Slashdot Mirror
Video Game Labeling Law Passed In New York
chareverie writes "A law just passed in New York now requires labels for violent content in video games that are already rated, as well as having parent-controlled lockout features installed in consoles by 2010. The law has caused an uproar with civil rights groups who claim that such a law is unconstitutional. A legal challenge is already in the works by the New York Civil Liberties Union who cite that similar laws that have been brought to courts in California, Illinois, Minessota, and Washington state have been deemed as unconstitutional. NYCLU legislative director Robert Perry also says that the 'new law is a "back door" way of regulating video game content.'"
Speaking of a back door, that seems to be the general entrance that lawyers have been using in regards to our rights. It's a shame that the first thing that came to my mind is "What's new?"
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious. It may be redundant but I don't see how it's censoring anything. Unless of course it's been decided that controlling what your kids have access to is limiting free speech...
I'd prefer this than straight up banning. And I'd consider putting the power *and responsibility* back in the hands of the parents a good thing. All this is in my opinion is a tool to facilitate that.
Good morning folks, your friendly neighborhood anarcho-capitalist here.
Is it confusing to anyone why such a law would be deemed unconstitutional? It makes no sense to me. If they're crying "1st Amendment violation!" we should note instantly that this is not the U.S. Congress passing a law infringing on the freedom of expression. This is a State-level body declaring their right, via the 9th and 10th Amendments, to regulate speech.
Now some of you are saying "Whoa, Mr. Anarchy says it's OK for States to regulate speech!" According to the U.S. Constitution, they can. If their own State Constitution has a declaration of what they can't do, and I hope many States do, then they should be bound by that. But if the People of a State decide that they want their speech regulated and restricted, nothing in the U.S. Constitution should prevent them from deciding it's OK to be nannied to death by their State governments.
I'm all for dismantling the State, piece by piece, top-down, but in this case, I don't see what the issue is. As long as the U.S. Congress does not try this tactic, as far as I know, it's constitutional, and people will get what they deserve at the State level.
How do I keep my parents from driving over here and locking me out of GTA 8?
Additional labels for video games seems like another toothless measure to do... what, exactly, that isn't already done by existing legislation? And a single state in a single country enforcing parental controls in a product that is distributed world-wide? Good luck with that.
If you want to crack down on video games, why not crack down on retailers that sell the games to underage consumers? Much like undercover cops in liquor stores watching to see if the cashier cards the 14 year old, it wouldn't be hard to enforce age verification in brick-and-mortar game retailers. Of course then you'd have to deal with taxpayers who find out that their dollars are going to support cops standing around in video game stores making sure Johnny doesn't spend his paper route money on the newest naughty game. Much easier to write broad, sweeping legislation that you don't have to worry about enforcing, since it simply cannot be enforced.
It requires that the nature of the game be clearly posted - not restricted. Although with some games, I think a 'WARNING: MAY CAUSE VIOLENT BEHAVIOR - difficulty due to poor control/interface design rather than actual challanging gameplay' would be ideal. But that's getting off topic.
It requires that parental lockouts be put in place. The thing about those is, they are optional by the user. Nobody is /forced/ to turn these on when the game is used in their consoles. It's simply required as an option.
I guess the point is that they are requiring information to be given. It's like a nutritional label on food, or the MPG rating with a car (though I don't think the latter is required). In this case, it's the content nature of a game. It's not like they are saying "Don't sell violent games".
Just what we need, more laws, when GOOD parenting is what is needed.
because so many parents read the labels on video games and use the lockout features :)
I really wish some game maker like Take Two would actually utilize all the wording of these asinine warnings about violent content and incorporate them directly into the marketing of the game.
Death By Gruesome Disembowelment II: Now with more Splatter! More Bowels! and More Realistic Vivisections! Also: New Exciting "Cat Mode"!
Don't all current gen consoles (barring possibly handhelds) have parental controls already?
"A law just passed in New York now requires labels for violent content in video games"
This doesn't censor anybody or anything.
"as well as having parent-controlled lockout features installed in consoles by 2010"
So a VChip for consoles. No more censorship than the TV VChip and will be uses about as much.
I can see complaining about the cost of this law, the effectiveness of it, or even if it is redundant but censorship? Just what liberties are being taken away by labeling?
And please no "slippery slope arguments". I want to know how providing the consumer more information is a bad thing? Now the vchip in the console I can see problems with cost but outside of that what is the problem. It will not effect any adult unless they are dumb and turn it on and forget the password.
I can see how it may be unconstitutional but only because it could be seen as the state interfering with interstate commerce. But that has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Go read your Fourteenth Amendment.
The Bill of Rights applies to state governments as well. New York State is not allowed to abridge the freedom of speech of New York citizens.
waste of taxpayers money.
Unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment or just last 100 years of Constitutional precedent? Its pretty black letter law, and certainly applies to New York.
How about the feature, "Do Not Want"?
It seems to me that once again people are making laws to put the responsibility of conduct, not back on the person who should be responsible, but to the gadgets and devices we have the opportunity to use (or not use).
That's all I need, some Sir Lancelot in a can that won't let me do anything because, no, it's too perilous. It is my duty to sample as much peril as I can, you know.
This is really getting out of hand. If parents don't want little Johnny, age 7, playing Bioshock or Grand Theft Auto, DON'T BUY THEM. This is why the ESRB does what they do. They put ratings on games just as the MPAA does on movies. (But we at slashdot already know this because most of us are intelligent.) Chalk another restriction on gaming up to stupid parenting.
Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
AFAIK, the current ESRB ratings they use on video games have nearly zero effect on the buying habits of younger gamers... and most parents will buy such a game for their child anyway. To me, this seems like an excuse to regulate video game content even further. The rating is all we need; parents should assume responsibility from there. Yay for yet more unnecessary law and legislation; as a resident of New York, I'm glad to see my NYS tax dollars are going to something useful. Right.
Not like there are tons of actually GOOD video games out anyway... the most fun ones are on the Wii. Everything else always seems to be yet another rehashed FPS based on an already-used-a-million-times game engine from 2000, or a sports game where the only thing that changes are the team lineups.
There are mountains to cross for those that are willing.
I don't think it should be legislated, especially in the US, but why isn't the feature already there on the current generation of hardware? The PS2 had it for DVDs - Why not for games? EffectivYou'd expect the feature to be commonplace and not require legislation.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Bill of Rights into the States' Constitutions. In fact, in 1866 the ratifiers of the Fourteenth understood the Amendment to cover "rights" such as citizenship, etc.
The word "rights" does not exist in the Fourteenth Amendment. "Privileges and Immunities" does. They are exclusive terms.
Maybe it is you who should read your Constitution, friend. It is obvious you are confusing "rights" (inherent) and "privileges and immunities" as one and the same. They are not.
In direct contradiction with the 14th amendment.
Relevant portion in bold. You obviously don't know... please save your ramblings for subjects where you have knowledge.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
So you take a game like "Grand Theft Auto", which is named after a felony, and comes with subtitles like "Vice City", and which has a back cover talking about guns and gangsters, and if that's not enough for you, comes with an M rating with a clear label of "Blood and Gore Violence". Apparently after seeing all that, some people's first thought is that it's a game about rainbow-colored horses galloping across fields where the trees blossom lollipops.
Parents should have more than enough information already about what games are violent or not. If they're still buying them, then that's their fault, not the gaming industry.
Not a typewriter
So there is a law that will have the industry do what's already been done? The ERSB is already putting labels on every videogame that is legally readable by a console telling why a videogame got the rating it has... this includes violence, sex, use of drugs, ect... The videogame consoles already had parental controls for a while, so none of the will be outlawed by the state... So, what use is there to a law that isn't gonna be broke?
Requiring speech can be a violation of free speech just as preventing it is. For example, if I'm allowed to say that the earth is flat, but in all my material on the subject I'm required to have a enormous red label saying "CRACKPOT", my right to free speech has been inhibited, as I've been forced to undermine my own argument. Video game labeling is a less clear-cut case, but it's unlikely any law which requires judgmental labeling like "this game will turn your children into street hoodlums" is going to pass Constitutional muster.
I never seem to have mod points when I see good comments.
How is this "censorship" or restriction of free speech any more than requiring food to have nutrition information labels? It's not as if the law prevents these games from being made or sold.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
*Prepares for the maelstrom"
This is not a position, just an observation. I think it's very ironic that there are so many people that accuse "conservatives" of shredding the Constitution when you have things like this happening in New York, which is noted for being very "liberal". McCain voted for the PATRIOT Act and Obama voted for FISA. My point isn't the criticize one or the other. My point is that politicians are politicians. Little is it realized that both sides of the aisle vote and some form of a majority must be reached. The two major parties in America seem to be not as dissimilar as one would expect. This is particularly true when they come into a position of power.
The fact of the matter is that cognitive dissonance totally pervades our society on just about every level. While I can't speak for everyone, I highly doubt this phenomenon is limited to America. Politics has devolved into a bloodmatch of two teams where, even though no one wins, the crowd riots no matter what. Well, that is to assume that it was ever at a higher state to begin with!
Can we please stop cheerleading the politicians that are handpicked for us by each respective party's machine? Perhaps if we held our representation accountable on some level that things will get better. Then again, maybe that is just asking for too much.
*Ducks*
As I said in a previous comment, the text of the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Bill of Rights into State Constitutions.
Where in the Fourteenth Amendment do you even see the word "rights"? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Red Flayer?
Do this, my socialist friend: go and read on the Slaughterhouse Cases. The Supreme Court, in 1873, decided that the Fourteenth Amendment did NOT cover "rights" but exactly what it was written to cover: privileges and immunities, such as citizenship. It was not to guard against State dismantling of the Bill of Rights, but to protect some second level "rights" which are considered ones of privilege and not inherent.
Your interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is flawed, because you have not read it, nor studied it. Yes, the Supreme Court has taken a pro-Incorporation view on this Amendment, but it has not been fully implemented, so we just don't know how SCOTUS can interpret some State laws as violations but not others. Without a full implementation of Incorporation, there is no Incorporation.
First of all, this is a really scant article that was posted. More info please? What does this actually do? What are the labels going to be like?
Secondly, I'm not clear exactly as to why this is a bad idea (due to lack of information). I think some kind of rating system for video games is a good idea, to give folks guidance as to what to expect from the game. That said, I think the rating system already in place does a fine job.
Why does the fine senator see the need for a new one, who is going to be handing out the regulations, what is the labeling going to look like? If this is just a "The State of New York says this game should be rated M" while ESRB says it's rated T, I don't see the big deal. Even if, say, a NY rating is required to sell in the state of NY, I wouldn't support that, but I don't see how it's unconstitutional.
And about the lockout features, don't consoles already do this? I know DVD players do. Is that really such a big change? Parents will always have a lockout system, it's called not giving the kid the money to buy the game. Or telling the kid to not play it. Enforced with a belt, if ya like.
From what I've seen this law is more inefficient than it is sinister...
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
Go ahead, argue against what the Supreme Court has found over and over again. While the 14th has been held to be selectively applied to the protection of rights from State interference, only the 2nd and 5th amendments have not been affirmatively upheld wrt state law.
Here's some analysis that may help you, and it includes additional writings that clarify the intent of the 14th amendment.
If you have sources that contravene this, please provide, I'd be glad to read them.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
What is this "Minessota" you speak of?
This is in effect proposing to mandate a security means, and I for one would be very happy, with my sysadmin hat on, if security means WERE mandated on everything which gives access to any potentially sensitive resources, whether it be internet banking accounts or video games.
The next absurdity would be to demand that the locks be taken off cars, so that parents cannot prevent the kids from taking them.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Please see my reply to your comment in the other subthread. The Supreme Court has ruled affirmatively that the 1st amendment rights are covered under the 14th amendment.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Ok, so why not the 2nd and 4th? If the SCOTUS believe that the Fourteenth Amendment allows for full Incorporation, why haven't they fully incorporated it?
Just because some recent rulings seem to fall towards the belief that we now live with the BoR fully Incorporated does not mean that they are fully Incorporated. It's a sham to make that belief.
For the simple-minded who refuse to accept that there is no Incorporation, nor will there ever be, here are some resources by Constitutional scholars:
The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (PDF!!) Berger, Raoul
Fourteenth Amendment and Selective Incorporation Links, Jim Allison
The Truth about the Fourteenth Amendment, Thomas DiLorenzo
States Rights Traditions that Nobody Knows, Thomas Woods
Google Raoul Berger, he has numerous articles and books on the matter as well.
How is this different then the requirements on food packaging? Why isn't there an uproar over adding new requirements on food packaging?
Much like me crossing the border to South Carolina on the 3rd of July to buy mortars and sky cakes, I see New Yorkers driving to NJ, CT, VT, MA and others to purchase their Xboxes and Manhunt 3.
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
You have no idea what you're talking about.
In Beuharnais v. Illinois, Judge Jackson said "The 'liberty' which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against denial by the States is the liberal and identical 'freedom of speech or of the press' which the First Amendment forbids only Congress to abridge . . . the powers of Congress and of the States over this subject are not of the same dimensions, and that because Congress probably could not enact this law it does not follow that the States may not."
This means that the Supreme Court is NOT Incorporating the full First Amendment to the States' Constitutions, but more of a "watered-down" version. Again, this is not full Incorporation, it's partial Incorporation, even of the First Amendment.
See: Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 502-503
See: Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 10
Conflicting? Absolutely. And also in full support that you are completely wrong, as usual, because you see it in black and white, and I am correct, as usual, because I see it as shades of gray. As is usual, you will only pull sites that propose to preach to your choir, so I provided you with sites that preach to mine, in addition to easy-to-look-up court rulings documenting the proof that the SCOTUS has not fully proposed Incorporation of any Amendment.
Heh. Dude, you do realize that it costs bugger all to implement, right? I mean, it's essentially a
Where getGamesMinimumAge() would involve simply reading a value from the boot sector, or whatever other sector, or even an ini file on the disk. They already have the libraries to do that.
And getting a value from the flash memory, they already have the functions for that too, or you couldn't actually have any such settings.
What remains as teh uber-challenge is printing a warning screen, which can be as easy as clearing the screen and displaying a string. Again, they have the functions to display stuff.
Basically the whole thing is going to cost the poor consumers, what? If you ended up paying a whole 1000$ for someone to code that, by the time you sold your first million consoles (which is actually very very few for a console), it comes down to 0.001 dollars, or 0.1 cents per console sold.
Mind you, I'm not opposed to your picking at other details of this law, but, let's get serious with the "Oh noes, it's at the consumer's cost!" arguments.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
In the case of the V-chip, parents say stuff like "What the hell is a V-chip? Is that some kind of sex thing?". The only ones who use it the way it was meant are the over-protective/paranoid parents. At least that's how it's been in the cases I've seen over the years.
A similar device on consoles would be the same way. Without adequate policing/configuration, it's just unsprung weight.
The game.
didn't even work back before kids were internet-savvy. Look how quickly kids learned to bypass the V-Chip on the TV.
Congratulations to the state of New York for yet again wasting tax dollars on telling people how to raise their kids.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
Sorry son, this label from the know-alls in NY say the this game is too violent for your age group, wait a few more years to play it. Oh, you joined a gang, that's good, you get out more AND you have social interaction with your peers.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger involved in part mandatory video game labeling.
Entertainment Software Association v. Blagojevich
We're talking about non-narrowly tailored content-based compelled speech here. Is it really that hard to follow?
While I don't see it as first ammendment violation, I'm still scratching my head as to why? Okay so there are R rated movies and kids sneak into them do we need more warnings? Do we need another law? What about newscasts and newspapers, they have stories about death and violence, do we need a law to force them to put warnings on their content? Here's the point, the game has a rating. If it says M, then what more do you want? And those that would be stupid enough to say that parents or children don't know what the M means then how does everyone know what an R means (at least in terms of who can get in.) It just doesn't make any sense to pass any more laws. I've been at, and worked at, game stores where parents will buy these games for their children and just don't care even after explaining the games to them. I was once yelled at and had a parent threaten to call the cops all because I told his 12 year old son he couldn't buy Grand Theft Auto III without his permission(store policy and it wasn't EB or Gamestop.) If a parent doesn't care where their money goes when the child spends it then tough luck. I used to be in support of carding for M rated games. I still wouldn't care if they did it but what's the point when parents don't care? And beyond that there are parental controls on game consoles, if you aren't willing to use it as a parent it's your own fault! Be involved in your children's lives and spend some time with them. I know I do with my own. And anyways remember the TV control chips that worked so brilliantly? If parents don't use them they don't work. So how will this be any different. This more sounds like some politician looking to pad their vote count by saying "LOOK I DID SOMETHING!" when all they did was waste a signature on toilet paper that won't solve any of the problems it intends to curtail.
How does this sound, we'll simply ban anyone under 18 from buying anything without parental permission, not even food or snacks? We'll make it a law that the retailer must have parental permission to sell a kid that bag of Doritos, since it's hazardous to your child's health, self esteem, and more, and you as a parent should have complete control over not just what they see and hear, but what they eat, who they socialize with, what they wear, and in every conceivable way, can shelter them from any harm that could ever befall them, and all because you're simply afraid that what you teach them is not enough to protect them, and how you punish them is ineffective and they'll just go behind your back anyway.
C'mon. All we need is a simple rating system printed on the game, just enough to give the parents a clue, and if you like, content specifically targeted at adults we can refuse to sell to kids under 17... The idea that we're trying to force the hardware to understand who's using it, inconveniencing the people who are old enough, or mature enough to use it, is crap. Well enough that you legislated parental control requirements on our games and TV sets, that we had to pay the bill for, but requiring these things to conform in any way to standards, and giving them a timeline for release of that hardware, and reverse engineer it into existing products that will still be on sale then? No, I'm not paying for it.
here's the deal: exactly how WOULD my kid get a hold of a game I don;t approve of. They're $40 each or more, and his allowance ain't gonna cover doing that too often. Even still, he's got to get to a store and back with the game (or a friend's house and back) At 16, I'm really not going to care, but when younger, me or my wife will be TAKING HIM, or another parent we approve of our child being shuttled by (who will be aware of our rules before being given care of our child). If an older brother or sister gives them access to a game they shouldn't have, they'll face the same concequences.
If the kid DOES get a game that way, we'll take it. Easy enough. then he's up shit creek without his allowance he spent, and potentially punished further. They only make mistakes like that once....
It's called parenting. If you can't keep your 12 year old from playing adult games, you're doin' it wrong. Outside of your house is another story, but under your roof, they really can't hide the game. They can try, but when you find out, the punishment will be MUCH worse.
I happen to be a strong believer in not allowing my children to have TVs, games, computers, or phones in their rooms. (distracts from study and sleeping, the only 2 things that should happen in a bedroom in my house). We have a game room for them, and closely monitor what they do in there. Its not sheltering, and its not cruel, its called parenting. When they can afford their OWN tv, or game system, they can have one. That's the deal. I can't afford to buy 4 of them (3 kids plus me we're planning) so that's what they get to live with.
Punishment? Whatever works. Some kids need solitary confinement, others to be scolded in from of their friends, other having their favorite things removed, others put to household labors, and others to be spanked. Each kid is different, and each kid will respond to your authority once you learn what works. The failure of parents today to use proper discipline is mostly what's wrong with America today.
It used to be, if I even looked cross at a teacher, my ass was sent to the office. today, one county here in SC actually has a rule that kids who fight, but don't draw blood, should not be sent to the office. they've had kids throwing chairs at teachers, in front of other administrators, and not even get suspended. Further, even if they don;t hand an assignment in, they STILL GET 60% for it!!! You can't have discipline if there are not consequences, nor consistency! Let me tel you, I was FAR more afraid of my parents than the principal. I was deathly afraid to bring home any indication I wasn't perfectly behaved. I was punished a lot growing up, but rarely ever hit. My sister, she got spanked a lot, and rarely got other forms of punishment. Either way, most things we did wrong, were done wrong once and never again.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
14th Amendment arguments aside (I think others have adequately covered them):
Article 1, section 8 of the New York State Constitution also guarantees free speech.
Read it:
http://www.senate.state.ny.us/lbdcinfo/senconstitution.html
You did know that each state has its own constitution, didn't you?
I've upped my standards, so up yours.
OK, I labeled my games. My label says "GAME".
I think sometimes the civil rights groups just want something to bitch about. Parents who buy games like GTA4 for young children will continue to do so. Parents who are anal retentive and won't let their 14 year old play GTA4 although (s)he picks up more violence watching the evening news anymore will continue to not buy the game. The only thing I see benefiting from blocking content on consoles is that your child's friend can't bring over a video game that you disapprove of and play it with your child. I honestly don't see a law like this doing much to freedom of speech, or even the current status quo of parents buying violent video games, other than to show you exactly what the violence is.
What worries me is the defaults for the future consoles. Will the defaults be "most restricted" if no parent password is set?
Now it's interesting what happens when the parents forget the password. Will there be some "password recovery" service, or just a reset button with a default password?
IMO this is more a technical problem than a legal problem. The problem would be if suddenly this parental control requires internet access. That would allow the possibility of censorship in the future.
For such a liberal state, NY sure likes to empower its government to do all sorts of things it has no place doing.
If the 3 major console makers decided they are not going to comply with this law and just stop selling consoles in NY I bet the law would disappear pretty fast due to public out cry.
Wouldn't happen of course since the cost to implement parental controls is very likely less than the lost revenue from NY in this case, and at least one console (Wii) already has them.
1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
typoooooooo
Do this, my socialist friend: go and read on the Slaughterhouse Cases. The Supreme Court, in 1873, decided that the Fourteenth Amendment did NOT cover "rights" but exactly what it was written to cover: privileges and immunities, such as citizenship. It was not to guard against State dismantling of the Bill of Rights, but to protect some second level "rights" which are considered ones of privilege and not inherent.
So you cite the Supreme Court when they say what you want to say, but you don't when they say the exact opposite.
Your interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is flawed, because you have not read it, nor studied it. Yes, the Supreme Court has taken a pro-Incorporation view on this Amendment, but it has not been fully implemented, so we just don't know how SCOTUS can interpret some State laws as violations but not others. Without a full implementation of Incorporation, there is no Incorporation.
You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. First Amendment jurisprudence is very well-travelled, and there are many cases setting forth what the states can and cannot do vis a vis regulating speech. Citing one legitimate scholar whose views are in the minority (Berger) and a bunch of nutcases doesn't strengthen your case.
I really don't see the point to this. If parents aren't doing their job now, they won't do their job when they have this (extra?) content rating.
I don't think there are any consoles being produced that don't already have parental controls. Please feel free to add any that don't, this doesn't include hand-helds right?
Fine, then put the label on movies too. There's no reason video games and cds should be differentiated from any other form of entertainment.
Don't sell any video games or consoles in NYC. Once the riots are launched, and half of the Bronx burns down to the ground. I am sure the NYC city council will reconsider their decision.
***
Note: I do have some sympathy regarding broadcast violence, sex, etc. Because it is a lot more challenging to control what's on a broadcast channel and few working people have the time to monitor every single episode of every show on TV.
Where as one is directly buying a video game. That is a significant difference. You have a choice to not buy that video game while buying others. With television, you're getting an entire package. I'd support NYC's decision if video game manufacturers included every game. But that's not the case here...
It protects "life, liberty, and property" against arbitrary deprivation by the States. In my book -- and that of every Supreme Court to have addressed the issue -- most of the things in the Bill of Rights are pretty fundamental to "liberty" and thus included within the meaning of the word "liberty" in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Certainly, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment covers citizenship. Just as certainly, the Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, Voting Rights Clause, and Privileges and Immunities clause, among others, of the 14th Amendment refer to things other than citizenship.
But the word "right" is in Section 2, and the word "liberty" is in the Due Process Clause of Section 1.
Actually, no, "privileges or immunities" does, despite the fact that the clause in which it appears is popularly labelled the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. If you are going to argue about which words and phrases are and are not used in the text of the Amendment, you should make sure you know which words and phrases are, in fact, used in the text of the Amendment.
No, they are terms with different meanings; the protection of "privileges or immunities" in one provision of an enactment does not exclude the protection of "rights" or "liberty" in some other provision of the same enactment. Note that incorporation is not a product of the "Privileges and Immunities" clause
No, its still you that needs to read the 14th Amendment.
You'd have to be blind to not see what a waste of taxpayer resources this is becoming.
In Beuharnais v. Illinois, Judge Jackson said "The 'liberty' which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against denial by the States is the liberal and identical 'freedom of speech or of the press' which the First Amendment forbids only Congress to abridge . . . the powers of Congress and of the States over this subject are not of the same dimensions, and that because Congress probably could not enact this law it does not follow that the States may not."
This means that the Supreme Court is NOT Incorporating the full First Amendment to the States' Constitutions, but more of a "watered-down" version. Again, this is not full Incorporation, it's partial Incorporation, even of the First Amendment.
This is why amateur lawyers do such a lousy job on Slashdot. You're citing the dissent in Beauhernais. The majority don't even address the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the States. In fact, they accept it implicitly, and proceed from their analysis there, simply finding that it is a narrowly constructed libel law that doesn't fall under constitutional proscription.
We need the government to protect us for all the dangers in the world. Especially video games.
(I wonder who protects the world from our government?)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Clapping your hands, insulting people who disagree with you, and believing REAL HARD will not suddenly alter reality so that you aren't just another person shouting about states "rights" to violate our rights.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
What part of this limits anyone's speech?
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
...and as such we should accord them an appropriate degree of freedom.
Parents *should* put limits on what their kids do if for no other reason than they are held responsible if the kid does something illegal. But a more active interest is warranted in order to ensure that the kid grows up well.
However, that doesn't mean that parents should tyrannically suppress a child's interests, even if they are a bit naughty. Kids are resilient. Kids can recover from seeing the occasional exposed breast or exploding corpse. We all did.
Personally, I really wish the government would stop trying to regulate this sort of thing (both futile and economically harmful) and instead focus on things that really matter (like our energy crisis, the sorry state of public education, the crumbling health care industry, the economic decay due to monopolism across all major industries, and so on).
Of course, the government doesn't represent the people who suffer most from these problems. In fact, the government represents those who benefit most from the sources of these problems. It is depressing.
Oh but I can vote! I get to pick this candidate that doesn't represent me, or that candidate that doesn't represent me. I feel so empowered!
"Full incorporation" would render "incorporation" pointless. Incorporation is achieved through multiple sections of Amend. XIV, and, somewhat counter-intuitively, not usually on Privileges and Immunities grounds.
Regardless, Amend. I freedom of speech is incorporated.
See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
Heh. Keep kidding yourself. I think you've been sufficiently chastised by another responder to your post... you cited the dissenting opinion. Way to go, chief.
You've proven yourself quite capable, over the years, of making a statement and then googling to find supporting for it. Unfortunately, since you do not have a grasp of the subject matter, you sometimes make glaring failures such as this one.
As for shades of gray, versus black and white, who was it who claimed that the law was completely constitutional? Are you backtracking now, claiming to acknowledge shades of gray when glarin holes in your statement are pointed out?
Once again, you've shown yourself to be ignorant of the subject matter.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
As in, parents don't simply exercise good parenting and choose a console model with the ability to lock out games
Wii and PLAYSTATION 3 have parental control, but their back-compat platforms (GameCube, PlayStation, PlayStation 2) do not. And I don't know of any console whose parental control has a rating revocation list to handle cases such as the re-rating of GTA: San Andreas to cover scenes that were intended to have been permanently disabled. And PSP is the only one among major handheld gaming platforms (DS, PSP, Java MIDP, Windows Mobile) that has parental control to my knowledge. We are going to see fireworks.
Sorry for the crossposting, but did you seriously make the claim that *I* provide one-sided supportings for my points? After writing out that list, you seriously make that claim?
Second, I didn't claim the BoR was fully incorporated. Please stop setting up straw men.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
If it's rated M, don't buy it for your kid.
If you hear that your kid's friend(s) have "Game X", call up the parent and tell them you don't want your kid playing it.
End of story. Anything else is "not my fault!" irresponsibility.
Is this seriously an issue with people? The only people this law affects are potentially some kids whose parents will notice the sticker or whatever and not buy the game for them. The people who are 'in an uproar' are most likely adults. How does this affect you? It's a silly law, yes, but it's hardly infringing on anything. An uproar would be if New York tried to ban violence or something. However misguided, they're still doing it with kids in mind. Get over it.
Not only that, but if what he stated was true, then the US congress could coerce the state governments into passing laws that were in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
The kids will be the ones with the parental password, since they open the box and install the system. So really this will accomplish nothing.
The ESRB label already says violence if there is violence in the game. The law is superfluous.
How are the games rated? By forcing the publishers to utilize a rating system or face their works being barred from sale in that state then you are limiting their right to publish works without being subjected to government 'approval'.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
so, they're asking for games to be labeled based on their content, and provide a system for locking out games of a certain rating? last I checked, don't all the current consoles do that already? I bought WoW last night (yes, I know, late on the boat and all that) and the box says "Rated T" and the back of the box says "Blood, Suggestive Themes, Use of Alcohol, and Violence..." and i'm pretty sure that the consoles (which, i haven't really checked because I'm an adult without children) have parental locks on them. so, they're asking for something that already exists? way to waste time and money, New York! it already exists voluntarily, and now you're just going to be fined for infringing on free speech. your tax dollars at work, folks.
The Supreme Court interpreted the 14th amendment as meaning that the 1st Amendment applies to the states back in 1925. So, no, New York is not free to abridge the free speech and press (and that would be true even if this was not in New York's state Constitution, as it is in most U.S. states). You're welcome to your opinion of what the 14th Amendment says, but methinks the longstanding Supreme Court precedent is more likely to be perceived as binding.
No matter how much regulation the government gives, there will be a way. For example, when I was 12 my brothers and I smuggled in Perfect Dark (Mature) for the 64. We were not even allowed to get Teen. We just went to our friends house and took their M games. No matter how much regulation, putting lock outs (Vchip? we knew how to work the TV better than the parents) on electronics and other crap give the parents a false sense of security.
Some libertarian you turned out to be. Your 14th amendment specifically prohibits individual states from curtailing or regulating fundamental freedoms. This was created with the most basic freedom, i.e. from slavery, in mind, but applies to the myriad of other fundamental freedoms. Freedom of speech, voting rights, abortion, etc.
This law is an abridgment of freedom of speech. The fact that technical details of computer systems are involved should not be allowed to cloud your judgment. This law is equivalent to requiring newspapers and magazines to come in sealed plastic cases which can only be opened by an "adult passcard". Should states be allowed to implement that? Why is it that once computers become involved, people just ride roughshod over decisions and laws that have already been decided. I think it's because of how easy and invisible censorship actually is in the digital age.
You're not a libertarian. And without belief in fundamental rights, you're a terrible excuse for an anarcho-capitalist. Save yourself the trouble of keeping up the facade, and just register Republican already.
May the Maths Be with you!
Uh, they want labels on all violent video games which the ESRB has alrady been doing since 1994.
ESRB
And they want parental controls on consoles, which the big 3 already have in their latest systems.
How to update parental controls
Good job New York! Maybe next they can pass legislation to require seat belts in all cars.
I cannot wait to get my ax handle or knife with a warning label and parental lock out control on it. You know it is coming after this. Guess I will have to mail order it from NY though. Anything for the children. Think of the children!
I would think this would be clear: being forced to go to a government ratings board before the release of your game restricts your expression of that game. What if the ratings board declines to rate your game? Your game can then never be released.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
One side provides the cash needed for re-election, the other the votes.
Is this a rhetorical question?
Oh, excellent! This will make it much easier for me to find the cool, violent games whose level of violence automatically make the games more fun.
The games industry loves to tout how many mature people play games now. Well if that is the case then why is it always a huge concern people try to ensure that kids don't play M rated games? If so many adults play games why is xbox live filled with so many teenage tards calling me a faggot?
I think it the law should be very strict about the sales of games to kids and should punish irresponsible parents for allowing their kids to play lots of games they shouldn't play. Parental controls should be turned on by default on consoles. Possibly with some sort of system that requires a $0.01 charge to a card or a call to a 1-800 number to verify it's an adult wanted to reverse the controls.
In return the government agrees to shut the hell up about gaming and allow publishers to ship the most violent games ever and games chock full of nudity, rape and bestiality.
In reality this won't happen and I do believe the gaming industry, like most industries love to prey on kids because quite frankly kids are dumb and it's easier to get kids to part with their money.
WTF DUDE?
The story is tagged Democrats yet the bill's sponsor is a Rebuplican.
... content. This simply requires a labeling. And at the end of the day if a game is rated mature, or violent, this does not preclude or prohibit someone from selling it to a minor. I wish we could do that, but the First Amendment, I believe, protects against that.
Bill sponsor Sen. Andrew Lanza (R) countered with:
This [law] does not prohibit the sale of video games based on
Reference
Oh no! Label something how it is. What ever will we do?
People will no longer be ignorant!
And we can't have that.
Actually, it would be appraisal and not approval.
Approval implies the ability to reject a work as well. You either allow or deny sything in an approval process. If everything is allowed regardless of the outcome it is not an approval.
Is classifying a work as violent, rejecting it? No. There's nothing that says no sale of violent games.
Is classifying something as nonviolent rejecting it? No. There's nothing that says no sale of nonviolent games.
It is now their right to publish works without appraisal. There speach isn't being restricted, merely categorized.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Only if the board is legally allowed to sit on it indefinitely. Does the MPAA have that authority? If they do, they don't seem to use it. X rated material abounds, as does NR. If the board can't stall your game, then the speech isn't prevented.
Drug companies could make the complaint that if it's illegal to prevent Rockstar from selling GTA 4 (a product (not a blog, newspaper, lawful protest, etc)), then it should also be illegal to stop them from selling their product.
i wonder how NY thinks it can force Sony, MS or Nintendo to have these lockouts with the other 49 states not requiring it. Seems that NY is only ensuring that people will order a console from another state/online to get the non-lockout models. That's less sales tax revenue with nothing to show for it.
Chances are, and i hope it will be the case, the US Constitution will overrule this nonsense (as it has in California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Washington). The voluntary labeling is enough, maybe more than enough.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
As in, parents don't simply exercise good parenting and choose a console model with the ability to lock out games (or actually monitor their kids, but we don't talk about that now do we?).
As a parent (of kids too young to play console games yet) I would argue that the ability to lock out games is totally irrelevant. I'd make sure that my kids would not own any games I deem inappropriate. I'm not so stupid as to believe that this means they would never see them: they might play them at a friends house or have their friends bring them round to play at home. However if I caught them doing the latter there would be consequences.
What I'd like to know is when, as a society, did we switch from "appropriate consequences for misbehaviour" to the thought control method of "prevention of all misbehaviour"? While you have a duty to stop them making dangerous mistakes as kids at some point they will grow up and become adults and then prevention is no longer possible.
Not if New York secedes! Zing!
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
The MPAA isn't legally enforced, in case you didn't know. You can distribute your movies without having them rated if you care about your free speech. That's pretty much the entire difference here!
In order to restrict game companies on the same basis as drug companies, you would have to make the case that games are physically dangerous to the direct consumer. I.E., there might reasonably be restrictions placed on games that cause epileptic seizures. Drugs are restricted because of the direct danger to the user. If there was evidence that books/movies/tv/games caused direct harm to the consumer, I'm pretty sure we would be restricting them the same way.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Article 1, section 8 of the New York State Constitution also guarantees free speech. Read it:
"Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or bridge the liberty of speech or of the press. "
I quoted it only because /.'ers have such a hard time following links, for the most part.
Notwithstanding anything that may be contained in either the State Constitutions or the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
I think that is more than plain and clear language for the matter. To put it in one sentence: The U.S. Constitution, and any amendments or laws created thereof under its authority, shall be the supreme law of this country which every judge, great and small, shall be bound by.
Plain and simple, every right reserved to the People by the U.S. Constitution may NOT be abridged by any State or local government...period!
As well, Article VI paragraph 3 states:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution
Plainly put, every representative as well as the governor of the State of New York have violated their oath under the U.S. Constitution, and should therefore be removed from office.
Of course, that's an extreme.
But if this extreme occurred much more often, then we would end up with so many fewer laws overall, and the lay person will be able to even start to understand them all, and there would certainly be very little, if any, stupid laws like the one referenced here.
Ok, for one, games are already labeled. If parents read the damn things, this wouldnt be an issue. Second, the consoles do not need "parental controls". The best parental control is not buying the game (or the system) in the first place. And what will these parental controls do for the games? Do the developers have to make a "clean" version of the game as well? And the next obvious comment..what about PC games? This is just crazy.
okay, so, ESRB ratings and common sense aren't working, because millions of kids are playing M-rated games! Have we considered that maybe good parenting has something to do with this, too? Perhaps it's not solely apathetic parents that land violent video games in the hands of their children. Every situation is unique. A parent might look at his kid and look at the stuff he's playing, maybe consider his age and maturity level, and, even though it's Teen or Mature rated, say "yeah, my kid's mature enough to handle this." does this not ever happen? Kids are impressionable, but not all of them are dumb as posts, and not every parent who lets their kids play games like that are necessarily bad parents. Anyway, all these warning labels just get tacky after a while.
Ok, they are asking for 2 things here:
1) Warning labels on games.
-Don't we already have this?!? (ESRB)
2) Parental Lock
-Not very enforceable. Once a kid is old enough to want a game their parents won't let them have, they will be able to bypass what-ever security the parents use, and if they companies making these devices make the systems unbreakable, what happens when the parent forgets the password and the kid is now old enough to play the "Teen" games? So much for me ever buying used systems without trying it out first!
This is why I will (unfortunately) most likely be voting for McCain if Obama takes Hillary as his running mate.
Too all those screaming that it's the parent's fault and they don't monitor their kids enough: do you actually HAVE kids? I have 2 boys who are 16 and 18 and although they are old enough for those violent games, I can tell you that it would have been nice when they were 10 or 12 to have the ability to control what they play on the xbox (at the time) as I do with what they watch on TV (vchip). It doesn't matter how good a parent I am or that I wouldn't buy them "Grand Theft Auto" (or whatever), all kids find ways to sneak things into the house and there is no possible way to monitor what they are doing every minute of every day.
Are there any states that have these laws and were not stuck down? Have any countries tried this?
Some parental watch dog group will prolly try to make it so video games will have to be tested extensively on animals to see if they cause violent tendencies. Then some kid will flip out and we'll have class action suits for billions. Though class action suits don't seem to hurt the pharma companies much. /has a sudden urge to run around in a hedge maze at night yelling wakka wakka wakka as i gorge on marshmallows //Not a Fozzie Bear reference
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
What is "society" then?
Society
We all know there's something wrong and we know it all along
Sincerity
You may think there's no one else till they put you on a shelf
Society
Pay your taxes stand in line help them plan for your demise
Society
Crush the weak to get your share 'cause nobody's playing fair
And no one cares
How long you pray makes no difference today
When your society devices how you'll pay
When finding the truth makes no difference to you
Anyway you look at it you're gone get screwed
You loose
Society
No one here can get along 'cause our history's to long
Sincerity Think you're going with the flow but you never really know
Society
To all the leaders it's a game and it's making you insane
Society
Data patterns are supplied proof tap back up all the lies
We're hardly alive
How long you pray makes no difference today
When your society devices how you'll pay
When finding the truth makes no difference to you
Anyway you look at it you're gone get screwed
You loose
Society
We all know there's something wrong and we know it all along
Sincerity
You may think there's no one else till they put you on a shelf
Society
Think you're going with the flow but you never really know
Society
We all know there's something wrong and we know it all along
Society
Society
Society
Society
Lyrics belong to Pennywise
----
Maybe offtopic, maybe square on-topic. Decide for yourself, and if you have this song, turn it on right now.
I was watching the documentary "Heavy: The History of Metal.". They were talking about how the PMRC made a big deal out of the fact there was explicit lyrics, and that the kids might actually hear this. There were senate hearings. They interview Dee Snyder(Twister Sister) , expecting him to be a blithering idoit. He wasn't. The PMRC was succesful in the 'WARNING; this album may contain....'. Tommy Lee of Motley Crue was ecstatic, they had the first label ever. When asked why, he said "this is the best advertisding ever. How many kids are going to buy this knowing that they had these lyrics in them." true enough! Many bands thanked the pmrc for the extra ash in there pocket. Wouldnt this be the same effect that the publishers would realise if this were to pass?? Not so much on the lockout stuff for the conolse just the labling.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
I'm fairly sure that these laws have been struck down every time they've been tried. Politicians keep trying because it helps land the 'think of the children' vote.
Video games have been tested fairly extensively at this point. Unfortunately for those who want them to, violent video games actually tend to decrease violent tendencies.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
This is all about censorship. After all, censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" America Deceived (book) from Amazon and shut down Ron Paul. Free Speech forever (even for video games).
A modest solution to the problem of keeping our kids safe and innocent in this mean, nasty and evil world.
First, we kill everyone under the age of 18. Their poor sweet innocent little minds cannot be defiled if the minds are no longer functioning.
Next, we sterilize everyone of the age of 18 or older. This way there can be no more kids that can be corrupted by our cruel society.
And then all the children in the world will be sweet perfect little angels forever and ever. ...I hope they buy it. This think of the children crap is seriously getting annoying. What do you mean the speech to text device is still on? Yes, I did give you the cut sign. It's still on? Turn that bloody thing off now or you'll get to test the next death tra
Aren't video games available today already rated, with it prominently displayed on the cover of each game?
Doesn't every current generation console have lock-out controls?
Wasn't there a study recently published that found children were refused (industry regulated) M rated games much more often than they were turned away at (government regulated) R rated movies?
I'm starting to think politicians like wasting everyone's time and money.
Nevermind this "why is this unconstitutional" discussion everybody else is having, I'm trying to understand what's in this law that makes it different from what we have now. OK let's take it one point at a time...
1) Aren't games already labeled by the ESRB? With clear and easy to understand content descriptors on the back of the box? What more will those (redundant) labels add to this?
2) Don't all current generation consoles already have parental controls, based on ESRB ratings?
Aren't they just asking for stuff that's already there? Someone please enlighten me on this...
There can be as many safe guards that parents have to set that are built in to consol systems. I think the real question is, Are parents going to use them? Or even know how to use them? Most "bad parents" are bad because they are not involved in their childs life and are lazy. What makes people think that an extra step to configure a consol is really going to block a childs access to violent video games...
"Every console will be required to have the functionality to lock-out content at the consumer's cost"
So? It's not like game consoles are alone in this. Try buying a car without air bags or windshield wipers. When society/government decides that a feature is necessary for safety, the cost gets spread around. Lament that if you like, but thats SOP for pretty much any consumer product now.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I would go a step further. People really need to consider what they are getting into when they have children and I have a strong suspicion that most parents fail to do this. If you're struggling to maintain your lifestyle with children, chances are you probably couldn't afford that lifestyle with with a comfortable margin before children.
When you raise children you have the financial obligation to support them, the societal obligation to properly socialize them, and the personal obligation to nurture them and reach their full potential.
If you cannot fulfill all three of these obligations you should not be raising or having any children. If having additional children would call into question your ability to to carry out these obligations for your current offspring, then you should not have more kids!
Whether it be among my personal friends, acquaintances, or through the news, I am utterly dismayed at the lack of forethought people seem to show when having children. Some people want to have a child merely because it would be self fulfilling or "neat." Some people want to have children because their parents or some other family member is pushing them. Some people want to have kids because, well you're supposed to have kids. These reasons by themselves are all frankly, absurd and abhorrent.
No one should choose to have and raise a child for purely personal reasons. Raising a child is a selfless act. When you have a child you owe a fiduciary duty to it to look out for its best interests and put them above your own. If you do any less, you are not giving the child the proper upbringing it deserves. You should be prepaired for the physical, mental, financial, and emotional stress (and it is stress) of raising a child before you even think of having a child. You should especially be prepared for the financial burden, as it can compound the other three. If you are not capable of doing this, then by all means you should not be having kids.
Again, think before you breed. That's if for my rand.
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
It's one of those few times I wish I had mod points and could award multiple to an insightfully humorous post. :)
Brian "Psychochild" Green
MMO developer's blog
yes, protect the children from violent pixels ... and even more from violent polygons ... make such a fuzz about it that they HAVE to realize that whatever happens in games is more dangerous than the gunshop on the corner ... all too true, i must really agree ... really ...
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Parents who are too busy to raise kids are not good parents. If you are working so hard that you have no time for family... aren't you missing the point? You earn money to feed and clothe your family. Buying a new car, or a second house are secondary, or even tertiary benefits. Material objects should not be the primary goal.
I know, I know, American "society" tells us to be consumers. Do you have to listen? No; not entirely anyway.
If a person is finding it too hard to keep up with a career and raise kids, maybe it is time for a career change? Maybe move to a smaller house to take off some of the stress of paying a huge mortgage? I know it sounds too easy... but maybe it is that easy! What's more important, your stuff, or your kids?
I am not responsible for their poor parenting skills!
So you've noticed that there are poor parents, what are you doing to stop this? are you sending letters to your representatives asking for parenting classes in schools, doing something about poverty? or whatever you've noticed is a strong social factor in poor parenting?
If not then you are responsible.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
No, Warcraft II was rated T for TEEN. Check the ESRB web site. What's more, all three current home consoles ALREADY have parental controls. Again, it's the parents themselves who need to step up and PARENT and politicians who need to find something more useful to focus on.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/2006-12-28-parental-controls-consoles_x.htm
Empowering is a word for the weak. Let's be honest: no technology gives you power; it is merely an expression of the limits one accepts.
Socialism: A belief that rights such as freedom of speech belong to the people, rather than the State.
One assumes anyway, from the above. Given your identification as a libertarian and your approving belief in some legitimacy of state government, one assumes that the following definition also applies:
Libertarianism: A belief that rights such as freedom of speech belong to the State, which shall have the right to initiate force to suppress speech amongst the people.
Never really did understand why some so-called Libertarians actually believe in draconian, fascistic, governments. It seems a contradiction. Saying "Oh, it's only State governments we believe should have the right to execute people for believing in the wrong God" doesn't seem to make it any better to me. Either you believe in personal liberty, or you're a statist.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Conceptually, standing for federalism as you are doing here is just the same as saying "The U.S. should not go 'liberate' Iraq without being invited." In the same way, New York should not go "liberate" Texas if its government is tyrannical, and vice versa. Of course, the Constitution does say the federal government will guarantee a Republican form of government to each member state, so it implies this "liberation" mentality from the get-go.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Argue what you want, but laws like this have been struck down 100% of the time as unconstitutional.
I want to know what happens to politicians who vote in support of such blatantly unconstitutional laws. Seriously, if they want to change the consitution, they can vote for that. If it's reasonable to plead ignorance, then they can do that. In this case, it would take about 5 minutes of research to realize "oh dang, this won't work". Voting in support of this and thus so blatantly wasting the time of the judicial system when they have to strike it down, is criminal waste of taxpayer dollars.
testing