Posted on 06/27/2011 7:44:41 AM PDT by Hojczyk
No details yet
Well, darling, Dr. Phil quoted the APA.
Too bad there weren’t violent video games in 1789.
Too bad there weren’t violent video games in 1789. Of course, the Supremes believe there is a “right to privacy” that applies to killing your unborn child. So I guess the Constitution means whatever the justices want it to mean.
No one’s taking away anything. The Supreme Court ruled on censorship. The measures that California had in place beforehand still work and most retailers choose to follow the ESRB’s ratings voluntarily. In fact, this weakens the power of those who might attempt to use censorship to silence news sources that don’t brown nose them.
Furthermore, the belief that this will stop the spread of violent games is about as effective as saying gun control would stop the flow of guns into the hands of criminals.
Assassin’s Creed isn’t going to make your kid go out and shank powerful political figures. Battlefield 3 isn’t going to make your kid go shoot up his high school. Harry Potter isn’t going to make your kid turn to witchcraft.
It obviously violates the 14th Amendment ‘Equal Protection’ clause so no it would not be Constitutional. You would be making a law not for ALL but specifically targeting women.
In this case one could make the argument that California’s law violated the ‘equal protection’ clause as well if you are going to take the position that children must be treated equally to adults under the law but I would say go ahead because then it would show a ridiculous agenda.
Wrong. There was no censorship involved in this law at all. It was a law restriction based upon age. The game producers were still free to produce and sell their violent games but not to children.
So you’re in favor of a law that will, in the long run, do absolutely nothing to curb the spread of violent video games?
If Johnny can’t buy it, he’ll just download it.
Who made you the authority on how aspects of life influence children?
It is this authoritarian attitude that Supreme Court and others have that is a threat to our freedom. We ALL should have EQUAL representation on the issue and make law based upon that EQUAL representation we all have.
I personally have seen the influence of violent, dysfunctional, anti-moral and sexually perverse liberal culture on many children in my lifetime and it has not been good at all. Yet people like you keep on insisting that cultural influences have no effect. BS!
Says you that it would have no effect. I have personally seen many children effected by all aspects of this perverse liberal culture that we live in.
Besides whether I agreed with the law specifically or not I still support our right to representation in making laws such as this.
I like how you don’t debate any other points except your own narrow view which you base off anecdotal evidence, and support the same idea as liberals that society trumps the U.S. Constitution in deciding Supreme Court cases.
I personally am an absolutist, you obviously are not.
What point haven’t I addressed? I could name about six points that I have raised that haven’t been addressed at all by anyone who has disagreed though.
And I have never said that any law that society makes trumps the Constitution. I have said that there is no Constitutional violation in the CA law in this case.
You are resorting now to creating straw man arguments and accusations that are unfounded.
I will raise some points again and lets see if you honestly address them.
If we are not allowed to have a right to representation on restricting societies children from access to violent video games then why is alright to restrict them from pornography?
If they have a Constitutional right as you claim to violent video games then why not pornography as well?
Sorry but there is a very wide cross section of children that can be shown to have good parents or bad parents or even no parents who have been influenced by aspects of a corrupt liberal culture and had it cause much destruction in their lives.
I have seen it with my own eyes and through reading, etc... But of course you could care less because you do not want me to even have a right to representation on cultural / public issues.
That is not what the judgement says. It does not say that children have a right to purchase such material. What is says is that the state doesn’t have hte right to ban the sale of such material - to anyone. As a parent, you are still within your rights to limit what your children purchase.
You’re obviously very emotional on this topic. I prefer to have a reasoned, rational debate, so I don’t see any point in continuing the conversation with you.
Yet the California law did not ban the sale of these video games so your premise is mute.
The CA law only prohibited people from selling these violent games to other people’s children. The games were still legal to sell to adults under CA law.
So in essence this ruling did say that children have a right to violent video games.
A precedent like this will lead next to pornography. In a corrupt liberal society whereas the People have no right to representation on issue after issue things never return on their own to a more moral standing.
The People will have to fight to regain their right to representation and to bring back a moral order to society.
And just as a side note:
The Supreme Court has already ruled in a previous case to defend child pornography as long as it is animated and not using real children.
We are not far off from having no right to representation in order to protect our children at all. The Courts are apart of a left-wing agenda to remove our right to representation, further corrupt our children, and do away with parental rights.
Well, Justice Thomas disagrees with you. The majority opinion states that the law is unconstituational because it violates the First Amendment rights of minors. It’s written right there in plain language. Justice Thomas’ dissent is based on the fact that our Founders did not mean children to have free speech (or access to free speech) outside of their parent’s influence.
I don’t believe that it’s my emotion that’s preventing this debate. It’s your apparent inability to read and understand English. Given that Free Republic is a text driven forum, I agree that debate with you is probably not going to be productive. Try reading the opinion again and see if you can reason it out.
Yet the vast majority of the justices agree with me,
That’s twice that you’ve resorted to personal insults. That’s a technique used by those with an inability to defend a weak argument (and something I’d expect to see from a liberal), and is why I have absolutely no interest in a continued conversation with you.
You might ask yourself what is it about your personality that leads you to insult some individual, about whom you know nothing, on an internet forum. I wonder if you would be so bold were we face to face.
Lets see.... So children have a 1st Amendmant right to receive digital communications generated by adults. And by that reasoning, adults have a Constitutional right to communicate with children.
I am sure there are a few paedophiles on the Internet, that will be happy to hear this.
You accuse me of insulting you yet you just personally insulted me by trying to make this discussion about me and my “inability to defend a weak argument”. Twice. You have twice claimed that you have no interest in continuing this conversation, yet you continue to do so.
Hypocrisy much?
I’m sorry if your feelings were hurt by my pointing out that you seem to have trouble reading and understanding English. I was just stating what was obvious, since you seem to be struggling to understand what is plainly written in the opinion. As you are so incorrect and the opinion is plainly about something that is dangerous (free speech rights for children apart from their parent’s wishes), I would be completely bold about it if we were to meet face to face. You probably won’t believe that, but since it’s a total hypothetical issue, I don’t care.
I proudly stand with Justice Thomas on this issue. He is a solid conservative who understands the issue here. So, the majority is with you? Big deal. I don’t agree with the Supremes based on the majority. Let’s see who else agrees with you - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California, one of the most insanely liberal and consistently overturned courts in the land. Around the web this morning, liberals of all stripes are celebrating this decision. I just read a press release from the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, a group that pretends to be about free speech issues but really seems to be focused on defending the rights of crusty old men to hand out pornography to underaged children. They are crowing about this decision.
Yes, the majority of the justices agree with you. But be careful of using the company you are keeping as a defense. Better to stick to the issues.
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.