Report: Override of Utah Guv's Game Bill Unlikely (but still possible)
Report: Override of Utah Guv's Game Bill Unlikely (but still possible)
April 5, 2009
An override of HB 353, the video game/movie bill vetoed recently by Gov. Jon Huntsman, seems unlikely, according to Utah's Deseret News.
Citing "legislative sources," the paper reports that a poll of lawmakers indicates that neither the Utah House nor the Senate have the two-thirds majority needed for an override session:
[Bill sponsor] Rep. Mike Morley... said he sent out a letter to his 74 House colleagues refuting some of the "misunderstandings" about his bill detailed in Huntsman's veto letter. Morley says his bill did not have constitutional problems.
Other than that, Morley said he has not tried to contact individual legislators seeking their support for an override session...
Senate President Michael Waddoups... said he believes he could get a two-thirds vote for an override, but if the House couldn't find two-thirds to override a vetoed bill sponsored by a House member (and both were), "we aren't going to go out on a limb if they don't want to do it."
The override deadline expires in May.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:20pm
DarkSaber: Although, unsurprisingly, he's just being called an idiot alot and criticised for being as illegible as always.
DarkSaber: Although, unsurprisingly, he's just being called an idiot alot and criticised for being as illegible as always.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:18pm
DarkSaber: Oh good lord, I just found Zippy on The Escapist.
DarkSaber: Oh good lord, I just found Zippy on The Escapist.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:14pm
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:13pm
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:09pm
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:07pm
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:02pm
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Posted 02/09/10 at 02:50pm
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
I think Rep Morley is the one that has misunderstood the constitutional problems with his bill.
Absolutely.
I still find it baffling that the people backing the bill can't follow the simple logic that if you introduce the opportunity for prosecution if people don't follow a voluntary system, people will just ditch the voluntary system.
Rep. Morley's crying over the veto just as much as Thompson has.
Speaking of the veto, Sean Bersell of the EMA has a letter in the Salt Lake Tribune praising Gov. Huntsman for the veto:
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_12066147
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.
Morely should be crying more than Thompson has been crying. Morely risked his good reputation and credibility by introducing HB353 and lost some of both. Thompson had very little good reputation or credibility left to lose.
I would like to read Morley's letter. I want to know how is he explaining his bill is constitutional. He should also be adressing how retailers will keep a voluntary system leaving them open to frivolous lawsuit instead of droping tools helpful to parents.
I'm not an expert or anything, but last time I checked the bill was constitutional. It's stupid, won't work, and will cause many retailers to ignore the ERSB system, but I don't recall it being unconstitutional. Though I could be wrong.
---
I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"
Well I'm not an expert but I am going with Grover Norquist's opinion that "Beyond the obvious First Amendment violation this bill presents and the dubious nature of making legally binding voluntary industry ratings, H.B. 353 violates the Dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution as well..."
Or with Attorney General Shurtleff's opinion that "This year’s bill had concerns. They weren’t as significant as they were two years ago, or three years ago, whenever it was because there hadn’t been all the court decisions on it".
Ultimately, I think a court of law would have made the decision if it was constitutional or not, not representative Morley.
I'll bet you Morely pulled a Jack Thompson: "Clearly my bill isn't unconstitutional because . . . well, it just isn't."
If it was constitutional, it would be completely useless.
Morley introduced the bill with the idea of the game industry being 94% effective at restricting the sale of M-rated games to minors (excuse me, "those below the recommended age rating"). He just wanted to target that other six percent.
Problem: Morley had this idea that 94% of retailers NEVER sell M-rated games to kids, while the other 6% blatently do. That's not how it is. The average retail is 94% effective, and then slip up occasionally; like when the dumb temp they hire during the Holidays forgets to ask for ID.
Morley claimed he put in "safe harbors" for those times, effectively bringing up the impunity for the bill from 94% to 100%. The bill would be completely useless. Everyone would either be competely impuned. Unless those safe harbors didn't work; then everyone who wasn't 100% (and who's perfect?) would get their ass handed to them legally.
In short: the bill would either impune or punish everyone.
im not from the united states of america but as far as ive been able to dig up is that regardless of good intent this bill is a legal no-no because it puts the force of law behind a private group (yes the ESRB is not a branch the government) although i may be wrong about that
also it has a chilling effect if unopposed because no buisness wants to be open for someone to legal abuse (there are people that abuse the handycap laws in place *see penn & teller's bullshit: handycapped parking its season 5 episode 7) so any games retailer would refuse to sell ESRB rated games (although i wonder what games would look like if they didnt hand them to the esrb for rating) and now since retailers arnt selling rated games developers would stop seeking a rating for a game they wish to publish. then theres a whole new can of worms
UNACCEPTABLE!
INCONCEIVABLE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's someone we know that would gladly keep using that word. But I don't think it means what he think it means (like many things, by the way).
Hah, very good!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone we know sure doesn't look very happy, no?
A few months earlier, he was all "We're gonna make the entire industry pisssssssssss in their pantssss!"
Also, according to kotaku, it would cost them about $25,000 to veto it because of a canceld "Interim Study Day" or whatever that is.
Probably best to go read it on the site then trust my word.
Looks like no one wants to override only to then have the law overturned in court and listen to Gov. Huntsman and A.G. Shurtleff chiming, "I told you so."
Actually, the real concern is they want to know they'll win the override vote for sure. They don't want to call the session, throwing away $25k and then find out they lost the vote. From what I'm gathering, it seems most are pretty lazy about wanting to vote on the two bills that were vetoed.
Get the feeling that Mr Morley is being pressured by the Eagle Forum who have been oddly quiet about all this after their lead-up.
Bet jackie is frothing a bit at the mouth though. Pity.
so, is this a win?
---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
Jack Thompson trying and attempting to get the veto overrides with his so-called "evidence" in 3...2...1
http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr16/DF-Naphtali/1212267986159_jpg_ro...
Someone should send Jack the pic linked above. Not posting the pic itself here since I know it'll get snipped. View at your own risk, though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the over ride doesn't happen, then they best start posting false fax numbers.
Yes, the real fax numbers must be hidden. Remember the Great Fax Machine Slaughter in Alabama, and the brave fax machines that gave their lives to protect us from one man's mania. It must not be repeated!!!
So May will be the telling month.
I will just let it be then and wait to see what happens before I post on this subject then.
No boubt that will give the Eagle forum enough time to lie about this bill though the TV stations.
But I have a feeling that nobody is willing to listen if the A.G. had already vetoed it and when there is a large number of parents who want the ESRB ratings to be displayed in the stores.
Looks like Morley might not get the 2/3 votes he needs to veto it, good thing too.
http://www.magicinkgaming.com/
I still find it baffling that the people backing the bill can't follow the simple logic that if you introduce the opportunity for prosecution if people don't follow a voluntary system, people will just ditch the voluntary system.
sac ekimi estetik arac kiralama rent a car oto kiralama yuz estetigi Smartlipo lazerlipoliz evden eve nakliyat burun estetigi burun estetigi