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

[PresidentEnder]

Davy Crockett, of all people....

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...

[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.

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?

[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?

[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

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.

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.

:-(