Slashdot Mirror
ESA Seeks Money For Legal Fees From CA
The Escapist is reporting that the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), frustrated with the costs incurred from their successful battle to overturn the state's violent videogame law, is now going after California for legal fees. "The ESA is claiming the legal battle, which led to the overturning of the "fundamentally flawed" law, cost a total of $324,840. If granted, it will bring the costs awarded to the industry in First Amendment defenses to nearly $1.9 million, spread across eight other jurisdictions that had attempted to pass similar laws." The site also reports that California Governor Schwarzenegger has followed through on his promise to appeal that overturn, seeking to restore the legislation championed by Leland Yee.
the California voters will get pissed off and vote out the clowns that passed legislation they should have known would be doomed.
These are California voters. The same people who elected Arnold Schwarzenegger. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Do you think they're a rational group of people?
It's interesting that a quote from an article about the law itself from its supporter Leyland Yee says "They fought efforts to publicize their rating system because they thought it would impact sales, and now they're again putting their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."
The thing that gets me is he (and probably others) think that not having warning labels somehow infringes on the rights of individuals, in this case parents, to make an informed decision about purchases. Personally, I don't see how having a label or not having a label has anything to do with rights. Warning labels may fall into the realm of product liability, but I don't think that really applies to any form of intellectual property. The concept that certain ideas can be harmful is a very dangerous one; my opinion is that the only times certain ideas are harmful is if they are implemented, not if they are discussed or considered.
In this particular instance - video games - the parent always has the right to watch the games their child plays, as well as the right to take that game away from the child (well, I'm sure some people would argue against that right, but I think that's a valid parental responsibility - and therefore they have to have the right to do it. If you take away that parental 'right', then parents must also be indemnified for the actions of their children (because they don't have the right to 'interfere' in their child's life), and I don't see many courts wanting to tackle that issue. In fact, I don't think I want to live in a society that would do such a thing.)
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Maybe, but being any one of these would make one a better than average politician.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
"There are thousands of children in foster homes waiting for adoption, but nobody wants them."
That's not entirely true... A know a couple who wanted to adopt, yet the application paperwork alone took them 2 years - with a lawyer - to complete. Only then, were they even allowed to start looking.
At one point, they seriously considered just joining one of those "baby-express" tours to China. It would have cost them about the same amount, but would have only taken 6 months, as opposed to the 3 years they eventually spent finding a child.