Slashdot Mirror
Illinois to Pay for Unconstitutional Gaming Law
adam_sd writes "Those of us in the Video Game Voters Network were emailed a press release today stating that the state of Illinois will have to pay a half-million dollars in attorney's fees to the Entertainment Software Association, Video Software Dealers Association and Illinois Retail Merchants Association. ESA president Douglas Lowenstein is quoted in the press release saying "Judge Kennelly's rulings send two irrefutable messages — not only are efforts to ban the sale of violent video games clearly unconstitutional, they are a waste of taxpayer dollars." The law was declared unconstitutional in December of last year."
So I guess violence is OK in the US then. But the devil will grab you be the b...s if you show a nipple somewhere. Quite funny ;-) And sad....
"If controlling access to allegedly 'dangerous' speech is important in promoting the positive psychological development of children, in our society that role is properly accorded to parents and families, not the State."
Judge Matthew S. Kennelly for President!
You take it, I don't want it...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=180417&cid=149 34104
A lot of the whining revolves around the obligatory "here goes the government again" comments.
Perhaps I'm a bit naïve, but it seems obvious to me that jumping on some website hosted in some third-world country and giving them my credit card so I can play poker through some system controlled by the website against God-knows-who just seems like an invitation to get ripped off.
I'm just not surprised in the least bit to hear some online gambling site shut down or involved parties being arrested for fraud or whatever. Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken this long for some government somewhere to actually look at these sites and realize that there is no way at all to stop the owners thereof from ripping off customers coming and going (aside from the massive amounts of money they make simply from the actual gambling itself).
I've got one of the smallest lists of "things I love that our government has its fingers in," but you should also realize that along with the money the government collects around legalized gambling in the U.S., they also regulate it massivly and crack down fast and hard on places that are ripping people off (above the fact that gambling itself is a ripoff).
Australia has a VERY vibrant gambling scene. There are areas of the country where people pile most of their monthly salary into slot machines (which they call "pokies"). Australia has one of the highest concentration of poker machines in the world, and a high percentage of gambling addicts per capita.
Australia isn't interested in banning gambling as it brings in so much money. They just want to ban online gambling, as the money is likely to leave the country and not get taxed by the Australian government! This is protectionism, not some moral judgement on the part of the Australian government.
I wonder how long it'll be till Bush passes a law so that non-US companies can no longer advertise to US customers. It'll stop money leaving the US economy after all, and reduce the gaping trade deficit.
...to be an ESA attorney!
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
A state of 12.5 million people has to pay 500 grand in attorney's fees? Maybe they'll have to take out a mortgage on the state capitol. /sarcasm
- Being able to persecute minority religions (prior to the ACLU it was actually illegal to be of the wrong religion in many places).
- Outlawing abortion.
- Eliminating enviromental legislation.
- Keeping black people from voting.
etc...Of course, few strict constructionist judges ever notice that the war on drugs is clearly unconstitutional too.
Illinois won't be paying - they will just raise taxes or cut services to recover the costs. Those who made the decision to do this will face no consequences. Rather, the taxpayer will face all of the consequences.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
This seems similar to "three strikes" proposals I've seen, wherein if three bills a Senator or Congressman voted for are declared unconstitutional, he is ineligible to hold office again.
The idea being to discourage a "throw whatever at the wall and see what sticks" approach, and actually encourage them to recognize limits on their own power.
Blagojevich is the worst Governer ever. Instead of worrying about the budget or education, he used his power to focus on this shit along with his attempts to try to move the capital to Chicago. He spends less time in Springfield than Chicago. Then again, Ryan wasn't that much better.
Judy Baar Topinka sucks too. I don't even know her stances on crap cause she displays stupid commercials about "more accountability" which people will OOOH and AHH for.
In fact, wtf do any of Novembers' candidates stand for? They're all bad-mouthing each other and on the "increased accountability" stance.
Somewhere I think I hear Nelson shouting 'Hah Hah!'
"Powers. I have them."
One problem, then who'll run the government? They maybe incompetent and crooks but they are the only Congress we've got.
If millions of people play violent video games and don't act out what they see in the games, then when somebody does... maybe it's not the game, it's the person.
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
Pass a bill in to law that puts the financial responsabilities of laws or elements of laws struck down as unconstitutional on the elected officials responsable for creating the legislation. Ie if a law is struck down as unconstitutional the costs the state would normally pay are instead divided among the campaigns of all the politicians who voted for it, with perhaps those who drafted, sponsored, and ultimately signed the legislation into law paying a greater share commensurate with their greater responsability and opportunity to fix what flaws there were.
I'm an out of state student at the University of Illinois and although it's a great school, it's not easy to forget that we are in need of increased state funding, especially for colleges other than Engineering. Instead of the state being able to use that half-million dollars for something useful now, it's going to be sucked into paying damages in a lawsuit over video games? Obviously the gaming law ruled unconstitutional was a Bad Thing, but so too is wasting taxpayer funds.
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the editors didn't read.
I'd add no more "backslash" stories to that list.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
they are a waste of taxpayer dollars
So where do you think the $500K is coming from?
I'm really not trying to be a troll here... this is a genuine question. It makes no sense to me.
Given that the proposed law only made illegal the _SALE_ of violent video games (ie, there was no prohibition at all against such games if the games were free), what reason existed that this proposed law would violate the constitution?
And if banning the sale of violent video games is unconstitutional, then why is, for example, prostitution unacceptable? That's selling something that could arguably be a form of self-expression and therefore speech. Yet there's certainly no law against it noncommercially.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Swap out "comic books" for video games and you have this, which is a repeat of history.
Just because you get modded "insightful" on Slashdot doesn't mean you actually are in real life.
If the legality of that law is still in question? I'm an Illinois Resident (also 25) and I was carded for a video game purchase 2 weeks ago. "Ah, store policy, sounds good" I mumbled as I reached for my ID Card. "Oh no, it's Illinois Law" was the snippy reply. I then got into a huge argument about how I do understand that they are a concerned parent but ... etc etc etc.
Was this sales clerk just horribly misinformed?
Nobody wants me tho...I don't know any languages other than English well enough.
But some day! Some day!
Blar.
The US feeds attorneys, so no wonder the lawyer scum takes over the world.
What about: Less lawyers, more engineers...
We're all about zero tolerance these days, right? I say it's time to apply it where it counts.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Step 1, pass law limiting state's liability in "loser pays" lawsuits in state court.
Step 2, get Congress to do same for federal court.
Step 3, pass high-profile unconstitutional laws that tie up civil-liberties groups and make them spend money they'll never get back
Step 4, while the ACLU is going broke pass low-profile laws of questionable constitutionality
Step 5, ????
Step 6, PROFIT
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
that will teach those sanctimonious bureaucrats not to "think of the children."
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
I think a nice letter to the Judge is a great idea. I'll do it. Anyone able to find the address?
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
Someone please think of the children and their virgin ears!!
This is Slashdot. If we worried about virgin ears, we wouldn't be able to say much of anything at all...
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I think the reason the law works out this way, is that it would be obviously unjust for a woman to have to continue with a pregnancy that she doesn't want, because of somebody else's (the father's) wishes.
Frankly, I think the way it should work is something like this: if both parents want the child, everything's hunky-dory. If the father doesn't want it, then he has to cover the cost of the termination, but after that has no further liabilities. If the mother wants to continue with it at that point, it's on her. If the mother wants to terminate, and the father doesn't, then it isn't fair to require her to continue with the pregnancy: at best, she could be required to have the pregnancy terminated in such a way that the frozen embryo could be turned over to the father, and he could find/pay someone to act as a surrogate mother, if he was so inclined. Either way, either partner could leave but leave the other partner the possibility of continuing on without them, if they really wanted to.
I think the key is that we need to make it clear that nobody who is uninterested in becoming a parent should ever become one. It's too damned important a job to take on if you have any reservations at all about your ability or desire to do it. There are enough people in the world: I'd rather have more abortions than have kids born to parents who didn't want to be parents.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Your parents let you read slashdot? Shame on them.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I both agree and disagree with you. I agree because such a concept would be unwieldly for the reasons you mentioned, but would, nevertheless, offer an interesting check and balance.
Let's make a simpler solution...how about a law (easy enough to make at the state level) that requires the disclosure of the amount of times a lawmaker has voted for a bill which was later deemed unconstitutional...right on the ballot next to his name?
I'd like to add a personal idea to this (requiring that the amount of money spent on campaigning is added to the ballot as well) so that an incumbent's name on the ballot looks like:
For State Assembly, District 6
John Smith, Incumbent (Party)
Campaign funds spent as of 11/1/0x--$1,095,457
Voted for unconstitional legislation--2 times since 2004
Seems like existing obscenity laws could be used to control violent video games.
Violent content gets an "X" rating at theaters...why not video games?
If it's PG or less, minors can buy it..."R", parents buy it. "X"...well
parents can still buy it...seems possible compromise....
-l
It's been 30 years since we had a Democrat as governor. Although he didn't go to jail till the 80s.
Since all the Dutch speak English so well, why would they import someone who doesn't even speak their language. Every IT job wants English + something else. Ah well.
I am learning tho.
Blar.
I wish you luck in your bid for office but you missed the entire point of my post. The political system is rigged in the US on so many fronts it is impossible to disentangle them. You will never have true election reform until these basics are addressed:
1.) Redistricting has been allowed to favor incumbents. Not enough republicans (democrats) in your district? Redraw the district lines until there are.
2.) Media coverage of politics favors the duopoly we have in this nation. It also rarely focuses on true issues facing the people but instead goes on personal attacks. Add to that the 30 second sound bites used for news these days and it is highly unlikely that the people actually know who they are voting for much less what they represent.
3.) The funding of politicians campaigns is a holy mess. It has led to questionable if not downright illegal practices.
4.) Voter apathy is growing. So much so that a minority of the populace are the ones setting things up for the majority.
5.) Elections are often fraught with fraud or at least claims of fraud.
6.) Political lobbying is running out of control both in the bribes they offer politicians but in the fact that they are the ones actually writing the laws the politicians aren't reading.
7.) Politicians are so busy trying to fund their next campaign that they don't have time to actually do the job they were elected to do. That is why they rarely even read the laws they vote on daily.
Those are just the main ones I can come up with at the moment. I know there are more. The problem is that you will never get them fixed if you were elected because it isn't in your intrest to fix them. Fixing them means you may lose your seat and lord knows we can't have that.
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.