Federal judge stops Louisiana game law
by Kyle Orland 
{ Aug 25th 2006 at 4:05PM }
No sooner do we post an in-depth column on the road to video game legislation in Louisiana than the AP reports that a federal judge has ruled the law unconstitutional. I swear, these federal judges are just out to spite us.Us and, er, Louisiana Rep. Roy Burrell, the bill's sponsor, who hoped Louisiana would have "the additional adrenaline and testosterone ... needed in the upcoming 'cockfight' over the constitutionally of this bill."
Oh, and Jack Thompson, who told GamePolitics, "This law is constitutional, as it addresses all of the complaints raised by federal courts which have struck down other state video game laws." Guess not.
For those keeping track, this is the seventh separate federal ruling defending video games as speech. You'd think that by this point state politicians would begin to consider this settled law. That is, unless these laws are more about scoring political points than actually meeting any sort of constitutional test. Hmm ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Loque @ Aug 25th 2006 4:12PM
umm err...
HA-HA!
Joe @ Aug 25th 2006 4:14PM
Children in Louisiana can buy M-rated games.
Adults in Louisiana can buy 12-gauge shotgun shells at their nearest convienience store.
Maybe it's not the kids we need to focus on.
fwacce @ Aug 25th 2006 4:19PM
"That is, unless these laws are more about scoring political points than actually meeting any sort of constitutional test. Hmm ..."
Maybe they just care more about the kids than joystiq seems to.
Jay @ Aug 25th 2006 4:19PM
The worst part is that we pay for our government to waste time on these issues. Think about it, it's your taxes that pay for all the time and effort for politicians to create these issues so that the can campaign on them, because it's safe. Why safe?
The politicians KNOW the laws will be ruled unconstitutional -- so, they can vote on them and tell voters that "I'm doing everything in my power to protect your children, to clean up America, yadda yadda yadda." So, they vote on the law knowing it'll be struck down and they can say, "It's not my fault ... but I voted the right way!"
And, we pay for their campaigning ... it's like a political shell game. This is really what's happening -- they're not all morons; most know that they have to take the votes back to their constituents to get re-elected, but they don't want to screw up the status quo, so this is ... once again, the safe vote. That's why they pass so easily.
Fuzz @ Aug 25th 2006 4:28PM
So is he going to try in EVERY state, or just stop after around 20?
White Rose Duelist @ Aug 26th 2006 11:30AM
"Maybe they just care more about the kids than joystiq seems to."
Yep, we here at Joystiq hate kids, and hope that they all learn how to become murderers from video games.
In all seriousness, there is absolutely no proven relationship between video games and violence in children. Video games are no worse than a number of other, more accepted media formats. The responsibility of determining what games a child has belongs with the parents, not the government. Screaming "Won't someone think of the children?!" doesn't nullify the Constitution.
This really isn't about kids. It's about reelection.
32_Footsteps @ Aug 25th 2006 4:34PM
If they cared about kids so much, they'd figure out how to pass bills that would benefit children without violating the Constitution.
Jay @ Aug 25th 2006 4:37PM
Quote: [4. "That is, unless these laws are more about scoring political points than actually meeting any sort of constitutional test. Hmm ..."
Maybe they just care more about the kids than joystiq seems to.]
It's not Joystiq's repsonsiblity to worry about kids -- it's the parent's job.
Jarrett @ Aug 25th 2006 4:53PM
Jay-
I think what my man was trying to say although it is not Joystiq's fault.....where does the right thing come into play? What I'm trying to say is their has to be social responsibilty to check oneself at times.
Although I am not in agreement with Thompson or his politcal allies I do think that everyone in the gaming community has to take a step back and say...."you know these games do get into kids hands and they shouldn't be". No one can tell me that there are some games that should not be in kids hands. Period.
I think there should be tighter parameters in place to combat this. I have three sons. If I walked in the house and they are playing a game that I did not authorize...I'm pissed. But they got it from somwhere and if they tell me they went to the store and got it then the parameters in place are not working.
Somewhere down the line...if the gaming community doesn't effectively police themselves sooner or later one of these will be upheld and then what? And trust me the right lawyer will come along and effectively argue that this law is just and since the gamers don't vote anyway ... they will be stuck like chuck.
crono @ Aug 25th 2006 5:01PM
Jarrett-
Why not just teach your kids right and wrong and what is acceptable in the first place? Then the next time they have to opportunity to play a game, they may think first about whether or not you would consider it appropriate for them. That is assuming you have raised them well enough to value your oppinion as a father. It seems most parents depend far too much on legislation for that now.
(btw, none of that was meant negatively towards you personally.)
Jay @ Aug 25th 2006 5:04PM
Jarrett,
I guess the question I would tend to ask is -- where did the kids get the money, and how did they get to the store, and begin playing the game without any guardian knowing about it?
If the kids are old enough to do all of that without any supervision, you're beyond controlling what media they can ingest and its time to mediate what they see and experience with dialogue -- banning something or restricting it will just make them seek it out and place more emphasis on it (i.e. alcohol)
All Your Lost Socks @ Aug 25th 2006 5:06PM
Well it doesn't stop there in any case, crono. Even well-parented children are going to want to try out the forbidden simply because they have been repeatedly told that they shouldn't or don't need it. Why, they ask themselves, can I not see this?
But that's entirely beside the point, I was just pointing it out for that part of the dicussion. The real meat of it is whether you are showing your ID at the counter, proving your age, and taking home M-rated games. Nothing is going to stop a parent buying their kid a violent game if they really want to (not a smart choice to be sure), but that would stop under-age kids from picking up material outside their age range.
Of course, if this works as well as it does with cigarettes, we still have a problem. :P
Then we get into the mess of how the content gets rated in the first place.
Jarrett @ Aug 25th 2006 10:16PM
Crono-
Nothing personal taken.
But you know as well as I do that kids and all kids have the tendency to do what they are not supposed to at some point. That is and always be a parents dilemma from here to eternity. You can preach to a kid that is not good and that is bad and sooner or later they are going to try something.
You are correct...parents now a days do rely on legislation a little to much....but the power of parenting (and this is a whole other topic) has been slowly taken from parents over the years anyway. If I can't discipline my kid without CPS showing up then what? Sorry time out does not work where I come from.
Again, like I said I am of the generation that grew up on these games. So anyone on here that likes to say parents dont't play these games and they don't know what they are about....wrong. The reality is we know what goes on in the games and we start taking it out of their hands and prevent them from palying them until they get to a suitable age...will this argument be moot....
Crosser @ Aug 26th 2006 6:49AM
If I remember correctly, Music went through the same thing.. it's just a matter of time before these people run out of steam and no one's impressed anymore. Maybe they'll attack porn next...
vidGuy @ Aug 25th 2006 6:06PM
"This law is constitutional, as it addresses all of the complaints raised by federal courts which have struck down other state video game laws."
This makes me laugh so hard. This bill took a different direction than the others, yes, but just because it avoided those bills' weaknesses doesn't mean it is constitutional. The Louisiana bill was overly broad and could have resulted in a lot of unsubstantiated criminal penalties.
I've said it many times: until there is scientific proof that media violence leads to real life violence, the government has no legal interest in preventing the media from reaching children. Thus, EVERY law that attempts to do so will be unconstitutional. No amount of backing by JT will fix that.
Kurt @ Aug 25th 2006 7:20PM
Thanks for the credit, Joystiq......
Jay @ Aug 25th 2006 7:15PM
Hey Jarrett,
Sorry to double post, but I missed what you said at the end of your post: "... and since the gamers don't vote anyway ..."
I vote ... everytime. I just went over the sample ballot for our upcoming primaries. That's a stereotype that doesn't necessarily have any validity anymore. The age of the "average" gamer is constanly raising -- I think the percentage that vote currently would be similar to the general population at large, possibly higher.
LaughingTarget @ Aug 26th 2006 2:09PM
Given the United States was founded on the concept of "government bad" and personal responsibility, there is no question these laws should be overturned. It hardly matters if the individual law is being passed "for the right reasons". Violating the US Constitution is violating the US Constitution. Allowing even good-natured violations to go ignored will do nothing more than open the floodgates to laws that violate our rights and freedoms without being good natured. The way the Constitution is written, you either support the whole thing, including the stuff you may not agree with, or you support none of it, giving up every right and freedom you hold dear.
Of course, we're probably too late on this anyway. Many states already have heavy restrictions on firearms and the Patriot Act is still around, both of which are blatant violations of Constitutional rights, and neither of which are being taken seriously by the so-called defenders of the Constitution, the Judicial branch. This is because the average person simply has become too complacent to care. The Constitution is already dead, arguing over video game laws is futile given the major stuff is already down the toilet.
Nick @ Aug 27th 2006 12:14AM
As much as I want to ditch the stereotypical gamer cliche, a moment like this calls for it:
Jacko, you got 0WN3D.
(And if you need a translation, it's "owned" as in utterly defeated.. wow, us gamers have intelligence... who knew?)
But hey, try your luck at the other 40+ states, I'm sure after 7 states saying it's wrong, you have a good chance. Because we all know it's the fault of the industry as a whole that these games get into the hands of children and not their parents.
And FYI, you need to get a life and do something that matters, instead of attacking people who play video games.
-Nick
Gonzo @ Aug 28th 2006 1:21PM
"Maybe they just care more about the kids than joystiq seems to."
You think these morons care about kids? These self important twits who crusade against games don't care about kids at all. They only care about voting parents. In fact they seem to really resent children. For years and years they've been trying to get games (including D&D), music (like hip hop, heavy metal, rock & roll, and even jazz back in the day), and even books (and I don't just mean comics; classics like Catcher in the Rye have been burned on occasion by morons claiming to protect children) away from kids with one hand and jerking themselves with the other. If they really want to appear to care about kids they would try (with the other hand) to give kids something useful: like universal health care, an education that isn't preparing them for disappearing industrial era work but the information age we're in now, or how about some responsibilities and constructive things to do if you don't want them to play.