Posted on 06/30/2011 4:39:19 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
Those who paint U.S. Supreme Court justices with a broad brush only prove they don't really understand the court. Justice Antonin Scalia was dead wrong in striking down California's restriction on selling horribly violent video games to children. And Justice Clarence Thomas did a spectacular job of showing why the Founders would uphold this law.
California enacted a law restricting the sale of graphically violent video games to children, requiring an adult to make the purchase. One such graphic game involves the player torturing a girl as she pleads for mercy, urinating on her, dousing her with gasoline and setting her on fire.
Video game merchants challenged the law for violating the First Amendment. By a single vote, the court agreed. That majority was Scalia, joined by moderate Anthony Kennedy and three liberal justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and President Obama's two appointees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan).
The court upheld the law 7 to 2, but not on speech grounds. Scalia wrote for five justices that there are four types of speech outside First Amendment protection: obscenity, child porn, incitement and "fighting words."
Holding that obscenity only covers sexual material, the court struck down this law for not satisfying the "strict scrutiny" required of content-based speech restrictions.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, voted that the law was void for vagueness -- so poorly written that people could not tell where the line was drawn, which would require the statute to be rewritten.
While not reaching the free-speech issue, he strongly suggested Scalia was wrong.
The first dissent was by Justice Stephen Breyer. He quoted from a 1944 case, where the court recognized that the "power of the state to control the conduct of children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults."
Although agreeing with the majority that strict scrutiny applies here, Breyer added in his typical fashion that this modest restriction on speech is OK because its benefits outweigh the costs to liberty.
The only originalist opinion came from Thomas, who filed an outstanding dissent that cogently set forth why this law would be acceptable in 1791 when the First Amendment was adopted.
Referencing Scalia's four types of unprotected speech, Thomas explains, "the practices and beliefs held by the Founders reveal another category ...: speech to minor children bypassing their parents. ... Parents had absolute authority over their minor children and ... parents used that authority to direct the proper development of their children."
Thomas continued that parents in 1791 had a duty to restrict influences on their children, because children were recognized to have their own moral failings, and parents were to rigorously instill good values in them and secure wholesome influences on their development.
For that reason, parents took charge of their children's education and monitored what they read and who they spend time with. Even in their late teens, children could not marry or join the military without parental consent, or vote, serve on juries, or be witnesses in court.
Thomas showed how the Founders believed limited government could only endure if parents faithfully raised children to become virtuous and productive adults. Parents had a "sacred trust" to shield children from corrupting influences and to safeguard their development into responsible citizens.
Clarence Thomas' dissent speaks to countless cultural issues we face today. It should be recommended reading for anyone trying to understand the Framers' meaning in the First Amendment where children are concerned.
This case presents as stark a contrast as you'll ever see showing how conservatives can split on the meaning of the Constitution. And it's a critical reminder that the court hangs in the balance in the 2012 election.
Examiner legal contributor Ken Klukowski is a fellow with the Family Research Council and co-author of "Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America."
No, there are not any facts in it, look you want the feds to run our lives and our communities, you have been getting your wish for 50 years, enjoy it.
Which is why I commented more on vagueness (voiding laws for vagueness is a very old common law tradition). Stupid laws elsewhere are one thing. Vague laws are evil. Vague laws put people in jail on technicalities when people do not even know they are breaking them.
If California wanted a law that made sense, it could say no M rated games are to be sold to minors. That's another big government invasion, but it's a clear law, not without precedent, and easy enough to follow, just like laws against minors buying a 12 pack of Guinness or a pack of smokes.
I agree. It reminds me of the argument liberals use for allowing teens to get birth control without their parents knowledge: “You can’t legislate parent-child communication”.
You really misunderstood.
If you want to know about average age at first marriage and/or birth of first child, then I am willing to explain that to you, BECAUSE, we had to go through that with the Mormons HERE trying to falsely claim that early teen marriage used to be the norm in the 1800s.
There is 1 pre prohibition drinking law anywhere I can find on the web. Even wiki lists a straight column of question marks except Wisconsin if I remember right.
So if there are no countrywide laws showing after multiple searches and several saying the same thing, that parents/community called the shots, are we to believe that your fantasy is correct or are the actual facts on my side correct?
I am sorry that your govt alcohol free utopia didn’t exist before government caused hell with prohibition, but them the facts. Deal with them. I’m sorry that teenagers were in bars across the country going WAYYYY back (Billy the Kid anyone?). But thems the facts. Deal with them. I’m sorry that most of the countries in the world consider 16-18 just fine to go to a bar. But thems the facts. Deal with them.
And finally, I am sorry I wasted all this time arguing with you. I’ll deal with it.
BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!
You are nuts. Goodnight Ansel.
Also, there are no laws restricting children under 17 from going to see a movie. The film industry through the MPAA voluntarily self regulated and created the rating system. The game industry has basically the same system and rules in place.
Believe it or not, that was one of my mom's favorite games, and she is more conservative than I am. She didn't care for the ending of one of the Duke games and his celebrations (I was trying not to laugh), but likes the old first person shooters. Some stuff wasn't allowed though. Leisure Suit Larry was the taboo.
As far as the violence goes, Duck Hunt taught me to shoot laughing dogs, well...if they allowed it in the game. No convictions yet. Can't forget the original Wolfenstein and Blake Stone as a teen. Those were allowed. It didn't teach me any violence I didn't already have from sports. :)
Aw, I was hoping that you would at least try to guess the average age of a woman at marriage, in 1800s America, or 1700, or 1900.
I don’t know why knowing the facts on that would be nuts.
Exactly correct. The Game rating system was a colab between the game cos and the retailers, along with parental input created specifically to ward off govt intrusion/regulation. As usual, govt had to be in control and tried regulating anyway.
Some here prefer that it seems. Self regulation and parental involvement wasn’t enough for them either.
Exactly, question marks, and I don't think those video games are limited to 16 and 17 year olds, I think your feds gave those adult merchants access to all children, of all ages.
Here is your federal majority Ruth Bader Ginsburg and President Obama's two appointees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.
Whatever that means. I'm a licensed attorney, and I still don't have any idea what that means. If this was written to cover "M" rated games (equivalent to borderline PG-13/R or an R), it would probably have been upheld.
I agree with your point about vague laws. Too bad Justice Scalia and most of the liberal justices didn’t toss out the law on those grounds. Justices Alito and Roberts apparently wanted to rule the law was too vague, and Justice Thomas would have been fine to join them on that basis.
What I don’t understand is how Justice Scalia, a man who has often bragged how he’d uphold a bad law so long as it wasn’t unconstitutional, threw out a bad law that was clearly constitutional.
In my experience, Scalia is more textualist and Thomas originalist. Scalia tends to be rather pro-defendant on criminal law matters sometimes when procedures are involved, and he's also rather absolutist on First Amendment issues.
Sometimes though he surprises me. In the Heller case, I didn't expect Scalia to accept Due Process arguments. I expected (as did their attorney) that to be upheld more on overturning Slaughterhouse.
This bill would require violent video games to be labeled as specified and would prohibit the sale or rental of those violent video games, as defined, to minors. The bill would provide that a person who violates the act shall be liable in an amount of up to $1,000 for each violation. full text (pdf)
What bothers me most about the legislation is that it treats a new medium differently from traditional mediums. If it covered books, movies, music, and magazines as well as games, at least they'd be able to mount a consistent argument for protecting children. But singling games out as so threatening to children that it needs to be restricted is ridiculous.
I can see nothing wrong with blowing off a little steam with some action game.
I’ll never play a first person shooter game, though. I can’t look at them for more than a few seconds without getting horribly motion sick. Too bad, I think my son would have liked me to join his games.
If you’re steering whatever you, the shooter, are traveling in or on, it’s less likely to be dizzying.
Thanks for the text of the bill. The first paragraph is actually only a summary. The devil's in the details. This is a convoluted piece of vague trash.
"All of the following"
1. A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors.
2. It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors
3.(iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors
The "intent" of the legislature is to define these as "obscene" so they can be creative to avoid a 1st amendment challenge. Commiefornia's attorney's were trying to think of the court cases instead of the actual law when this thing was drafted.
Outside of that stuff, they were trying to make the video game makers spend money on new labels and ratings with the giant "18" and that stuff on there if it is labeled "violent." There's already a rating system for most games. It works well and it is more strict than movie ratings. Some stuff that would be "TV-14" would be "M" for games. CSI for example.
Gays have sex with other gays, not non-gays. This is the defining limits of the definition.
To define means ``set the limits or boundaries of`` -Webster
``Gay is a word that commonly refers to a male or female whose sexual orientation is attraction to persons of the same sex.``-wikipedia
Webster's dictionary redefines 'marriage' Mar 17, 2009 ... "The 1992 Webster's Dictionary does not mention same sex at all," e ... The new definition references "marriage" as the state of being ... www.wnd.com/?pageId=91995
Webster 2011= Translation of GAY 1merry : alegre 2bright, colorful : vistoso, vivo 3homosexual : homosexual
If a gay guy goes out and has intercourse with a woman, it`s called HETEROSEXUAL and the guy is BISEXUAL.
If a gay guy has sex with another guy it is called homosexual.
You can`t have your cake and eat it too. It`s either one or the other.
your ``adoptive sterile couples or even a couple which used in-vitro fertilization techniques cannot be called parents.``
These non-fertile adoptive parents are LEGALLY in court called NON-BIOLOGICAL parents. Look it up.
In vitro are from the 2 people, a man and a woman, not from 2 gays- Ergo- does not fit the definition because in gay relationship, there is NO FERTILIZATION-
Even a 8 year old knows that in sex education classes in school-
Are you smarter than a fifth grader? Your ``By the definition posted, if a male provided the sperm, he's a parent`` of course but by fathering a child, he is no longer a homosexual [homo=same] because he went to a different sex to father the child [hetero=different]-
You cannot define a gay person as homosexual and in the same definition call him a parent if he goes outside his sexual definition to be a parent. Therefore he is having sexual activities with BOTH sexes, i.e., BISEXUAL, a bisexual parent.
IF A ``GAY`` has a child, he is bisexual, not gay. PERIOD - and you know it.
``GAY PARENT`` IS A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS BECAUSE A GAY MAN CANNOT NATURALLY SIRE [beget, which means naturally] A CHILD IN A HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. HE HAS TO GO OUTSIDE OF IT.
ERGO HE IS BISEXUAL.
If a gay goes outside the limits or boundaries of his gay definition, he is no longer defined by that definition of gay because he goes outside the boundaries of the definition of gay.
It`s either one or the other. A gay has to stick to gays -otherwise he is bisexual.
If the gay uses in vitro, then his body [sperm] is sexually combined with that of the heterosex, i.e., non-gay-
Again the gay goes outside the boundaries of his sexual definition of ``gayness`` and thus invalidates his sexual mode and becomes defined as ``bisexual`` by because of sexual activity with TWO -2- different sexes.
You lose.
cf 219- You lose too.
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.