A Stitch in Haste

As I have noted repeatedly on this blog, every single effort to regulate the sale of video games to minors has (correctly) been struck down by courts. Every single time.

Which of course is not stopping New York's activist governor, Eliot Spitzer from reinventing this broken wheel:

Spitzer said he wants to restrict access to these videos and games by children, similar to motion picture regulations which prohibit youths under 17 from being admitted to R-rated movies without a parent or adult guardian.

Under Spitzer's proposal, retailers who sell violent or degrading videos or video games to children contrary to the rating would be sanctioned.

One more time: the terms "violent" and "degrading" are unconstitutionally vague. Moreover, the proposed framework invariably concocted for these First Amendment infringements -- the "community standards test" of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), cannot be applied to video games -- which always have some non-prurient merit. Miller applies -- and only applies -- to hard-core, XXX-rated pornography. Any and all attempts to extend it to any other form of speech or expressive conduct is impermissible.

(Via slashdot.)

---

Meanwhile, as if Spitzer needed yet another case study:

The act which this court found unconstitutional passed through committees in both the State House and Senate, and to be promptly signed by the Governor.

There are lawyers at each stage of this process. Some of the members of these committees are themselves lawyers. Presumably, they have staff members who are attorneys as well. The State House and Senate certainly have staff members who are attorneys. The governor has additional attorneys -- the executive counsel.

Prior to the passage of the Act there were a number of reported cases from a number of jurisdictions which held similar statutes to be unconstitutional (and in which the defendant was ordered to pay substantial attorney's fees). The Court wonders why nobody objected to the enactment of this statute. In this court's view the taxpayers deserve more from their elected officials.

The state in question is Louisiana -- which had its own recent run-in with an unconstitutional video game restriction. The issue is whether the state, thanks to all its activist politicians, must burden its taxpayers with the attorney fees and court costs of the litigation that resulted in the law being struck down. The answer is "yes" -- $92,000.

The judge's sentiments mirror mine, from August 2006:

Were the hack Louisiana legislators and the hack Louisiana governor just incompetent or wilfully insolent when they enacted this law, which any second-year law student could have told them never stood a chance of being upheld. This one just wasn't difficult -- and they passed it anyway.

The judge is -- his term -- "dumbfounded" that such a patently impermissible law could have been passed. I'm not dumbfounded by such antics. Not anymore.

I wonder how dumbfounded Spitzer will be if he has his activist way, only to be smacked down by the courts. Stay tuned.

(Via techdirt.)