×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Illinois to Pay for Unconstitutional Gaming Law

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the pay-what-you-get-for dept.

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

From the 'what' department? (-1, Redundant)

DesireCampbell (923687) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893477)

"from the pay-what-you-get-for dept."

Pay what you get for? What the fuck does that mean?

Violence is OK then (4, Insightful)

LinuxDag (804598) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893484)

So I guess violence is OK in the US then. But the devil will grab you be the b...s if you show a nipple somewhere. Quite funny ;-) And sad....

Re:Violence is OK then (1, Offtopic)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893519)

. . .violence is OK in the US then. But the devil will grab you be the b...s if you show a nipple somewhere. . .

The devil is not the law and the law is not responsible for the actions of the devil.

KFG

Re:Violence is OK then (3, Funny)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893553)

>> the law is not responsible for the actions of the devil.

It is if (s)he's a US resident.

Re:Violence is OK then (-1, Troll)

rf0 (159958) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893557)

It is if (s)he's a US (p)resident.

Re:Violence is OK then (3, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893618)

>> the law is not responsible for the actions of the devil.

>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 (4, Funny)

quakeroatz (242632) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893909)

A Bob Dylan reference on Slashdot? I feel like Data finding his long lost android Hippe brother... If I could feel.

Oh nevermind.

Re:Violence is OK then (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893943)

Once upon a time I asked Van Ronk what the hell was with Bobby "finding Jesus."

He told me, "Don't worry, once the royalty checks cleared he found Moses again."

Yep, that's Bobby all over. He always could smell money.

KFG

Re:Violence is OK then (4, Insightful)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15894019)

"You gotta serve somebody."

*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 (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893551)

Yes... yes... I know, we are idiots. What can I say?

Re:Violence is OK then (3, Informative)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893652)

I used to have a friend who did volunteer work for La Leche League:

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 (1)

49152 (690909) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893758)

Sounds like an urban myth.

Re:Violence is OK then (3, Interesting)

Peyna (14792) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893809)

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:Violence is OK then (2, Informative)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893918)

. . .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.

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 have seen with your own eyes, you cannot. You may even risk jail yourself for even talking about them.

For instance in the case where my own wife found the body, where I myself visited the scene after the body was found and in which charges were actually filed, you will, after doing far more than a cursory search on the web, find no evidence of this body having ever existed, let alone the eventual disposition of the case.

In fact, I don't know the eventual disposition of the case myself, although I know most of the interested parties, including one of the lawyers. It "does not exist." You cannot research and prove what "does not exist."

But I was, nonetheless, there.

I used to have relatives in Romania. You'll have to take my word for it or not. After they were eliminated all records that they had ever existed were eliminated as well. Sounds like a tall tale, an urban myth, but I swear it really happened.

Perhaps I'm just over senstive to secret police and secret tribunals, or maybe not.

KFG

Re:Violence is OK then (1)

VendettaMF (629699) | more than 8 years ago | (#15894037)

Question of course becomes "What age was the child?".
Under 1 year, hell, be generous, under 3 years probably ok.

4? 5? 6 years old? Pushing it.

10 years old? Unquestionably sexual abuse.

Full story is required to pass judgement on that one.

Re:Violence is OK then (5, Funny)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893695)

re: "But the devil will grab you be the b...s if you show a nipple somewhere"

This is the internet - you can say "balls" here.

Re:Violence is OK then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15893879)

For those of you who labeled parent informative...wtf?

Re:Violence is OK then (1)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15894021)

It is informative. Apparently, GGP didn't know.

Re:Violence is OK then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15893912)

re: "But the devil will grab you be the b...s if you show a nipple somewhere"
This is the internet - you can say "balls" here.
What if he meant to say "benis," not "balls"?

Re:Violence is OK then (1)

quakeroatz (242632) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893901)

Hey did I miss the memo where "Balls" moved to outrank "Nipple" in the international naughty word list?

And if you're talking about someone showing nipples, AND having balls, AND those balls being grabbed, well my friend, you've already well crossed the line into.... something not quite normal.

Re:Violence is OK then (3, Funny)

Whatistehmatrix (835267) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893946)

. . .violence is OK in the US then. But the devil will grab you be the b...s if you show a nipple somewhere. . .


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!!

Re:Violence is OK then (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15893956)

Yes, we all know that the US is the only country prone to violence. I mean, think about all those peace-loving Europeans!

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: celebrating 500 continuous years of murdering, raping, enslaving, and looting on every continent of the globe!"

Logic? (4, Interesting)

walnutmon (988223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893490)

"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!

Re:Logic? (5, Funny)

biggyfred (754376) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893504)

Those damn activist judges at work again. Always thinking they have the power to overturn obviously unconstitutional laws.

Wait. What?

Re:Logic? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15893509)

Or, at least send him a kindly worded letter, thanking him for standing up for our rights. It's not an easy position to take in this day and age, and anyone who sticks their neck out for my country deserves a debt of gratiitude. And, yes, the Constitution MATTERS!

Re:Logic? (4, Informative)

Cutter7 (962545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893597)

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/news.as px?id=17204 [firstamendmentcenter.org] There's your new hero. asshat.

Re:Logic? (3, Insightful)

walnutmon (988223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893703)

While I am not very sure about his track record in the past, I was really only speaking of the current article.

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... contacting them. They are not giving up anything that could be used to personally hurt you, unless of course you are doing something wrong.

Now don't misunderstand this as me thinking that this is a good idea, I definately do not. If they were giving access to actual phone conversations, it would be different (and I wouldn't be suprised if it were true). But legally I just don't think AT&T really has done anything wrong. However, I would be very hesitant to give them any of my business, and I wish more people paid attention to this stuff and actually showed the big companies that they are willing to stop using services over this kind of thing. I think that a lot of blame that gets placed on public officials, though a ton of it is deserved, could easily be pointed at our very complacent and accepting population. I sometimes wonder what it would take to get a large portion of our citizens fired up, not "I'm gonna go blog RIGHT NOW!" fired up, but "I am going to go do something because I believe in it." fired up. So our new president isn't going to bar people from doing things that are shitty... As long as he is going to keep them from doing things that are illegal, I am cool with that.

There might be better options out there though... I just liked seeing someone from Illinois putting a smack down on these frivilous laws.

Re:Logic? (1)

rkcallaghan (858110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15894034)

They are not giving up anything that could be used to personally hurt you, unless of course you are doing something wrong.

If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about! [insert whining idiot noise]

~Rebecca

Re:Logic? (1)

black mariah (654971) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893748)

If you'd actually read what the fuck he said instead of masturbating over your own brilliance you'd realize that all he's saying is that as that case stood at that particular point in time, there was nothing anyone could do because they had no way to prove wrongdoing. Something about "innocent until proven guilty" in this country, I think...

Re:Logic? (2, Informative)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893819)

They're two different people. One is Matthew S. Kennelly while the other is Matthew F. Kennelly!

Re:Logic? (2, Insightful)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893851)

So why doesn't the same argument apply to porn?

Yup. (4, Insightful)

biggyfred (754376) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893499)

Absolutely. You want to pass obviously unconstitutional legislation? Your consitutents can pay the bills. After enough money down the tube, perhaps they'll think twice before electing you again.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=180417&cid=149 34104 [slashdot.org]

Think of the children! (5, Insightful)

Riding Spinners (994836) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893515)

States rights just means undoing the good stuff the ACLU did, i.e.
  1. Being able to persecute minority religions (prior to the ACLU it was actually illegal to be of the wrong religion in many places).
  2. Outlawing abortion.
  3. Eliminating enviromental legislation.
  4. Keeping black people from voting.
etc...
Of course, few strict constructionist judges ever notice that the war on drugs is clearly unconstitutional too.

Re:Think of the children! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15893754)

Of course, few strict constructionist judges ever notice that the war on drugs is clearly unconstitutional too.

How is it unconstitutional? It falls under regulation of interstate commerce.

Re:Think of the children! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15893793)

How is it unconstitutional? It falls under regulation of interstate commerce.

It interferes with potheads and crackheads Constitutional right to screw up their own lives.

It's worth noting that the Supreme Court has basically held that interstate commerce can be inferred in drug cases, and doesn't have to be specifically proven. Other than that, I don't know what the argument from unconstitutionality is.

Even if you remove the federal part of it all, you still have the states enforcing very similar laws. Besides, the federal government rarely, if ever, goes after small time dealers and run-of-the-mill users. It's not worth the money or resources. (Or if they do go after them, it's just to get them to give up a name of someone higher up, so they end up not going to jail anyway.)

Re:Think of the children! (0, Troll)

LindseyJ (983603) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893832)

It interferes with potheads and crackheads Constitutional right to screw up their own lives.

I have never met a druggie who was screwing up only his own life.

Re:Think of the children! (4, Interesting)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15894044)

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:Think of the children! (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893983)

States' rights. Oh, wait, you're now going to call me a racist since I support states' rights, aren't you? I guess that whole deal with the Crow laws was just a convoluted way to have states' rights be automatically ignored because of how it was being used. Never mind that the 9th and 10th Amendments are still on the books.

Re:Think of the children! (1)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893992)

Everything can be argued to fall under interstate commerce (Involves a phone? interstate commerce. involves the Internet? Definitely interstate commerce. The mail? Same thing. Interstate highway? Yup.). That's why there are no states' rights anymore.

Re:Yup. (4, Informative)

failure-man (870605) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893628)

If I remember rightly this whole thing was our idiot governor's baby. As much as I'd like to say "never vote for such foolery again" it's not that simple here.

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. (1)

thatshortkid (808634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893639)

you just don't get beaten for complaining . . . . . .

pfft..... downstater [columbia.edu]

Re:Yup. (1)

V Radcliffe (993336) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893741)

This is why we need to become more active in our politics. Everyone complains that no one understands this stuff but we don't go looking for someone who does for office. Maybe if we used our democracy in the way it was ment to, then we wouldn't have jackasses trying to ban games or tie tubes.

Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (0, Offtopic)

Riding Spinners (994836) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893502)

A lot of the whining revolves around the obligatory "here goes the government again" comments.

Perhaps I'm a bit naïve, but it seems obvious to me that jumping on some website hosted in some third-world country and giving them my credit card so I can play poker through some system controlled by the website against God-knows-who just seems like an invitation to get ripped off.

I'm just not surprised in the least bit to hear some online gambling site shut down or involved parties being arrested for fraud or whatever. Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken this long for some government somewhere to actually look at these sites and realize that there is no way at all to stop the owners thereof from ripping off customers coming and going (aside from the massive amounts of money they make simply from the actual gambling itself).

I've got one of the smallest lists of "things I love that our government has its fingers in," but you should also realize that along with the money the government collects around legalized gambling in the U.S., they also regulate it massivly and crack down fast and hard on places that are ripping people off (above the fact that gambling itself is a ripoff).

Australia has a VERY vibrant gambling scene. There are areas of the country where people pile most of their monthly salary into slot machines (which they call "pokies"). Australia has one of the highest concentration of poker machines in the world, and a high percentage of gambling addicts per capita.

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 wonder how long it'll be till Bush passes a law so that non-US companies can no longer advertise to US customers. It'll stop money leaving the US economy after all, and reduce the gaping trade deficit.

Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (3, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893523)

I wonder how long it'll be till Bush passes a law so that non-US companies can no longer advertise to US customers. It'll stop money leaving the US economy after all, and reduce the gaping trade deficit.


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? (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893588)

last i read the most American car was the Honda Civic made in Ohio ~70% US made parts and assymblie(sp?)

don't ask me to find a source - you can use google too

Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (4, Interesting)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893635)

. . .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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15893801)

Cars have to be 75% made in the US or Canada to call themselves "Made in U.S.A." While a little outdate, here's some info for you on how much of various cars are made in the US. [autoweb.com]

You also should probably look at it in perspective. Honda does not make that many models of cars. Comparatively, GM and Ford employ a lot more people in the U.S. (directly and indirectly) than Honda.

Perhaps another consideration ought to be where the majority of the price you pay for the car goes. With GM and Ford, that means Detroit. With Honda, that means Japan.

Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15893993)

Doesn't a 'Made in USA'-label scare buyers away?

Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15894053)

Doesn't a 'Made in USA'-label scare buyers away?

Yes, but not as far away as Made in China, which is why most Chinese made violins labeled as Made in U.S.A. have fake Italian brand names.

KFG

Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (0)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893529)

it seems obvious to me that jumping on some website hosted in some third-world country and giving them my credit card so I can play poker through some system controlled by the website against God-knows-who just seems like an invitation to get ripped off.

I recently was glad to be kicked out of a team of software developers where the hottest topic of conversation was what poker playing site they were all using in their off hours. These are smart (but unpleasent) people. They should know that the system is in place to rip them off, but they keep going back.

Maybe they have too much money.

Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (1)

Jehosephat2k (562701) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893545)

They should know that the system is in place to rip them off, but they keep going back. Kind of like the Stock Market.

Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (4, Funny)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893562)

>> Australia has a VERY vibrant gambling scene.

They gamble on vibrator races.

Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15893680)

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.

Yet Australia also offers exceedingly severe requirements on the very few Australian based online casinos that do operate here. These create the very same regulated environments (I'd go so far as to say more regulated) that you imply only exist in US based land casinos.

Re:Online Gambling (gaming) ban; good or bad? (2, Interesting)

goonerw (99408) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893718)

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.

It's a good day (2, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893506)

...to be an ESA attorney!

Re:It's a good day (1)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893633)

Purely monetarily, not really. The judge is simply requiring the state to cover the costs the ESA recieved during the case. Even without this decision the lawyer would've been paid. In this case, its simply a matter of either the ESA (their employer) or the state (by court decision).

Oh boo-hoo (1)

Kuciwalker (891651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893508)

A state of 12.5 million people has to pay 500 grand in attorney's fees? Maybe they'll have to take out a mortgage on the state capitol. /sarcasm

Illinois won't be paying (4, Insightful)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893522)

Illinois won't be paying - they will just raise taxes or cut services to recover the costs. Those who made the decision to do this will face no consequences. Rather, the taxpayer will face all of the consequences.

Re:Illinois won't be paying (5, Interesting)

walnutmon (988223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893561)

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:Illinois won't be paying (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15893711)

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

... And who puts his money where his mouth was during the election.

A scam-artist is so successfull because he makes you believe he will deliver, but after getting what he's after finds all sorts of plausible reasons why he cannot.

A gouverment official up for election does exactly the same : make you believe he will deliver, but after getting elected will tell you all sorts of reasons why he can't.

Its even worse than that : As he's now in a position of power he can rip you off like there is no tomorrow, and there is little or nothing you can do about it

An added problem is that those gouverment seats must be filled, even when no worthwhile candidates are available.

So you try to vote for the best among the bad. And as a thank-you you get bad/uncaring/power-hungry decisions (like the ones that try to restrict your basic freedom of choice), to which you are not actually allowed to protest, as you did vote for the makers of those rules yourself.

And don't tell them you did not vote at all (because of no good choice), otherwise you are considered to be "bad", not doing your "patriotic duty".

That is as landing between a rock and a hard place : there is no way you can make a good choice. But you are forced to make one anyway.

... Which makes me return to my first line.

Re:Illinois won't be paying (4, Insightful)

spongman (182339) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893578)

right, it's up to the fools who voted these people into office to pay the bill. maybe they'll be a little more careful in the future?

I can dream, can't I?

Re:Illinois won't be paying (1)

keyne9 (567528) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893835)

This is Illinois we're talking about. No such delusion exists when it comes to our politicians.

Re:Illinois won't be paying (1)

thesandtiger (819476) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893911)

I live in Illinois - I didn't vote for Blago, nor did any of the candidates I voted for have anything to do with this stupid law (how do I know? Every single one of them lost!) - remember, it's not just the "fools" who voted for someone who're paying, but everyone who did their best to keep schmucks like that out of office.

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 that's ultimately found to be unconstitutional pay for half of the costs and split up the other half among the assholes who voted it into law. Make 'em pay out of their own pockets - clearly upholding the constitution isn't important to them, but maybe not having to shell out thousands of dollars is.

Re:Illinois won't be paying (1)

j1mmy (43634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893935)

I didn't vote for any of those fools, and yet I'm paying the bill. My state congresspeople, both of whom voted for the bill, are getting angry letters today.

Re:Illinois won't be paying (1)

regular_gonzalez (926606) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893624)

Exactly -- It's just like corporate taxes. Corporations don't pay them, they count them as part of the cost of doing business and recoup those expenses by raising prices on their products. But I expect to be modded down, as the Slashdot crowd doesn't like the natural end result of that line of reasoning. :)

Re:Illinois won't be paying (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893673)

Exactly -- It's just like corporate taxes. Corporations don't pay them, they count them as part of the cost of doing business and recoup those expenses by raising prices on their products. But I expect to be modded down, as the Slashdot crowd doesn't like the natural end result of that line of reasoning. :)

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 evaluate the impact on sales of raising prices vs the profit loss of absorbing some or all of the tax.
Companies can't always pass through costs, sometimes they have to just accept them as part of the cost of doing business.

Re:Illinois won't be paying (1)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893692)

Exactly -- It's just like corporate taxes. Corporations don't pay them, they count them as part of the cost of doing business and recoup those expenses by raising prices on their products. But I expect to be modded down, as the Slashdot crowd doesn't like the natural end result of that line of reasoning. :)

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 personal income taxes.

Arguing that companies don't really pay taxes ignores the reality of the economic cycle just as much as thinking corporate taxes come out of thin air does.

Of course, corporations are only taxed on profits, so they don't have to compensate for taxes in any way whatsoever. They just choose to in order to make more profit. Whether that is a good or bad decision is left to individual companies, but the implication that taxes are some fundamental expense of doing business and must be recouped through price increases is just plain false.

Slashanomics. (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893806)

recoup those expenses by raising prices on their products.
Piffle. If they could get away with raising prices (i.e. people were willing to pay them), they'd have already done so.

Re:Illinois won't be paying (1)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | more than 8 years ago | (#15894005)

Exactly -- It's just like corporate taxes. Corporations don't pay them, they count them as part of the cost of doing business and recoup those expenses by raising prices on their products.

And in the case of the telecom industry, after they've recouped them by raising prices, they also add on a line item for "regulatory fees" or "universal service funds" or "taxes" and collect them again.

I have a cunning plan. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15893683)

Pass a bill in to law that puts the financial responsabilities of laws or elements of laws struck down as unconstitutional on the elected officials responsable for creating the legislation. Ie if a law is struck down as unconstitutional the costs the state would normally pay are instead divided among the campaigns of all the politicians who voted for it, with perhaps those who drafted, sponsored, and ultimately signed the legislation into law paying a greater share commensurate with their greater responsability and opportunity to fix what flaws there were.

Re:Illinois won't be paying (1)

Secrity (742221) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893696)

For the taxpayers of the state of Illinois who were against these laws, I feel sorry; for the citizens of the state of Illinois who wanted these laws, I say nannynannybooboo. I would guess that would be a total of over a million dollars of nannynannybooboo paid to the lawyers for both sides. That ia about 8 cents for every man, woman, and child in the state, a family of 5 will pay about 40 cents for this stupidity.

Re:Illinois won't be paying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15893738)

Ha ha funny. However, the word "paying" was obviously used to mean in the more commonly used sense of the word, as in paying the monetary costs, not spending time in jail.

Re:Illinois won't be paying (1)

cypheroftyr (994793) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893761)

Tell me about it! I live here and trust me, when election time rolls around Blago won't be getting my vote to return to office.

Re:Illinois won't be paying (1)

edbob (960004) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893916)

I have a feeling that a lot of people won't be voting for Governor Rod. We voted for this guy thinking that we were getting a cool governor for a change. Instead we got a fool.

Re:Illinois won't be paying (1)

Peyna (14792) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893789)

Illinois won't be paying - they will just raise taxes or cut services to recover the costs. Those who made the decision to do this will face no consequences. Rather, the taxpayer will face all of the consequences.

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 from taxpayers.

Re:Illinois won't be paying (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893995)

"Rather, the taxpayer will face all of the consequences."

Illinois is (ostensibly) a republic. The taxpayers are the state. It's their penalty for letting their sworn representatives do something so foolish.

Three Strikes (4, Interesting)

XanC (644172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893536)

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 (5, Interesting)

imemyself (757318) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893576)

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:Three Strikes (4, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893694)

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 (4, Interesting)

njdj (458173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893776)

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 (1)

Alcoholic Synonymous (990318) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893780)

"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?"

Yup. 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. If you are in favor for things that proufoundly violate other peoples rights, you really don't deserve the rights you have. Things are declared unconstitutinal because they are explicitly protected to keep opinion based (read: "of no factual relevance") and nosey legislation from trampling people who are minding thier own business. If you are one of these opinion voters, then you don't understand your constitution enough to really deserve any say in its processes.

Re:Three Strikes (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893797)

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 just about every turn in our history, has been tried--to oppress some "undesirable" minority. The sad reality is that people with power work to maintain and increase that power, often at the expense of others.

In the absolutely perfect society, you may be right. Maybe people without a good understanding of the issues should not be allowed to vote. That is probably the ideal.

But we've had thousands of years of experience in knowing that we are most certainly not that ideal society, and that in all liklihood there will never be such a perfect society. Given that, it's considerably better to let people vote who should not be able to under non-existant "ideal" condititions than it is to deny the vote to people who should be able to.

Pursuing ideals is, in general, a good thing--and I think that's what you're getting at. At the same time, though, it's a waste if it's an ideal you can never reach. Better to deal with what we have now and how we might be able to make it better than to pursue something we can almost certainly never attain. It's entirely possible that the best possible circumstance we can acheive is on an entirely different path from the ideal situation we can not.

Re:Three Strikes (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893852)

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.

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 limit of the term itself.

Say instead of 4 year term for the President he'll get a 6 year term. Besides... Presidents spend most of their 1st term wasted trying to get re-elected instead of actually doing anything of real use.

Turn over in government is a good thing. Career politicians cause them to enjoy the job too much and start playing the "good ol boy" system where nothing changes. With constant turnover, things will get down more often because the persons in power won't have to worry about being re-elected, but of course the voters won't have to worry about having a sleezy politician in power for 30+ years either.

Re:Three Strikes (1)

Sigma 7 (266129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893796)

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.


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 of a problem in other countries, where there is a constitutional right to whatever - but it is not a solid guarentee as given by the US first amendment. Even though it is "harder" to product an unconstututional law, a law prohibiting Child Pornography [www.cbc.ca] was declared unconstitutional. Granted, the legislation was rushed through because there was a problem occurring that needed to be resolved as soon as possible.

Here's another example: The Aztec religion generally involved human sacrifice. Are laws that prohibit such killing considered to be an unconstitutional infringement on religion, or must this sort of religion be stamped out at all costs?

Re:Three Strikes (1)

Jartan (219704) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893845)

"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?"

Laws that prohibit yelling "fire" in a theatre ARE unconstitutional.

That's the whole freaking problem in the first place. Some people seem to think it's ok to pass "obvious" laws that are unconstitutional simply because they are obviously useful laws.

I've got a news flash for you though. We already have a method for the government to get around these little niggling problems. They simply have to ammend the constitution.

Obviously yelling "fire" in a crowded place when there is no actual fire is an attempt to cause panic and should probably be illegal. If they want to make that illegal they need to come up with a proper ammendment and get it past the much larger majority required to make an ammendment.

A lot of people will argue that such an ammendment is dangerous and that it might cause a loophole in the first or blah blah. I tell you though that no matter what it's a lot LESS dangerous than this wholesale blatant ignoring of the constitution that has been going on virtually since the country has been founded.

Fatal flaw (1)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893614)

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.

One problem, then who'll run the government? They maybe incompetent and crooks but they are the only Congress we've got.

Our Governer sucks (4, Insightful)

EvilMoose (176457) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893544)

Blagojevich is the worst Governer ever. Instead of worrying about the budget or education, he used his power to focus on this shit along with his attempts to try to move the capital to Chicago. He spends less time in Springfield than Chicago. Then again, Ryan wasn't that much better.

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 (1)

thatshortkid (808634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893610)

Then again, Ryan wasn't that much better.

wow... just, wow...

wake me when blagojevich is sent to prison [wikipedia.org] , mkay? until then i wouldn't complain about him (finally) trying to steer funds/attention towards the only reason people actually stop and do anything in illinois. granted, i've been of the opinion that cook county secede and iowa, illinois, and indiana merge into one state and just name it "icornfield".

the only thing i have against b-rod is that he's a friggin' cubs fan. and though he's not the best governor (we only get "least corrupt"), he's going to hand that nutjob topinka her ass on a silver platter come november. after the other ryan fiasco -- which wasn't fair, jack should have been allowed to run and have obama wipe the floor with him for a myriad of other reasons -- i guess the illinois RNC had nobody better to trot out there (no milkman?).

</asbestos underoos>

Re:Our Governer sucks (1)

aralin (107264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893685)

Judy Baar Topinka sucks too.

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 (2, Funny)

The Spie (206914) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893753)

And Rod the Mod should spend his efforts on getting the state capitol moved to Chicago, where the Republican Party is essentially outlawed and has been since the 1930s. That way, we can avoid having any more Republican felons in the governor's office. At least it's been 30 years since we had a Democratic governor who went to the pokey.

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 downstate GOP lick-spittle, at least until you learn how to spell "governor".

Somewhere... (2, Funny)

Ransak (548582) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893598)

Somewhere I think I hear Nelson shouting 'Hah Hah!'

Logic FTW (5, Insightful)

Kawahee (901497) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893615)

If millions of people play violent video games and don't act out what they see in the games, then when somebody does... maybe it's not the game, it's the person.

Your sig (1)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893829)

I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the editors didn't read.

I'd add no more "backslash" stories to that list.

Oh great; less funding... (1)

SocratesJedi (986460) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893736)

I'm an out of state student at the University of Illinois and although it's a great school, it's not easy to forget that we are in need of increased state funding, especially for colleges other than Engineering. Instead of the state being able to use that half-million dollars for something useful now, it's going to be sucked into paying damages in a lawsuit over video games? Obviously the gaming law ruled unconstitutional was a Bad Thing, but so too is wasting taxpayer funds.

Uh... (1)

sfontain (842406) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893850)

they are a waste of taxpayer dollars

So where do you think the $500K is coming from?

Why was it unconsititutional, exactly? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893887)

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 form of self-expression and therefore speech. Yet there's certainly no law against it noncommercially.

Re:Why was it unconsititutional, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15894039)

How exactly do you equate the selling of sexual services (an act) to that of a game (artistic expression in the form of a computer game) ?

Re:Why was it unconsititutional, exactly? (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15894050)

Interstate Commerce - which the states have no right to restrict, seeing as it's a Federal matter. That's why this was unconstitutional - we already had a law in place.

Those who fail to learn from the past... (1)

LinDVD (986467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15893941)

Swap out "comic books" for video games and you have this [nyu.edu] , which is a repeat of history.

Does anyone know...? (1)

A Name Similar to Di (875837) | more than 8 years ago | (#15894026)

If the legality of that law is still in question? I'm an Illinois Resident (also 25) and I was carded for a video game purchase 2 weeks ago. "Ah, store policy, sounds good" I mumbled as I reached for my ID Card. "Oh no, it's Illinois Law" was the snippy reply. I then got into a huge argument about how I do understand that they are a concerned parent but ... etc etc etc. Was this sales clerk just horribly misinformed?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?