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."

7 of 219 comments (clear)

  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. 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.
  4. 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...
  5. 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!
  6. 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.
  7. 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.