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.

Re:Which only tells us who the audience was...

[Rayonic]

this legislation was meant to appeal to: fearful idiots.

Told he had the support of all thinking voters, Stevenson replied: "That's not enough, I need a majority."

All sides of the political spectrum play with hot button issues, and/or try to play to people's misplaced beliefs.

The proper way to respond to such tactics is education, not condescension.

You should say, "I understand your fears, but I feel [insert rebuttal here]"

You shouldn't say, "You people are stupid! You're all fearful idiots!"

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.)

Great Examples of how Specific Laws can Suck.

[twitter]

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.

Re:it's stuff like this...

[mabu]

As if Louisiana or the South are the only places where there's goofy legislation!

How about Chicago banning fois gras?

There are stupid politicians who pander to fringe PACs all over the place, especially in Washington D.C.

Louisiana Attorney's reaction to the verdict

[MS-06FZ]

When asked how he felt about this victory, New Orleans attorney James Brown responded, simply, "I feel good!"

Re:it's stuff like this...

[KoopaTroopa]

Fundies anywhere are pretty shit-tastic. However, the 98% of the rest of the populace down here are good folks in a beautiful and unique part of the country.

I (hopefully obviously) was kidding when referencing the Yankees as folks we dislike. The idiotic stereotypes perpetuated by otherwise intelligent people get old, though. I mean, anyone can have a good laugh at their own quirks, but I think people actually _believe_ this kind of farcical nonsense about the South.

Poor taste in voting aside, this is a great place. There are just as many extremely nice, intelligent, and wonderful people here as anywhere else. There are also just as many fuck-tards. Ours are often fundie "Christians." Your local fuck-tard results may vary.

There's plenty of ignorance, stupidity, and plain indecency to falsely color any given part of the US if you choose to see it. I myself would not live anywhere else.

(I bothered to log in now since this is less off-the-cuff.)

Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want.

[Alsee]

The constitution says "speech". An interactive simulation isn't speech

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 ...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).

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.

-

Did you read the "Southern Strategy" part?

[ianscot]

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.