I wonder if that underling of Satan will post here again.
Making fun of the Saint Patrick's festives? You're making fun the Saint of God and you can be sure that you will be punished for your wickedness in the judgement day.
I hope God will have mercy on your son, because you are corrupting your son to go to your wicked paths.
Since she signed the bill, that means that it had to go through the state legislature, right? Is there somewhere where we could see who voted what on that bill? (I'm mostly just curious as to how my reps in Lansing voted...)
( Senator Brater, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No.416.
Senator Brater's statement is as follows:
While I applaud the sponsor of Senate Bill No.416 for attempting to address the problem of youth violence, I did not support this bill due to concerns I have about the legality of this proposal. I am concerned that by restricting the sale and purchase of violent video games, this proposal will be considered a content-based regulation of speech, which violates the First Amendment of the Constitution.
I intend to work with my colleagues to continue our efforts to address the problem of youth violence, but I voted "no" on this bill since I believe it will not survive judicial review. ) - From here
Course, the part right after that is someone saying that violent video games create violence...
i just read that, and have come to the conclusion politicians are idiots.... well the ones pushing this legislation.... From Senator Cropsey's statements in the above link.
We have looked especially at the latest case law on this, and we believe we have found the way in which we can write a constitutional law.
So they copied a law from Illinois which was injunctioned because it was likely unconstitutional. Later it was ruled unconstitutional
As promised, the Judiciary Committee has done its homework. We have exercised due diligence.
Obviously not that much as you didn't get many dissenting opinions on the research, and you're law was injuctioned.
Courts have regularly concluded that the physical and psychological well-being of youth is a compelling governmental interest, but the difficulty has been in demonstrating necessity or narrow tailoring.No the difficulty comes in that you're violating the first amendment, without showing a definitive need. The science you are quoting is biased and flawed. Two of your studies are
( ... )
courts determination of harmjabrwockMarch 22 2006, 16:06:11 UTC
Courts have regularly concluded that the physical and psychological well-being of youth is a compelling governmental interest, but the difficulty has been in demonstrating necessity or narrow tailoring.
Tsk, tsk. What the difficulty has been is convincing the court that the physical and psychological well-being of youth is at risk at all. Most judges are getting pissed off that "proof" has come in the form of statistics, or honking horn studies...
Never know...gamepoliticsMarch 22 2006, 23:10:29 UTC
The federal judge in Illinois issued the preliminary & permanent injunction on the same day! He didn't like what he saw and he said so.
Judge Steeh here has had several months to look this over. Sources in the know tell me the options are as I laid them out. (i.e. - might get a ruling today, might not).
Comments 155
Making fun of the Saint Patrick's festives? You're making fun the Saint of God and you can be sure that you will be punished for your wickedness in the judgement day.
I hope God will have mercy on your son, because you are corrupting your son to go to your wicked paths.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
This one is dead, then it's on to cali. Then, once that law is dead, I think alabama will be very short lived. Don't you agree GP faithful.
Anyway, great news dennis, thanks.
Reply
Reply
Senator Brater's statement is as follows:
While I applaud the sponsor of Senate Bill No.416 for attempting to address the problem of youth violence, I did not support this bill due to concerns I have about the legality of this proposal. I am concerned that by restricting the sale and purchase of violent video games, this proposal will be considered a content-based regulation of speech, which violates the First Amendment of the Constitution.
I intend to work with my colleagues to continue our efforts to address the problem of youth violence, but I voted "no" on this bill since I believe it will not survive judicial review. ) - From here
Course, the part right after that is someone saying that violent video games create violence...
Reply
From Senator Cropsey's statements in the above link.
We have looked especially at the latest case law on this, and we believe we have found the way in which we can write a constitutional law.
So they copied a law from Illinois which was injunctioned because it was likely unconstitutional. Later it was ruled unconstitutional
As promised, the Judiciary Committee has done its homework. We have exercised due diligence.
Obviously not that much as you didn't get many dissenting opinions on the research, and you're law was injuctioned.
Courts have regularly concluded that the physical and psychological well-being of youth is a compelling governmental interest, but the difficulty has been in demonstrating necessity or narrow tailoring.No the difficulty comes in that you're violating the first amendment, without showing a definitive need. The science you are quoting is biased and flawed. Two of your studies are ( ... )
Reply
Tsk, tsk. What the difficulty has been is convincing the court that the physical and psychological well-being of youth is at risk at all. Most judges are getting pissed off that "proof" has come in the form of statistics, or honking horn studies...
Reply
Reply
Judge Steeh here has had several months to look this over. Sources in the know tell me the options are as I laid them out. (i.e. - might get a ruling today, might not).
Reply
http://tollwutig.livejournal.com/2265.html
Let the judge read it over lunch, he'd rule this afternoon and the Michigan bill would be gone.
Reply
Leave a comment