[corsar-caribean]

A cry of relief can be heard from gamers across America, as the Supreme Court today negated the passing of a law that sought to make it illegal to sell violent video games to minors.

The U.S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to overturn a California law restricting the sale of computer and video games, stating that video games qualify for protection of free speech. More in the link.

California law to ban violent video games ruled out by Supreme Court -- PlayStation Universe

Now, this is what I'm talking about. I think this sets a very powerful precedent in regards to videogames and our 1st Amendment rights as American citizens. I completely agree with the decision though it makes one wonder, who were the 2 dissenting votes?

[Fededorbprago]

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.

[eskimosik]

This should be the job of the parents...

[prmwsinfo]

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.

[wMceqj7F]

So minors should be allowed to purchase R rated movies as well?

[prmwsinfo]

So minors should be allowed to purchase R rated movies as well?

That is up to their parents and the private businesses that sell them.

[wMceqj7F]

That is up to their parents and the private businesses that sell them.

Let's assume that the parent isn't there, and this is that rarest of minors who goes against the rules of the house when they can get away with it. You are saying that it's up to the policy of the seller?

[prmwsinfo]

Let's assume that the parent isn't there, and this is that rarest of minors who goes against the rules of the house when they can get away with it. You are saying that it's up to the policy of the seller?

That is how it currently is. Some stores like Best Buy have policies that disallow the sale of video games and movies based on ratings, but other stores do not. Right now, that same kid could get on almost any computer and within about ten seconds view content that is similar in nature to an "R" rated movie could they not?

[corsar-caribean]

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.

[wMceqj7F]

That is how it currently is. Some stores like Best Buy have policies that disallow the sale of video games and movies based on ratings, but other stores do not. Right now, that same kid could get on almost any computer and within about ten seconds view content that is similar in nature to an "R" rated movie could they not?

They could, but it's reasonable to assign the responsibility of allowing that access to the parents and the rules of the house. Do you think that minors should be allowed to purchase cigarettes? If not, then there is a line that you agree with, defined by laws passed by our representatives, that limits what a minor can and can't purchase. My question is why is a law about video game content different than a law about cigarettes, when what is in question is the harm to minors. The line has to be drawn by laws, by us. The Supreme Court should not be striking down laws passed regarding what society deems to be harmful to minors. Constitutional law should not be applied to the limitations that we as a society place on minors. It's ridiculous.

[corsar-caribean]

They could, but it's reasonable to assign the responsibility of allowing that access to the parents and the rules of the house. Do you think that minors should be allowed to purchase cigarettes? If not, then there is a line that you agree with, defined by laws passed by our representatives, that limits what a minor can and can't purchase. My question is why is a law about video game content different than a law about cigarettes, when what is in question is the harm to minors. The line has to be drawn by laws, by us. The Supreme Court should not be striking down laws passed regarding what society deems to be harmful to minors. Constitutional law should not be applied to the limitations that we as a society place on minors. It's ridiculous.

Then again, it shouldn't even come to that. Parents should just take responsibility and deal with their minors. It shouldn't be difficult for parents to assert their just powers over their kids and enforce the rules they place for them to abide by.

[wMceqj7F]

Then again, it shouldn't even come to that. Parents should just take responsibility and deal with their minors. It shouldn't be difficult for parents to assert their just powers over their kids and enforce the rules they place for them to abide by.

You are evading the points of the argument so this is useless.

[prmwsinfo]

They could, but it's reasonable to assign the responsibility of allowing that access to the parents and the rules of the house. Do you think that minors should be allowed to purchase cigarettes? If not, then there is a line that you agree with, defined by laws passed by our representatives, that limits what a minor can and can't purchase. My question is why is a law about video game content different than a law about cigarettes, when what is in question is the harm to minors. The line has to be drawn by laws, by us. The Supreme Court should not be striking down laws passed regarding what society deems to be harmful to minors. Constitutional law should not be applied to the limitations that we as a society place on minors. It's ridiculous.

So society can decide to pass any law it wants now? That is precisely why we have a Constitution in the first place, to prevent mob rule. Cigarettes actually cause physical harm to anyone who smokes them. It has been shown time and time again that there is no link AT ALL to the viewing of violent images or playing violent video games and actually committing an act of violence. Scalia quoted a doctor in his majority opinion who said "the same effects have been found when children watch cartoons starring Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner or when they play video games like Sonic the Hedgehog that are rated `E' or even when they `view a picture of a gun."

Video game systems of today are not the same as the old days. Yes, the games are more realistic, but they have parental controls built in. You want the parent to allow access and that is what this does. If you have any of the current generation of consoles you can have it not play games of a certain rating. The same is true of DVD/Blu-ray players. If you are a parent and you have not adjusted these settings then that is YOUR fault and no action by the government or a retail store is going to fix that for you.

You ignored my point about what is available online. Any kid is going to have easier access to an unrestricted internet connection than an unrestricted video game console. Not to mention that a computer can play games and many are easily downloadable with little or no oversight. (read: click here to confirm you are XX years old. It is pretty much the honor system on most sites.) Back in our day we might have had to watch the scrambled bars on blocked channels or hope that our parents were not aware that it was Showtime's free preview weekend, but today any kid can get access to that stuff quite easily.

These laws are an unnecessary infringement on free speech and reinforce the attitude that the government knows better than you what your kids should be doing.

[wMceqj7F]

So society can decide to pass any law it wants now? That is precisely why we have a Constitution in the first place, to prevent mob rule. Cigarettes actually cause physical harm to anyone who smokes them. It has been shown time and time again that there is no link AT ALL to the viewing of violent images or playing violent video games and actually committing an act of violence. Scalia quoted a doctor in his majority opinion who said "the same effects have been found when children watch cartoons starring Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner or when they play video games like Sonic the Hedgehog that are rated `E' or even when they `view a picture of a gun."

Video game systems of today are not the same as the old days. Yes, the games are more realistic, but they have parental controls built in. You want the parent to allow access and that is what this does. If you have any of the current generation of consoles you can have it not play games of a certain rating. The same is true of DVD/Blu-ray players. If you are a parent and you have not adjusted these settings then that is YOUR fault and no action by the government or a retail store is going to fix that for you.

You ignored my point about what is available online. Any kid is going to have easier access to an unrestricted internet connection than an unrestricted video game console. Not to mention that a computer can play games and many are easily downloadable with little or no oversight. (read: click here to confirm you are XX years old. It is pretty much the honor system on most sites.) Back in our day we might have had to watch the scrambled bars on blocked channels or hope that our parents were not aware that it was Showtime's free preview weekend, but today any kid can get access to that stuff quite easily.

These laws are an unnecessary infringement on free speech and reinforce the attitude that the government knows better than you what your kids should be doing.

I did not ignore your point and answered it. I disagree with you completely about this and my post was very clear. Your response lacks that clarity, so we'll just move on.

[prmwsinfo]

I did not ignore your point and answered it. I disagree with you completely about this and my post was very clear. Your response lacks that clarity, so we'll just move on.

So you will just ignore everything I said. Got it. Your response to my point about online content was basically "yes, they can" but I felt you brushed off exactly how prevalent the exact same content is online and with much easier access which I expanded on in the next post, which you chose to ignore because you wanted to argue semantics instead of substance.

[pongeystrhjst]

So what do you guys think about the supreme court ruling that strikes down the California law that prohibited minors from purchasing violent video games? Job for government or job for parents?

[Ngdyoysv]

Already a thread on this. Discussion is pretty lively in there too )


http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/judi...eme-court.html

[Tzqowwyt]

The entire law was bullcrap. A large percentage of the violent videogames that young people play are bought FOR them by their parents. This law would do very little to stop young people from playing or getting these games.

[wMceqj7F]

So you will just ignore everything I said. Got it. Your response to my point about online content was basically "yes, they can" but I felt you brushed off exactly how prevalent the exact same content is online and with much easier access which I expanded on in the next post, which you chose to ignore because you wanted to argue semantics instead of substance.

Semantics? I wonder if you even know what that word means. I did not argue semantics at all. Your argument and style is so puerile that I wonder if you don't have a horse in the this race, and I have no desire to answer you again on this topic.

[wMceqj7F]

The entire law was bullcrap. A large percentage of the violent videogames that young people play are bought FOR them by their parents. This law would do very little to stop young people from playing or getting these games.

That's an irrelevant argument. Seriously, that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue being argued. Why did you post that?