February 2, 2007
It has been a wild ride in the Utah legislature of late as the House Public Utilities and Technology Committee gave consideration to HB50, video game legislation authored by Jack Thompson.During the bill's short but turbulent existence, the controversial anti-game attorney directed harsh criticism at Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who offered a legal opinion that the measure was unconstitutional.
An editorial in the Provo Daily Herald congratulates the Utah House on distancing itslef from HB50 in favor of a resolution on the violent game issue proposed by Rep. Kay McIff (left). Here's what the newspaper had to say:
Common sense is finally prevailing in the violent video game debate on Capitol Hill... (Rep.) McIff proposes to replace House Bill 50 with a resolution condemning video game violence.
A resolution, which carries no legal weight but makes a philosophical statement, avoids the risk of a lawsuit and allows (bill sponsor Rep. Scott) Wyatt to save face...
Better preliminary research and smarter bill writing at the front end of the legislative process would save valuable time. We'd like to see several lawmakers engage in a little more consultation and exercise a little more discipline in the bills they choose to introduce. New laws are not the answer to every little problem.
Comments
HB148 (aka the "abandon a sinking ship incentive program") would allow parents to spend public money on private school tuition. This despite (or because of) the fact that Utah is dead last in public school funding in the nation.
HB104 Would make all "gambling-like activities" illegal in bars and pubs, even if no actual gambling takes place. Church fund raisers however, would be exempt. This bill sends a clear message, if you want to play cards or bingo in Utah, get ye to the house of god.
HB236 Is aimed at eliminating gay-straight alliance clubs in high schools. It would reject clubs deemed to violate the "moral well-being" of students or that "involve human sexuality".
HB202 The "Ritalin bill" would make it illegal for teachers to require a student to take "psychotropic" drugs, or remove a child from parental custody for failure to take said drugs. As far as anyone knows, this has never happened, and is already forbidden by school district rules. But that is not enough to satisfy sponsors of the bill that their children will not tied to a desk and forced to drop R, then stolen by the courts to be raised by their god-hating, drug-taking, gay-loving, gambling-addicted, videogame-playing educators.
Wow, those bills are frickin' crazy. In a bad way i mean. Essecially that last one.
Ahahhaha. Touche.
You are referring to Luke 6:42
now mind you i'm aware this is better then then passing house bill 50, having it shot down in court and spending more money to pay the legal bills, but my question is whats the point of the resolution?
They really need to get over themselves."
@ GoodRobotUs
The funny part is, JT said the same thing about the youth in that article a while back. I do believe there's something in the Bible to the effect of "Quit judging other people's problems when you have exactly the same problem anyway." Something about a splinter in the eye versus an entire beam in the eye.
They really need to get over themselves.
Wow, I've been saying that for a while and I'm sort of shocked that they figured it out. Seriously, lawmakers need to get in some more consultation time with constitutionalists and researchers instead of listening to JT pop off about the ills of the video game world.
So bravo Utah! You get a gold star by your name!
All things considered, it's a much better waste of time and money than passing an unconstitutional law. Granted, they could be spending the time and money on more important and productive things, but these are politicians after all.
Still, it must be better than the proposed bill brought to Utah by Jack Thompson. Oh, I'm sure HE'S smiling about it.....^_^
Thanks for wating our time and money again, Jack. Next up, Massachusetts. ::Gets out the popcorn::
To anyone more law-savvy than I: Could a new anti-game bill refer back on a resolution as evidence that violent games are bad? Or is it really as useless as it seems at first glance?
That's my thoughts exactly. We don't need to legislate every aspect of life esspecially when there was no problem to being with.
I keep seeing this matter play out like the communication decency act.