“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.
Pornography is next.
That’s not what it means at all. It was a ruling against a very specific, flawed law.
If your daughter has the right to kill her baby, I guess she would have the right to buy violent video games. I see this as another step towards removing children from the control of parents.
What Thomas should have wrote is “The First Amendment only applies to laws made by Congress. Apparently my colleagues can’t read, but if they would like to have a look, it’s the first word of the Amendment.”.