Judge Blocks Louisiana Violent Games Law 203
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"
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Finally (Score:2)
You really think they let a mere judge tip a bs law? Would be the first.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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?
Oh please. It's a huge difference, enough with the slippery slopes.
Re:Finally (Score:2)
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.
Re:Finally (Score:2)
Re:Finally (Score:3, Interesting)
So to answer your question, the victim when a child plays a violent video game is the parents because their parental authority is usurped. Replace 'video game' with 'beer' or 'porn,' it's the same argument. Some things I just don't want my kids exposed to, and I don't think it's onerous in any way to ask game shops to not sell a copy of Blood Drinking Hell Monkeys to my 9 year old on his way home from school.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Taking your logic to the extreme, I don't want my children to spray grafitti on bridges or buildings. Is the answer to petition Congress to forbid Wal-Mart from selling paint to minors? Where do you stop with this absurdity? I'll answer that for you: You stop legislating at the point where people do not lose life, limb, or property. That is, when there are no victims.
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
I have two children, thanks.
You'd think more people would want to help me raise a good kid, especially when it costs them nothing. I can't watch him 24 hours a day, and he's not being raised in a vaccuum. You want more roaming gangs of uncontrollable children in the future?
Oh, where do I begin? First, show me how access to violent videogames produces "roaming gangs of uncontrollable children". How do you account for gang violence before the advent of video games, hmmm? Gun control advocates make the same error. Violence has been, is, and always will be regardless of whether people play violent video games or read the Bible, whether they use a gun or a knife.
In the second place, even if your thesis is correct, you are admitting that you are incapable of instilling morals and ethics into your children, enabling them to make informed decisions about their entertainment and lifestyle; and therefore need the government to intervene. Ergo, you are admitting that you are a bad parent. Furthermore, this law won't prevent other bad parents from purchasing the games for their children, thereby leading them to "roaming uncontrollably".
In conclusion, the law does not accomplish your objective. Talk straight to your kids. Voice your concerns to them. Don't burden society with it.
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure you are. If you cannot raise your child without government intervention, you shouldn't be having children.
What I am admitting, however, is that I am incapable of raising a child who always makes good decisions, which is exactly why we don't let minors buy beer or watch R rated movies.
Because if we disallow beer, video games, and R rated movies, all children will make good decisions, right? Just like they did in the days before any of those things existed.
And yes, I view violent videogames as harmful for small children the same way I view violent movies as harmful, and would therefore appreciate some help from society at large with helping to keep my children from making obviously bad choices.
Maybe society doesn't want to help you --- I certainly don't. How about you take responsibility for raising your own children. Maybe you are afraid of taking responsibility. The Columbine duo didn't kill because of poor parenting. Marilyn Manson was to blame. It sounds better that way, especially for the parents.
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
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 opted for a constitutional republic instead.
well... they opted for a CONSTITUTION. It is the Constitution which prevents the "tyranny of the majority". Representatives are no less apt to become tyrants than anyone else. However Representatives are as close to a true participatory democracy as could be implemented. They imagined there would be 1 representative for every 10000 people or so. A Far cry from what America has today. Todays America is NOT what the founding fathers envisioned. The founding fathers did not give corporations the right to be people nor give them "limited liability". They didn't allow 70 year copyrights.
Don't let your hatred for people of modest or no wealth (the majority) blind you to the fact it is the Constitution and not the benevolence of the minority (the moneyed elite) which keeps you free (if you would call what little freedoms you have left in "freedom").
It is NOT a good thing you dont live in a democracy. It is a good thing you live in a country with a constitution. You would be better off with a "Constitional Democracy" except that the technology and knowledge of how to implement such a system on a practical scale doesn't exist.
In the mean time you will have to rely on bribing or begging your representative rather than exercising any political influence on a personal level (because unless you are part of the monied elite.. you have none).
It is known to the Military Industrial Complex, that people should not have any cathartic outlet for their aggresive tendencies. If realistically violent videogames are available then very few people would ever dream about using real weapons. More and more of us, having been scared shitless playing games such as Medal of Honour (and getting killed over and over again) would never dream that being in real war is glorious in some way.
The "Tyranny of the Minority" already exists. And it is because of the lack of democracy.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Finally (Score:2)
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 in this whatsoever. What they do change is that people have an easy way to spot content with things they may want to avoid..
First, the movie leaves the realm of the real world
Unless you are talking about documentaries, leaving the realm of the real world is quite the purpose of movies usually....
, since in the real world, there is sex, violance and profanity.
And it still doesn't make for what is generally considered a nice family movie, hence it is aimed at a smaller public etc, see above.
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?
Your problem seems to be with the high level of repetition of commercially succesfull 'concepts'. This has absolutely zero to do with rating.
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 do not know you, but from the way you sound you are desperately trying to show how much of an adult you are and how any content that is not adult like enough sucks.. Don't worry, that is also a part of growing up, it will go again.
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
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 movies are good because R-rated movies only exist to titillate shallow audiences.
It's also interesting that you use the example of Over the Hedge as puerile junk. It is puerile junk, but it follows in the footsteps of that other studio, Pixar, which has put out some of my favorite movies...none of which are rated R. Blood and breasts don't make a good movie, they just happen to be in a lot of good movies.
More on topic, the Production Code existed before movie ratings, and it actually was a form of self-imposed censorship. As much as it had a negative effect by holding back filmmakers, there was a silver lining even then. A lot of the great innuendo and subtlety of older movies probably wouldn't have existed if they had the chance to be explicit. Frankly, I think that something sexually implicit can be a hell of a lot more erotic than a lot of things that are sexually explicit.
Perhaps Twain was wrong; maybe youth is best spent on the young, after all.Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:2)
The right of Free Speech does not imply the right to Make A Tidy Profit.
Re:Finally (Score:3, Interesting)
Great Examples of how Specific Laws can Suck. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Great Examples of how Specific Laws can Suck. (Score:2)
It really depends on who you classify as "the industry." Beer/Wine/Distributors have a state granted oligopoly that ends up being an incredibly lucritive business. Wholesales are VERY interested in keeping it this way. I was personally interested to find that for Political Action Committee contributions to candidates [fec.gov], the National Beer Wholesalers Assocation PAC was the 2nd largest.
As you say, it really is frustrating that these laws benefit a few lucky businesses to the detriment of the public good.
Re:Finally (Score:2)
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 the rest. Why? Who knows? I expect the fact that the video game industry doesn't have nearly as many lobbyists on the hill as the RIAA and MPAA do might have something to do with it.
If games are seen as "less protected", what else will they be able to do? No, this is not just fine at all.
Which only tells us who the audience was... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Which only tells us who the audience was... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 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.)
Did you read the "Southern Strategy" part? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 political troll to it.
But, getting to Texas, if you don't think the "used to be blue state" part has anything to do with the Civil Rights movement, you are plain kidding yourself. That's what Nixon's "southern strategy," mentioned in my parent, is all about: playing to racial fears in the south so the Republicans could win all those formerly "Dixiecrat" states. [wikipedia.org]
Take a good long look at Zell Miller and his speech at the Republican convention last time around. That's the old Democrat, fomenting about "agitators." Recognize that Carter and Clinton have been the only Dems to win national elections since 1968, and that John Edwards ran last time largely on his ability to win "talkin' like this."
I have Southern Baptist relations who live in Oklahoma. You don't know how hard the "educate them" part can be; these people think putting numeric digits on our coinage would be a sign of impending world government. No kidding.
Re:Finally (Score:2, Insightful)
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 injunction at a later date and may even rescind the injunction while the case is still pending. My quick read of the situation is that the petitioners will seek to have the law struck as unconstituionally vague. And yes the legislators can go back and redraft it, but that doesn't mean they will get it right the second time either...........
Oh well, back to reality.
Now Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now Honestly... (Score:2)
Re:Now Honestly... (Score:2)
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)
Re:Now Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now Honestly... (Score:5, Funny)
I think the answer and reason is in your question somewhere...
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why? Because that's who we are !!! (Score:2)
I'd vote for General Honore [google.com] for mayor, but at the same time I wouldn't want him to retire early either.
Comment removed (Score:2)
A bit of good news, at least (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:2)
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. There is a certain leeway for each different situation, but to word a law in such a way that it becomes subjective is nothing short of stupid. That allows near-infinite leeway.
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's why we can't serve on jury duty. Lawyers don't want reasoned, conscientious jurors. They want gullible, biased jurors.
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:2)
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 simply ask if you know any of the parties involved.
Hell, In my case, I prepared for jury duty by reading the information on the ACLU's website and I was quite prepared to admit that I had done so. I wasn't asked. I was only asked if I knew the parties involved and I was picked for the jury. I know lots of other people with similar experinces. I have never heard anyone actually tell me that they personally were disqualified from being on a jury because they had a college degree. It is an urban legend - not true.
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:2)
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.
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:2, Interesting)
Please do yourself and your country a favior by educating yourself on your own judicial system, it is in your own democratic self-interest.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:3, Informative)
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].
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:2)
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:2)
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 intended to apply in this case. Furthermore, the girl should have received the same punishment since the boy was also a minor. If he is being charged with sex with a minor, she ought to also be charged.
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:2)
The reason Tracy wasn't charged is the same reason that Genarlow wasn't charged with stat rape for Michelle - both Genarlow and Michelle were over the age of consent, which is 16.
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:2)
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:2)
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:3, Interesting)
Our Constitution places the jury as the absolute, final, and unchallengable power in declaring 'not guilty'. Once twelve mostly-random citizens have unanimously chosen to vote 'not guilty' double jeopardy attaches, that verdict cannot be undone, and those jurists cannot be punished for that verdict. I invite you to cite any jurisdiction in the US where where a jury can be punished for deliberating and turning in a verdict of 'not guilty'.
As for prosecutors suggesting it, I think you meant the defense... chuckle. It would be rather self defeating for a prosecutor to suggest jury nullification. But yes, many jurisdictions... nearly all jurisdictions... prohibit raising jury nullification as a defense argument. Defendants are not allowed to ask for it, but juries have the De Facto legal power to preform it.
-
Volunteers? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Volunteers? (Score:2)
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!"
Re:Volunteers? (Score:2)
Re:Volunteers? (Score:2)
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:5, Insightful)
How is the 14th ammendment 'unjust' exactly? Last I checked your state ratified it.
You can't have a state taking away constitutional rights and then expect the feds just to look the other way.
Someone needs to re-read the:
Constitution
Bill of Rights
The Hungry Catapillar
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:2)
I must have read that one 1024 times when by son was between the ages of 0 and 2 years but I can't remember anything about the US constitution or computer games in there :)
Not to rain on your parade, but... (Score:3, Informative)
Ratification of the Civil Rights Amendments was extorted in most cases from the Southern state governments as the 'cost of readmittance' to the Union; they didn't 'ratify' them in any more significant a sense than a cashier 'gives' a robber money. In other words, the act is technically true as described, but emptied of all willful meaning.
Now, don't get me wrong, the 14th Amendment was one hot and happenin' piece of constitutional amending, enabling the protection of the rights of Corporations the country round (and later on, even some black people!) I just think that one ought to be honest about just how it became part of the Constitution. We should not fool ourselves into believing that it was in any way 'voluntary'.
Re:Not to rain on your parade, but... (Score:2)
That is clever wording at best, lets rewrite it a bit to a more neutral form:
After the debacle of slavery, the breaking away of states, and the civil war, it was made clear that no state could discard the bill of rights if it wanted to be a member of the USA.
they didn't 'ratify' them in any more significant a sense than a cashier 'gives' a robber money. In other words, the act is technically true as described, but emptied of all willful meaning.
You know.. I really thought that southeners disgrunted about the civil war and its aftermatch had died out a few generations ago, but it seems they and their slight misrepresentation of the civil war and their defeat seem to still be around.
Just for the record, if it is not obvious to you that a bill of rights which applies to all people within the territories of the USA cannot be overriden by a local state govenrment, and why that must have been the intention from the start, then you really need to work on your basic reasoning and logic skills, because without that assumption the whole concept of a bill of rights makes no sense whatsoever.
Uh...no. (Score:2)
It was qutie clear during the initial debate and ratification fo the Bill of Rights that they were to be understood (and in fact were very clearly written) as restrictions on the Federal Government only. "Congress shall make no law", etc., emphasis on "Congress". There is no evidence whatsoever that there was any other intent (and very few legal scholars believe that without the Fourteenth amendment they ever would); in fact, it is extremely likely that the Bill of Rights would never have been ratified had the states believed that its provisions applied to them: the point of the Bill of Rights was only to assure the states that their own protections (which were uneven but substantial in most cases) would not be abridged by the new and large federal government.
There was a very early US Supreme Court case, quite famous, by the name of Barron v. Baltimore (1833) which asked directly the question of whether the Bill of Rights could be applied to the states (in this case the takings clause of the Fifth amendment). The answer was no; there was no dissenting opinion. Before 1833 there had been no challenge whatsoever to the principle (it was thought pretty obvious).
P.S., I'm a yankee.
Re:Uh...no. (Score:2)
I believe this is where our difference in opinion is. Is the bill of rights a promise by the federal government to not deny those rights or is it a promise to uphold them. Of course when looking at it from the perspective of the early USA with states having a substantially bigger level of independence then they have today, arguing that the federal government was going to restrict states was not very popular. That said, ennumerating rights you believe the people within the federation should have only makes sense to me when you do intend to uphold them also, regardless of how this was presented in order to get it rattified. At any rate, I do see the merrit of your argument, too bad the real answer is probably burried with the people who wrote the bill of rights.
Re:A bit of good news, at least (Score:4, Interesting)
Can't wait for the game... (Score:3, Funny)
Meanwhile... A video game law is supported (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Meanwhile... A video game law is supported (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
This is cool! (Score:5, Funny)
In fact, we need to make a video game where you're a judge and you get to shoot down unconstitutional video game laws.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not that hard to be a parent today (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's not that hard to be a parent today (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's not that hard to be a parent today (Score:2)
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, regardless of what kind of polarisation you use. The only thing that is served by polarisation is finding the opposite of what you are looking at now.
Such simplifications are however very usefull to people who try to get as many people to support them without thought, which is the primary reason why you should try to avoid them or at least be very carefull with using them.
Re:It's not that hard to be a parent today (Score:2)
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 peers. And keep those peers with defective parents from overly influencing my child!
Parenting *is* a job AND an adventure. Having a child means a ton of responsibilities. Our government can't manage a budget (which most housewives can...) and isn't concerned with your rights. It is currently driven by special interest groups that want to control how you think, how you act, and who you are allowed to love/marry.
Do you really want them to be raising your child?
Besides which, just because you don't let your child buy/play some game, doesn't mean the parent 2 doors down didn't let their kid get it, and your child is over there playing it on their system.
Next up, Jack Thompson's Law that makes parents liable to the tune of $10,000/hr of a violent game that your child let some other kid play without that other kids parent's consent! (Oh, wait... Did I say that out loud? Shit, I just gave him a new law idea!)
After Hurricane Katrina ... (Score:2)
At what point do the people of Louisiana not stop stop and ask, "What are these jokers wasting our time and our dollars doing?"
Re:After Hurricane Katrina ... (Score:2)
it's stuff like this... (Score:2, Troll)
Max
Re:it's stuff like this... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:it's stuff like this... (Score:2)
Really. Please tell us.
Southern fundies make a Buffalo blizzard seem not so bad.
Re:it's stuff like this... (Score:3, Informative)
I (hopefully obviously) was kidding when referencing the Yankees as folks we dislike. The idiotic stereotypes perpetuated by otherwise intelligent people get old, though. I mean, anyone can have a good laugh at their own quirks, but I think people actually _believe_ this kind of farcical nonsense about the South.
Poor taste in voting aside, this is a great place. There are just as many extremely nice, intelligent, and wonderful people here as anywhere else. There are also just as many fuck-tards. Ours are often fundie "Christians." Your local fuck-tard results may vary.
There's plenty of ignorance, stupidity, and plain indecency to falsely color any given part of the US if you choose to see it. I myself would not live anywhere else.
(I bothered to log in now since this is less off-the-cuff.)
Louisiana Attorney's reaction to the verdict (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:2)
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:3, Insightful)
IOW, no, the Constitution says things that the Federal can and can't do, and things that the States can't do. Precedents do exist to enforce powers across all States through loopholes such as the commerce clause. Direct wording of the Constitution also exists to enforce powers across all States. Everything else shakes out under the 9th and 10th. You shouldn't be so overly bold with such statements, because as written, you are wrong.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:2)
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. "
That makes a blanket statement for *everyone* in the US, including states and private parties. Within in the US, no person can be a slave, for any reason, regardless of even direct contract. You cannot give that right up. The amendment makes the excemption so that a person can be punished by a court and forced to serve as a prison sentence, or community service.
Amendments that apply across everywhere the Federal has authority: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Amendments that directly mention power over states: 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26
So the Bill of Rights does explicity mention states in 10, and I think has always made it extremely clear "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people". That very much says that the Constitution and amendments are prohibiting the states from doing various things.
It doesn't surprise me at all that states would be willing to ignore the Constitution when it suited them. That's one of the reasons that we have always had Federal courts. As soon as the states gave all their power away to the Federal, it also started ignoring the Constitution when it was convenient.
Gitlow v. New York was a particularly big deal, because the 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law", and this case decided that it applied to the states, as well. This allowed the Federal to more directly apply the Constitution to matters of the states. You are right though, unfortunately, because before that decision, the states did try to weasel out of things that the Constitution directly restricts. Some things we never attempted until modern times, by any level of government (ie: ignorance or restrictions on 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th).
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:2)
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:2)
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:2)
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:3, Insightful)
I would be bullshit if as a US citizen my -federal- rights were limited in any state I visited.
Given that, sadly, it seems lately nothing stops the federal government from stepping on my rights.
At least its even.
In any case, the judgement is right on.
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:3, Insightful)
This law is prohibiting the distribution of text speech.
I am a programmer, a software author. I write software - I write nothing but text. Whetehr it is English language or French language or Chinese language Pascal language or Cobol Language or 6502 opcode language or Pentium opcode language, it is all nothing but pure text. I sell copies of that pure text, and retail stores resell those copies of pure text. Just because you do not happen to be fluent in reading Chinese or reading Pentium opcodesdoes not make a difference. The fact that I can read the contents of a software CD better that you can does not change the fact that it is text and speech.
Your point is already legally dead. Courts have explicitly ruled numerous times that software is indeed "speech" covered under the 1st Amendment.
It just happens to be specially stylized text that some computers are able to read and follow. Text that, if you choose to do so, you can stick into your home computer and get an interesting result. You can "interact" with your own computer after sticking this text into it. So what?
The trying to divide software from "speech" is entirely nonsensical. Computers can read and carry out (some) pure English sentence texts. That pure English is
you have no right to shout FIRE in a crowded theater
That is one of the worst and most missleading cliches about free speech. It is in fact NOT illegal to shout fire in a movie theater. It's not even illegal for me to say I'll give you $10,000 to kill my wife. You know what, I'll give you $10,000 to kill my wife.
There are however entirely non-speech laws making it criminal to do things like deliberately causing the death or injury of people.
If you are in a movie theater with a script and film crew, it is as I said perfectly legal to shout fire in that movie theater because you have no intent or expectation that anyone will be injured. It is impossible to pass a law against the speech itself. It is only nonspeech crimes, or the intent to cause non-speech crimes to occur, which can be criminal.
Here's a link to an excellent report commissined by the US Senate from the DOJ stating that Congress does not have the power to establish any law prohibiting distribution of bomb making instructions. [usdoj.gov] The report explains in detail why no such law can ever be created. It explains that distributing bomb making instructings is itself Constitutionally protected, and that the most congress can do is make laws against the non-speech crime of intending to cause a real non-speech crime by means of that delivering that bomb making information, and law against giving that information to some particular person with actual knowledge that that person intends to use it to commit an actual non-speech crime. (The latter is aiding and abetting the commission of a crime.) I can post (and often *have* posted) the recipie for Nitroglicerine right here on Slashdot, and no law can ever be created to prohibit it.
P.S.
I don't have a wife. I had no intent or expectation to cause the death of anyone when I said I'd give you $10,000 to kill my wife, therefore there was no crime. The speech itself was perfectly legal. And even if I did have a wife, I fully expect that you and everyone else was aware that I was making a point and that there was no intent or expectation to actually cause any death or injury to anyone.
-
Did you hear? (Score:5, Insightful)
In unrelated news, the state of Alaska has today signed the following bills into state law:
- All state elementary, middle school, high school, colleges and universities are now considered faith-based organizations, and can only be attended by white male catholics
- Black people can no longer vote, and only count as 3/5 of a person in the state census
- Slavery is now legal
- All media or speech of any type is subject to arbitrary censorship from by the state government
Looks like that wacky Ted Stevens is at it again!
You are vastly underestimating hypocracy! (nt) (Score:2)
Quite the opposite. (Score:4, Insightful)
People only pass laws to prevent behaviors that they can imagine themselves desiring to do. There is, of course, a far far smaller class of laws that exist not to indulge the repressive instinct by proxy, but rather to maintain the social order (do not kill, rape, maim, or steal), but in that category there truly is nothing new under the sun. For everything else, there is the moral crusader.
Re:Quite the opposite. (Score:2)
I also have a hard time imagining that Jack Thompson is so rabidly anti-game because he thinks he might one day want to play a violent game or give one to his (grand)kids.
Re:Quite the opposite. (Score:2)
My point was not that nobody would ever make laws that make sense; it was that (historically at least) those who have been empowered to make laws tend to make them on the principle of restricting that which they themselves fear they would do, had theer been more law. For these people, the only effective restriction to behavior is the law (call it a shriveled conscience) because for people this powerful to have been placed in a position to write laws, it is the only thing that they have experienced that can restrain their behavior. I do not have a negative view of the human race in general, only a dim view of what the taste of power does to us. Jack Thompson tries to destroy games because, I imagine, deep down he feels greatly threatened himself in the moral sense by the influence of pixelated boobies and simulated head-shots; he saw them once and they got him off, and he dearly doesn't want kids to be corrupted the way that seeing these thing might have done to him. Absurd speculation? Perhaps, but I can think of no other explanation that makes more sense.