Judge rules against Louisiana video game law

Supporters of Louisiana's video game violence law were confident it would stand up to judicial scrutiny because of its adaptation of the Miller Test. It appears they were mistaken.<BR><BR> Story

 

[mrknobel]

That is another for the good guys. I mean if a game is rated T or M it is the PARENTS responcibilty to monitor there childrens use of the game and the social problems (if any) that come from it. <BR><BR>IT IS NOT FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE!!!!

 

[sword_9mm]

does the government/some other body regulate the sale of R rated movies? if so, apply it to m rated games and close the book.

 

[Thaen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Rather than incompetency on the part of the Louisiana Attorney General's office, the failure of this law is best attributed to the simple fact that it's a bad legislation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Not really sure what Ars is going for with their news articles, but this is blatant opinion. It happens to be popular opinion with most of the readership (including myself), but it's really not necessary and detracts from the newsworthiness of the whole report.<BR><BR>thaen

 

[Alfonse]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thompson told Ars that he laid the blame for the judge's decision at the feet of the Louisiana Attorney General's office, saying that they "were at best incompetent and at worst compromised." He believes a decision was made not to put up a real defense of the bill, possibly due to pressure from the ESA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Maybe, and I'm just throwing this out, the Attorney General, being an actual lawyer as opposed to a shouting machine like Yack, looked up an important document. Some have even called it the <I>Supreme Law of the Land</I>. Lawyers are expected to know it, among other things. So maybe this Attorney looked it up, saw that the law was in pretty clear violation of certain parts of this document, and didn't want to waste his office's time/money mounting a defense that would nevertheless be beaten down.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not really sure what Ars is going for with their news articles, but this is blatant opinion. It happens to be popular opinion with most of the readership (including myself), but it's really not necessary and detracts from the newsworthiness of the whole report. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I wouldn't exactly call that an opinion. Especially since the judge (and possibly the prosecution) seemed to agree with the "opinion".<BR><BR>I could understand your grievance if they actually upheld the law. Or if upwards of a dozen similar laws weren't also struck down over the last year. However, the writing about legislation of this type seems to be on the wall: it's unconstitutional. As such, it seems pretty reasonable to call it bad legislation.

 

[Tuor]

Why do people keep giving Jack Thompson any attention? He's a hack. He's the proverbial ambulence chaser. When Clinton was president, he went after Reno without any evidence to back up anything he said. Now he's trying to get face time by going after "bad" computer games, and he *still* doesn't have any good evidence to back him up.<BR><BR>I don't get it. He should be flushed down the toilet and into the sewer where he belongs. Ars shouldn't be wasting their time talking to him, IMO.

 

[Mister Morden]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sword_9mm:<BR>does the government/some other body regulate the sale of R rated movies? if so, apply it to m rated games and close the book. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The movies industry is self-regulated. IANAL, but it is my understanding that the government cannot invest a non-governmental entity (like the ESRB) with governmental power. Giving ESRB ratings the force of law would seem to do just that.

 

[Thaen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I wouldn't exactly call that an opinion. Especially since the judge (and possibly the prosecution) seemed to agree with the "opinion". </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Then then statement should read, "The judge believes that this is hackneyed and stupid." As it is, it's a statement of the author's opinion.<BR><BR>edit: Or, if this is supposed to be an editorial, such a statement should be immeidately followed by, "... because jack Thompson is a hack!" or some other measure of reasoning.<BR><BR>thaen

 

[Traddy]

It is a fact that it is bad legislation. If it would have been good legislation, it would not be overturned in court and that seems pretty simple. So, I don't see an issue with the wording.

 

[Thaen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Traddy:<BR>It is a fact that it is bad legislation. If it would have been good legislation, it would not be overturned in court and that seems pretty simple. So, I don't see an issue with the wording. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It might be a fact, but the premise of the statement is not post-hoc. Are you really incapable of recognizing an opinion when you read one? Frightening.<BR><BR>thaen

 

[Traddy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thaen:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Traddy:<BR>It is a fact that it is bad legislation. If it would have been good legislation, it would not be overturned in court and that seems pretty simple. So, I don't see an issue with the wording. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It might be a fact, but the premise of the statement is not post-hoc. Are you really incapable of recognizing an opinion when you read one? Frightening.<BR><BR>thaen </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The fact that you can't accept that other people aren't as anal rentitive as you are is far more frightening to me than the wording of the article.

 

[BigLan]

Let's stop arguing over wording, and just feel sorry for the poor Ars staffer who had to interview JT. Have they finished in the shower yet? -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif --

 

[Cherlindrea]

You know, this whole situation with Jack Thompson reminds me of my cat. She'll come tearing across my hard wood floors when I'm about to set food out for her, and she'll smack into a wall because as many know cats can't control themselves on hard wood floors. She then promptly sits down and starts cleaning her butt to show that she meant to do that and nothing at all was wrong or her fault or out of the ordinary. It was *so* ordinary in fact, that she'd clean her butt to show it.<BR><BR>Well, Jack Thompson reminds me of that. He helped Louisiana write some legislation in hopes of spreading his obsession to other states, the legislation gets shot down because it has been deemed repeatedly unconstitutional in previous settings, and so Jack Thompson immediately switches to "I did nothing wrong, this wasn't my fault" tactics of a cat. I hope he likes the taste of his own butt.

 

[wandergeist]

Cherlindrea: Best. Analogy. Evar. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif --<br><br>(Though given he does this again and again, perhaps it is the taste of his own butt that motivates him?)

 

[Jim Stead]

The First Amendment requires that we allow violence and pornography to be shown to children in the same way that it requires that we allow cigarette advertising and Nazi propaganda. Which is to say, it doesn't so require.<BR><BR>That doesn't stop certain Judges who are men and women with faults like anyone else from coming to the wrong conclusion and issuing edicts like the emperors of old.<BR><BR>Jim

 

[simX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tuor:<BR>Why do people keep giving Jack Thompson any attention? He's a hack. He's the proverbial ambulence chaser. When Clinton was president, he went after Reno without any evidence to back up anything he said. Now he's trying to get face time by going after "bad" computer games, and he *still* doesn't have any good evidence to back him up.<BR><BR>I don't get it. He should be flushed down the toilet and into the sewer where he belongs. Ars shouldn't be wasting their time talking to him, IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I agree wholeheartedly. I don't see why Ars interviews Thompson, or any good reason why they should. It's just giving air time to a whacko, which just fuels his continued crusade against those violent and OMG-they'll-subvert-our-kids!!!11oneeleven11! video games.<BR><BR>Please, Ars. Just stop. Say no to Jack Thompson.

 

[KpaBap]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jim Stead:<BR>The First Amendment requires that we allow violence and pornography to be shown to children in the same way that it requires that we allow cigarette advertising and Nazi propaganda. Which is to say, it doesn't so require.<BR><BR>That doesn't stop certain Judges who are men and women with faults like anyone else from coming to the wrong conclusion and issuing edicts like the emperors of old.<BR><BR>Jim </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Have you ever actually read the first amendment?<BR><BR>Last I checked, it actually does require us to allow cigarette advertising and Nazi propaganda.<BR><BR>Furthermore it makes no distinction between children and adults. See in the old days, parents actually took care of their kids themselves.<BR><BR>It does not however require us to pull our heads out of our asses...

 

[Dogmeat]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KpaBap:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jim Stead:<BR>The First Amendment requires that we allow violence and pornography to be shown to children in the same way that it requires that we allow cigarette advertising and Nazi propaganda. Which is to say, it doesn't so require.<BR><BR>That doesn't stop certain Judges who are men and women with faults like anyone else from coming to the wrong conclusion and issuing edicts like the emperors of old.<BR><BR>Jim </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Have you ever actually read the first amendment?<BR><BR>Last I checked, it actually does require us to allow cigarette advertising and Nazi propaganda.<BR><BR>Furthermore it makes no distinction between children and adults. See in the old days, parents actually took care of their kids themselves.<BR><BR>It does not however require us to pull our heads out of our asses... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I believe you misunderstood his post. If I am correct he was saying that since children aren't forced to view Nazi propaganda and cigarette advertising it isn't the fault of said progaganda and advertising if they turn into chain-smoking minihitlers.

 

[dpowers]

Why is Arstechnica seeking Jack Thompson's opinion now, and giving him any airtime at all? This is not the first article where Ars looks to Thompson for comment.

 

[Alfonse]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That doesn't stop certain Judges who are men and women with faults like anyone else from coming to the wrong conclusion and issuing edicts like the emperors of old. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Certain judges?<BR><BR>If there were some out there who actually upheld this nonsense, then you might have a case. However, not one has. None.<BR><BR>This has to be the sixth or more kind of legislation of this fashion. And every single won has failed miserably on review. You'd think that, if the law had some legal basis to stand on, one of these judges would have upheld it.<BR><BR>If all learned persons come to the same conclusion on a subject in their field of expertise, it's a pretty good bet that they're right.

 

[Citrus538]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thaen:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Rather than incompetency on the part of the Louisiana Attorney General's office, the failure of this law is best attributed to the simple fact that it's a bad legislation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Not really sure what Ars is going for with their news articles, but this is blatant opinion. It happens to be popular opinion with most of the readership (including myself), but it's really not necessary and detracts from the newsworthiness of the whole report.<BR><BR>thaen </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Even though I oppose the legislation, I tend to agree that the writer is drawing their own conclusions from the facts. Normally this doesn't bother me, but this time the conclusions are presented as fact rather than opinion. : |

 

[Dogmeat]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Citrus538:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thaen:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Rather than incompetency on the part of the Louisiana Attorney General's office, the failure of this law is best attributed to the simple fact that it's a bad legislation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Not really sure what Ars is going for with their news articles, but this is blatant opinion. It happens to be popular opinion with most of the readership (including myself), but it's really not necessary and detracts from the newsworthiness of the whole report.<BR><BR>thaen </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Even though I oppose the legislation, I tend to agree that the writer is drawing their own conclusions from the facts. Normally this doesn't bother me, but this time the conclusions are presented as fact rather than opinion. : | </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>How is it not bad legislation? It was thrown out by the judge for a reason, he didn't just draw cards from a hat or something.

 

[Jim Stead]

I certainly have read the First Amendment. It is in plain English and not difficult to understand, and not too long even for those with short attention spans (the reference to speech is exactly one sentence long). Currently, today, both cigarette advertising and Nazi speech are curtailed one way or the other. Have you seen a Kool ad on TV recently? Could a teacher advocate Fascism to eight year olds?<BR><BR>We as a society are not required by the Constitution or anything else to make everything that is available to adults also available to children.<BR><BR>Jim

 

[LordHunter317]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jim Stead:<BR>I certainly have read the First Amendment. It is in plain English and not difficult to understand, and not too long even for those with short attention spans (the reference to speech is exactly one sentence long). Currently, today, both cigarette advertising and Nazi speech are curtailed one way or the other. Have you seen a Kool ad on TV recently? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The problem with this example is it was made with the cooperation of the industry being censored.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Could a teacher advocate Fascism to eight year olds? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>They could. In most districts, it would probably cost them their jobs, but that doesn't let you conclude what you're saying.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We as a society are not required by the Constitution or anything else to make everything that is available to adults also available to children. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You're confusing the ability to do something with the requirement to do something.

 

[Tweeker]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even though I oppose the legislation, I tend to agree that the writer is drawing their own conclusions from the facts. Normally this doesn't bother me, but this time the conclusions are presented as fact rather than opinion. : | </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Eric was not making a finding of fact, but a finding of law. -- View image here: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/forum/smilies/gavel.gif --

 

[Silicon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jim Stead:<BR>Currently, today, both cigarette advertising and Nazi speech are curtailed one way or the other. Have you seen a Kool ad on TV recently? Could a teacher advocate Fascism to eight year olds?<BR><BR>We as a society are not required by the Constitution or anything else to make everything that is available to adults also available to children.<BR><BR>Jim </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><I>Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....</I><BR><BR>Indeed, both cigarette advertising and Nazi speech are limited "one way or the other." However, the way they are limited is not a congressional law, as that would violate the first ammendment. In the case of television cigarette advertising, it is a voluntary industry-wide ban on advertising cigarettes. Did the government push for this? Yes. Is there a law saying that cigarette advertising is banned? No. Is it therefore a legal ban? Absolutely. Nazi speech, again, is not regulated by congress but by the community. Individual school districts decide whether or not the instructors can advocate fascism, not congress.<BR><BR>As to your other point... of course we aren't <I>required</I> to make everything available to adults available to children. Walmart has made the decision to not sell many games in its retail establishments without anyone trying to prosecute them for it. This is voluntary self-regulation. It <I>is</I>, however, illegal for congress to tell you that you can't encourage children to smoke, or convince them to become fascist Nazis, or that you can't read them <I>Huckleberry Finn</I>, or for Walmart sell them GTA.

 

[Bammer]

How many states is this now, to propose this legislation and get shot down. What's <I>the tally?</I> Has anybody formed a list of the states, because I would be interested in seeing it.

 

[fractal]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mrknobel:<BR>That is another for the good guys. I mean if a game is rated T or M it is the PARENTS responcibilty to monitor there childrens use of the game and the social problems (if any) that come from it. <BR><BR>IT IS NOT FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You ever tried to buy beer when you were 16?<BR><BR>Someone just told me that some judge threw out the helmet law because it failed to pass some test they thought up. It is amazing what some judges can think up. So now we can go back to filling up the care units with teen age brain-damaged vegetables in addition to filling the prisons with teen age psycopaths.

 

[hestermofet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dpowers:<BR>Why is Arstechnica seeking Jack Thompson's opinion now, and giving him any airtime at all? This is not the first article where Ars looks to Thompson for comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It's called journalism. You might not agree with what he says, but it's integral to covering the story to also cover what he says.

 

[PyroGod]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fractal:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mrknobel:<BR>That is another for the good guys. I mean if a game is rated T or M it is the PARENTS responcibilty to monitor there childrens use of the game and the social problems (if any) that come from it. <BR><BR>IT IS NOT FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You ever tried to buy beer when you were 16? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Do video games cause liver failure, brain damage, or are they involved with the majority of sexual assaults?<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Someone just told me that some judge threw out the helmet law because it failed to pass some test they thought up. It is amazing what some judges can think up. So now we can go back to filling up the care units with teen age brain-damaged vegetables in addition to filling the prisons with teen age psycopaths. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Better to die free than live in a prison.

 

[mrknobel]

Actually if I wanted a beer I would only have to ask my dad. The same went with shooting guns. However if I just went and got one myself with out asking I would not be able to sit down for a few days, denied the car, and not allowed to watch TV.<BR><BR>For me, if I can monitor what my son plays and make sure the "bad stuff" doen't turn him violent I don't see a problem with him playing it (that is until he starts fragging me more then I frag him)

 

[hestermofet]

Free from what? The ability to use a licensed vehicle on a public road without a helmet isn't an inalieable right.

 

[gwguy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hestermofet:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dpowers:<BR>Why is Arstechnica seeking Jack Thompson's opinion now, and giving him any airtime at all? This is not the first article where Ars looks to Thompson for comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It's called journalism. You might not agree with what he says, but it's integral to covering the story to also cover what he says. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This comes from the 'two sides to every story' school of journalism and it should be stamped out at every turn. Sometimes one side is represented by a looney and the other by a legitimate scientist/judge/expert. By giving both airtime it levels the playing field and makes it look as if they are collegues who are disputing about some minor point.<BR><BR>JT is not a credible source. He hasn't been a credible source for years and he seems to get his jollies off of press. Don't feed into him, don't give him the time of day. They're are probably legitimate people out there who have legitimate concerns about violence in video games with some research to back it up. I wouldn't know as the only voice ever given is given to JT.

 

[Octavus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fractal:<BR><BR>Someone just told me that some judge threw out the helmet law because it failed to pass some test they thought up. It is amazing what some judges can think up. So now we can go back to filling up the care units with teen age brain-damaged vegetables in addition to filling the prisons with teen age psycopaths. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>If I am not wearing a helmet when I ride a bike, how does that effect anyone else? I think all victimless laws are not right, even if they are constitutional, ratings laws I think fall in this category.

 

[Tweeker]

Its fine and dandy with me if you dont wont to wear your seatbelt or wear a helmet. I just dont want to be held liable for your death or injuries if I should happen to kill or hurt you in a accident with me at fault and you not bothered to protect yourself. Take the case of 17year old girl who lived across the street from me. While driving a van at 30mph with her mom in the rain, she killed a man not wearing his seatbelt after crossing the centerline on a turn with reverse camber where there had been fatal accidents before and since. The highway has since been modified. She was charged with vehicular homicide. Id rather both of us not fall to such a fate because of an action that should only effect you.

 

[Hellboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's called journalism. You might not agree with what he says, but it's integral to covering the story to also cover what he says. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No, it's called <B>lazy</B> journalism. Jack is willing to blather at anyone that will listen. We in the tech/gaming community have been complaining about him for years and I feel it's part of Ars' responsibility as a reasoned source of info to stop giving him a public forum for his spew.<BR><BR>Why no quote from, say, the Louisana Attorney General's office? Why call the law bad legislation when it is the responsibility of the reader to come to that conclusion? Lazy journalism.

 

[Eric]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dpowers:<BR>Why is Arstechnica seeking Jack Thompson's opinion now, and giving him any airtime at all? This is not the first article where Ars looks to Thompson for comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>In this case, he wrote the law. The last time we talked to him, it was when he was suing to see an advance copy of Bully.

 

[Lone Shepherd]

From the article:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Late yesterday, it became a preliminary injunction, as Judge Brady ruled (PDF) that the Entertainment Software Association "as a substantial likelihood of success of proving a First Amendment violation." </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I was going to say shouldn't that be "<B>has</B> a substantial likelihood", however when going to check the linked PDF, the text reads:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As previously noted, plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success of proving a First Amendment violation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So even if the intent was to write "has" not "as", if you're changing tense within a quote I believe the rule is to use brackets, ie "[has] a substantial likelihood" or whatever, right? The Ars quote should probably be re-worded as:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Late yesterday, it became a preliminary injunction, as Judge Brady ruled (PDF) that the Entertainment Software Association has "a substantial likelihood of success of proving a First Amendment violation." </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Or similar. Regardless, it currently doesn't read properly, and is not an accurate quote.

 

[Exelius]

Jack,<BR><BR>I know you think that your crusade "r teh most import4nt EVAR!!!!11one" but Louisiana might have bigger problems to deal with; like rebuilding infrastructure after the entire eastern half of the state was decimated by Katrina last year. It kind of figures that they wouldn't give a fuck about a law banning violent games when New Orleans basically is a real-life version of GTA. Louisiana just doesn't have the money to waste fighting your crusade.

 

[Exelius]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fractal:<BR>You ever tried to buy beer when you were 16?<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Yeah, and in my state it's a $10,000 fine split between the store and the store clerk for the first offense selling to a minor. Second offense in a year is $25,000 and you lose your liquor license. And they do frequent sting operations. I am well over 21 now, but it was really hard to get booze under 21 unless you had an of-age friend buy it for you.