Illinois to Pay for Unconstitutional Gaming Law 219
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."
Violence is OK then (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Violence is OK then (Score:5, Funny)
This is the internet - you can say "balls" here.
Re:Violence is OK then (Score:2)
Re:Violence is OK then (Score:3, Funny)
if you have an issue with censoring the word "balls" then i dont recommend reading the slashdot article about the robot on a "single spherical wheel" http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/ 11/234258 [slashdot.org]
Someone please think of the children and their virgin ears!!
Wrong noun (Score:2)
Your parents let you read slashdot? Shame on them.
Re:Violence is OK then (Score:2, Funny)
Rejected slogans for the EU Tourism Commission:
"Peaceful Europe: over a decade since our last major genocide!"
"Peaceful Europe: nearly 15 years since our last communist slave state!"
"Peaceful Europe: 30 years without a fascist regime!"
"Peaceful Europe: sure, 60 million of us were killed by our own governments in the last century, but we've learned better. Really!"
"Peaceful Europe: celebra
Re:Violence is OK then (Score:2)
That depends on how you look at it. Which do you think is more likely: Your teenager child causing pregnancy, or shooting up a school? When I was in school, by far, it was the former.
From where I sit it's not surprising at all that sex in video games is a bigger contraversy. I don't see it as being about what is okay, but rather what the bigger priorities are.
Re:Violence is OK then (Score:4, Funny)
It is if (s)he's a US resident.
Re:Violence is OK then (Score:3, Funny)
>It is if (s)he's a US resident.
You gotta serve somebody. It might be The Devil, or it might be the Lord, but you gotta serve somebody. . .
Or they are hearsay and inadmissable.
KFG
Re:Violence is OK then (Score:4, Funny)
Oh nevermind.
Re:Violence is OK then (Score:5, Insightful)
*blinks*
Yeah. I'll bet you enjoy slavery.
Sorry, but I serve two distinct groups:
My family, and society at large. In that order. The devil and the 'lord' can go take a flying leap.
Re:Violence is OK then (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Violence is OK then (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.lalecheleague.org/ [lalecheleague.org]
One of the cases they were dealing with was the local Child Protection Services placing a child in a foster home because the mother was breast feeding it and "mouth to nipple contact" is sexual abuse.
We can be far worse than idiots.
KFG
Re:Violence is OK then (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Violence is OK then (Score:2, Informative)
If you thought you would find a public record you do not understand how Child Protective Services work.
That is one of the dangers of a secret police operating without judicial oversight (no charges were ever even filed in this instance) and tribunals held in secret if it ever does come to judicial attention. When people ask you to prove things you ha
Re:Violence is OK then (Score:2)
Re:Violence is OK then (Score:3, Informative)
Logic? (Score:4, Interesting)
Judge Matthew S. Kennelly for President!
Re:Logic? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait. What?
Re:Logic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kindly Worded Letter (Score:2)
Re:Logic? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Logic? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I do not take too much issue with his stance on AT&T's disclosure of phone records. I do not know too much about law, however, the reason is this.
While it is shitty business practice to give up your clients phone records, it is not a breach of privacy. Partially because a phone record is not really anything very personal, and can only be used to track your contacts, and frequency of.
Re:Logic? (Score:2)
If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about! [insert whining idiot noise]
~Rebecca
Re:Logic? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Logic? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Logic? (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words: it's the same guy.
Re:Logic? (Score:2)
Re:Logic? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup. (Score:4, Insightful)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=180417&cid=149 34104 [slashdot.org]
Think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, few strict constructionist judges ever notice that the war on drugs is clearly unconstitutional too.
Re:Think of the children! (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I used to consider myself "pro choice" on this; how can I be libertarian (note small "l") and not?
But I've been thinking recently, we keep harping about a "woman's right to choose", what about a MAN'S right to choose? I've changed my mind; I'm anti-abortion.
If I knock some chick up, she can abort it whether I want the child or not. If she wants it, I have to pay for it. I have no choice whatever! "Well you should have thought of that before you had sex".
So should she, especi
OT: Fairer parenting strategies (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, I think the way it should work is something like this: if both parents want the child, everything's hunky-dory. If the father doesn't want it, then he has to cover the cost of the termination, but after that has no further liabilities. If the mother wants to continue with it at that point, it's on
Re:Think of the children! (Score:3, Insightful)
A few examples:
- The National speed limit: 55 miles per hour might be great in densely populated eastern states, but going from St. Louis to Denver, 75 mph is appropriate much of the way.
- The National drinking age: This one is disputable, but in some places drinking at 18 years old isn't going to be as devistating as it is in others. The federal government would
Re:Think of the children! (Score:2)
Re:Think of the children! (Score:2)
Re:Think of the children! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
If I could move there I would! (Score:2)
But some day! Some day!
Re:Think of the children! (Score:2)
Re:Think of the children! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yup. (Score:5, Informative)
In Illinois the only choices we're ever given are literally felonious or criminally incompetent governors from the two parties. Want to run as an "unrecognized" party? Need 25,000 signatures to get on the ballot (and since the parties in power will snow you with objections, you need well more than that.) Independent? The same number. ("Established" parties, resources and all, need 500.)
The two parties like the status quo, and they have the laws written to lock it in astoundingly well. We have the idiots in power and the other guys who pretend to be different (roles switch when there's a change of guard.) Our opinion as electorate matters about as much as it would in China - you just don't get beaten for complaining . . . . . .
Re:Yup. (Score:2)
There are plenty of good reas
It's a good day (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a good day (Score:2)
Illinois won't be paying (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Illinois won't be paying (Score:5, Interesting)
On to the next problem; Which is having anyone worthwhile to vote into office to begin with...
Re:Illinois won't be paying (Score:5, Insightful)
I can dream, can't I?
Re:Illinois won't be paying (Score:2)
Re:Illinois won't be paying (Score:2)
Forget making the voters pay for it - they voted for the guy, but once he's in office they have no real control over him until election day. I say make the person/people who author a bill
Re:Illinois won't be paying (Score:2)
Re:Illinois won't be paying (Score:2)
Re:Illinois won't be paying (Score:2)
Uh, whether Illinois pays, or the taxpayers pay, isn't it the same result?
The taxpayers elected the people who made this decision; therefore the taxpayers are appropriately the ones who should pay. Where do you propose the money comes from? The last time I checked, states get all of their income
Re:Illinois won't be paying (Score:2)
Most neighboring states have tax agreements and the like for such situations, whereby you would get all of your taxes from Illinois refunded, but then pay income taxes to Wisconsin. (I know this is the case for Ohio and its neighbors, I don't know the law of other states).
Re:Illinois won't be paying (Score:2)
Illinois is (ostensibly) a republic. The taxpayers are the state. It's their penalty for letting their sworn representatives do something so foolish.
Re:Illinois won't be paying (Score:2)
You must not live in IL then. We are more of a corruptocracy (rule by corruption) than anything, particularly in the city of Chicago...
Re:Illinois won't be paying (Score:2)
Re:Illinois won't be paying (Score:2)
When you have a republican form of government, the more participation the better off we all are. So bravo with this particular decision.
Re:Illinois won't be paying (Score:2)
Re:Illinois won't be paying (Score:2)
It all depends on the nature of the tax, competition, and what the market can absorb. If, for example, there was a tax on MP3 players, the price of iPods wouldn't necessarily go up. Apple would have to
Re:Illinois won't be paying (Score:2)
You could just as easily say people don't pay taxes either, they just consider them a cost of living and recoup those expenses by demanding higher salaries. Therefore, companies really pay for all the per
Three Strikes (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Three Strikes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Three Strikes (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems like a great idea
Uhh... no, it doesn't. For many reasons, among them:
1. 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. Nobody is going to take chances. Nobody is going to pass controversial measures. And it bears reminding that some things we find to be absolute no-brainers (civil rights, etc) were highly controversial when they were passed.
2. There seems to be a tacit insinuation that "legal" means "right," which is an issue of morality. There's no such link, and while I would like my politicians to adhere as best they can to the Constitution, I also understand that we need a new type of government if we're not going to let them vote the way they think is right.
3. Voters really ought to be able to elect whomever they please, as many times as they please. I don't believe in term limits for just this reason--but at least they did that one right; they amended the Constitution to include such a limit. Nobody should tell me I can't vote for somebody for any reason, including "he's fucking awful." What if I don't care that he's passed three unconstitutional laws? What if I like the stands he was taking, the points he was making with the laws? What if I supported the laws? My candidate is no longer eligible because he represented me?
Look, passing unconstitutional laws really shouldn't happen, but if there's going to be a penalty attached to such activity, I will attach it as a voter. And if voters are too dumb to take these things into consideration (and they probably are), too bad. That's one of the consequences of living in a republic.
4. Constitutionality is not a simple subject. You can take just about any Constitutional issue, post about it here on slashdot, and get a tremendous flamefest over what it means, how it pertains, etc. And that phenomena is not limited to discussion forums. You can probably take ANY Supreme Court decision--certainly EVERY decision that was not made unanimously, by the very definition--and find some judge somewhere in the country who disagrees with it. It's hard to determine these issues. We dedicated a third of our federal government to doing nothing BUT deciding these issues. A lot of people here, as elsewhere, take their own interpretations of the Constitution to be the end-all-be-all, and that's fine. I'm glad they have strong opinions. But it means absolutely nothing to a court, and it shouldn't.
5. Taking #3 into account, you're going to polticize the judicial process even more than it is already politicized. In states where judges have to run for office (is that all of them?), how kindly do you think the Republican party will take to a Republican judge kicking one of their guys out of office because of such a three-strike law? Is a Democratic judge kicking a Republican out of office going to be seen as a polticial move? Do we really want to essentially give impeachment powers to the judiciary at all?
6. And while we're here, in most states, and the federal government, this would need to be enacted as a constitutional amendment. A law to this effect would almost certainly be struck down, which would be the epitome of irony.
7. As another mini-irony, not only does the Constitution not include any such punishment scheme for violating the Constitution, it really doesn't include any provisions for declaring laws unconstitutional at all. It's something Justice Marshall took upon himself to piss off Thomas Jefferson in the opening years of our country, and we just sort of said "yeah, that makes sense." Could it be that declaring laws unconstitutional is unconstitutional? Hmmmm.
So no. It doesn't seem like a very good idea to me at all.
Re:Three Strikes (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Three Strikes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Three Strikes (Score:4, Interesting)
I prefer Lao Tzu's phrasing...
"One should govern a large state just as one would cook a small fish; lightly. Very lightly."
Re:Three Strikes (Score:2)
Simple solution. Allow only one terms for any office.
Be it the President, Sentator, Governor or even local mayors.
Now many people complain that this would mean the person in office would have little time to do anything and sometimes people don't like change. Well the simple solution to this is to increase the time lim
Re:Three Strikes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Three Strikes (Score:2)
Not James K. Polk. In four short years he met his every goal. He seized the whole southwest from Mexico, made sure the tariffs fell and made the English sell the Oregon Territory. He built an independent treasury. Having done all this, he sought no second term. But precious few have mourned the passing of Mr. James K Polk, our 11th president.
Re:Three Strikes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Three Strikes (Score:2)
Technically, there is no punishment scheme for violating the constitution but there is one for violating the oath.
Here is the relevant part where they have to take the oath (article VI, clause 3):
The Senators and Representative
here's a similar but less severe solution (Score:2)
Let's make a simpler solution...how about a law (easy enough to make at the state level) that requires the disclosure of the amount of times a lawmaker has voted for a bill which was later deemed unconstitutional...right on the ballot next to his name?
I'd like to add a personal idea to this (requiring that the amount of money spe
Re:Three Strikes (Score:2)
And in an ideal society, you would be held directly accountable for your votes by having your ability to vote revoked from that point on.
A concept that rather directly goes against the Constitution itself. There is no "smartness test" attached to voting. In fact they tried that to keep blacks away from the polls. It was thrown out. I'm not going to even guess what that means about whether or not you should be voting given your own position.
Not to mention that it is a dangerous precedent that, at ju
Re:Three Strikes (Score:2)
They will fight it, because it is a bad idea.
While the first amendment is clear and solid, what would happen if it turned out that laws prohibiting yelling "fire" in a theatre were unconstitutional?
It is more o
Re:One strike (Score:2)
Our Governer sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Judy Baar Topinka sucks too. I don't even know her stances on crap cause she displays stupid commercials about "more accountability" which people will OOOH and AHH for.
In fact, wtf do any of Novembers' candidates stand for? They're all bad-mouthing each other and on the "increased accountability" stance.
Re:Our Governer sucks (Score:2)
I like her name though. It is from Czech and means 'garlic toast'. She would get mine vote if I had one.
Re:Our Governer sucks (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, I can say this because I'm Chicago born, bred, and resident, and I worked for the State of Illinois for six and a half years. So you can go and pound salt, you downsta
Re:Our Governer sucks (Score:2)
Here's just one story that mentions the MoUs the gov has to sign to convince his own party to t
Re:Our Governer sucks (Score:2)
Somewhere... (Score:3, Funny)
Logic FTW (Score:5, Insightful)
Your sig (Score:2)
I'd add no more "backslash" stories to that list.
Re:Logic FTW (Score:2)
Why was it unconsititutional, exactly? (Score:2)
I'm really not trying to be a troll here... this is a genuine question. It makes no sense to me.
Given that the proposed law only made illegal the _SALE_ of violent video games (ie, there was no prohibition at all against such games if the games were free), what reason existed that this proposed law would violate the constitution?
And if banning the sale of violent video games is unconstitutional, then why is, for example, prostitution unacceptable? That's selling something that could arguably be a fo
Re:Why was it unconsititutional, exactly? (Score:2)
Re:Why was it unconsititutional, exactly? (Score:2)
All ratings from videogames to TV shows to movies are self-imposed.
There is NO law that prevents minors from enterting R rated movies.
Therfore to single out games would take an overwelming ammount of evidence that games were harmful.
Even things like "XXX" movies are not government rated. If someone is arrested for selling pornography to a minor, they first have to establish that the item in question is indeed pornography (sure in many cases this is tri
Lawyers are predators (Score:2)
What about: Less lawyers, more engineers...
why not stop violent games under obscenity laws? (Score:2)
Violent content gets an "X" rating at theaters...why not video games?
If it's PG or less, minors can buy it..."R", parents buy it. "X"...well
parents can still buy it...seems possible compromise....
-l
Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
You probably know this, but for those that don't -- this is only true if the money goes toward a good or service made in the US. Even if you buy from a US company, that good could be made elsewhere, you are contributing to that economy's GDP. On the flip side, you may be contributing to the US GDP if you buy a Toyota and that car is made here (Toyota does have factories here).
Because of all the outsourcing, buying "American" (i.e. from an American company) has very little meaning anymore. If we all started buying "American" from tomorrow on, it would probably have minimal effect on our trade deficits unless actual manufacturing moves back here.
Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (Score:2)
don't ask me to find a source - you can use google too
Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
They gamble on vibrator races.
Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (Score:2, Interesting)
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 foll
Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (Score:2)
To a certain degree isn't that the point? It's one thing for a meat packing plant to have unclean food; as a consumer you have an expectation of goodness based on the fact that you have no way to identify if the food is
Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (Score:2)
Actually, it isn't a law until the President (Bush or otherwise) signs it so yes, the President does pass laws especially if Congress can't get the votes for an override. The President also sets the national agenda for what legislation gets introduced as well as proposes a budget for his input on what gets funded.
B.
Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (Score:2)
The point I was trying to make is it really takes all three branches of government to make laws that stand the test of time. A law is enacted by Congress, approved (either actively or passively) by the President, and upheld
Re:HA HA (Score:3, Insightful)
Will it?
The legislators get the credit and the votes for "taking a principled stand". The state's taxpayers get the bill for lawyers' fees. Come November it'd be nice to see some incumbents voted out over this issue, but it's a pretty safe position (like "tough on crime") because people who aren't directly affected won't fire up the necessary neurons to examine the consequences of success -- it's not something they're into, cleaning it up can only be a good thing, vote "yes".