Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

There's still some hope left for this country

hanselthecaretaker

High End Bro
Platinum
Violent video games ban in La. blocked

By DOUG SIMPSON, Associated Press Writer Fri Aug 25, 11:29 PM ET

BATON ROUGE, La. - A state law that would ban sales of violent video games to minors violates free speech rights and cannot be enforced, a judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge James Brady said the state had no right to bar distribution of materials simply because they show violent behavior. Brady issued an injunction, calling the law an "invasion of First Amendment rights" of producers, retailers and the minors who play the games.

"Depictions of violence are entitled to full constitutional protection," Brady wrote Thursday.

Louisiana is the latest in a string of states, including Minnesota, Illinois, California and Michigan, to have had similar bans blocked in the courts. A federal judge in Illinois this month ordered the state to pay more than $510,000 to three business groups — including the Entertainment Software Association, a plaintiff in the Louisiana case — for legal fees incurred in fighting a similar state law.

The association's president criticized Gov. Kathleen Blanco and state lawmakers for approving the law while struggling to recover from Hurricane Katrina.

"In the post-Katrina era, voters should be outraged that the Legislature and governor wasted their tax dollars on this ill-fated attack on video games," Douglas Lowenstein said in a statement.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco said in a statement late Friday she believes violent video games harm children.

"I'm calling on all parents to diligently monitor the video games that their children are allowed to play. If the courts can not protect our children, then we need to do it by rejecting the merchant of violence," the statement said.

The bill's sponsor, Democratic Rep. Roy Burrell, did not return a phone call.

Brady deflected the arguments by the state that video games should be treated differently from other forms of media because their interactive format can encourage violence.

"This argument has been rejected many times," Brady wrote, noting that other judges have ruled that movies and television also have interactive elements.

Brady also rejected the state's argument that video games depicting extreme violence can be "psychologically harmful" to minors.

"The state may not restrict video game expression merely because it dislikes the way that expression shapes an individual's thoughts and attitudes," he wrote.

Attorney General Charles Foti had not decided whether to appeal the ruling, a spokeswoman said.

The law sought to ban the sales of video games to minors if an "average person" would conclude that they appeal to a "morbid interest in violence." Sellers would face fines of up to $2,000, a year in prison or both for selling offending games.

The law also sought to ban sale of games to minors if the average person would conclude they depict violence that is "patently offensive" to an adult, and the games lack artistic, political or scientific value.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060826/ap_on_re_us/louisiana_video_games


Seems the constitution still holds some power. I didn't want to have to drive to Indiana or something to pick up the new Mortal Kombat game this fall.
 
Awesome

The country is safe because the sale of violent video games to minors is guaranteed.

I worried for nothing.
 
Phenom78 said:
Awesome

The country is safe because the sale of violent video games to minors is guaranteed.

I worried for nothing.


Someone's either not looking at the big picture, or being a sarcastic mofo. :)
 
hanselthecaretaker said:
Someone's either not looking at the big picture, or being a sarcastic mofo. :)


If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd think there was a huge plot behind this all. That is to say all these cases involving video games, music, and porn were intended to distract people from the actual infringements on their freedoms.

For example the IRS now farms out tax collection to private enterprise. The same agency whose unprecedented and complete violation of our privacy was justfied with the promise that "Hey, its ok because we'll keep it so secret that even the rest of the government won't know the information you give us"

The Supreme Court has now ruled that your local councilman, bought and paid for by anyone can who is willing to pony up the cash, can now take your property and give it to another private citizen for anything they claim is a fair market value.

And on and on and on


But yeah, were safer and more secure in our rights because 6yr old Tommy can pretend to cut off someones head on a video game.
 
Phenom78 said:
If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd think there was a huge plot behind this all. That is to say all these cases involving video games, music, and porn were intended to distract people from the actual infringements on their freedoms.

For example the IRS now farms out tax collection to private enterprise. The same agency whose unprecedented and complete violation of our privacy was justfied with the promise that "Hey, its ok because we'll keep it so secret that even the rest of the government won't know the information you give us"

The Supreme Court has now ruled that your local councilman, bought and paid for by anyone can who is willing to pony up the cash, can now take your property and give it to another private citizen for anything they claim is a fair market value.

And on and on and on


But yeah, were safer and more secure in our rights because 6yr old Tommy can pretend to cut off someones head on a video game.


Yeah well think of how pathetic it would be if they actually allowed this ban. What I meant was at that point we might as well give up all hope.


And no, Ludendorf, I don't even vote anymore. No point these days. It's all about money/politics. However, he (the confed pres Davis, if that's who you meant) doesn't stop me from liking Dukes of Hazzard. ;)
 
Phenom78 said:
If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd think there was a huge plot behind this all. That is to say all these cases involving video games, music, and porn were intended to distract people from the actual infringements on their freedoms.

For example the IRS now farms out tax collection to private enterprise. The same agency whose unprecedented and complete violation of our privacy was justfied with the promise that "Hey, its ok because we'll keep it so secret that even the rest of the government won't know the information you give us"

The Supreme Court has now ruled that your local councilman, bought and paid for by anyone can who is willing to pony up the cash, can now take your property and give it to another private citizen for anything they claim is a fair market value.

And on and on and on


But yeah, were safer and more secure in our rights because 6yr old Tommy can pretend to cut off someones head on a video game.
lol quit being such a woman
 
hanselthecaretaker said:
Yeah well think of how pathetic it would be if they actually allowed this ban. What I meant was at that point we might as well give up all hope.


And no, Ludendorf, I don't even vote anymore. No point these days. It's all about money/politics. However, he (the confed pres Davis, if that's who you meant) doesn't stop me from liking Dukes of Hazzard. ;)


A problem far larger than the ban Hansel is your (collectively) willingness to allow these issues to be decided by a tiny handful of lawyers. Your worried about "rights" and you've already consented to abdicate all decision making to "judges." By inference from your post you are actually happy that this decision was taken away from elected representatives and deicded by unelected judges, presumably because you agree with the verdict.

The irony is astounding.
 
Phenom78 said:
A problem far larger than the ban Hansel is your (collectively) willingness to allow these issues to be decided by a tiny handful of lawyers. Your worried about "rights" and you've already consented to abdicate all decision making to "judges." By inference from your post you are actually happy that this decision was taken away from elected representatives and deicded by unelected judges, presumably because you agree with the verdict.

The irony is astounding.


Well if you really want to get down to it, this shouldn't have ever been an issue. However, since it is, and regardless of who's pulling the strings from either side, of course I'm glad the ban was dropped. And yes now they can (hopefully) focus on more pressing matters.

No need to try and complicate things here bro.
 
This decision was a sound one. Thank God the judge decided to defend the constitution rather than bow down to hysterical right wing nuts who would see the 1st amendment shredded to bits. It really shouldn't have been a tough decision for the judge there is tons of precedence and very little difference in these facts from those brought time and time before.
 
Top Bottom