Ban on violent videos struck down

Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | July 16, 2004 | Dan Richman

[chuckles]

Video games are not "Free Speech". This is a States rights issue. Every state can and does regulate what kids can do and see. They can't drink, drive and do many other things until they are at majority( usually 18). If the majority of voters agree with whatever law they want, even to the extent of living like the Amish, they should have the right to regulate THEIR CHILDREN. This doesn't count for adults because they are afforded all protections under the Constitution.

This crap of giving kids unlimited rights is a 20'th century invention to polute our kids minds into little socialist robots. In a democratic republic, we should be able to make our laws for the general welfare of the people living there without interference. More and more of our laws are deemed unconstitutional by activist courts thereby nullifying our votes. We are fooling ourselves if we thing the country is free. We are under the boot of tryany since Roe v. Wade. The courts used NO precident in that or school prayer laws to overturn the will of the people.

We can argue whether or not something is free speech for an adult, but I should have complete control over my children, as long as I don't cause harm, if I so choose. Is anyone going to argue my child is harmed by NOT being able to play "Grand Theft Auto"?If the majorty wants the law, what's the problem? I personally am a little tired of courts nullifying my votes.

[Saint Athanasius]

I was refering to speech... should all speech be legal? (porn, racism, etc.)...

Not everything spoken; written and pictures are protected under the first amendment... (especially for minors under 17)

YOu can't interpret the first amendment how you think the first amendment should be interpreted... you have to look into what it actually means...

It is not a blank check... look at what the founding fathers said about the first amendment...

You have to use their interpretation... not yours to determine what the first amendment means.

I also disagree with your assessment about speech not being harmful...

Nazi Germany being a prime example... they used propaganda saying Jews were RATS... Jews are not human....

Don't you think that had some impact on German society?

I would say that was some direct, tangible evidence... there is more than yelling fire into a theater...

Speech and propaganda can have some major impact on society... and what about lying speech, or slander speech... should that be protected too under your interpretation of the First Amendment?

By the way, did we live under a dictatorship in the early republic where certain things that could be written and certain things could not?

Like I said in the beginning... we do not live in a vacuum.

By the way, this law was limiting the use for kids... now, how is that a violation?

[Dead Corpse]

Why can't the government forbid kids from buying games that are harmful?... Why can't we put restrictions like must be 21 or over to purchase... what is wrong with that?

Simple. SHow me in the Constitution where it gives the FedGov the power to ban video games or even set "ratings".

Take your time. I'll wait.

21 to purchase? I thought the age of majority in this country was 18? What ius it with all you people restricting things like this for LEGAL ADULTS?

[Saint Athanasius]

Seems to me the alcohol laws are 21 or over? Seems to me you have to be 25 to run for Congress? 30 for Senate? 40 for President? there are some restrictions for you.

I guess that is against the Constitution as well?

So are you telling me that our Founding Fathers when writing the Constitution thought it was political speech to have games where you shoot and kill police officers...

Not only that, but then the founding fathers then apply that interpretation of the first amendment to the states...

then applied to minors of 17 or younger....

you are wrong...

You can't apply your interpretation of the first amendment to minors and you can't apply it to states either...

If you don't believe me, read the founding fathers...

If you like your interpretation, vote on the legislatures who write the laws... Do not have the courts misintrepret the first amendment and then apply to state laws.

That is called Judicial Activism... or better yet "the ends justify the means."

[Dead Corpse]

So you couldn't find it in the Constitution? Well, must be a State and local government issue then.

Also note, the Constitution sets up age limits for a very specific FEW things. Like holding FEDERAL office. Strictly deliniated and specificly for a purpose.

Don't be obtuse. You may have glanced at the Constitution once, but you don't seem to have retained much of what it said.

[Saint Athanasius]

"You may have glanced at the Constitution once, but you don't seem to have retained much of what it said."

You mean your interpretation of it...

Libertianism is a philosophy... you are forcing that philosophy through the courts... and that my friend is wrong.

You can't read the Constitution and say... "Freedom of speech"... you must figure out what the founders meant by that freedom... and interpret the Constitution that way...

If you don't like that... you must use the legislative branch to change it... not the courts.

[Dead Corpse]

And you have yet to say what mechanism in the Constitution allows teh FedGov to regulate video games. That isn't a court issue. That is a specificly given power issue.

If you don't like it, get your legislators to purpose an Amendment.

Till then, tough crap. Police your own kids.

[inquest]

And you have yet to say what mechanism in the Constitution allows teh FedGov to regulate video games.

Who's saying anything about the FedGov? At issue here is a state law.

[Dead Corpse]

Federal Judge ruled on the case on Federal FIrst Amendment grounds.

Can you find the section here where the State is given power to regulate video gaems? I can't find it there either.

[SkyRat]

Nazi Germany being a prime example... they used propaganda saying Jews were RATS... Jews are not human....

Nazi Germany had no free speech laws. Nobody could refute this viewpoint. There were no newspapers or radio shows giving different opinions.

If they same would happen today, everybody could disagree.

Violent or racist speech is no harm as long as everybody is free to disagree.

And video games, like anything that can be transmitted over a telephone line are "speech". Because it's entirely information which gets interpreted by the computer.

Isn't there a system on movies which rates them and prohibits minors form viewing them? Wouldn't that work with games also?

Speech and propaganda can have some major impact on society...

Only if there is just one version that gets repeated. Several propaganda shouters disagree with each other is no threat. Also, the constitution is for protecting the individual rights, not society's.

"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions."

[Saint Athanasius]

So can you yell fire in the theater? that is not in the constitution either.

[Saint Athanasius]

I like how you handle the yourself... and actual debate/ discussion...

which leads me to some questions...

What about threats against the President? Is that against the Constitution? Or what about a threat to an individual? Are you allowed to do that?

But my major point is what you said... the Judge struck down the constitutionality of the games that minors can buy...

Why can't the state of Washington forbid the selling of games to minor... People over 17 could purchase them...

[inquest]

Can you find the section here where the State is given power to regulate video gaems?

Article II: "The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called the legislature of the state of Washington"

That is the only clause in the constitution granting any kind of legislative powers at all, so therefore it's subject only to the limitations contained in that document.

In any case, it's not the job of federal courts to interpret state constitutions.

[inquest]

Isn't there a system on movies which rates them and prohibits minors form viewing them? Wouldn't that work with games also?

If these things were truly "protected speech", then any kind of rating system, or any legislative attempt whatsoever to keep them out of the view of minors, would be unconstitutional. Imagine someone trying to pass a law "protecting" minors from unpopular political views.

[SkyRat]

What about threats against the President? Is that against the Constitution?

I dont know if thats against the Constitution but it sure is against the President. Since he, like everybody else has rights, he has the right to protect himself and to be protected against threats. Or what about a threat to an individual? Are you allowed to do that?

I think the question is misleading. It's not about being allowed. For how could I stop someone from making threads? I can't read minds. You are free to do whatever you want. But you have to face the consequences. If you choose to use your freedom to harm another you are facing jail time.

This is a bit simplish but,well, so am I.

Why can't the state of Washington forbid the selling of games to minor... People over 17 could purchase them...

I see no problem with it actually. As long as adults are not restricted it's fine by me. But what I don't like in this special case is what games should be banned:computer games in which the player kills or injures "a human form who is depicted as a public law enforcement officer."

That's too vague. The other side has a case here:"Would a game built around 'The Simpsons' or 'Looney Tunes' characters be 'realistic' enough to trigger the act?" he asked. "Do the Roman centurions of 'Age of Empires' ... qualify as 'public law enforcement officers'?"

It's also cynical. Shooting everyday persons in games is ok but not public law officers? No deal.

Why not use the same system for the movie industrie uses? Rate the games from PG-13 up to X or R rated. Aren't the games already labeled like this?

And if the parents are concerned why don't they lobby their positions?

To sum my position up. I do think the state may ban selling of R or X rated games to minors. Regardless if you have to shoot criminals or polce officers, it the violence that gets it on the index. Also, if parents buy the games for their kids, thats no problem even if R rated. But if the state can't or won't do this, it should be possible to get enough people on board to force sellers to agree not to sell R rated games to minors.

Anyway, thats it. Regards

[Saint Athanasius]

i agree with what you are generally saying ; )

[SkyRat]

Imagine someone trying to pass a law "protecting" minors from unpopular political views.

Where is the problem there? Adults still can view anything they like and follow any political ideal they want. They could also intredouce their children to it.

As long as the parents can overule the rating system their is no danger. Children can't buy beer but if you want to buy beer and let your children drink from it, well, why not.

[Dead Corpse]

So can you yell fire in the theater? that is not in the constitution either.

If the theater is actually on fire, yes. Otherwise, any bodily harm from the stampede and any financial losses are yours to bear.

As I said, don't be obtuse. Argumentum ad reductum is not a winning debate technique.

[Dead Corpse]

Using your logic, a State can bring back slavery. Is that really the amount of power you want to give your government? Even at a state level?

[inquest]

Where is the problem there?

So you're telling me it would be constitutional to pass a law prohibitng criticism of the government except in adult company?

This is a prime example of how activist rulings like this actually endanger our rights.