Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Illinois to Pay for Unconstitutional Gaming Law

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the pay-what-you-get-for dept.

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."

33 of 219 comments (clear)

  1. Violence is OK then by LinuxDag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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....

    1. Re:Violence is OK then by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Funny

      >> the law is not responsible for the actions of the devil.

      It is if (s)he's a US resident.

    2. Re:Violence is OK then by kfg · · Score: 3, Funny

      >> the law is not responsible for the actions of the devil.

      >It is if (s)he's a US resident.

      You gotta serve somebody. It might be The Devil, or it might be the Lord, but you gotta serve somebody. . .

      Or they are hearsay and inadmissable.

      KFG

    3. Re:Violence is OK then by kfg · · Score: 3, Informative

      I used to have a friend who did volunteer work for La Leche League:

      http://www.lalecheleague.org/

      One of the cases they were dealing with was the local Child Protection Services placing a child in a foster home because the mother was breast feeding it and "mouth to nipple contact" is sexual abuse.

      We can be far worse than idiots.

      KFG

    4. Re:Violence is OK then by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 5, Funny

      re: "But the devil will grab you be the b...s if you show a nipple somewhere"

      This is the internet - you can say "balls" here.

    5. Re:Violence is OK then by Peyna · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Breastfeeding could be considered abuse if in doing so you were passing potentially harmful drugs onto your child. However, after a cursory search for anyone losing a child for breastfeeding on account of it being "sexual abuse," I didn't find anything, so I question your story.

      --
      What?
    6. Re:Violence is OK then by quakeroatz · · Score: 4, Funny

      A Bob Dylan reference on Slashdot? I feel like Data finding his long lost android Hippe brother... If I could feel.

      Oh nevermind.

    7. Re:Violence is OK then by Whatistehmatrix · · Score: 3, Funny
      . . .violence is OK in the US then. But the devil will grab you be the b...s if you show a nipple somewhere. . .


      if you have an issue with censoring the word "balls" then i dont recommend reading the slashdot article about the robot on a "single spherical wheel" http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/ 11/234258

      Someone please think of the children and their virgin ears!!
      --
      visitor from www.slashdot.jp
    8. Re:Violence is OK then by Fordiman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "You gotta serve somebody."

      *blinks*

      Yeah. I'll bet you enjoy slavery.

      Sorry, but I serve two distinct groups:
      My family, and society at large. In that order. The devil and the 'lord' can go take a flying leap.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  2. Logic? by walnutmon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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...
    1. Re:Logic? by biggyfred · · Score: 5, Funny
      Those damn activist judges at work again. Always thinking they have the power to overturn obviously unconstitutional laws.

      Wait. What?

    2. Re:Logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or, at least send him a kindly worded letter, thanking him for standing up for our rights. It's not an easy position to take in this day and age, and anyone who sticks their neck out for my country deserves a debt of gratiitude. And, yes, the Constitution MATTERS!

    3. Re:Logic? by Cutter7 · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/news.as px?id=17204 There's your new hero. asshat.

    4. Re:Logic? by walnutmon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I am not very sure about his track record in the past, I was really only speaking of the current article.

      However, I do not take too much issue with his stance on AT&T's disclosure of phone records. I do not know too much about law, however, the reason is this.

      While it is shitty business practice to give up your clients phone records, it is not a breach of privacy. Partially because a phone record is not really anything very personal, and can only be used to track your contacts, and frequency of... contacting them. They are not giving up anything that could be used to personally hurt you, unless of course you are doing something wrong.

      Now don't misunderstand this as me thinking that this is a good idea, I definately do not. If they were giving access to actual phone conversations, it would be different (and I wouldn't be suprised if it were true). But legally I just don't think AT&T really has done anything wrong. However, I would be very hesitant to give them any of my business, and I wish more people paid attention to this stuff and actually showed the big companies that they are willing to stop using services over this kind of thing. I think that a lot of blame that gets placed on public officials, though a ton of it is deserved, could easily be pointed at our very complacent and accepting population. I sometimes wonder what it would take to get a large portion of our citizens fired up, not "I'm gonna go blog RIGHT NOW!" fired up, but "I am going to go do something because I believe in it." fired up. So our new president isn't going to bar people from doing things that are shitty... As long as he is going to keep them from doing things that are illegal, I am cool with that.

      There might be better options out there though... I just liked seeing someone from Illinois putting a smack down on these frivilous laws.

      --
      You take it, I don't want it...
  3. Yup. by biggyfred · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Absolutely. You want to pass obviously unconstitutional legislation? Your consitutents can pay the bills. After enough money down the tube, perhaps they'll think twice before electing you again.

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=180417&cid=149 34104

    1. Re:Yup. by failure-man · · Score: 4, Informative

      If I remember rightly this whole thing was our idiot governor's baby. As much as I'd like to say "never vote for such foolery again" it's not that simple here.

      In Illinois the only choices we're ever given are literally felonious or criminally incompetent governors from the two parties. Want to run as an "unrecognized" party? Need 25,000 signatures to get on the ballot (and since the parties in power will snow you with objections, you need well more than that.) Independent? The same number. ("Established" parties, resources and all, need 500.)
       
      The two parties like the status quo, and they have the laws written to lock it in astoundingly well. We have the idiots in power and the other guys who pretend to be different (roles switch when there's a change of guard.) Our opinion as electorate matters about as much as it would in China - you just don't get beaten for complaining . . . . . .

  4. Think of the children! by Riding+Spinners · · Score: 5, Insightful
    States rights just means undoing the good stuff the ACLU did, i.e.
    1. Being able to persecute minority religions (prior to the ACLU it was actually illegal to be of the wrong religion in many places).
    2. Outlawing abortion.
    3. Eliminating enviromental legislation.
    4. Keeping black people from voting.
    etc...
    Of course, few strict constructionist judges ever notice that the war on drugs is clearly unconstitutional too.
    1. Re:Think of the children! by Fordiman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Move to amsterdam. You'll find a lot who aren't screwing up others' lives.

      The reason?

      Risk expense. The addict in this country has to pay for risk expense of the entire chain of dealers and suppliers. These are people who wouldn't have jobs if there were no control of substances (why pay a trafficing chain when you can pay a trucker?).

      With legalized drugs, the risk expense becomes nil; a drug addict doesn't have to sell his momma's jewelry to pay for his next hit. He could probably get away with selling a pint of blood for his next 6-10 hits.

      Not to mention the reduction in drug-related crime (what major corporation have YOU seen have a major gunfight with the police on US soil?) and in actual addiction (you don't have pushers on the streets; they have no incentive to push).

      You'll still have addicts (as you still have nicotiene addicts and alcoholics), but the issue will be considerably less dramatic than it is today.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    2. Re:Think of the children! by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      2. Outlawing abortion.

      You know, I used to consider myself "pro choice" on this; how can I be libertarian (note small "l") and not?

      But I've been thinking recently, we keep harping about a "woman's right to choose", what about a MAN'S right to choose? I've changed my mind; I'm anti-abortion.

      If I knock some chick up, she can abort it whether I want the child or not. If she wants it, I have to pay for it. I have no choice whatever! "Well you should have thought of that before you had sex".

      So should she, especially since she has access to birth control and I don't! If I have no choice, she shouldn't either.

      A law saying that she can have an abortion when both parents want it would be fine with me.

      Also, why should a woman have a choice to take a few cells out but no choice to take a drug?

      Note that I raised both of my kids myself, we're talking theory here.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:Think of the children! by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've never met an alcoholic who was screwing up only his own life either. Yet alcohol is legal, because everyoe knows if you drink moderately it's not dangerous to you. (That logic would apply to some drugs too, of course, but that simple fact is completely ignored.)

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
  5. Illinois won't be paying by Alioth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Illinois won't be paying by walnutmon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I believe that is the way that government is intended to work. Our governmental bodies, on all scales, are elected by people to speak for them. When you elect poor officials that make poor decisions that have a detrimental effect on your wallet, that is actually how it is supposed to work, maybe they will spend more time deciding who to vote for next election.

      On to the next problem; Which is having anyone worthwhile to vote into office to begin with...

      --
      You take it, I don't want it...
    2. Re:Illinois won't be paying by spongman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      right, it's up to the fools who voted these people into office to pay the bill. maybe they'll be a little more careful in the future?

      I can dream, can't I?

  6. Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? by rolfwind · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.


    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.
  7. Three Strikes by XanC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Three Strikes by imemyself · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That seems like a great idea, but why give them three chances? Three's enough that they can fuck up a few times and not really care. Two might scare 'em a little more. But then, it doesn't matter because there's no way in hell that Congress would pass any of this. They would fight it nail and tooth.

      --
      Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    2. Re:Three Strikes by Dhalka226 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That seems like a great idea

      Uhh... no, it doesn't. For many reasons, among them:

      1. You think politicians don't do anything useful now? Imagine the levels of inactivity you are going to force them into if you tell them that if they mess up too many times, their career is over. Nobody is going to take chances. Nobody is going to pass controversial measures. And it bears reminding that some things we find to be absolute no-brainers (civil rights, etc) were highly controversial when they were passed.

      2. There seems to be a tacit insinuation that "legal" means "right," which is an issue of morality. There's no such link, and while I would like my politicians to adhere as best they can to the Constitution, I also understand that we need a new type of government if we're not going to let them vote the way they think is right.

      3. Voters really ought to be able to elect whomever they please, as many times as they please. I don't believe in term limits for just this reason--but at least they did that one right; they amended the Constitution to include such a limit. Nobody should tell me I can't vote for somebody for any reason, including "he's fucking awful." What if I don't care that he's passed three unconstitutional laws? What if I like the stands he was taking, the points he was making with the laws? What if I supported the laws? My candidate is no longer eligible because he represented me?

      Look, passing unconstitutional laws really shouldn't happen, but if there's going to be a penalty attached to such activity, I will attach it as a voter. And if voters are too dumb to take these things into consideration (and they probably are), too bad. That's one of the consequences of living in a republic.

      4. Constitutionality is not a simple subject. You can take just about any Constitutional issue, post about it here on slashdot, and get a tremendous flamefest over what it means, how it pertains, etc. And that phenomena is not limited to discussion forums. You can probably take ANY Supreme Court decision--certainly EVERY decision that was not made unanimously, by the very definition--and find some judge somewhere in the country who disagrees with it. It's hard to determine these issues. We dedicated a third of our federal government to doing nothing BUT deciding these issues. A lot of people here, as elsewhere, take their own interpretations of the Constitution to be the end-all-be-all, and that's fine. I'm glad they have strong opinions. But it means absolutely nothing to a court, and it shouldn't.

      5. Taking #3 into account, you're going to polticize the judicial process even more than it is already politicized. In states where judges have to run for office (is that all of them?), how kindly do you think the Republican party will take to a Republican judge kicking one of their guys out of office because of such a three-strike law? Is a Democratic judge kicking a Republican out of office going to be seen as a polticial move? Do we really want to essentially give impeachment powers to the judiciary at all?

      6. And while we're here, in most states, and the federal government, this would need to be enacted as a constitutional amendment. A law to this effect would almost certainly be struck down, which would be the epitome of irony.

      7. As another mini-irony, not only does the Constitution not include any such punishment scheme for violating the Constitution, it really doesn't include any provisions for declaring laws unconstitutional at all. It's something Justice Marshall took upon himself to piss off Thomas Jefferson in the opening years of our country, and we just sort of said "yeah, that makes sense." Could it be that declaring laws unconstitutional is unconstitutional? Hmmmm.

      So no. It doesn't seem like a very good idea to me at all.

    3. Re:Three Strikes by njdj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You think politicians don't do anything useful now? Imagine the levels of inactivity you are going to force them into if you tell them that if they mess up too many times, their career is over.

      And that would be a very good thing. As Jefferson said, "that government governs best which governs least". Our problem today is not that there are too few laws. In fact, if you ask a practicing attorney how many laws apply to a person residing in the state where that attorney practices, he/she won't be able to tell you, even to the nearest 100. And the legal system presumes that everyone knows all the laws.

    4. Re:Three Strikes by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As Jefferson said, "that government governs best which governs least".

      I prefer Lao Tzu's phrasing...

      "One should govern a large state just as one would cook a small fish; lightly. Very lightly."

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  8. Our Governer sucks by EvilMoose · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Funny

    >> Australia has a VERY vibrant gambling scene.

    They gamble on vibrator races.

  10. Logic FTW by Kawahee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  11. Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? by kfg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    . . .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