Posted on 06/27/2011 7:44:41 AM PDT by Hojczyk
No details yet
So the immediate question that comes to mind - how is this different, in principle, from not allowing under 18’s to rent hard core porn?
Yeh, but it’s ok to stop them from praying. It makes no sense to me.
The majority of voters as it has always been.
And your argument about laws changing with the times is exactly right. That is freedom. You are free to change the laws and to vote for new representatives but now under the dictatorial vision defended by some FReepers (including yourself) in this thread we can never change the law of the land without a Constitutional Amendment and we all lose our right to representation on public decency in our states.
Shadowfax: “Breyer and THOMAS wrote dissenting opinions! To have Scalia and Thomas on opposite sides is pretty amazing....”
Thomas is my favorite because he follows the US Constitution and disregards precedent that doesn’t comply with the plain meaning of it. I haven’t read his decision, but I’m betting he’s going to say the US Constitution does not protect the rights of minors to buy things a majority of voters have decided to restrict. He’s a big federalist, too. For example, he supported the right of states to pass medical marijuana laws.
The concept of the rights of minors is a relatively recent creation. The left has been pushing that meme for many years, because they want to tear down the rights of parents. I think they see parents as oppressive tyrants. The left are rebels without a clue, raging against any form of authority. Unfortunately, many FReepers have apparently fallen for the left’s rhetoric.
He dissented because he said the that Constitution does not allow children to buy something that their parents don’t want them to own. He’s right!!!
“So the immediate question that comes to mind - how is this different, in principle, from not allowing under 18’s to rent hard core porn?”
Scalia answered that question in his opinion. Essentially, we’ve always restricted minors’ rights to access pornography, so that’s ok. But we’ve never had an issue with minors accessing violent content — for example, the original Grimm’s fairy tales.
Yup. If a child has the free speech rights to own violent video games, I don’t see why he or she wouldn’t have the right to own other obscene materials.
Does this mean my grand kids won’t be sending me their used games any longer? I love their used MOH and CODs.
If it is a violation on minor’s rights to restrict the sale of video games to kids, how could the retailer now do so? Couldn’t the store owner be sued for doing go?
Interesting - especially as porn is allowed under “free speech”, which is the basis for this ruling.
I figured as much (Thomas dissenting because parents have a right to set community standards for their children).
This is one of the areas where libertarians go too far. This isn’t about restricting the rights of adults to view whatever materials they want. It’s about the right of a majority of voters to pass laws regulating what minors can and cannot do.
They always say the parents are responsible, but they want to take away the power of parents to control their children. Anyone who has ever raised a child knows it’s absolutely impossible to monitor or train children for every possible circumstance. Children are expected to navigate our perverse culture unaffected, and if the children crash on the many hazards along the way—blame the parents! For example, libraries bear ZERO responsibility if a child goes in and surfs porn on the library computers. Yeah, parents are at fault, and society has absolutely no obligation to help them protect their children (even if a clear majority of the parents want to join together to help protect the children!).
Libertarians cheer this for some reason unbeknownst to me.
What about beer and cigs?
Exactly. My husband works for one of the largest video game retailers in the country and this is their corporate policy. And it’s a one violation and you’re fired policy. The company wants to self police to keep government out of its life. So it’s not like kids everywhere are going to suddenly buy violent video games unemcumbered.
Scalia’s response to this is telling as to his using his own personal judgment and opinions and not the Constitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you only have a right to representation if you have had it for the past 100 years. Or if a judge thinks that your use of that right is reasonable in relation to history.
I am becoming highly disappointed in this new Court. They are leading us further towards a dictatorship whereas you are told you have no right to representation on issue after issue.
That’s not what it means at all. It was a ruling against a very specific, flawed law.
“What about beer and cigs?”
Do you have the right to buy them? Then maybe your kids do too....
“What about beer and cigs?”
Do you have the right to buy them? Then maybe your kids do too....
And what was the flaw?
Good Im a gamer.
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.