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
...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
- 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
You probably know this, but for those that don't -- this is only true if the money goes toward a good or service made in the US. Even if you buy from a US company, that good could be made elsewhere, you are contributing to that economy's GDP. On the flip side, you may be contributing to the US GDP if you buy a Toyota and that car is made here (Toyota does have factories here).
Because of all the outsourcing, buying "American" (i.e. from an American company) has very little meaning anymore. If we all started buying "American" from tomorrow on, it would probably have minimal effect on our trade deficits unless actual manufacturing moves back here.
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.
>> Australia has a VERY vibrant gambling scene.
They gamble on vibrator races.
Somewhere I think I hear Nelson shouting 'Hah Hah!'
"Powers. I have them."
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.
. . .the Honda Civic made in Ohio ~70% US made parts. . .
98% these days. On the other hand the Lincoln Town car, one of the few remaining quintessentially "American" cars, although "produced" in Michigan has so few American made parts that it is legally an import.
On the other hand many violins legally labeled as Made in U.S.A. actually had all of their parts manufactured and assembled in China (additional labor in reconstruction, finishing and fitting them out makes them legally "American").
KFG
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 think you've failed to understand how stupid that particular piece of legislation is.
It bans Australians from using an online gambling site IN AUSTRALIA ONLY (money staying in the country)
It does not ban the following:
- Australians using an online gambling site overseas (money going out of the country)
- Foreigners from using Australian online gambling sites (money coming into the country)
Yet another gem from the desk of the World's Biggest Luddite.
LOAD ".SIG"
PRESS PLAY ON TAPE
Not so. If the president does not sign the bill, it becomes a law within 10 days as long as Congress does not adjourn. Signing it will make it a law immediately, but not doing so will not necessarily prevent it from becoming a law.
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."
Will it?
The legislators get the credit and the votes for "taking a principled stand". The state's taxpayers get the bill for lawyers' fees. Come November it'd be nice to see some incumbents voted out over this issue, but it's a pretty safe position (like "tough on crime") because people who aren't directly affected won't fire up the necessary neurons to examine the consequences of success -- it's not something they're into, cleaning it up can only be a good thing, vote "yes".
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields