See, here's the thing: if Guidry found it unsurprising that the federal judge would deem it unconstitutional... that Guidry said it's "unenforceable as written"... why would the A.G. bother to approve and endorse the bill in the first place?

Just because Thompson demanded it or something? (Please tell me that's not the reason...)

That's right bitches! When you align yourself with a born loser, your team tends to lose. Funny how that works. Verlin and Delbert Posey will find out soon enough as well, although of course I'm not trying to compare those semi-humans to the LA. officials in any way.

@Benji:

I don't ever recall Guidry being critical of the law until recently...I remember him sweating bullets because Thompson pulled his team of idiots last minute. I think he thought it was defensible until that point. Are you sure you're not thinking of the Utah A.G.?

We should be able to post Judge Brady's ruling in a day or so... It's not available yet.

Perhaps so - I can't recall him saying much about the law itself, but I do recall the stories of him saying that as things were it was undefensible. So by right I can't really say if he was personally for or against the law.
(A sharp contrast from the Minnesota AG saying games were 'worthless, disgusting speech.' That release of his still irks me.)

@Benji - the AG can endorse whatever law he wants. That's only politics. In terms of the process, it means squat.

"Zerodash Says:
November 30th, 2006 at 10:09 am
I can’t wait for the “press release” for this one.

Below is an email someone should send JT’s way- its a modification of his gloating letter to MetalGearSolid.org over a gamer’s death:

“Your “game law” will find peace through the Lord, Jesus Christ, but sadly it’s too late for that. There is a void in every heart. You can fill it up with the things of God, or the things not of God. This unfortunate soul chose to fill it up with unconstitutional laws. The writing of these anti-video game laws is masturbatory activity, meaning senseless self-stimulation. If you lawyers could use a dictionary you would know that that term is not necessarily a sexual one. The real tragedy here extends beyond the life and death of this one bill. There are literally millions of old people and aging adults whose despair is deepend by turning to the things of this world and then finding them meaningless. All of you lawyers need to put down the lawsuits and get a life. The utter inanity of the vast majority of postings here shows how vapid “moral eleitism” really is. You are one of the cheerleaders for this wasting of time and the wasting of lives. Do you feel any remorse for having contributed to this “culture of fearmongering?” Of course not. Hey, let’s all write MORE legislation, and ignore all the really productive things to do with our lives. Let’s pretend to be shocked that a lawyer might descend into deeper depression, as his politician “buds,” knowing the bill was dying, couldn’t figure out how to think logically for themselves for it. That would have involved leaving their high horses I guess. Sad. Sad for all of you.”

NICE! If i were you, i would email that to him.

@ Zerodash
One suggestion, if it's not too late:
You are one of the cheerleaders for this wasting of time and the wasting of money.

You could make it more narrowly tailored, say define specific actions, like shooting a gun, rather than relying on the context, which would mean you’re restricting the portrayal of an action rather than the story behind the action. But that would affect T rated games as well, which would make it more unpopular.
Not just T games. Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz contains guns in some of its mini-games. It's all very cartoony, and the game is rated E for Everyone, but it techincally could be affected if they tried something like that.

@Benji

Government ratings board = Government censorship board

I know, I'm just throwing out ideas. :) It was an attempt to deal with the fact that game publishers and stores have no idea if they'll get hauled into court for selling product A to a minor, until after the first guy gets hauled into court. Total uncertainty. If you know ahead of time which games qualify and which wouldn't, then the uncertainty is gone, and you know which games need their rating enforced, and which can be safely sold to everyone.

What we have here in Canada works better than some other government ratings boards, because ours isn't allowed to refuse a classification without a damn good reason (like the content breaks the law somehow). Other countries with ratings boards seem to be allowed to "ban" certain games willy nilly, simply by refusing to classify the content, which means it can't be sold, period.

So yeah, it's still government censorship, but *if* (a big IF) regulations were allowed by the courts, this would be one thing that would be needed to prevent the confusion currently present about application.

Actions need to be considered in their context to some degree

True, but if you consider the context, then you're judging the story, and you can't do that under the 1st Amend. At that point it gets tricky. You can restrict indecency, but not if it's got scientific (educational) or artistic merit. But other than those categories, you can't judge the indecency on context.

Well OF COURSE its not enforceable as written. The first time I read it, I was floored by its vagueness and utter lack of clarity. At that moment I became completely convinced that JT had never actually studied law in any competent capacity. When laypeople recognize your work as that of a hack, it's time to find a new profession. On top of that JT hasn't won a case in who knows how long. He truly, completely, utterly, unquestionably, undoubtedly sucks as a lawyer. Which is good for those of us who enjoy free speech.

@ Benji & Jabrwock

Police will not 'enforce' this kind of thing. Think of it this way - if they ignore court orders to help family members access a home, there is no way, absent an actual law, they will enforce some 'ratings' system. Typically those sorts of administrative laws are enforced by empowered officials and the enforcement takes the form of a fine. The fine would be challenged.

A government board is an extremely bad idea. It seems to be the first thing Canadians think of when presented with a problem - ie.. "what is the government going to do about this". I for one do not believe that the 'government' knows what is best, especially where I am concerned. Call it a skepticism from realizing that all government officials accept contributions by businesses or special interest groups. Somehow I don't believe the actions of a government are not influenced by those who donated to the officials at the helm.

This "HUGE ISSUE" will blow over in a couple of years and all this will be relegated to the "remember when..." file. Of course, in a few years time, busybodies will all be calling for legislation on some other burning issue.

"perhaps they should sue/annoy/bully JT to get some of the tax payer money back after all he “wrote” the law and in the end its was his over zelsouness that made it unenforceable… "

That is true, I mean how many more repairs could've NO had instead of pushing through an irresponsible bill? How much lost wages have they had for lack of or inadequate infrastructure? Why should the tax-payers have to foot the bill for this failed nonsense?

These people need to give it up. They've lost and they need to accept the fact that they're losers and stop trying to pass these stupid laws. These people, like Jack Thompson, are liars and they need to stop trying to pass a retarded law like this. They lost and now all anti-game activists need to SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[...] Read more: here [...]