Felonious Punk on 7/5/2002 at 13:06

---

The guy to really field this on the technical aspects of the law would be RBJ, but here goes:



Well, you could do that, although the state border is often really, really far away depending on where you live. It happens with much worse, like firearms: I used to live in a state (Virginia) that had very lax firearms laws, and people from states with very harsh firearms purchasing laws like New York and Connecticut, would often come down and purchase guns in VA, then transport them back home (by people I mean criminals, usually). The problem is, the law requires you to register the weapon with local authorities so if you follow the law in this case (which you won't), you could be cited with bringing weapons into the state illegaly (there is a statute against that, I believe). Otherwise, if you get caught with an unregistered firearm, you face prosecution for that crime.

In this case, it would not be illegal to own the games, but to sell to minors. So you could circumvent your state or local laws if you went somewhere else to buy the game where it was allowed. That's how it goes sometimes.

As far as I know, most laws are honored but it's not a blanket ruling covering everything. It's legal to visit prostitutes in Nevada, but it's not legal anywhere else, so johns must be on their guard outside of the Golden State. It's legal to get a civil union between homosexual partners in Vermont, but such an arrangement is not legally honored in other states. When you leave your state and go to another, the laws of that state apply and if you are in violation of them, being from out of state is no defense.



If you commit a crime in one state and flee to another and are apprehended, you will be extradited back to the state where you committed the crime to face trial. If you commit crimes that cross state borders, then the matter falls under Federal jurisdiction and you are tried in a Federal court.



Well, the US is obviously far more homogeneous than the EU, but there are still significant variations in attitudes, customs and beliefs in the regions of the US. The Federal arrangement, with the Federal government having specific powers, responsibilities and jurisdictions and everything else falling to the states, works well and does its bit to keep the country unified. People in San Francisco for example would run riot if they had to live under all the same laws as people in Mobile, Alabama do (and vice versa). I am a believer in decentralized power, and strong states are another check on the power of Washington. If we tried to run everything out of Washington, things would run much worse than they do now.

The issue of States' Rights is a perennial of American politics. It was a major issue in the Civil War, for example, and is still very current. It's something that needs to be kept in fine balance: sometimes Washington gets too arrogant and meddling for its own good, and concerted action by the states can keep it in check, but sometimes states can go too far, like say during the civil rights era of the 60s in the South, and the central government in Washington has to come in and get the locals in line.

An interesting recent example is the continuing legal action against Microsoft. After the Bush people got in power, the Federal government was ready to settle and let MS off. This didn't save MS, since many states had gotten together and filed their own actions against MS and continued the legal action though the Feds were going to bow out. Go states!

In any case, this is the sort of issue that states are best off deciding for themselves. IMO, of course, but it is also the sort of issue that usually is left to the states. These bills arise in Congress only when some member or another wants to grandstand and make it look like They Are Doing Something. Efficacy and consideration for federal/state arrangements are sadly mostly irrelevant these days in the eyes of some publicity mad congressman who cares only about his poll numbers. It's usually the courts that have to step in and restore some sense of sanity. This sort of thing is happening more and more these days, unfortunately.

I would think there would be practical problems enforcing this, too - this is the sort of thing that local and state authorities would police (policing local vendors). If it's a Federal offense, then Federal law enforcement must be involved and frankly there is more important things for them to do. Unless they want to create a Video Games Enforcement Agency. :rolleyes: :nono:

For a good, concise discussion of Federalism in the US, go here: (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_fedr.html)

henke on 7/5/2002 at 13:43

---

It realy sucks when game-companies slap those "rated m" tags on their games and then the store sells it to kids anyway and the parrents arent paying attention to what their kids are playing. And when that kid goes out and kills someone, who gets blamed? The parent who wasnt paying attention to their kid? The store-owner who broke the law? Hell no, the game-developer who never intended for that kid to play the game in the first place. :nono:

If this new law-thing will help keeping violent games away from minors, I'm all for it. However, it'll probably just increase piracy.

Agent Monkeysee on 7/5/2002 at 19:25

---

<i>Nothing</i> is getting banned. Christ almighty stop crying wolf.

Zaphod on 10/5/2002 at 22:09

---

The idea of "free speech," which is the say the First Amendment to the Constituation wouldn't really apply in this case. Technically, no one's restricting free speech. No one's saying that the game publisher's can't make the adult-themed games. Free speech only says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting expression. They can still MAKE the games, they just can't sell them to everyone. They're imposing restrictions on the consumer end, not the speaker's end.

Cebrus on 11/5/2002 at 15:47

---

Well at least i just turned 17