Anti-video Game Laws Get Owned
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">OMG H4X, he jury camped us! D:</div> (From Yahoo News - <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1211&e=1&u=/nm/20030710/tc_nm/media_videogames_dc&sid=95573372' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...dc&sid=95573372</a> )
"Washington state legislature - we come for you. Long live the fighting games!!!"
<i>- MonsDibe, in D00n</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->.S. Court Blocks Washington Video Game Sales Law
Thu Jul 10, 7:41 PM ET Add Technology - Reuters to My Yahoo!
SEATTLE (Reuters) - A federal judge on Thursday issued an order postponing enforcement of a Washington state law designed to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors.
U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the law, which was set to take effect from July 27 and would have imposed a $500 fine on anyone who sold a video game depicting violence against "law enforcement officers" to minors under age 17.
"Plaintiffs have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of House Bill 1009 and the balance of hardships tips in their favor," Lasnik wrote in his order from the court in Seattle.
In a statement, Doug Lowenstein, president of plaintiff the Interactive Digital Software Association, praised the judge's finding that games are a form of protected speech like music and movies.
"In so doing, the Court made clear the very high burden that governments face when they try to regulate such protected speech," Lowenstein said.
Washington state Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, the Democrat who wrote the law, had said recently that any injunction would only be preliminary and that she expected the case to go to trial.
"It has very little bearing on the final outcome of the case," Dickerson said.
A federal appellate court in St. Louis recently struck down a St. Louis County law that would have fined retailers who sold or rented violent video games to minors. In that case, in which the IDSA was also a plaintiff, the court held that games were protected speech under the Constitution.
The Washington law was criticized from the start by game industry groups who said it was too vague and unconstitutionally restricted the free expression of game publishers.
A bill is also pending in the U.S. House of Representatives that would make it a federal crime to sell or rent violent games to minors. Industry executives have said they thought the bill had no chance of passing. (Additional reporting by Ben Berkowitz in Los Angeles) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dedicate this post to you SpacedMonkey. Now get back in the kitchen and bake me a pie, intarweb ho. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
"Washington state legislature - we come for you. Long live the fighting games!!!"
<i>- MonsDibe, in D00n</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->.S. Court Blocks Washington Video Game Sales Law
Thu Jul 10, 7:41 PM ET Add Technology - Reuters to My Yahoo!
SEATTLE (Reuters) - A federal judge on Thursday issued an order postponing enforcement of a Washington state law designed to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors.
U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the law, which was set to take effect from July 27 and would have imposed a $500 fine on anyone who sold a video game depicting violence against "law enforcement officers" to minors under age 17.
"Plaintiffs have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of House Bill 1009 and the balance of hardships tips in their favor," Lasnik wrote in his order from the court in Seattle.
In a statement, Doug Lowenstein, president of plaintiff the Interactive Digital Software Association, praised the judge's finding that games are a form of protected speech like music and movies.
"In so doing, the Court made clear the very high burden that governments face when they try to regulate such protected speech," Lowenstein said.
Washington state Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, the Democrat who wrote the law, had said recently that any injunction would only be preliminary and that she expected the case to go to trial.
"It has very little bearing on the final outcome of the case," Dickerson said.
A federal appellate court in St. Louis recently struck down a St. Louis County law that would have fined retailers who sold or rented violent video games to minors. In that case, in which the IDSA was also a plaintiff, the court held that games were protected speech under the Constitution.
The Washington law was criticized from the start by game industry groups who said it was too vague and unconstitutionally restricted the free expression of game publishers.
A bill is also pending in the U.S. House of Representatives that would make it a federal crime to sell or rent violent games to minors. Industry executives have said they thought the bill had no chance of passing. (Additional reporting by Ben Berkowitz in Los Angeles) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dedicate this post to you SpacedMonkey. Now get back in the kitchen and bake me a pie, intarweb ho. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I firmly believe that this moral posturing via legislation will ultimately be without profit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So one day Stan Lee decided "**** it" and did the comic without the seal of approval.
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>w00t!</span>
Perhaps I should put that in my programming joke thread...
Actually, democracy pwned Washington. Now <i>there's</i> a first <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Actually, democracy pwned Washington. Now <i>there's</i> a first <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the people of Washington elected officials to put a law forbiding the sale of games to minors. (democracy)
The courts are not democratically elected. They pwned the state.
Its also Washingtion State not D.C.
Be aware, what she means by this is "I'll find a judge that's better than your judge".
The legislative manipulation of our legal system by slanted judges is becoming increasingly dangerous.
So one day Stan Lee decided "**** it" and did the comic without the seal of approval. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
hell yeahs.
The courts are not democratically elected. They pwned the state.
Its also Washingtion State not D.C. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The joke was just too tempting <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Anyway, the people may elect whomever they wish - if said person decides to pass a law that's obviously unconstitutional, this has nothing to do with democracy.
Spooge, I agree, but for once, we may take comfort in the fact that there's a multi-billion dollar industry behind 'us'. There's lots of judges out there.
The courts are not democratically elected. They pwned the state.
Its also Washingtion State not D.C. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The joke was just too tempting <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Anyway, the people may elect whomever they wish - if said person decides to pass a law that's obviously unconstitutional, this has nothing to do with democracy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The constitution is a safe guard against democracy <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The legislative manipulation of our legal system by slanted judges is becoming increasingly dangerous. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed judicial activism is teh sux.
those arent federal judges.
Oh, and... w00t!
Let me put it like this:
Democracy != The American Democrat Party.
Believe it or not, but you can agree with the first without of agreeing with the second, so please skip it <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Let me put it like this:
Democracy != The American Democrat Party.
Believe it or not, but you can agree with the first without of agreeing with the second, so please skip it <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
US = Republic != Democracy. Democracy = Tyranny of the marjority.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>de·moc·ra·cy</b>
<i>n. pl.</i> <b>de·moc·ra·cies</b>
<li>Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
<li>A political or social unit that has such a government.
<li>The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
<li>Majority rule.
<li>The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a <i>little</i> more to it, isn't it?
I say Video games should be protected by law, just like movies are. Enforcement of the ESRB rating should be mandatory, but reduce it to 13 years old because by that time someone you could go see a movie without lots of "splashing blood" but death around every corner.
I say Video games should be protected by law, just like movies are. Enforcement of the ESRB rating should be mandatory, but reduce it to 13 years old because by that time someone you could go see a movie without lots of "splashing blood" but death around every corner. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
War Games quote. Bloody marvellous.
As for everything else you said I agree too.
I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
Does that mean in America there was absolutley no legal standards for games?
As in an 8 year old could buy Postal 2 or whatever?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>de·moc·ra·cy</b>
<i>n. pl.</i> <b>de·moc·ra·cies</b>
<li>Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
<li>A political or social unit that has such a government.
<li>The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
<li>Majority rule.
<li>The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a <i>little</i> more to it, isn't it? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was talking in a philosophical sense or democracy. A total democracy, or direct democracy. One where there are no "elected representatives."
Shhh! They'll lock the thread if you say that.
Then you're referring to Robespierres idea of the final community of citizens he tried to reach during the French Revolution. This particular 'democratic' theory is exclusively based on Russeaus ideas, such as the common will ('volonté general').
Russeau is only one, and by far the most extreme, democratic theoretican. If you wish to discuss the philosophical idea of democracy, you'll have to consider the defense of minorities and the seperation of forces as postulated by Montesquieus, or the old ideal of the Athenean forum.
Judging democracy by its most radical theoretican is like judging the ideal of free enterprises by Hoovers ideas - you'll always find a nutjob you <i>can't</i> agree with, everywhere.
Now we just need the Dis*******-Board back online, and I'm happy!
His idea looks like a <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=republic' target='_blank'>republic</a>.
The state of Washington probably has a system much like that, state courts, state governor, state legislators. The Federal goverment's judges came in and said what they were doing was a no-no with this ruleling taking away thier ablility to govern themselves on that matter or thier democracy.
Summarizing, no matter what we've all read in Civilisation, 'Republic' and 'Democracy' are in the biggest number of cases the <i>same</i>. No, a Democracy does not have to be Republican, it can also be direct or based on commitees, and a Republic does not have to be Democratic, it can also be oligarchic, but they're not excluding each other.
[edit]And to repeat: According to modern judicative standards, a law that's not in tune with the democratic spirit of a constitution (as the Bill of Rights) <i>is not demoratic</i>. If officials, whether elected or not, resort to such means, they are acting undemocratically.
Prime example: Adolf Hitler. While his rise to power was formally legal, it was against the democratic basis of the Weimar Republic and thus illegal.[/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->According to modern judicative standards, a law that's not in tune with the democratic spirit of a constitution (as the Bill of Rights) is not demoratic. If officials, whether elected or not, resort to such means, they are acting undemocratically.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats what I disagree with. If the people want it wether its breaking inalienable rights such as the execution of socraties it is democractic because the people wanted. I think we just are getting on a course of which word is right :/
This part requires no further discussion - we agree here. Stalin led a totalitarian oligarchic Republic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->According to modern judicative standards, a law that's not in tune with the democratic spirit of a constitution (as the Bill of Rights) is not demoratic. If officials, whether elected or not, resort to such means, they are acting undemocratically.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats what I disagree with. If the people want it wether its breaking inalienable rights such as the execution of socraties it is democractic because the people wanted. I think we just are getting on a course of which word is right :/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, then let's take the example I already mentioned, Hitler: In the last 'free' election, he got 42% of all votes. The simple majority was his. Does this mean that he was democratically entitled to use this democratically obtained power to destroy democratic principles, such as the defense of minorities (such as Jews, some sects, homosexuals, Sinti, Roma, disabled...), the democratic organisation of the state, and so on?
It's a snake biting its own tail: If democratic power is used against democratic institutions, it ceases to be democratic.
As I already said, do not believe that the simple translation of the word 'democracy' suffices to define the term. It is by far bigger than majority vote, although this is its basis and the normal way of decision finding.