Guv to appeal
Monday, Dec 5, 2005 - Posted by Rich Miller
Not sure he’ll be too successful.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich vowed to appeal a federal judge’s ruling that shot down a new Illinois law banning the sale of violent or sexual video games to minors.
U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly ruled Friday that Illinois’ restrictions are unconstitutional and barred the state from enforcing the law. […]
“This battle is not over,” Blagojevich said in a statement. “Parents should be able to expect that their kids will not have access to excessively violent and sexually explicit video games without their permission.”
Actually, what the judge said was this:
“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.”
And this:
“At most, researchers have been able to show a correlation between playing violent video games and a slightly increased level of aggressive thoughts and behavior,†he wrote. “With these limited findings, it is impossible to know which way the causal relationship runs: it may be that aggressive children may also be attracted to violent video games.â€
- Get Real - Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 7:26 am:
“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.â€
Things the Illinois legislature think a 15 year old *is not* mature enough to do:
1. Buy a violent video game
Things the Illinois legislature think a 15 year old *is* mature enough to do:
1. Get an abortion without their parents knowing about it.
That is all.
NOTE: This post is not coming to any conclusions about the moral implications of an abortion. It is used merely to demonstrate the seemingly inconsistant views of the Illinois legislature when it comes to them dealing with the general population.
- Tessa - Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 8:27 am:
I just hate the thought that tax payer money is going to be used to fight this, and that the state is most likely going to lose. Look at the other states that lost (already tossed the weekend paper so I can’t remember them). There’s a record going against us here, and we (the state) can’t afford to go to court and fight something we can’t win.
This is so frustrating. Once again, if parents take an active roll in what their kids are doing, then the state doesn’t have to intercede in this. I pay attention to what my kid gets and what he plays on his PS2. I’m the one who buys the games and am with him when he wants to rent something. A little parental involvement in a kid’s life goes a long way.
The state doesn’t have the money to be going to court to fight this. California is in the same battle right now. Other states have lost. Makes no sense to me. Making sense, that’s the magic words.
- Anonymous - Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 9:13 am:
What I love is that he said that he’s now going to work with Hillary Clinton to try to pass the bill at the federal level. Will somebody please tell him that the same consititution applies to that law as well? And also tell him that the public sees through him like he was made of Saran Wrap.
- shelbyville - Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 10:38 am:
I am the one that supplies my teens with their spending money, the gameboys, TVs, etc. If they want to play a video game it is played in the living room and can be viewed by the entire family. It is up to me to be the final say on what is played in my house. The parents have the responsibility to supervise their children. I don’t need additional laws to do that.
- Anon - Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 11:06 am:
Well I had thought the way the Gov has been talking that this was already set in stone. I get so tired of hearing him talk about all his accomplishments that he has done adn so many of them arent actually active. His books for kids, this video game war, etc.
I for one agree with the other posters. I am the one that monitors my childs gaming and tv viewing. It is ultimately up to the parents to do this. Not have the govenrment rule what is appropriate for our kids.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 11:24 am:
The Illinois constitution does not mention that being our nanny is the role of the governor. For too long we have been seeing this governor act like a know-it-all meddler in our private affairs. He needs to bug-out and let freedom ring!
- zatoichi - Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 12:29 pm:
This whole issue seems like easy election PR buzz. “Look how much I care”. There are groups who will cheer his stand and scream how important this issue is. Ratings on CDs have not stopped explicit music from getting into 15 year old hands, just like I had no problem getting similar stuff when I was 15 many years ago. My father told me there was plenty of offensive material available when he was 15 and it was not hard to get.
Spend more time on serious issues. The Budget comes to mind. Keep the state’s fingers out of my home.
- Rod Blagojevich - Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 12:34 pm:
I hope that the same judge who issued the ruling on this case is not the same judge I face after I get indicted. Judge Kennelly aint no joke.
- meemunk - Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 6:21 pm:
VanillaMan, I guess you don’t want the government “meddling” and putting age restrictions on alchohol & tobacco, or deciding how old children should be before they can get a drivers license either. The same argument could be made that parents should make sure their kids don’t smoke, drink, or drive without a license. Parents can’t be everywhere. That said, no one argues that parents should be responsible for the behavior of their children. We are however a civilized society and as such are responsible for protecting the most vulnerable among us namely our children from things they are not mature enough to deal with.
- Norseman - Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 8:29 pm:
He’s not the one paying to keep his campaign brochure intact. The taxpayers have forked over $1 million to a consultant to try and salvage his mythical savings claims. Why shouldn’t the taxpayers pay a few hundred thousand dollars more for lawyers.
- Bobby Hicks - Monday, Dec 5, 05 @ 9:14 pm:
Tessa, we all know that you’re a disgruntled Democrat, we’ve heard the story a thousand times. If that’s the case, vote for Judy. We don’t care.
- Tessa - Tuesday, Dec 6, 05 @ 7:39 am:
Well, Bobby. I must have gotten to you, huh? I only spoke the truth. The state borrowed money to make the budget work, and now he wants to go to court to fight this battle that got lost in other states. Doesn’t make any sense to me. If you don’t like what I have to say, too bad.
Apparently I’m not the only one that feels this way.
This is a waster of taxpayer money, money that could and should be going to schools and better kids issues, the real important things for children under 18.
And thanks, but I can decide how to vote on my own.