Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Judge Blocks Louisiana Violent Games Law 203

Posted by Zonk
from the susan-sarandon-to-block dept.
kukyfrope writes "A Baton Rouge federal judge has today issued a temporary injunction against Louisiana's violent games law that Governor Kathleen Blanco just signed last week. According to local newspaper The Advocate, U.S. District Judge James Brady issued the injunction just hours after the Entertainment Software Association and Entertainment Merchants Association filed the lawsuit in Louisiana. "How would a person assess whether a particular video game appeals to a minor's 'morbid interest in violence'? And what constitutes a 'patently offensive' depiction of violence? Persons of ordinary intelligence are forced to guess at the meaning and scope of the act," said New Orleans attorney James A. Brown"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Blocks Louisiana Violent Games Law

Comments Filter:
  • Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ToasterofDOOM (878240) <d.murphy.davis@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:24PM (#15573797)
    At least someone has their head screwed on tight enough to realize that this is bullshit legislation. I'm glad we're not te only ones here at /.
    • Re:Finally (Score:4, Funny)

      by EggyToast (858951) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:16AM (#15573930) Homepage
      Of course! He's James Brown!
    • Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @03:47AM (#15574506) Journal
      Anyone with two neurons to rub together knew the legislation was BS.

      Now what if they had gone ahead and instituted some arbitrary standards of 'patently offensive' & 'morbid interest in violence'?

      The court isn't being asked to rule on the legality of the intent behind the Violent Games Law, merely its vague wording. It isn't like the Lousianna Legislature can't fix the defects in the law & pass it again.

      Until a Court declares that the intent of the law is Unconstitutional, I don't think this is over.
      • Not "what if", but "when will they".

        You really think they let a mere judge tip a bs law? Would be the first.
      • Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Haeleth (414428) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @08:14AM (#15574994) Journal
        Now what if they had gone ahead and instituted some arbitrary standards of 'patently offensive' & 'morbid interest in violence'? The court isn't being asked to rule on the legality of the intent behind the Violent Games Law, merely its vague wording. It isn't like the Lousianna Legislature can't fix the defects in the law & pass it again.

        Which is just fine. There's nothing wrong with legally enforced ratings. They don't hurt anyone. The beer industry does not seem to be suffering from the fact that it's illegal to supply liquor to minors; the porn industry does not seem to have been stifled by the fact that Walmart does not stock hardcore videos.

        The problem with this law was nothing to do with its stated intent; it was that it was vaguely worded. The wording was designed to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, where game manufacturers were not able to be sure whether their games would be treated as "violent" or not, and where game retailers were not able to be sure whether they were allowed to sell certain games to minors. That would have stifled people's free expression by encouraging self-censorship. That would have been bad.

        But the stated intent itself is not bad. It's not even censorship. A well-written law of this sort, with very precise and rigid definitions and easily-understood effects, would not be a problem. If they want to institute some "arbitrary" standards, then that's fine. If the people change their standards, the law can be changed to reflect that. The people will get what they want, which is what "democracy" means.

        It's only vague or over-broad laws, like the DMCA, that have chilling effects.
        • Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

          by maxpublic (450413) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @09:16AM (#15575235) Homepage
          The people will get what they want, which is what "democracy" means.

          It's a good thing we don't live in a democracy, for then we'd be truly fucked. Democracy is called "a tyranny of the majority" for good reason. Our founding fathers knew that, and opted for a constitutional republic instead.

          But the stated intent itself is not bad.

          That's a matter of opinion, not fact. In my equally unimportant opinion, as a parent I'm the only person on this Earth who gets to decide what sort of video games my kids can and cannot play. And I don't see it as a very big step between legislating who can and cannot *buy* a video game to who can and cannot *play* a video game. I think it's fairly obvious that the folks who want to barge into my home and tell me how I should parent my kids are using this as a first step towards putting *me* in jail if I go and buy the 'violent' video game for my child myself.

          Really, these idiots need to tend to their own affairs, and stay the hell out of mine. We're talking about computer games, not crack.

          Max
          • Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)

            by bunions (970377) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:44PM (#15576666)
            I'm the only person on this Earth who gets to decide what sort of video games my kids can and cannot play.

            Right. And ratings are designed to help you with this, so your kid can't sneak off and buy Blood Drinking Hell Guys 4 without your knowledge and play it at his friends house. What's that? You want him to play Rabbit Slaughter 5000? Then go buy him a copy. Did I really need to explain this?

            And I don't see it as a very big step between legislating who can and cannot *buy* a video game to who can and cannot *play* a video game.

            Oh please. It's a huge difference, enough with the slippery slopes.

            • Right. And ratings are designed to help you with this, so your kid can't sneak off and buy Blood Drinking Hell Guys 4 without your knowledge and play it at his friends house.

              Right. And we all know that as long as the stores cannot sell violent video games, pornography, alcohol, and tobacco to minors, they will have zero access to it through people that the stores do sell it to.
              • Hey, good call. Since there exist ways to circumvent laws, we should just not have laws at all! I like your style.
          • Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

            by DM9290 (797337)
            very clever. However pointlessly trite. "democracy" is an abstract form of government which doesn't actually exist, never has and can not be implemented.

            The word democracy however includes many particular forms of government, none of which are technically true democracies. And that is what the grandparent post was referring to.

            It's a good thing we don't live in a democracy, for then we'd be truly fucked. Democracy is called "a tyranny of the majority" for good reason. Our founding fathers knew that, and
        • Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

          by plague3106 (71849) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @09:48AM (#15575397)
          There's nothing wrong with legally enforced ratings. They don't hurt anyone.

          Sure it does. R rated movies have a smaller target audience, and thus become less profitable to make. Therefore, the numbere of R rated movies decreases. It still ends up being censorship. Personally it hurts me because G and PG movies I automatically rule out as the same tripe over and over again. As a rule, I don't find them entertaining (sorry, I guess I don't find what entertains 8 years olds entertaining to me). Same things goes for M and AO rated games.

          The beer industry does not seem to be suffering from the fact that it's illegal to supply liquor to minors; the porn industry does not seem to have been stifled by the fact that Walmart does not stock hardcore videos.

          These industries also have stores which exist soley for that market. There's plenty of adult stores and liquor stores around. Hell, I can buy beer at convience stores here in Vermont. The same is NOT true for M rated games. Walmart may sell beer, but it won't sell an M or AO rated game. And what this law is attempting to do is make it so that no other stores will carry M or AO rated gamse either, because they FEAR they MIGHT be prosecuted under this law. In the end, its still censorship, just like the FCC indecency fines are still censorship. The government can't tell FreeFM what to bleep on O&A, but they CAN fine FreeFM is someone complains. The end result is that FreeFM bleeps things because of a POSSIBLE government imposed fine. Its still censorship. In some respects its actually worse, because the FCC can't give any guidelines on what can or cannot be said, so FreeFM is many times overzealous, and censors MORE than if there were hard and fast censorship rules.

          The problem with this law was nothing to do with its stated intent; it was that it was vaguely worded. The wording was designed to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, where game manufacturers were not able to be sure whether their games would be treated as "violent" or not, and where game retailers were not able to be sure whether they were allowed to sell certain games to minors. That would have stifled people's free expression by encouraging self-censorship. That would have been bad.

          The intent of the law is to censor games, no matter how you slice it or try to justify it. The law must be vague, because it would be struct down as an attempt at censorship. See above where I talk about why the FCC won't tell radio stations what is acceptable and what isn't.

          But the stated intent itself is not bad. It's not even censorship. A well-written law of this sort, with very precise and rigid definitions and easily-understood effects, would not be a problem. If they want to institute some "arbitrary" standards, then that's fine. If the people change their standards, the law can be changed to reflect that.

          Bull. It is censorship, no matter how you try to justify it. And children don't stop having rights just because they are young.

          The people will get what they want, which is what "democracy" means.

          Its too bad we are NOT a democracy, and nor would I want this country to become one. Democracy = mob rule. There are plenty of things people have the right to do even though the majority doesn't agree that it should be a right.

          For example, free speech. Popular speech doesn't need free speech protection at all. Its the unpopular speech (such as video games) that the first amendment is meant to protect.
          • Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

            by hunterx11 (778171)

            Sure it does. R rated movies have a smaller target audience, and thus become less profitable to make. Therefore, the numbere of R rated movies decreases. It still ends up being censorship.

            The MPAA ratings are not government-mandated, nor are there any laws requiring theaters to uphold them. If this is "censorship," then so is the ESRB itself.

            Personally it hurts me because G and PG movies I automatically rule out as the same tripe over and over again. As a rule, I don't find them entertaining (sorry, I gue

            • Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)

              by plague3106 (71849) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @11:33AM (#15576070)
              The MPAA ratings are not government-mandated, nor are there any laws requiring theaters to uphold them. If this is "censorship," then so is the ESRB itself.

              The MPAA exists because the government was about to start stepping in and outright censoring. So Hollywood formed the MPAA in an attempt to self-regulate to stave off government stepping in. The same goes for the ESRB; the government was going to step in, they created ratings (hey, it 'worked' for hollywood). The problem is that the government still isn't happy, because there are still quite a few M rated games out there.

              To be honest, if you think that something can't be entertaining without sex, violence, or profanity, maybe you're not the go-to guy for judging the quality of movies.

              I think its really difficult to come out with something new and groundbreaking if you automatically rule out any possiblity of sex, violence or profanity.

              First, the movie leaves the realm of the real world, since in the real world, there is sex, violance and profanity. Second, most G rated movies amount to the 'funny' scenes amounting to 'look at the squirell get hit over the head! HAHA AHAHA AHAH HAHA'. Please. You think THAT makes a quality movie? The EXACT same drivel over and over and over again? Yes, I'm sure that Over the Hedge is a truely groundbreaking movie, and Saving Private Ryan or the Green Mile or even T2 are just plain junk.

              You may still be entertained by playing with Legos and Matchbox cars, but I just don't find them entertaining anymore.
              • I think its really difficult to come out with something new and groundbreaking if you automatically rule out any possiblity of sex, violence or profanity.

                And this is a problem why?

                Without rating, not excluding sex, violence or profanity would still result in something aimed at adults mostly and definitely not at 8 year olds, and will not make for what is generally considered a nice family movie.

                As a result it will still be aimed at a smaller public and likely less proffitable.

                Ratings don't change anything i
              • Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

                by hunterx11 (778171)

                So what you're trying to say is that Freddy Got Fingered is a better movie than Spirited Away?

                Not all movies rule out the possibility of sex, but sometimes sex isn't appropriate to the film. There is just as much R-rated drivel as there is G-rated drivel. If you made the argument that most great R-rated movies would be terrible if they were bowdlerized, you'd have a point, but something doesn't have to have R-rated content to be good. Your argument is precisely as shallow as an argument that only G-rated m

          • R rated movies have a smaller target audience, and thus become less profitable to make. Therefore, the numbere of R rated movies decreases. It still ends up being censorship.

            The right of Free Speech does not imply the right to Make A Tidy Profit.

        • Re:Finally (Score:3, Interesting)

          "Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes." -- Abraham Lincoln
        • by twitter (104583) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @10:09AM (#15575496) Homepage Journal

          The beer industry does not seem to be suffering from the fact that it's illegal to supply liquor to minors; the porn industry does not seem to have been stifled by the fact that Walmart does not stock hardcore videos.

          Actually, both of those industries have suffered terribly from crappy local and federal laws designed to "protect minors". Ask yourself why you can't purchase wine over the internet from small vineyards in California or France. Ask youself where all the local breweries have gone. The control of alcohol has severely limited the quality and choice you have when you want any. I'm no friend of the porn industry, but they too suffer from an amazing and contradictory raft of both specific and vague legislation. You can read about their complaints in xbiz.

          The state of both of those industries show that specific laws can suck too. In the case of alcohol, the federal government ruled that brewers must respect each local law. This is not only contradicts former notions of state interference with interstate commerce, it's also unreasonably complex and expensive to comply with. Even if you could comply, good luck finding a shipper. See UPS shipping terms for an example. [ups.com] The porn industry suffers similarly, even online where federal laws are being written specifically to burden the industry.

          These laws waste enforcement resources for little public good.

          • Actually, both of those industries have suffered terribly from crappy local and federal laws designed to "protect minors". Ask yourself why you can't purchase wine over the internet from small vineyards in California or France. Ask youself where all the local breweries have gone. The control of alcohol has severely limited the quality and choice you have when you want any. I'm no friend of the porn industry, but they too suffer from an amazing and contradictory raft of both specific and vague legislation.

            It
        • I've posted this before. Looks like I need to again.

          This is not "just fine". None of these anti-videogame laws are. There is no law against a 10 year old going to see an R rated movie. Or buying the R rated, even "unrated" version on DVD. Nothing stopping a 5 year old from buying the latest Eminem album. You'd think there would be, but there isn't. Go look.

          This means that video games are being singled out among the entire entertainment industry as somehow being a less protected form of speech than all
      • by ianscot (591483) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @08:52AM (#15575129)

        Anyone with two neurons to rub together knew the legislation was BS.

        Which tells you, in case you'd missed it, exactly whom this legislation was meant to appeal to: fearful idiots.

        Now we'll get the next phase in the fearful idiot plan, in which those who passed the legislation tell us scary, black robed judges are dictating our society to us. Does any of this sound at all familiar?

        All these social wedge issues are microcosms of the "Southern Strategy" that's been winning the Republican Party national elections since 1968. Don't scoff. It's like the old moment with Adlai Stevenson. Told he had the support of all thinking voters, Stevenson replied: "That's not enough, I need a majority." Fearful idiots have a narrow majority in this country. Hence: thinly-veiled "race cards," our latest attempt to make immigration a hot button issue, the supposed gay marriage crisis, and so on.

        • this legislation was meant to appeal to: fearful idiots.

          Told he had the support of all thinking voters, Stevenson replied: "That's not enough, I need a majority."

          All sides of the political spectrum play with hot button issues, and/or try to play to people's misplaced beliefs.

          The proper way to respond to such tactics is education, not condescension.

          You should say, "I understand your fears, but I feel [insert rebuttal here]"

          You shouldn't say, "You people are stupid! You're all fearful idiots!"

          That, in a nuts

          • That, in a nutshell, is why the Democratic Party can't make any headway in "red states". (Which, by the way, used to be blue states. Do you think the population of Texas changed in any measurable way when they swung from Democrat to Republican? No.)

            It's all very well to talk about "education" as opposed to "condescension." I don't really even disagree with you putting my post in with the latter... It's the truth, this sort of bill is blatant demagoguery, but I could easily have said it with less politica

    • Re:Finally (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TacNuke (890744)
      Hold on a minute there Slashdotians. Most of us understand that the Judge's temporary injunction is a good thing. The Legislation is crap and is really a bunch of clueless legislator's attempt to score points with the public for re-election. But what the unwashed masses will only see it as "Evil Judges and Court System Puts Brakes on Law Meant to Protect 'The Children'".

      BTW the temporary injunction is pretty much SOP in any sort of civil case like this. The Court will review the necessity of the temp i

  • Now Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:25PM (#15573799) Homepage Journal
    Who didn't see that coming? And why is cash-strapped Louisiana wasting its tax dollars passing and then having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend blatantly unconstitutional laws that have no chance of holding up in court in the first place? It doesn't seem to be financially responsible to the state's taxpayers, if you ask me.
    • Its a federal judge, not state. Financing is not coming from the state in this case. Which makes sense, since Lousiana has no business meddling in other states affairs ;)
      • Its a federal judge, not state. Financing is not coming from the state in this case.

        Well, the state surely is going to send a lawyer or two to see what's going on in that courtroom and perhaps defend its position, don't you think? And who pays for the state's lawyer? Why, the state!
         
      • Re:Now Honestly... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by aaronl (43811)
        As the other poster points out, the state must send lawyers to argue the case, and Louisiana residents pay for that. However, as was not mentioned, Louisiana residents also help pay for the Federal judge and courthouse that the case is being heard in. It's amusing, in a sick way, that Louisiana helps finance having their laws thrown out, in this case.
    • Re:Now Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cheapy (809643) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:33PM (#15573826)
      Elections are coming up.
    • by nacs (658138) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:45PM (#15573860) Journal
      And why is cash-strapped Louisiana wasting its tax dollars passing and then having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend blatantly unconstitutional laws

      I think the answer and reason is in your question somewhere...
    • by mrbrown1602 (536940) <mrbrown@@@mrbrown...net> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @01:37AM (#15574202) Homepage Journal
      We are notorious for money wasting projects, corruption (see Edwin Edwards [wikipedia.org], Huey P. Long [wikipedia.org], and his brother Earl K [wikipedia.org]), and really bad legislators. This legislative session we've passed a law that changes the state flag (and requires them to be replaced on state buildings), forces the sale of ethanol within a few years (because our Agricultural Secretary runs the state with an iron fist), and increases state spending from $19 billion to $27 billion a year!!! Seriously, I think we would fare better as a federal protectorate.
      • Ray Nagin is better than Mitch Landrieu, but he's still a douche.

        I'd vote for General Honore [google.com] for mayor, but at the same time I wouldn't want him to retire early either.
  • by Runefox (905204) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:26PM (#15573800) Homepage
    At least we know the US judicial system isn't completely buggered yet. I can't imagine what the world would be like if any more of those fuzzy terms were introduced into law; It would make everything subjective, people could eventually be arrested for anything at all. Why this and other such stuff even got and continues to get passed is beyond me. I guess the courts and patent offices have a lineup at their door, so they have to rush things along. It's the only thing that makes sense, beyond bribery and blackmail, which I'm sure had a hand in it as well.
    • people could eventually be arrested for anything at all

      And this is why you MUST serve on jury duty. Because only with reasoned, concientious jurors does our system of laws really work.

      When you get right down to it, the law isn't what Congress says, or the President, or the police, or even the judge. The law is what the people, through a jury, say.
      • Unfortunately, juries aren't involved in every case that gets presented to the court, so not every case gets the opportunity to get those neutral, rational minds to make the decision.

        The main problem, though, is that even with juries and judges, this stuff shouldn't be allowed anyway; It's going through the courts, taking up valuable time and money, when it should never have been so in the first place because someone worded something in nonspecific language. Fact is, law is supposed to be law for a reason.
      • by bar-agent (698856) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @02:23AM (#15574326)
        And this is why you MUST serve on jury duty. Because only with reasoned, concientious jurors does our system of laws really work.

        And that's why we can't serve on jury duty. Lawyers don't want reasoned, conscientious jurors. They want gullible, biased jurors.
        • And that's why we can't serve on jury duty. Lawyers don't want reasoned, conscientious jurors. They want gullible, biased jurors.

          BULLSHIT!!! In my experience, the questioning involved in jury selection has nothing do with with who is reasoned or conscientious. The lawyers did not dismiss people from the jury pool for having an education. I have heard the old chestnut that if you have a college degree in a technical subject, you will be dismissed from serving. Wrong! In the cases I am familiar with, they si
        • And that's why we can't serve on jury duty. Lawyers don't want reasoned, conscientious jurors. They want gullible, biased jurors.

          Of course, if I were a crooked lawyer intent on manipulating a juror, I'd want someone who thought he was too smart, saavy and well educated to be manipulated.
      • The country would be a lot scarier if the law was up to the wims of normal folks on the street. Juries evaluate evidence. Jurors are the 'finders of fact'. Juries do not interpret the law; that is the judge's job and the reason why most judges have decades of experience practicing law. This is also the reason why instruction of the jury by the judge is so important and why many dismissals and appeals have hinged on improper jury instruction.

        Please do yourself and your country a favior by educating yourself
        • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @05:39AM (#15574688) Homepage

          Juries do not interpret the law

          Jury nullification is seen by many legal scholars as a very necessary democratic check on the legal process, and many just outcomes throughout the 200 year-long history of the United States depended precisely on some citizens asserting this right. See Clay S. Conrad's Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine [amazon.com] (Carolina Academic Press, 2000) for a history. Your notion that only judges should decide is not in keeping with the actual facts.

          • If, as a lawyer, you argue to a jury that they should exercise jury nullification, you may be found in contempt.

            You are not even allowed to tell the jury what the penalty will be for a conviction.

            That's how a 17 year old in Georgia [atlantamagazine.com] can be found guilty of "aggravated child molestation" after having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old... and get sentenced to a mandatory minimum 10 year sentence with no allowance for probation and no chance of parole [state.ga.us].
            • That's how a 17 year old in Georgia can be found guilty of "aggravated child molestation" after having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old... and get sentenced to a mandatory minimum 10 year sentence with no allowance for probation and no chance of parole.
              What a minute, your article clearly says that the girl says it wasn't consensual. 10 years isn't an unfair sentance for rape.
              • What a minute, your article clearly says that the girl says it wasn't consensual. 10 years isn't an unfair sentance for rape.

                You need to learn how to read (and write apparently). The article describes two girls - one who may have been raped and one who engaged in consentual sex. The person who went to jail - i.e. the guy the GPP was talking about - only had consentual sex with one of the girls (who did not want to press charges.)

                The thing that seems unjust about this to me is that the law clearly was not i
                • I did a little more reading on the case, and first of all the article he posted is the worst article on the case I could find for arguing that this guy was unjustly sentenced. It focused heavily on the potential rape of Michelle (which, if you'd read the article, you'd know that he had sex with her, too), and barely at all on Tracy's consenting. After reading other articles, I understand why people are upset at the sentence and I think the law is wrong, but the poster could have choosen a better article t
          • The problem is that judges often do not inform a jury of the full scope of their powers.
      • Volunteers? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ElleyKitten (715519) <kittensunrise @ g m a il.com> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @05:47AM (#15574702) Journal
        And this is why you MUST serve on jury duty.


        Do they take volunteers? Because in 7 years as a registered voter I've never been called. Google searching gives all sorts of suggestions for how to get out of jury duty, but nothing for how to get it.
        • Here's how to get out of it:

          Lawyer: "What do you do for a living"
          Me: "I'm a computer programmer, employed by a major newspaper"

          Lawyer: "Okayyy, and what is your educational background?"
          Me: "Philosophy and Computer Science"

          Lawyer: "Next!"
          • They don't ask those questions. You obviously have never been involved in jury selection. They ask if you know the parties involved. Your post is stupid and misleading.
        • Wow, it must depend on where you live. Where I grew up I got called into jury duty at least 4 times in 10 years. I was out of the county for three of those times. The fourth time I had gotten the day off work to go down to the courthouse only to have them call me the day before and told me I didn't need to come in.
  • by crazyjeremy (857410) * on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:37PM (#15573838) Homepage Journal
    Meanwhile, Atari quickly makes one last effort to save their company by creating an ultra violent politically charged video game. Kids, err, um... 17 and older video game enthusiasts can choose between District Judge James Brady, Governor Kathleen Blanco, Jack Thompson or other interesting politician type characters. Cost is $49.99 or downloadable via piratebay... (No, wait... some other torrent site) 2 hours after release.
  • by Sigma 7 (266129) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:44PM (#15573857)
    While I could see this coming as soon as I read the law itself (and I'm a layman), there's Another Law [livejournal.com] in the same stat that is receiving full support of the game industry.

    The difference with this law is that it only targets sexual content - and thus is allowed to use the "Millar" test. The one that is blocked uses vague/ambiguous definitions that could (in theory) be used to ban the game of Chess.
    • Why don't you use that?

      Go file a suit against the next chess club for giving minors access to this violent game. Don't forget to inform the press.

      How long do you think a bs law like this survives if the press gets involved? Especially if there's nothing really going on and they NEED a story?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:06AM (#15573908)

    In fact, we need to make a video game where you're a judge and you get to shoot down unconstitutional video game laws.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:26AM (#15573950) Homepage

    Aside from the legal meddling of state social workers, there are fewer problems that parents face today than they did before. Parents actually have the ability to extend their standards to places where they would normally have no control, like the television when they're working late. The V-Chip allows a parent who actually has to work late, rather than just to buy that new beamer, to control the content that is accessible. All media today is rated down to minute details to allow the rushed parent a fine-grained survey of all possibly objectionable content within ten seconds, literally. Anyone out of high school with a literacy rate above the fifth grade should be able to grok a ESRB rating in ten seconds or less.

    We actually have lawsuits brought by parents who seriously think that others should do more of their job for them! [blindmindseye.com]. This is a generation of parents that is so self-indulgent that it wants to legislate its personal preferences onto content providers because it cannot even be bothered to buy the content it enjoys!

    The irony of it is that most the people really pushing these laws are left of center! The very people who whine, piss and moan about "puritans" on the right! Last I checked, a puritan is someone who forces their views on someone else at gun point when they're not harming anyone or anyone's property. It's nice to see that the political social conservatives have competition, albeit in a dark sort of way.

    I plan to be a full-time father, including sacrificing my material possessions for my kids. Someone once commented to the effect that it's not wise to try to gain the whole world at the expense of your spiritual life. I believe he also commented before some self-righteous liberals and conservatives of his day killed him for defying them, that there would come a day when parents would see their children so throughly abandon the right path that they would curse themselves for being fertile.

    • You will be a father.

      The other people you mentioned are simply propagators of their genes.

      And one of the reason why our world is so f'ed up today, and why more and more teenagers flip, is that less and less people are actually willing to be parents, and instead hand the responsibility for their kids over to state, technology or school. That doesn't work out. Neither of those 3 gives a f..k about the kids.
    • by Aceticon (140883) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @08:43AM (#15575085)

      The irony of it is that most the people really pushing these laws are left of center! The very people who whine, piss and moan about "puritans" on the right! Last I checked, a puritan is someone who forces their views on someone else at gun point when they're not harming anyone or anyone's property. It's nice to see that the political social conservatives have competition, albeit in a dark sort of way.


      Contrary to what many people seem to think, Left-Right is not the only axis in political thinking, there is actually another axis, Libertarian-Conservative.

      These axis are orthogonal, meaning that being left-wing or right-wing is independent of one being conservative or libertarian.

      Contrary to popular believe, being libertarian does not imply being pro-business (a characteristic mostly associated with being right-wing), nor does being left-wing imply not being conservative.

      Any true libertarian (both right-wing and left-wing) would be against this kind of legislation - libertarianism = pro-freedom: the guys that passed this law are conservatives, plain and simple.

      • I find your post somewhat interesting.

        The problem you seem to try to address is actually one you seem to fall pray to yourself as well.

        You correctly state that looking at politics as a 'left-right' polarisation is too simplistic and that there is more to it.

        Where you fall prey to the same problem is that you then come up with just another way to polarize the political spectrum. While you correctly point at 2 opposites, the thing is that polarizing the political spectrum is too simplistic in all cases, regar
    • As a new first time father, I wholeheartedly agree. It's time for parents to start acting like parents.

      I don't want the government telling me how to raise my child, any more than I want them telling me whether I can watch porn, drink alcohol, or do anything else that narrow-minded people like to consider "vices".

      I plan on reading with my little girl, and playing games with her, and helping her enjoy life. I want to be as involved in her life as I can be without hampering her social development with her pe
  • Wouldn't Louisiana be better off, oh, I don't know, maybe dealing with the depopulation of a major U.S. port?

    At what point do the people of Louisiana not stop stop and ask, "What are these jokers wasting our time and our dollars doing?"

  • ...that makes me think we did the rest of the country an enormous disservice by not allowed the South to secede. I suggest we correct that mistake by putting the ol' secession bug back up the asses of ignorant Southerners everywhere, then just giving 'em a big wave 'goodbye!' when they declare their independence. With any luck most of the other extremists in the country will take the opportunity to move to the new Christian States of America and the rest of us will breathe one big sigh of relief.

    Max
    • by mabu (178417)
      As if Louisiana or the South are the only places where there's goofy legislation!

      How about Chicago banning fois gras?

      There are stupid politicians [bsalert.com] who pander to fringe PACs all over the place, especially in Washington D.C.
  • by MS-06FZ (832329) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @12:05PM (#15576362) Homepage Journal
    When asked how he felt about this victory, New Orleans attorney James Brown responded, simply, "I feel good!"

"The only way for a reporter to look at a politician is down." -- H.L. Mencken

Working...