DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - "California law to ban violent video games ruled out by Supreme Court"

**corsar-caribean** · 06-28-2011, 04:29 AM

But Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the decision along with Justice Stephen Breyer, said the majority read something into the First Amendment that isn't there.

"The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians," Thomas wrote.

I agree with the decision, but I also agree with Thomas in the dissent, in that it is the job of parents to supervise their children in such matters. Unfortunately to many parents have abdicated that responsibility to the government.

I call shenanigans on the public "reading" something into the 1st amendment that wasn't there statement. If you allow a law to pass that violates the constitution in any manner, it sets precedent that it's okay to violate the constitution. However, responsibility should fall on the parent(s) and/or guardian(s) in charge of the minor(s). I tend to agree more with this particular prevailing decision, even though I understand the dissenting position just as well in regards to parental responsibility.

This should be the job of the parents...

Yes. However, I believe the decision made kinda forces the issue and places the responsibility on the parents.

I am now hopeful that they will uphold the lower court ruling that the FCC's indecency policy violates the first amendment as well. Yet another case that brings together the Obama administration and the far right in an alliance against free speech.

I am hopeful of this too. We will just have to wait and see.

06-28-2011, 04:29 AM	#9
corsar-caribean Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 434 Senior Member	But Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the decision along with Justice Stephen Breyer, said the majority read something into the First Amendment that isn't there. "The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians," Thomas wrote. I agree with the decision, but I also agree with Thomas in the dissent, in that it is the job of parents to supervise their children in such matters. Unfortunately to many parents have abdicated that responsibility to the government. I call shenanigans on the public "reading" something into the 1st amendment that wasn't there statement. If you allow a law to pass that violates the constitution in any manner, it sets precedent that it's okay to violate the constitution. However, responsibility should fall on the parent(s) and/or guardian(s) in charge of the minor(s). I tend to agree more with this particular prevailing decision, even though I understand the dissenting position just as well in regards to parental responsibility. This should be the job of the parents... Yes. However, I believe the decision made kinda forces the issue and places the responsibility on the parents. I am now hopeful that they will uphold the lower court ruling that the FCC's indecency policy violates the first amendment as well. Yet another case that brings together the Obama administration and the far right in an alliance against free speech. I am hopeful of this too. We will just have to wait and see.
	Quote