Illinois Residents to Pay for State's Attempt at Game-o-cide

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IGN

August 10, 2006 - As result of trying to enact a law banning the sale of violent videogames (which was found unconstitutional), the State of Illinois must pay the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), game industry trade group, $510,528.64 in attorney fees.

"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," said Douglas Lowenstein, president of the ESA. "The sad fact is that the State of Illinois knew this law was unconstitutional from the beginning. Taxpayers have a right to know that over half a million of their dollars and countless government hours were thrown away in this fruitless effort."

"I am very disappointed that the State of Illinois has to pay these fees for what was such a clearly unconstitutional law from the start," said John Cullerton, Illinois 6th District State Senator. "When I spoke against the law in Springfield, I predicted we would have to pay legal fees. The amount ordered paid to the plaintiffs by Judge Kennelly doesn't even count the substantial fees the State will have to pay its own lawyers."

The Safe Games Illinois Act would have required retailers to use warning labels in addition to the existing Entertainment Software Ratings Board labels. It also would have forced retailers to post signs within stores explaining the ESRB rating system. In December 2005, United States District Judge Matthew S. Kennelly handed down a permanent injunction halting the implementation of the law. In his decision declaring the law unconstitutional, Kennelly sided with the ESA, writing, "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."

The legislation was proposed and championed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich. As of this writing, the Governor's office did not return requests for comment.

---

http://wii.ign.com/articles/724/724927p1.html

Good, hopefully this tells other states to lay off the nanny state shit.

I read that some people in Chicago's city council is considering banning trans fats. Seriously.

Agreed. Hopefully the pricetag will incite Illinois taxpayers to sweep out the idiots who pushed this thing to trial knowing it would end up in flames.

So you couldn't get Chicago-style pizza in Chicago. I smell riots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

I read that some people in Chicago's city council is considering banning fat people. Seriously.

---

Wow! That's going to be a challenge.

First they're gonna have to cut them off at the source, meaning taking their war to fast food chains.

Which we know, never works. Mcdonalds always win.

The population of Illinois is 12,419,293, which if you do the math, means everyone only has to pay 4 cents in taxes to pay this off.

Go find a nickle in the couch, amirite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brett

The population of Illinois is 12,419,293, which if you do the math, means everyone only has to pay 4 cents in taxes to pay this off.

Go find a nickle in the couch, amirite?

---

urnot.

Besides the fact that not all of those people are paying taxes.

The government tried to act like a babysitter taking care of its poor kids (taxpaying citizens) and now they have to take money from those poor kids to pay the ESA. It's not acceptable. The reality is that nanny statism costs a lot more than just this (war on drugs, for example).

This is a good victory.

It's disappointing how this subject gets treated in the media. A couple of months ago, I was talking with my dad and he said something against people fighting bans violent video game sales to kids--to him and a lot of people, the matter is just as simple as "bad men are trying to sell violent stuff to kids," because that's how it's often painted in the media. I explained the situation to him a bit more and he recognized the wrong of trying to regulate what amounts to free speech. Too bad he probably would've never fully understood the issue based on the news and talk radio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

Besides the fact that not all of those people are paying taxes.

---

Then find a dime.

Quote:

---

The government tried to act like a babysitter taking care of its poor kids (taxpaying citizens) and now they have to take money from those poor kids to pay the ESA. It's not acceptable. The reality is that nanny statism costs a lot more than just this (war on drugs, for example).

---

I'm not saying it wasn't a stupid move on the states part but if anyone is actually angered by the monetary loss this will cause them personally, well, they're a huge vagina imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brett

I'm not saying it wasn't a stupid move on the states part but if anyone is actually angered by the monetary loss this will cause them personally, well, they're a huge vagina imo.

---

The dollar value isn't the point, it's the wastefulness. If anyone is willing to let government squander vast sums of money just because their individual cut of the cost is relatively low, well, they're a huge douche imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brett

Then find a dime.



I'm not saying it wasn't a stupid move on the states part but if anyone is actually angered by the monetary loss this will cause them personally, well, they're a huge vagina imo.

---

I'm sure this is the only time the Illinois state government has ever wasted money.

Quote:

---

The dollar value isn't the point, it's the wastefulness.

---

Which I agree with.

I'm just saying, no one should be complaining about what it cost them personally, they should just be angry with the state for wasting 500,000 that could have gone to something needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brett

Which I agree with.

I'm just saying, no one should be complaining about what it cost them personally.

---

No one is complaining about that, what the hell is your point? You're the only one who has brought it up.

Yoshi did with his title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brett

Yoshi did with his title.

---

Illinois residents do have a right to complain about wasteful spending by their government, even if its $1. The government represents them. That's kind of, like, the cornerstone of democracy.

edit: the government would love it if they could explain away wasteful spending by saying, "it is just $X from every person". Of course X would be a very small number, its still a waste.

Personally I'd be all for video game nannyism if it were shit like: Anything thats above E requires proof of age (18-21) to buy. End of story. Kids would either get fake ids (and be breaking the law) or their parents could still buy them for them. End of story.

About the only real way to shut up these blovating idiots is to ship them to Iran. No games, no fun, just worship the local god and stfu. Eventually we'd nuke them.

Yoshi's title says they have to pay, they are in a sense paying. I don't see the complaint part in Yoshi's title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

Illinois residents do have a right to complain about wasteful spending by their government, even if its $1.

---

Again, the state is wrong for doing what they did, but really, the tax payers would have payed those taxes regardless, so the complaint should be what was done with the money they state already had, not how it came out of the tax payers pockets. Atleast that's how I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brett

Again, the state is wrong for doing what they did, but really, the tax payers would have payed those taxes regardless, so the complaint should be what was done with the money they state already had, not how it came out of the tax payers pockets. Atleast that's how I see it.

---

Yea, well Illinois residents are paying for it, whether it came out of last year's taxes or this year's taxes or five years ago taxes. If it came out of a general fund, well that is money that isnt gonna be used on some other more beneficial things, if it was covered by deficit spending (like a bond already issued) that money is wasted + interest. The state's irresponsible behavior is what made them waste the money. And the fact that the government has to set up a general fund for stuff like this means they charge more in taxes to establish a general fund.

And don't forget, the end costs for this include the time the state's lawyers spent in court. And the court's time. Etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

Yea, well Illinois residents are paying for it, whether it came out of last year's taxes or this year's taxes or five years ago taxes. If it came out of a general fund, well that is money that isnt gonna be used on some other more beneficial things, if it was covered by deficit spending (like a bond already issued) that money is wasted + interest. The state's irresponsible behavior is what made them waste the money.

And don't forget, the end costs for this include the time the state's lawyers spent in court. And the court's time. Etc.

---

I think, in the end, what really matters is none of us live in such a shitty state.

For that we should all be greatful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brett

I think, in the end, what really matters is none of us live in such a shitty state.

For that we should all be greatful.

---

Pst. Similar laws have been attempted/passed in California, as well. Illinois is not alone here.

Illinois still sucks imo.

IL > CA

Chicago > Any city on the west coast

Wrong.

San Diego is the best city in the world; not to mention California has warmer beaches, better weather and the Governator.

San Diego sucks ass.

Wrong.

I'm so glad I got the fuck out of Illinois. What a garbage state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

IL > CA

Chicago > Any city on the west coast

---

No.

They had this coming when they filed such an absurd lawsuit. Let this be a lesson to any other dumbfuck politicians considering a similar course of action.

If a retail chain wishes to deny violent VG sales to minors without government enforcement, fine. The governments don't need to barge in on the issue though.

IINM, California's attempt at such a law was quashed.

Brett and Cow can burn in hell, right with the bullshit that Blagojevich started to cause it all.

He was trying to ban NARC, specifically - then suddenly became quiet when nobody bought the lousy game. That's Democrats for you; spending all the money in deciding on how it should be spent.

Dude, get out of Illinois!

Dude, why?

Oh yeah, I live here now.

With the lack of bagels, endless boring plains, terrible food and especially service (in general, there were a couple good steakhouses in Chicago), the Bears, and all the eternally pissed-off midwesterners, I don't see how you can enjoy your state so damn much.

The best thing about Illinois is everyone has a trampoline. And the huge fucking wrath-of-god thunderstorms, those were cool too.

Chicago doesn't come close to New York.

Chicago doesn't need New York.

You put bagels on a list of reasons to disparage the city and state? Bagels? There's a few bagel chain stores here anyway, not like anyone goes to them to any mass degree. Just go to a fucking food store and buy them. Big deal.

Bagels kick ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mzo

Oh yeah, I live here now.

---

Haha... Pwned.

Memphis has good BBQ. But, I wouldn't want to live there.

Everyone here has trampolines and vanity plates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dog$

Chicago doesn't need New York.

You put bagels on a list of reasons to disparage the city and state? Bagels? There's a few bagel chain stores here anyway, not like anyone goes to them to any mass degree. Just go to a fucking food store and buy them. Big deal.

---

Bagels in Chicago/Illinois are not bagels. You probably don't even know what a bagel is. The biggest reason the state sucks is because of the people that live there, i.e. you.

The only nice thing I can say about Chicago is that it is clean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mzo

Everyone here has trampolines...

---

That really is the best part...but you lose good sledding places.

I think the last time sledding places mattered to me was when my age was in single digits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarsKitten

Personally I'd be all for video game nannyism if it were shit like: Anything thats above E requires proof of age (18-21) to buy. End of story. Kids would either get fake ids (and be breaking the law) or their parents could still buy them for them. End of story.

---

Can't do it if videogames are protected free speech. If they are then you can't make any laws about who can or can't buy them. If they aren't then you can regulate them however you want, including making them totally illegal for everyone.