Posted on 06/27/2011 7:44:41 AM PDT by Hojczyk
No details yet
“That’s not what it means at all. It was a ruling against a very specific, flawed law.”
What in the opinion leads you to believe this?
I’m looking at the opinion and the news coverage. I don’t know what you’re looking at.
More bullsh*t law coming out of the concentration camp formerly known as California.
THAT'S INSANITY!!!!!!!
More bullsh*t rulings coming from the elite dictators in black robes formerly known as the Supreme Court.
There. Fixed it for you.
You still have EVERY Right to stop your children from watching, playing or reading anything YOU think is 'violent' or you just don't like. It's that the State or YOU cannot stop other people from allowing their children access to that 'violence' or 'stuff' that *may offend* you.
So this reinforces YOUR Rights ('Your' as in We The People).
Yet you want to limit the rights of parents to having no rights to representation on public decency in their states. They should just keep their kids in a personal bubble being that they have no rights to have any say outside of the home. THAT IS TRULY INSANITY!!!
The short version: The court says violence is different than obscenity. From Scalia's opinion:
"California’s argument would fare better if there were a longstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence, but there is none. Certainly the books we give children to read - or read to them when they are younger - contain no shortage of gore.Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed. As her just desserts for trying to poison Snow White, the wicked queen is made to dance in red hot slippers “till she fell dead on the floor, a sad example of envy and jealousy."
You read it wrong.
You want to remove my right to representation within my community and state and have me confine myself and my children to some sort of personal bubble in order to keep them from the anarchy that you want imposed by the dictatorship of the elite rulers in black robes.
You are promoting dictatorship. There are plenty of dictatorial countries where people have no right to representation. You want that here.
“Treason, Constitutional abdication ... not so much.”
Ain’t that the truth. Den of thieves...
You have no idea what you’re talking about. The ruling says that the law is unconstitutional because it’s a violation of the child’s Constitutional rights. That means the child has the RIGHT under the Constitution to purchase these video games.
This isn’t about allowing parents to oversee their kids. It’s exactly the opposite.
So by your standard we have no right to representation on the ‘age of consent’ then as well. Why should anyone have the right to say when someone else’s children are ready to engage in sexual relations.
Total BS. You are pushing libertarian anarchy that leads to dictatorship.
True! That's exactly what I want. And I want you confined to a labor camp, where we work you, barely feed you, and you die of malnutrition and overwork. Furthermore, I want your children to be hooked up on Iditarod sled teams, to pull the sleds, so the dogs don't have to work so hard.
Yeah, this experiment in self-government is about over. The results are not good.
I like Scalia, but to compare time-worn Grimms to today’s violent video games is like apples and oranges.
How is having community standards promoting dictatorship?
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.
That sounds good, but in real life, government has a lot of rights.
you lost them a long time ago.
The Supreme Court has consistently (wrongly, in my view)interpreted "rights retained by the people" to mean, individuals only. Communities don't count.
They would have the right to vote for whomever they wanted to, wouldn’t they? As for the representative imposing sharia law, they could try, but we still have a Constitution.
Both Scalia and Alito concurred with judgement. Essentially the judgement was that video games fall into the same category as books and other media that are protected by the 1st amendment.
Absolutely nothing is preventing you from telling your kids that they can’t have whatever video games you deem inappropriate. There is nothing in this ruling that prevents that. THe ruling is specifically against the STATE’s ability to restrict “speech”.
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.