Characterizing someone’s argument as weak is not a personal insult. Insinuating, or outright saying that they are incapable of understanding English is.
You conveniently neglect to mention that the majority opinion that I mentioned included Justices Scalia and Alito - two solidly conservative justices. Citing the agreement of parties with whom you disagree on other decisions as proof of the incorrectness of THIS decision is faulty reasoning. I’m sure the judges on the Ninth Circuit also agree that humans require oxygen to live. Does their agreement with me on that point make it invalid as well?
But you are right on one point, which is that I am perpetuating the argument by continuing to reply to your (increasingly shrill) posts :)
You characterized me as being over-emotional because of my weak argument. Making me the subject rather than the issue is a personal attack. Mischaracterizing me as over-emotional is also a personal attack. Accusing me of attacking you while you attack me is hypocrisy. If you’re going to complain about how people are treating you, you should be careful about your own conduct as well.
Glad we can at least agree though that your strategy of citing those who agree with you on this decision as evidence that you are right is faulty reasoning. (I cited others who agreed with you only as a method of showing how wrong your approach was.) I’m hoping you can stick to the issues as we continue to discuss this issue that you will no longer discuss with me.
Here’s someone else that, like me, doesn’t seem to understand that this case has nothing to do with giving First Amendment rights to minors:
Note the second paragraph:
“The decision is being widely reported as 7-2, which is true enough on the merits of this law. But looking closer, the decision is really 5-4 when it comes to the question of whether the First Amendment categorically protects the sale of video games to minors.”
Looks like you may not have the support of Alito and Scalia after all....
From Scalia’s majority opinion:
“California’s legislation straddles the fence between (1)addressing a serious social problem and (2) helping con-cerned parents control their children. Both ends arelegitimate, but when they affect First Amendment rightsthey must be pursued by means that are neither seriouslyunderinclusive nor seriously overinclusive. See Church ofLukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 546(1993). As a means of protecting children from portrayalsof violence, the legislation is seriously underinclusive, notonly because it excludes portrayals other than videogames, but also because it permits a parental or avuncular veto. And as a means of assisting concerned parents it isseriously overinclusive because it abridges the FirstAmendment rights of young people whose parents (andaunts and uncles) think violent video games are a harm-less pastime.”
Right there in plain English. The California law is flawed because it interferes with the “First Amendment rights of young people”. Not the First Amendment rights of parents to access and expose their children to content that they approve of. The First Amendment rights of the child.