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)
Now Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
A bit of good news, at least (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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
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!
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:3, 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.
Comment removed (Score:5, 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:Now Honestly... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want. (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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: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?
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.
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.
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: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: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: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: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: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.
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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: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: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)
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: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)
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.
-