Posted on 06/27/2011 7:44:41 AM PDT by Hojczyk
No details yet
A provision allowing explicit bypass by guardian or parent would more than address your concerns.
A parent is being responsible by using their right to representation in making laws that will defend public decency for their children. Yet you want to take that right away from all of us.
“No, you have every right to prohibit your own kids from purchasing these games. The ruling just means you don’t have the right to force others to abide by your standards.”
I am becoming increasingly amazed and dismayed at the inability people have to apparently read, understand, and think about the implications of written words.
This is NOT what the ruling states, as it is being reported. It states that the law was unconstitutional because it was a violation of the minor’s rights. In other words, kids have the RIGHT to purchase and own violent video games.
Think about that for a second. Your child has the First Amendment right to own violent video games. The implications are incredible. This is not the state trying to do the parents job. This is the state telling you that you can’t do your job. If you tell your kid that they cannot own a violent video game, you may be interfering with your child’s rights.
I don’t understand why parents would want their children playing violent (really violent and violence against women) anyway. Of course, I don’t understand why parents permit their children to do a lot of things. Glad mine are grown.
Pornography is next.
Which can be done, but at the cost of keeping the kids in a virtual cage. I’d sooner that the parent or guardian be asked for an explicit yes before allowing just any old thing to be given or sold to a child by a stranger.
Government does not have rights. Only individuals do.
Do we know who the dissenting justices were?
The sad thing is that Gov’t has replaced the parent.
Do you know what games your children are playing and what impact all the violence can have on them?
According the American Psychological Association, violent video games can increase children’s aggression. Dr. Phil explains, “The number one negative effect is they tend to inappropriately resolve anxiety by externalizing it. So when kids have anxiety, which they do, instead of soothing themselves, calming themselves, talking about it, expressing it to someone, or even expressing it emotionally by crying, they tend to externalize it. They can attack something, they can kick a wall, they can be mean to a dog or a pet.” Additionally, there’s an increased frequency of violent responses from children who play these kinds of video games.
Dr. Phil also points out that violent video games don’t teach kids moral consequences. “If you shoot somebody in one of these games, you don’t go to jail, you don’t get penalized in some way — you get extra points!” This doesn’t mean that your child will go out into the world and shoot someone. “But they do use more aggressive language, they do use more aggressive images, they have less ability to control their anger and they externalize things in these violent ways. It’s absolutely not good,” says Dr. Phil.
Furthermore, the American Psychological Association says playing violent games correlates to children being less caring and helpful toward their peers. And these effects happen just as much for non-aggressive children as they do for children who already have aggressive tendencies. Children spend a great deal of time with violent video games at exactly the ages that they should be learning healthy ways to relate to other people and to resolve conflicts peacefully.
And, according to the National Institute on Media and the Family, it’s not just a concern when it comes to young children. Teenage brains are in the midst of growth spurts, making teens very impressionable. Just when teens are wiring the circuits for self-control, responsibility and relationships that they will carry with them into adulthood, violent games activate their anger center while dampening the brain’s “conscience.” And think of the more subtle impact: What do you think the effect is when your kids spend time with violence simulators that glorify gang culture, celebrate brutality, lionize crudeness, and trivialize violence toward women?
How can parents minimize any potential harm? Psychologists have found that when parents limit the amount of time as well as the types of games their children play, children are less likely to show aggressive behaviors. Other research suggests that active parental involvement in children’s media usage — including discussing the inappropriateness of violent solutions to real life conflicts, reducing time spent on violent media, and generating alternative nonviolent solutions to problems — all can reduce the impact of media violence on children and youth. If you play video games with your child, Dr. Phil suggests alternative activities that allow you to have more interaction with your child, such as playing a board game together or going for a walk and exploring together.
http://www.drphil.com/articles/article/297
This is an incredibly bad ruling that will lead to abolishing our rights to representation on multiples of issues. It is becoming more and more a dictatorship everyday.
Then stop trying to take away my right to representation on public decency within my community.
“What was the law?”
Just guessing...
To control, regulate and tax video games to the max under the guise of safety???
yooling: “I for one am tired of our nanny state legislating to the lowest common denominator.”
The problem with your philosophy is that communities should have the right to set their own standards. This isn’t about protecting adults. It’s about protecting minors who don’t exactly always do what their parents want. Society should not be complicit in helping children obtain materials that a MAJORITY of parents have voted to restrict.
The concept of constitutional rights for children is wrong. They should have limited rights because they are minors. What you propose sounds more like anarchy! We have a representative government. The US Constitution was never designed to take away the rights of parents to control their towns, cities and states. Again, we aren’t talking about the rights of adults. We are talking about the right of a majority of voters to decide what is best for their children.
Federalism is a good thing. This ruling may not be “nanny” state but it’s certainly too big state in that the federal government is stepping where it doesn’t belong. There is no constitutional right to porn or other objectionable materials. In SCOTUS jurisprudence, opposition to community standards is a relatively recent change, happening in my lifetime.
WOW! Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority. Breyer and THOMAS wrote dissenting opinions! To have Scalia and Thomas on opposite sides is pretty amazing....
Does that mean a Muslim has a right to vote for a representative who will impose Sharia law on the community?
Good decision. Let the parents and retailers decide. If the law were in place a video game where a Muzzie got hit in the face with a pie could be deemed “too violent.”
Who is going to decide what decency is at the state or federal level?
Laws like that have always been locally determined and some come and go as time change. In some localities, in the past, women had to dress in a certain manner or were considered to be lewd.
Public decency laws should never be in the hands of the state or federal government. The state and federal entities always take every advantage to extend and interpret these laws in order to dicate (dictatorship) how they will be applied.
We all have the right to representation in the making of law for our states, to say otherwise is dictatorial. I though highly doubt that Sharia law (stoning, burkas, etc…) is Constitutional so no it wouldn’t be legal. In this case though there is no Constitutional impedance to making such a law as banning violent content to minors, the Justices are acting in an activist manner to say otherwise.
Justice Thomas: “The historical evidence shows that the founding generation believed parents had absolute authority over their minor children and expected parents to use that authority to direct the proper development of their children. It would be absurd to suggest that such a society understood “the freedom of speech” to include a right to speak to minors (or a corresponding right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents.”
RIGHT ON, JUSTICE THOMAS!!! This is a horrible ruling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.