Louisiana to Pay $92,000 After Game Law Fight

After Louisiana's unsuccessful anti-games legislation bid last year, the judge ordered the state to pay the court costs for the ESA and EMA. This week, Judge Brady ordered the state to shell out some $92,000 to the organizations in compensation for wasted time. "Within the ruling, Judge Brady also said he was "dumbfounded" that the state was in the position of having to shell out taxpayer money over this, noting that the law had to pass through legal review at every step. Given that similar statutes were declared unconstitutional in a number of jurisdictions, "the Court wonders why nobody objected to the enactment of this statute. In this court's view, the taxpayers deserve more from their elected officials.""

Comments

More ducking/shirking/passing the buck

[Demona]

Government officials, whether elected or appointed, always do their utmost to pass the costs and consequences of their actions on to the people they supposedly serve, refusing to be held personally liable. And then people pretend to be surprised by the results.

Re:More ducking/shirking/passing the buck

[JordanL]

Well, what else are they going to do? Public servants can only pass the buck to the taxpayer... it's not as if Mr. Governor is gonna whip out his checkbook and cover the cost of such-and-such.

Their responsibility is making less expensive decisions, or less wasteful decisions, not covering their cost. Your responsibility is putting people who will make those decisions into power, and then covering the costs of their actions once they're there.

Re:More ducking/shirking/passing the buck

[Lockejaw]

The solution is to punish the individuals who direct an organization to illegal behavior rather than the organization itself. Punishing the entire organization spreads the punishment to all who are represented by it and diminishes the impact on the few individuals who are truly responsible.

This failed statute was not created by the state of Louisiana. It was created by a handful of politicians. Don't punish millions for the actions of dozens.

Re:More ducking/shirking/passing the buck

[PresidentEnder]

Davy Crockett, of all people....

Re:More ducking/shirking/passing the buck

[CriminalNerd]

Their responsibility is making less expensive decisions, or less wasteful decisions

And look what their "less expensive decisions" got them ... a $92,000 bill. How efficient of them.

WTF?

[Kim Jong Ill]

Wow. First the Blackberries start working again and then this news of a judge somewhere who doesn't have his head up his ass. Did someone spike my coffee with X this morning?

Here's Why...

[zoward]

"the Court wonders why nobody objected to the enactment of this statute. In this court's view, the taxpayers deserve more from their elected officials."

No Louisiana official wants to go on public record as being against a video game restriction statute, as they believe this might hurt their chances of re-election.

Re:Here's Why...

[MightyMartian]

No Louisiana official wants to go on public record as being against a video game restriction statute, as they believe this might hurt their chances of re-election.

And that's it in a nutshell. Even if 90% of the state legislature thought the legislation was clearly in violation of the state and/or federal constitutions, a majority would still vote for it because what's a hundred thousand taxpayer dollars when you can look like your going Jack Thompson on some evil game manufacturer's ass. Sure that money might have funded a lunch program at a few public schools, or paid for another ER nurse in an overstressed hospital, but fuck that, all that really counts as getting back into office.

Re:Here's Why...

[plover]

That's why I want a "three strikes" constitutional amendment added to the executive branch of government. If you sign into law three different bills that contain any components that are struck down as unconstitutional, you are maliciously derelict in your duty as the defender of your constitution, and should face a 20 year felony for the violation of your citizen's civil rights. Removal from office is not enough, otherwise the cowards would simply sit on every bill until they become a lame duck, and then pass the most odious crap.

Congress' job is to pass laws that are requested by the constituents. But they need the freedom to tinker, to think of alternatives that might fix or address an odd situation. But the executive's job is to defend the constitution, and that includes attacks from within -- the U-SAP-AT-RIOT act, Louisiana's game law, etc. The CEO should be putting his or her own ass on the line every time they sign a bill into law. They should be damned afraid to sign virtually every piece of legislation they see, which is how government should work -- be in fear of its populace, not the other way around.

Let me be the first to say...

[PlatyPaul]

... thank you. It is a breath of fresh air, in our society today, to hear about checks and balances functioning as intended and ensuring that legal review (post-legislation though it may be) is still feasible.

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[HTH NE1]

Expect Jack Thompson to be interviewed on television about this faster than he can say "activist judges".

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[nbowman]

Especially refreshing after reading about the Judges in WA who cannot be bothered to read the fucking briefs that are presented to them.

Why stop there?

[kinglink]

Why not charge the 91K to the lawyers who lobbied for these laws? The Jack Thompsons of the world. If it wasn't for him decrying the state of games for years Louisiana wouldn't have tried to push the bill.

Make every mistake that Jack Thompson make not just hurt the state, but hurt him. He wants to bring frivolous law suits and decry every problem as video games fault people should turn around and demand the money from him.

At the very least let's hold him accountable for his rants, coming out with in hours of the Virgina Tech shooting and blaming video games is nothing short of morbid. It's 2000 equivalent of ambulance chasing and it needs to stop.

Re:Why stop there?

[i kan reed]

Because that's punishing someone for having an (admittedly stupid) opinion. You defend games as free speech, then wish to deny Thompson the right to free speech? Hypocrite much? He should perhaps bear the costs of any lawsuits he was personally involved in, but you can't hold him responsible for the idiocy of elected officials.

Re:Why stop there?

[Jtheletter]

[Thompson] should perhaps bear the costs of any lawsuits he was personally involved in, but you can't hold him responsible for the idiocy of elected officials.

In this case Thompson was in fact personally involved as he helped draft the legislation. See the second paragraph of the article here

That's all I've got time to dig up for now but it should give you enough key words to find further details. It's no secret that Thompson has been behind this bill, and he's filed amacus briefs in other lawsuits for laws that were eventually struck down. He doesn't have clean hands in any of this, there is no room for him to say he didn't know. He has a long sordid history of suggesting and defending frothing-at-the-mouth anti-game, anti-free speech policies that have been consistantly found unconstitutional.

Re:Why stop there?

[Digitus1337]

Why stop there? Because money is free speech.

Re:Why stop there?

[gstoddart]

Why not charge the 91K to the lawyers who lobbied for these laws? The Jack Thompsons of the world. If it wasn't for him decrying the state of games for years Louisiana wouldn't have tried to push the bill.

The problem is, the people who were actually elected bear the responsibillity for what it is they actually do.

Yes, Jack Thompson is an idiot (er, sorry, in my personal opinion he behaves in the manner of an idiot ;-). But, there is nothing to say he is categorically any more of an idiot than any other damned lobbyist. The fact that elected officials are so heavily swayed by paid individuals is more the root of the problem than the fact that any one of them can convince lawmakers to try something stupid is more of a symptom of the system than anything.

How the state legislators failed to recognize court decisions (as pointed out by the judge in this case) that had gone the opposite way of their legislation is more staggering. It's like hoping that gravity won't work this time and you'll finally be able to fly. Passing a law you know will be shot down in the court so you can be perceived to be doing something is, well, stupid.

Make the process if being lobbied *much* more transparent/regulated, but let the individual legislators realize that they are the ones on the hook for the bills they put forth.

I bet if every law had to carry a listing of all lobbyists who spoke on behalf of the bill, their position on the matter, and whatever else makes sense, the fact that this stuff was suddenly out in the open might curtail some of the more back-room aspects to lobbying in the first place. Apply penalties for omitting anything, or failing to point out that you got campaign financing in return for your position, etc.

The problem, is the lawmakers get to do this in a rather non-obvious way. Hell, apply Sarbanes-Oxeley to legislators, and you might have something. =)

Cheers

Re:Why stop there?

[Red Flayer]

If it wasn't for him decrying the state of games for years Louisiana wouldn't have tried to push the bill.

Except he didn't pass the law, they did -- the legislature has the authority, the responsibility, and the culpability. It's their fault for listening to the fool, and the voters fault for electing those legislators.

Thompson is a media whore, but the fact that his views carry weight is as much a problem with his listeners as it is with him.

Re:Why stop there?

[yada21]

Why shouldn't someone be punished for holding a stupid opinion? If you're have the opinion gold is going to fall in value and you sell short, and it goes up, you were stupid and you lose. Likewise the asshats here gambled and lost.

There's no disinsentive to frivolous lawsuits - it's rare in the extreme for defendants costs to be awarded. This applies to the plaintiff and his lawyer - the worst case secenario is they'd come out with nothing. All they'd lose was time.

Now if they were going to share there ill-gotten gains - I don't see why they shouldn't share the costs when their little scam backfires.

That was about the fees - I agree Thomson can rant as much as he likes, just not on my dime.

Re:Why stop there?

[kinglink]

I don't blame him for his opinions (ok I do, he's beyond stupid) but the crime I'm illustrating is a unlawful law that was over turned, as someone else mentioned he helped draft and file the motion for this law, he lobbied for it.

Should the elected officials have passed it? Depends, but if the law gets overturned because the words contained in it, it's the fault of the writers (of which Thompson was one). In that case that's who deserves to be punished, not the state. I can understand expecting the state to know if it's enforceable (and that's an acceptable reason to veto or cast a nay vote in most cases) but most lawmakers apparently don't care enough on that issue.

Thompson can spew shit all he wants over the airwaves and that's fine because there's little in way of "cost" except sanity, but he wrote the law that cost the state the money and I think he and his co-writers deserves the "credit" now.

Re:Why stop there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that's punishing someone for having an (admittedly stupid) opinion.

In my opinion, cheese would make an awesome structural material, if my stupid opinion gets someone killed, I should be liable. If my opinion gets someone fined $90k, then I should be liable.

This isn't about hypocrisy, it's about responsibility. Jack Thompson, as a part author of that law, should be partly responsible for that law.

If you want to talk about it in terms of free speech, I have every right to stand in a theater and shout fire. In fact, short of cutting my tongue out, there is no way the government or anyone else can prevent me from doing so should I be so inclined. But should I do so, I would be responsible and liable for whatever happens next.

Why? Taxpayers Are Suckers!

[blueZhift]

The reason the politicians continue to get away with stupid laws that obviously won't be upheld is because the taxpayers are suckers who rarely, if ever, hold them accountable. And the politicians know this very well. Hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars is nothing to a politician who knows that stupid legislation will keep them in office.

On the other hand...

[solar_blitz]

what politician wants to be considered a video game supporter? "Tough on crime, supports after-school programs, supports video games. Vote John Smith for Congress." Nobody will ever go out of their way to protect video games. And since those who don't care about video games will never speak out on their indifference, that only leaves the anti-video game activists to clog the airwaves and court systems. And Louisiana has much better things to do with their tax dollars than fighting video games, such as hurricane Katrina recovery.

Re:On the other hand...

[Dr. Eggman]

It's all in the spin. Rather than be a "supporter of video games" they'd be "defenders against government pork." It's the putrid magic of politics: transmuting actions and words!

Re:On the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Plenty of politicians support Hollywood. I don't see how video games are any different. Maybe the industry needs to pay the politicians more. But that money will be passed on to us customers.

Personally liable?

[ShadowsHawk]

It's the same for corporations and government. Individuals come up with 'brilliant' ideas that cause harm to the general public, but there is no true responsibility. Assign a portion of the damages to people responsible for approval process. Leaders should be held to a higher standard than Joe public.

Free Speech

[The_Quinn]

Fortunately, 'ranting' and 'decrying' does not carry financial penalties. If you want to protect freedom of speech, you have to protect for even the most slimy characters, such as Jack Thompson, or pornographers.

Re:Free Speech

[lordmage]

Wait! who said pornographers were slimy!

If they didn't exist Slashdot would not exist as it would not have an internet to exist upon.

Free speech and porn created the internet not Al Gore.

Am I the only one who caught this part?

[RobertM1968]

This week, Judge Brady ordered the state to shell out some $92,000 to the organizations in compensation for wasted time.

"Within the ruling, Judge Brady also said he was "dumbfounded" that the state was in the position of having to shell out taxpayer money over this, noting that the law had to pass through legal review at every step...."

So, what the judge is saying is that he thinks it is bad that the taxpayers have had to pay for this fiasco, so let's fine the state $92,000 so the taxpayers have to pay even more?

Sad irony that what he is doing is correct (paying the injured parties) yet contradicts the ridiculousness of the fact that this shouldnt have happened and the taxpayers shouldnt have had to lay out the initial sum, much less the added $92k.

:-(

Re:Am I the only one who caught this part?

[moyet]

Why shoudn't the taxpayers pay? They elected the idiots who passed the bill.

Re:Am I the only one who caught this part?

[SuiteSisterMary]

He's saying that the elected officials shouldn't have been so stupid as to put themselves in the position of needing to shell out taxpayer money, when five minutes of a lawyer's time would have told them that the law was unconstitutional and would certainly be struck down.

Re:Am I the only one who caught this part?

[RobertM1968]

I think you missed the point of my post, which was that it (the judge's actions and statements) was an interesting irony.