Lousiana judge blocks JT-penned bill
by Ross Miller 
{ Jun 20th 2006 at 3:55PM }
The recently-signed Louisiana violent games bill has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge in Baton Rouge, pending a hearing on June 30th. The bill gained notoriety among gaming circles due to its author: famed anti-game activist Jack Thompson. The law, recently signed by Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco, would have taken effect immediately.The Entertainment Software Association has already mounted a lawsuit to strike this new law from the records. So far, their track record is flawless, so we are betting the same will be said here.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Amos @ Jun 20th 2006 4:01PM
If a bill penned by JT was actually passed and not consequently struck down it is indeed perhaps time we abandoned the democratic system...
Clint @ Jun 20th 2006 4:19PM
What have those tacky colored remote controls got to do with this story?
Amos @ Jun 20th 2006 4:23PM
It's what JT saw when he wrote the bill. Nintendo is aiming it's masurbatory death simulators upon the innocent youth of Louisiana.
vidGuy @ Jun 20th 2006 4:30PM
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/16/louisiana-guv-signs-jt-penned-bill-into-law/
Posts 36 and 38
Thank you, thank you... unconstitutionally over vague and video games have artistic value. I'm surprised it's happening so quickly, though.
Art Vandelay @ Jun 20th 2006 4:43PM
I'm kinda losing my faith in LA. I mean first they gave us Britney Spears...ugh...then the big easy reelected Ray Nagin (who's a twit BTW) and then they pass this bill?! At least there's some judge there that either plays games or has a kid that plays them and sees this bill for what it is...a mockery.
Raymond Camden @ Jun 20th 2006 4:54PM
Art, if you want to lose even more faith, we (I'm from Lafayette) recently struck down a bill that would have outlawed cock fighting.
So just so it's clear - you can go to a cock fight and participate in a cock fight, but not have a video game about it.
Isaac Klavsky @ Jun 20th 2006 5:02PM
"What have those tacky colored remote controls got to do with this story?"
Those are the Wiimotes, I suppose they were good for representing... gaming. I suppose. They were easier to put in than people holding DualShocks, and the Xbox controllers wouldn't work. I suppose since it was rendered like it was, it was easiest to juxtapose and still provide visibility of the map.
skinnytie @ Jun 20th 2006 5:07PM
I am blown away that this thing passed in the first place.
Honestly, is anyone out there who actually takes JT and his allegations seriously?
Anyone under 60?
Thomas Werewolf @ Jun 20th 2006 5:16PM
#7: I'm sure it's been said on here before, but politicians sign these bills knowing they're going to be struck down by the courts. They can then shift blame to the courts for allowing this corruption America's youth. It's just another bullet point on their list of "reasons to vote for me."
1up_clock @ Jun 20th 2006 5:21PM
"Honestly, is anyone out there who actually takes JT and his allegations seriously?
Anyone under 60?"
I believe you mean OVER 60.
vidGuy @ Jun 20th 2006 5:33PM
Now that I think of it, what's funny is that when this 'law' gets struck down, there will precedent for the Miller test to NOT be used to determine if a video game is violent or not. Thus, JT will have been responsible in strengthening the opposition's case.
What's most important about this failing is that for any law to be held constitutional, it must specify what constitutes 'violence' and explain what types of games are to be kept from minors. I expect this to result in laws banning the sale of M-rated games to minors. While this carries some censorship issues - developers will self-censor, removing blood and language, to get the T-rating so that they can sell to minors - it is ultimately what is neccessary.
And I'm sorry for gloating earlier, but it's amusing that I, a 20 year old undergrad interested in law, saw this bill's weaknesses while JT ran around everywhere shouting that it would be upheld.
skinnytie @ Jun 20th 2006 5:41PM
No - I actually mean 'Under 60', so as to imply that the only people listening to this guy are people who have no interest and no social ties to gaming.
People who act as representatives and judges and the general 'these kids these days and their damnable [insert popular media device here]!'
Zak @ Jun 20th 2006 6:01PM
Um...you already have to be 17 with ID to purchase an M rated game. What's the big deal about making that 18? I mean, who really cares? Parents have to make the decision anyway, and the general consensus is that, if their child, teen, whatever, is deemed responsible enough to play GTA, then they will just buy it to shut them up anyway.
Just what I notice from being in the retail field.
Sabre @ Jun 20th 2006 6:58PM
Dear Jack Thompson,
HA! SUCK IT!
HA!
---------
I can't wait to see if he posts on here and tries to make it sound like he's not going to lose.
Matthew metzo @ Jun 20th 2006 9:20PM
As was said before.
EAT IT JACK! EAT IT RAW!!
So much for "This bill is constitutional". If it was so constituional, why was it blokced? Why is it gonna be injoined, why is gonna be struck down?
Face it jack, you don't know half as much about law as you like to claim.
obo @ Jun 21st 2006 12:52AM
Damn shame. I was looking forward to publishing my cockfighting game and seeing if kids could play it.
Gonzo @ Jun 21st 2006 1:42PM
Ya-know?
Sometimes when I read an article like this, I begin to wish that this self-important prick was right and games really would drive kids into psychotic fits of rage. That way someone might actualy give Jack Thompson the severe beating he richly deserves... with a baseball bat... set on fire... with nails sticking out of it.
I guess first we have to make a game where the hero weilds something like that if it's not out there already.