The Illinois Law and Indies
by Joshua "RegularX" Birk · in General Discussion · 05/29/2005 (1:53 pm) · 33 replies
I ended up writing a lot about the upcoming Illinois Law which bans the sale of violent and/or sexual video games to minors on my blog last week.
One thing I noted was that the law is pretty vague about what constitutes a retailer. Technically, it seems like anyone who sells a video game to a minor in Illinois could be effected, and there's nothing to protect online retailers. So if you sell your game online, and your game is violent in nature (particularly if it's not rated under the ESRB), you might fall under the law.
And of course, who relies heavily on downloadable products? Independants.
cathodetan.blogspot.com/2005/05/demuzio-mods-and-indies-in-trouble.html
One thing I noted was that the law is pretty vague about what constitutes a retailer. Technically, it seems like anyone who sells a video game to a minor in Illinois could be effected, and there's nothing to protect online retailers. So if you sell your game online, and your game is violent in nature (particularly if it's not rated under the ESRB), you might fall under the law.
And of course, who relies heavily on downloadable products? Independants.
cathodetan.blogspot.com/2005/05/demuzio-mods-and-indies-in-trouble.html
About the author
#22
If someone forgets to stamp a game or put up the correctly fonted sign, then it's not the parent's fault. And damn, if some poor clerk forgets to check the ID of some 17 year old kid buying Halo 2
Those would likely be rare occurances and rightful to a law suit. One the other hand every other case where the parent purchases a game for their kid that the kid asked for since they couldn't buy forces them to take responsibility for it. Especially considering the far majority of t he labels will be correct and the far majority of the employees will card (if its enforced).
True it may incite a few cases of that, but in the overall pictures in invalidates an excuse parent's use as a crutch on, the ratio of those rare mistakes vs not aren't really even comparable
I respectfully disagree... On the same token rated R movies that require an ID at the theatre would fall under the same category, as well as anything else that is restricted, like gambling.
This just adds another barrier between a minor purchasing a violent game. If anything game companies brought this upon themselves, they had to know something like this was coming with all the extreme games out there. In fact with games like BMX XXX and DOA Volleyball it just validates that there really are some games that minors shouldn't get there hands on. This just enforces it moreso.
06/03/2005 (1:20 pm)
True, but If someone forgets to stamp a game or put up the correctly fonted sign, then it's not the parent's fault. And damn, if some poor clerk forgets to check the ID of some 17 year old kid buying Halo 2
Those would likely be rare occurances and rightful to a law suit. One the other hand every other case where the parent purchases a game for their kid that the kid asked for since they couldn't buy forces them to take responsibility for it. Especially considering the far majority of t he labels will be correct and the far majority of the employees will card (if its enforced).
True it may incite a few cases of that, but in the overall pictures in invalidates an excuse parent's use as a crutch on, the ratio of those rare mistakes vs not aren't really even comparable
Quote:Worse, though, is the link of casuality that this places. This law affirms that video games lead to violence in society and that Congress has a right to watch out for public safety. That's just the kind of law that carrion like Jack Thompson needs to win a case against Rockstar when some kid blames his Playstation for sniping his neighbor's head.
I respectfully disagree... On the same token rated R movies that require an ID at the theatre would fall under the same category, as well as anything else that is restricted, like gambling.
This just adds another barrier between a minor purchasing a violent game. If anything game companies brought this upon themselves, they had to know something like this was coming with all the extreme games out there. In fact with games like BMX XXX and DOA Volleyball it just validates that there really are some games that minors shouldn't get there hands on. This just enforces it moreso.
#23
Some clerk fails to stamp GTA:SA, but the parent fails to notice that the game is all about a life of crime AND rated mature ... and it's the clerk who is being criminal?
How about some neglect charges for these parents?
As for the games = R movies ... you need to read the law. The findings section clearly ties video games to violence. That's not true for porn or movies. I'm not familiar with how gambling is worded, but this is worded as "don't sell violent games to kids or it will cause violence itself". So if that clerk sold a kid TimeSplitters, and that kid goes out and commits a violent act ... the law specifically says that the clerk probably contributed to that act.
And as for adding another barrier ... once again - I've not found a single person able to point to anything which indicates we need such a barrier. There's no studies on lung cancer like there has been for smoking, or highway safety studies for helmet or seat belt laws ... even the most ardent proponent of reducing violent materials to children admit that it's not a sole or overwhelming factor in later violent behavior. This law mentions none of that.
Instead, it states the rationale as:
The State has a compelling interest in preventing violent, aggressive, and asocial behavior.
The State has a compelling interest in preventing psychological harm to minors who play violent video games.
The State has a compelling interest in eliminating any societal factors that may inhibit the physiological and neurological development of its youth.
Now, let's look at the pornographic section of the same law:
The General Assembly finds sexually explicit video games inappropriate for minors and that the State has a compelling interest in assisting parents in protecting their minor children from sexually explicit video games.
That's it. None of the same kind of language exists. There's no connection between say, pornographic material and sexually assaulting someone. There would be, however, a connection between violent material and assault someone. Precisely the kind of backdoor precedent some lawyers are looking for.
Now, do you really want Illinois lawmakers to put on the books that video games will cause neurological harm to a child and make them prone to violence?
06/03/2005 (1:40 pm)
Sorry, if there's a 10 year old in Gamestop with $50 in his pocket, alone, and he ends up buying TimeSplitters ... OK - why is a 10 year old in a store alone with $50 and how is that some clerk's fault to the tune of $5,000? And the parent is blameless? Or if some clerk thought a 17yo looked 20, that's a mistake which should cost him a whole season's paycheck? You honestly think that's fair?Some clerk fails to stamp GTA:SA, but the parent fails to notice that the game is all about a life of crime AND rated mature ... and it's the clerk who is being criminal?
How about some neglect charges for these parents?
As for the games = R movies ... you need to read the law. The findings section clearly ties video games to violence. That's not true for porn or movies. I'm not familiar with how gambling is worded, but this is worded as "don't sell violent games to kids or it will cause violence itself". So if that clerk sold a kid TimeSplitters, and that kid goes out and commits a violent act ... the law specifically says that the clerk probably contributed to that act.
And as for adding another barrier ... once again - I've not found a single person able to point to anything which indicates we need such a barrier. There's no studies on lung cancer like there has been for smoking, or highway safety studies for helmet or seat belt laws ... even the most ardent proponent of reducing violent materials to children admit that it's not a sole or overwhelming factor in later violent behavior. This law mentions none of that.
Instead, it states the rationale as:
The State has a compelling interest in preventing violent, aggressive, and asocial behavior.
The State has a compelling interest in preventing psychological harm to minors who play violent video games.
The State has a compelling interest in eliminating any societal factors that may inhibit the physiological and neurological development of its youth.
Now, let's look at the pornographic section of the same law:
The General Assembly finds sexually explicit video games inappropriate for minors and that the State has a compelling interest in assisting parents in protecting their minor children from sexually explicit video games.
That's it. None of the same kind of language exists. There's no connection between say, pornographic material and sexually assaulting someone. There would be, however, a connection between violent material and assault someone. Precisely the kind of backdoor precedent some lawyers are looking for.
Now, do you really want Illinois lawmakers to put on the books that video games will cause neurological harm to a child and make them prone to violence?
#24
With our society these days that really isn't uncommon... at least here in Phoenix, AZ where I live... more likely 12-14 or so though. Plus many games these days are not $50, even some of the newer PC games come out at $30 or $40... I can hit up Blockbuster and pick up GTA III Vice City for $10-$15 used even, so $50 isn't the best value... a kid with $10 - $15 is not unrealstic at all, in a blockbuster or gamestop.
If the law states he can't sell it to the kid and he does then hes breaking the law, plain and simple, thats why hes to blame, neglect, lack of caring, laziness, *shrug*, just like selling minor's lottery tickets.
Honestly you are exagerting a bit here... my whole point is the parent would be to blame since they would be the would buying it for the kid, if the kid can't buy it then its much more likely that the parent could argue that the kid did, so the parent would have to answer for it... are you arguing against my statement or some other one, it doesn't seem like you gathered what I am hitting at ? no offense, just you are arguing different points than I've stated.
just the same as if they let a minor buy a lottery ticket and didn't card them. Really not that hard to card them.
well for one in our judicial system they are rarely any absolutes... under a request I'm sure they can investigate the situation and if the clerk wasn't foundt o blame they would probably drop the charges.
It doesn't word it quite like that in this law, thats a bit of word manipulation.
... of course R movies can be linked with violence, look up any movie website or listing...
from movietickets.com
in a structures argument you use quotes from the context of either it or in this case me if your are arguing my statements and you reply to it, you usually don't make generalizations.
It doesnt say violent games will make kids commit violent crimes, it just is putting a barrier up to prevent that... in any case this means the kids will be more prone to use their parents buying their games vs them.... which obviously means the parents would be at blame instead of the kid, if the kid gets blamed then the blame mighty shift to the game, but instead this law make it more likely to shift to the parent...
06/03/2005 (2:04 pm)
Quote: OK - why is a 10 year old in a store alone with $50
With our society these days that really isn't uncommon... at least here in Phoenix, AZ where I live... more likely 12-14 or so though. Plus many games these days are not $50, even some of the newer PC games come out at $30 or $40... I can hit up Blockbuster and pick up GTA III Vice City for $10-$15 used even, so $50 isn't the best value... a kid with $10 - $15 is not unrealstic at all, in a blockbuster or gamestop.
Quote:how is that some clerk's fault to the tune of $5,000?
If the law states he can't sell it to the kid and he does then hes breaking the law, plain and simple, thats why hes to blame, neglect, lack of caring, laziness, *shrug*, just like selling minor's lottery tickets.
Quote:And the parent is blameless?
Honestly you are exagerting a bit here... my whole point is the parent would be to blame since they would be the would buying it for the kid, if the kid can't buy it then its much more likely that the parent could argue that the kid did, so the parent would have to answer for it... are you arguing against my statement or some other one, it doesn't seem like you gathered what I am hitting at ? no offense, just you are arguing different points than I've stated.
Quote:Or if some clerk thought a 17yo looked 20, that's a mistake which should cost him a whole season's paycheck?
just the same as if they let a minor buy a lottery ticket and didn't card them. Really not that hard to card them.
Quote: the law specifically says that the clerk probably contributed to that act.
well for one in our judicial system they are rarely any absolutes... under a request I'm sure they can investigate the situation and if the clerk wasn't foundt o blame they would probably drop the charges.
Quote:"don't sell violent games to kids or it will cause violence itself".
It doesn't word it quite like that in this law, thats a bit of word manipulation.
Quote:you need to read the law. The findings section clearly ties video games to violence. That's not true for porn or movies.
... of course R movies can be linked with violence, look up any movie website or listing...
from movietickets.com
Quote:(R ), for strong violent content, language and some sexuality/nudity
Quote:the law specifically says that the clerk probably contributed to that act.
in a structures argument you use quotes from the context of either it or in this case me if your are arguing my statements and you reply to it, you usually don't make generalizations.
It doesnt say violent games will make kids commit violent crimes, it just is putting a barrier up to prevent that... in any case this means the kids will be more prone to use their parents buying their games vs them.... which obviously means the parents would be at blame instead of the kid, if the kid gets blamed then the blame mighty shift to the game, but instead this law make it more likely to shift to the parent...
#25
Even the pornography clause quoted above is much more strict and leading than the standard "obscenity" definition in most states.
06/03/2005 (2:46 pm)
I have to side with Joshua on this one--that law is ripe for reverse-precedent lawsuits, and ultimately, it's laws like this that is going to make game development next to impossible for indies: because once those precedents are set, you'll need to get malpractice insurance just to release a game that has anything that could even indirectly lead to induced violence.Even the pornography clause quoted above is much more strict and leading than the standard "obscenity" definition in most states.
#26
I get that, but you'll never get a law to prosecute a parent like that. And since Best Buy is now responsible for educating the parent on what to buy, who would blame the parent for buying their kid the wrong thing anyway? Clearly the problem is the label isn't big enough, not that the parents are negligent. This places the retailer as the centerpiece of educating, not the parents (or even the state).
So even if the parent doesn't sue the retailers, they can just go back to Congress and say they need a bigger sign and more labels - because they're clearly incapable of finding the information anyplace but the counter.
It doesnt say violent games will make kids commit violent crimes
What would you say "more likely to: Exhibit violent, asocial, or aggressive behavior. Experience feelings of aggression. Experience a reduction of activity in the frontal lobes of the brain which is responsible for controlling behavior." means then? Because that's what it says. To me, that's a pretty concise statement that violent video games makes for violent, out of control children. The last one even sounds like it removes some of the blame on the child and places it on the video game. This law sets up an adolescent sniper to be a "victim of Playstation".
Sorry Matt, but I don't see how any comparison to movies works here. Show me legal text that says that R rated movies makes kids more prone to violence and less capable of using their brains and maybe I can agree.
06/03/2005 (3:18 pm)
Honestly you are exagerting a bit here... my whole point is the parent would be to blame since they would be the would buying it for the kid, if the kid can't buy it then its much more likely that the parent could argue that the kid did, so the parent would have to answer for it... are you arguing against my statement or some other one, it doesn't seem like you gathered what I am hitting at ? no offense, just you are arguing different points than I've stated.I get that, but you'll never get a law to prosecute a parent like that. And since Best Buy is now responsible for educating the parent on what to buy, who would blame the parent for buying their kid the wrong thing anyway? Clearly the problem is the label isn't big enough, not that the parents are negligent. This places the retailer as the centerpiece of educating, not the parents (or even the state).
So even if the parent doesn't sue the retailers, they can just go back to Congress and say they need a bigger sign and more labels - because they're clearly incapable of finding the information anyplace but the counter.
It doesnt say violent games will make kids commit violent crimes
What would you say "more likely to: Exhibit violent, asocial, or aggressive behavior. Experience feelings of aggression. Experience a reduction of activity in the frontal lobes of the brain which is responsible for controlling behavior." means then? Because that's what it says. To me, that's a pretty concise statement that violent video games makes for violent, out of control children. The last one even sounds like it removes some of the blame on the child and places it on the video game. This law sets up an adolescent sniper to be a "victim of Playstation".
Sorry Matt, but I don't see how any comparison to movies works here. Show me legal text that says that R rated movies makes kids more prone to violence and less capable of using their brains and maybe I can agree.
#27
ou re-worded it then quoted it... the quote is different then how you word it, its a list of 'passive' statements
"The State has a compelling interest in preventing violent, aggressive, and asocial behavior."
you are stating an agressive statements, so I just think you were misrepresentin the law somewhat.
A similar thing happened in the music industry in the past with labels and the group of mothers joining together. I think labels are good... games already have ratings... right now its up to parent's to monitor what their children play and up to them to check the ratings.
"Best Buy is now responsible for educating the parent on what to buy"
There already is a rating system, much like movies, and most other media, its there for warning and in some cases restriction.
I think the biggest weakness of this law is that it doesn't specify enough... I agree with your initial statements that they didn't specify enough clauses in case of internet sales... if Gonzo's example of asking for a date of birth is legit enough to be withheld by this law then I don't see how it would be bad. If a kid does something, they trace it to the game, they go to your website, you clearly ask for date of birth, warn against minors, and won't allow people who claim to be minors denied from buying those games then I think you would be perfectly safe.
On the other hand, if something like Gonzo's suggestion wasn't legit enough then I can forsee what you are mentioning, lawsuits etc.
Personally I think if it were modified and made to be a little more specific, clearly outlining what terms must be met to verify age (and if it were reasonable, like a warning etc) then I'd be all for it.
Sure there would be lawsuits when Best Buy slips up on a label (but then again theres a rating right there on the game box too), I mean if the law were modified appropriately I would think they would just require the person at the register to just remind the parent to check the rating... something simple like that I think is good.
Just as much as this can p ush the blame on a store if they screw up it can push the blame off the store if they do things right (and if the law specified correctly). I mean say a kid did something and it was cofirmed that the rating on the game was accurate and that the store did warn them, then they couldn't blame the store and it would come down to who got the game to them.
I don't think games make kids violent, but I think its a reality that there are kids out there waiting to find things to feed their violence, whether its T.V., movies, games etc... in some cases I don't think a kid should play certain games, in fact I think some games out there are just pointless violence and I think those should be kept out of the hands of certain kids... Unfortunately you can't have a person at every store that evaluates every kid and whether they can play it... and while parents are slacking (I do think a lot of it is paren't negligence, I think the ratings on games are obvious enough for a parent looking) its going to happen, so I think this could offer a way for stores to ensure they wouldn't be blamed for selling "violent games to kids."
Then agian I still think it needs some serious modifications first to cover all the basis, at its present point I would agree it is far too open and leaves things very prone for problems.
EDIT: lol in short I think the 'passive' ties of violence to gaming is bad but I also think finding ways to notify the parent's (or remind them to check it) of a game's violent contents is good.
06/03/2005 (3:45 pm)
@Joshua: The barrier is the same principle... the idea of being subjected to violent media whether it movie or video game, little different, except with movies there are already restrictions in entering the theatre underage... the comparison is both being "violent media" both being in the "entertainment industry" and both being restricted now. I honestly think the comparison is fairly close, just different extremes.ou re-worded it then quoted it... the quote is different then how you word it, its a list of 'passive' statements
"The State has a compelling interest in preventing violent, aggressive, and asocial behavior."
you are stating an agressive statements, so I just think you were misrepresentin the law somewhat.
A similar thing happened in the music industry in the past with labels and the group of mothers joining together. I think labels are good... games already have ratings... right now its up to parent's to monitor what their children play and up to them to check the ratings.
"Best Buy is now responsible for educating the parent on what to buy"
There already is a rating system, much like movies, and most other media, its there for warning and in some cases restriction.
I think the biggest weakness of this law is that it doesn't specify enough... I agree with your initial statements that they didn't specify enough clauses in case of internet sales... if Gonzo's example of asking for a date of birth is legit enough to be withheld by this law then I don't see how it would be bad. If a kid does something, they trace it to the game, they go to your website, you clearly ask for date of birth, warn against minors, and won't allow people who claim to be minors denied from buying those games then I think you would be perfectly safe.
On the other hand, if something like Gonzo's suggestion wasn't legit enough then I can forsee what you are mentioning, lawsuits etc.
Personally I think if it were modified and made to be a little more specific, clearly outlining what terms must be met to verify age (and if it were reasonable, like a warning etc) then I'd be all for it.
Sure there would be lawsuits when Best Buy slips up on a label (but then again theres a rating right there on the game box too), I mean if the law were modified appropriately I would think they would just require the person at the register to just remind the parent to check the rating... something simple like that I think is good.
Just as much as this can p ush the blame on a store if they screw up it can push the blame off the store if they do things right (and if the law specified correctly). I mean say a kid did something and it was cofirmed that the rating on the game was accurate and that the store did warn them, then they couldn't blame the store and it would come down to who got the game to them.
I don't think games make kids violent, but I think its a reality that there are kids out there waiting to find things to feed their violence, whether its T.V., movies, games etc... in some cases I don't think a kid should play certain games, in fact I think some games out there are just pointless violence and I think those should be kept out of the hands of certain kids... Unfortunately you can't have a person at every store that evaluates every kid and whether they can play it... and while parents are slacking (I do think a lot of it is paren't negligence, I think the ratings on games are obvious enough for a parent looking) its going to happen, so I think this could offer a way for stores to ensure they wouldn't be blamed for selling "violent games to kids."
Then agian I still think it needs some serious modifications first to cover all the basis, at its present point I would agree it is far too open and leaves things very prone for problems.
EDIT: lol in short I think the 'passive' ties of violence to gaming is bad but I also think finding ways to notify the parent's (or remind them to check it) of a game's violent contents is good.
#28
its not exactly leaving the sales clerk out in the rain either
06/03/2005 (3:56 pm)
Quote:A retail sales clerk shall not be found in violation of
15 this Section unless he or she has complete knowledge that the
16 party to whom he or she sold or rented a violent video game was
17 a minor and the clerk sold or rented the video game to the
18 minor with the specific intent to do so. do so; or
2 (4) that the video game sold or rented was pre-packaged and
3 rated EC, E10+, E, or T by the Entertainment Software Ratings
4 Board.
its not exactly leaving the sales clerk out in the rain either
#29
the big "18" may be going too far in my book though
06/03/2005 (4:01 pm)
Even what it specifies isn't anything that harsh honestly, you educate your employees to card people, code the scanner to warn your employees to card them and program the self check outs to not scan those games... (or any games would be easiest I'd guess)Quote:(a) A person who sells, rents, or permits to be sold or
2 rented, any violent video game to any minor, commits a petty
3 offense for which a fine of $1,000 may be imposed.
4 (b) A person who sells, rents, or permits to be sold or
5 rented any violent video game via electronic scanner must
6 program the electronic scanner to prompt sales clerks to check
7 identification before the sale or rental transaction is
8 completed. A person who violates this subsection (b) commits a
9 petty offense for which a fine of $1,000 may be imposed.
10 (c) A person may not sell or rent, or permit to be sold or
11 rented, any violent video game through a self-scanning checkout
12 mechanism. A person who violates this subsection (c) commits a
13 petty offense for which a fine of $1,000 may be imposed.
the big "18" may be going too far in my book though
#30
or remove that from the law
EDIT: btw don't take my strong opinions the wrong way, I can get a little carried away sometimes, no offense is meant Joshua, I do think you have some good points, though I do think you've exagerated some
06/03/2005 (4:04 pm)
And if anything I would ask them to prove these findingsQuote: (a) The General Assembly finds that minors who play violent
21 video games are more likely to:
22 (1) Exhibit violent, asocial, or aggressive behavior.
23 (2) Experience feelings of aggression.
24 (3) Experience a reduction of activity in the frontal
25 lobes of the brain which is responsible for controlling
26 behavior.
or remove that from the law
EDIT: btw don't take my strong opinions the wrong way, I can get a little carried away sometimes, no offense is meant Joshua, I do think you have some good points, though I do think you've exagerated some
#31
06/03/2005 (4:15 pm)
@Matt: your last set of quotes is exactly why I, and I think Joshua, think this law is a VeryBadThing(tm)...because if it passed as is, and a case is won using the law as a basis, they no longer have to prove any of it...it's the law, and sets the precedent. And until the law is overturned, it becomes true until overruled by a higher agency.
#32
didn't mean to argue that part, just call Joshua up on some statements I consider exagerations like
and
Stephen, you clearly stated your argument and I agree with that part of it, on the other hand Joshua, you exagerated some things that it very clearly protects (like the clerk it protects unless they know they are underage or deliberately allowing them to do so)... lol sorry but nothing boils my blood like someone exagerating things in their own words when the specific words are right there, no offense Joshua, maybe you got carried away etc... I agree with you on two parts though, first one about linking games to violence, I definately think that is wrong... I also think not specifying online methods is bad also.
06/03/2005 (4:29 pm)
Yeah I definately agree with both of you on that part, as well as Joshua's initial statements (way up top lol :) about not defining online sales well enough... I think if that part was cut out and they defined acceptable online methods then I personally think the actions would be a good thing.didn't mean to argue that part, just call Joshua up on some statements I consider exagerations like
Quote:Sorry, if there's a 10 year old in Gamestop with $50 in his pocket, alone, and he ends up buying TimeSplitters ... OK - why is a 10 year old in a store alone with $50 and how is that some clerk's fault to the tune of $5,000? And the parent is blameless? Or if some clerk thought a 17yo looked 20, that's a mistake which should cost him a whole season's paycheck? You honestly think that's fair?
and
Quote:if some poor clerk forgets to check the ID of some 17 year old kid buying Halo 2 ... they could be out five grand.(it clearly states other precautions in the scanners that will remind them).
Stephen, you clearly stated your argument and I agree with that part of it, on the other hand Joshua, you exagerated some things that it very clearly protects (like the clerk it protects unless they know they are underage or deliberately allowing them to do so)... lol sorry but nothing boils my blood like someone exagerating things in their own words when the specific words are right there, no offense Joshua, maybe you got carried away etc... I agree with you on two parts though, first one about linking games to violence, I definately think that is wrong... I also think not specifying online methods is bad also.
#33
BTW, there's a group trying to pass a Federal bill to get legislators to read entire laws orally; it requires publication on the Internet and a 7 day waiting period for public comment before passing them, in the hopes that it can slow down some of the craziness.
Read the Bills Act of 2005
06/03/2005 (7:35 pm)
It's in the interest of everyone pushing this law to make it ambiguous. It takes responsibility off the legislators who draw it up (specifying too much opens the law up to concrete criticism that can kill it) and it allows the special interests (who make money crying "wolf") to create more panic and call for more law in the future. The courts and lawyers get stuck with figuring out the details, behind the scenes away from the public eye. The same thing has happened with employment law, and is why "hostile workplace" and "sexual harrassment" are so subjective and such bear traps to employers. It's why drunks get covered by the ADA.BTW, there's a group trying to pass a Federal bill to get legislators to read entire laws orally; it requires publication on the Internet and a 7 day waiting period for public comment before passing them, in the hopes that it can slow down some of the craziness.
Read the Bills Act of 2005
Torque Owner Mark Storer
"Blame Canada!"
Great song, funny as all get out(did I really just type that?), but it wouldn't be funny if it weren't TRUE.