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."

23 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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. 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 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. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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