18.
 
Re: No subject
May 27, 2005, 08:40
18.
Re: No subject May 27, 2005, 08:40
May 27, 2005, 08:40
 
I think your faith in this "myriad of other laws" is somewhat unwarranted. Especially since this particular brand of law is pretty new, so assuming there's a precedent that they'll be struck down isn't really accurate. If you've got examples, fine. The best chance is that the ESA will force them to prove casuality. And it's not a great chance.

And this bill has many problems which could impact outside of "johnny can't play doom", as I list on my blog. For one thing, it lists violent games as harmful to minors and a potential cause of violence. This is precisely what guys like Jack Thompson need to start winning cases against Rockstar. The bill legislates casuality that science has yet to prove.

And then of course, there's this little thing called the Internet. If you were a small developer and trying to sell your game online, you're going to have to start thinking twice about it next week - because if you sell to some kid in Illinois you might get a lawsuit on your doorstep.

Mostly though, this bill shows that gamers need to be a bit more political. I know that sounds nasty and it might require a cold shower afterwards, but the Illinois Assembly walked all over anyone opposing this bill by threatening to flyer them to death saying they support violent behavior in kids. Who was there to raise an opposition? Nobody but crickets.

Date
Subject
Author
2.
May 25, 2005May 25 2005
3.
May 25, 2005May 25 2005
4.
May 25, 2005May 25 2005
5.
May 25, 2005May 25 2005
6.
May 25, 2005May 25 2005
7.
May 25, 2005May 25 2005
8.
May 25, 2005May 25 2005
9.
May 25, 2005May 25 2005
10.
May 25, 2005May 25 2005
11.
May 25, 2005May 25 2005
13.
May 26, 2005May 26 2005
12.
May 26, 2005May 26 2005
14.
May 26, 2005May 26 2005
15.
May 26, 2005May 26 2005
16.
May 26, 2005May 26 2005
17.
May 27, 2005May 27 2005
 18.
May 27, 2005May 27 2005
     Re: No subject
19.
May 27, 2005May 27 2005
      Re: No subject