The Gamer's Quarter

dhex · Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:39 am Post subject: injunction junction

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3146566

the nut grafs here:

Shapermc · Hot Sake! Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 6279

So that is pretty important right? I mean, that is a judge saying, what we did here was wrong. Right?

dhex · Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:53 am Post subject:

yeah, it's important. it'll be more important as a SCOTUS ruling, but we're a while away from that. precedent is important, legally.

it's basically a warning shot that this legislation will not pass a serious constitutional challenge.
_________________

SuperWes · Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:24 am Post subject:

What's interesting is that the bill made it through so many different people, including the Governor of California, before a single person finally realized that it wasn't constitutional and shot it down. Think that single person who shot it down might have been the one person in the chain for which passing a bill like this wouldn't help their career?

-Wes
_________________

Shapermc · Hot Sake! Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 6279

No offense to the hobby Wes, but I don't think that a piece of videogame legislation was high on any judges list of things to look at. I can only imagine how full their plates are with other "more important" things to do.

dark steve · . Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 1110

The only part of the government that's responsible for keeping bills constitutional is the judicial system. Don't you remember The System Of Checks And Balances?

dhex · Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:24 pm Post subject:

well, anything 1st amendment related isalways somewhat high on a judge's list if only because they excite the most attention. and attention does help judges - high profile decisions help build one's reputation because many people end up reading them.
_________________

SuperWes · Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:49 pm Post subject:

Right, and my point is that videogame legislation is a hot item right now for politicians. Being against the sale of violent video games to minors helps them look pro-family. Being pro-family really isn't going to help a judge gain favor in anyone's eyes (unless they're planning on running for office), so they've got no reason to allow something like this through.

It says in that article that things are still in the air for the big federal level case, so we'll see how that goes. If something doesn't get passed at the federal level does that decrease the ability for state law to continue to push for something similar?

-Wes
_________________

dhex · Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:08 pm Post subject:

that depends.

back in the day, it was well understood that federal and state laws could be at odds on certain things; more importantly, state laws were independent of federal review barring a constitutional challenge. now...with "interstate commerce" being all the rage on the federal level, and federalism being essentially dead as a judicial line of reasoning...the feds are likely to take the lead on anything. this sort of legislation, however, probably won't get very far because it's neither a "ripe" issue nor particularly salient beyond jack thompson and folks like ourselves.

i might be wrong, of course; this sort of thing couldbe seen as part of a larger legislative trend towards regulation based on content. in an age where mccain-feingold stands, anything is possible with regards to the first amendment.
_________________