Illinois to Pay for Unconstitutional Gaming Law

adam_sd writes "Those of us in the Video Game Voters Network were emailed a press release today stating that the state of Illinois will have to pay a half-million dollars in attorney's fees to the Entertainment Software Association, Video Software Dealers Association and Illinois Retail Merchants Association. ESA president Douglas Lowenstein is quoted in the press release saying "Judge Kennelly's rulings send two irrefutable messages — not only are efforts to ban the sale of violent video games clearly unconstitutional, they are a waste of taxpayer dollars." The law was declared unconstitutional in December of last year."

Logic?

[walnutmon]

"If controlling access to allegedly 'dangerous' speech is important in promoting the positive psychological development of children, in our society that role is properly accorded to parents and families, not the State."

Judge Matthew S. Kennelly for President!

Three Strikes

[XanC]

This seems similar to "three strikes" proposals I've seen, wherein if three bills a Senator or Congressman voted for are declared unconstitutional, he is ineligible to hold office again.

The idea being to discourage a "throw whatever at the wall and see what sticks" approach, and actually encourage them to recognize limits on their own power.

Re:Illinois won't be paying

[walnutmon]

I believe that is the way that government is intended to work. Our governmental bodies, on all scales, are elected by people to speak for them. When you elect poor officials that make poor decisions that have a detrimental effect on your wallet, that is actually how it is supposed to work, maybe they will spend more time deciding who to vote for next election.

On to the next problem; Which is having anyone worthwhile to vote into office to begin with...

Re:Three Strikes

[imemyself]

That seems like a great idea, but why give them three chances? Three's enough that they can fuck up a few times and not really care. Two might scare 'em a little more. But then, it doesn't matter because there's no way in hell that Congress would pass any of this. They would fight it nail and tooth.

Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad?

[kfg]

. . .the Honda Civic made in Ohio ~70% US made parts. . .

98% these days. On the other hand the Lincoln Town car, one of the few remaining quintessentially "American" cars, although "produced" in Michigan has so few American made parts that it is legally an import.

On the other hand many violins legally labeled as Made in U.S.A. actually had all of their parts manufactured and assembled in China (additional labor in reconstruction, finishing and fitting them out makes them legally "American").

KFG

Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad?

[goonerw]

Australia isn't interested in banning gambling as it brings in so much money. They just want to ban online gambling, as the money is likely to leave the country and not get taxed by the Australian government! This is protectionism, not some moral judgement on the part of the Australian government.

I think you've failed to understand how stupid that particular piece of legislation is.

It bans Australians from using an online gambling site IN AUSTRALIA ONLY (money staying in the country)

It does not ban the following:
- Australians using an online gambling site overseas (money going out of the country)
- Foreigners from using Australian online gambling sites (money coming into the country)

Yet another gem from the desk of the World's Biggest Luddite.

Re:Three Strikes

[njdj]

You think politicians don't do anything useful now? Imagine the levels of inactivity you are going to force them into if you tell them that if they mess up too many times, their career is over.

And that would be a very good thing. As Jefferson said, "that government governs best which governs least". Our problem today is not that there are too few laws. In fact, if you ask a practicing attorney how many laws apply to a person residing in the state where that attorney practices, he/she won't be able to tell you, even to the nearest 100. And the legal system presumes that everyone knows all the laws.

Re:Violence is OK then

[Peyna]

Breastfeeding could be considered abuse if in doing so you were passing potentially harmful drugs onto your child. However, after a cursory search for anyone losing a child for breastfeeding on account of it being "sexual abuse," I didn't find anything, so I question your story.

Re:Think of the children!

[Fordiman]

Move to amsterdam. You'll find a lot who aren't screwing up others' lives.

The reason?

Risk expense. The addict in this country has to pay for risk expense of the entire chain of dealers and suppliers. These are people who wouldn't have jobs if there were no control of substances (why pay a trafficing chain when you can pay a trucker?).

With legalized drugs, the risk expense becomes nil; a drug addict doesn't have to sell his momma's jewelry to pay for his next hit. He could probably get away with selling a pint of blood for his next 6-10 hits.

Not to mention the reduction in drug-related crime (what major corporation have YOU seen have a major gunfight with the police on US soil?) and in actual addiction (you don't have pushers on the streets; they have no incentive to push).

You'll still have addicts (as you still have nicotiene addicts and alcoholics), but the issue will be considerably less dramatic than it is today.

Re:Three Strikes

[tony1343]

Good post altogether. I just want to knitpick though. A third of the government is not dedicated to deciding constitutionality. The Judicial Branch does much more than constitutionality - such as enforcing statutory laws that are constitutional. Also to the other poster, a law prohibiting the yelling of fire in a crowded theatre is not unconstitutional. I think you lost out on this argument a long time ago. The first amendment does have its limits. Heck, and remember originally it was just the federal government who couldn't limit speech. The states originally could until the 14th Am. incorporated it.

Re:Three Strikes

[Money for Nothin']

Indeed! When the law has become so complex that even the lawyers must specialize in a particular part of it -- because the law is too complex even for legal professionals to fully-understand it -- the law is clearly FAR too complex for any human being, for whom the standard of "ignorance is no defense" is always applied...

Re:Think of the children!

[Mistshadow2k4]

I've never met an alcoholic who was screwing up only his own life either. Yet alcohol is legal, because everyoe knows if you drink moderately it's not dangerous to you. (That logic would apply to some drugs too, of course, but that simple fact is completely ignored.)

Re:Three Strikes

[XanC]

I think that's a great idea. Interestingly, under the Confederate Constitution, the President served a single six-year term and was not eligible for re-election, just as you describe.

Re:Three Strikes

[myowntrueself]

As Jefferson said, "that government governs best which governs least".

I prefer Lao Tzu's phrasing...

"One should govern a large state just as one would cook a small fish; lightly. Very lightly."