Slashdot Mirror
Judge Blocks Ban on Violent Video Game Sales
dada21 writes "SFGate is reporting that a federal judge recently blocked a new California law that would have banned the sale of violent video games to minors. From the article: 'Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had signed the bill by Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, to ban the sale or rental of especially violent video games to children under 18 years old unless there is parental approval. The law was to take effect Jan. 1.'"
Suing their parents for 100 times the price of the original game, of course.
So the judge doesn't think I have a right to decide what my child has access to?
Tell you what, your honorless, why don't you drag your sorry ass over here and take care of my teenage daughter since you have denied me a simple ability I might need as a parent. I may not ever need that tool, but I damn well think it should be my right to decide, not yours. However, since you have decided you know best how to take care of her, enjoy the job.
Before anyone flames me, I doubt there are any games I would not let her rent, but it's still my damn decision.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Ummm.. legal ID, perhaps... like is done with alcohol. I believe almost every state legally requires anyone over 18 to have a form of state issues ID. If you don't have such an ID, then you are either breaking the law or are not 18+ and attempting to break the law (if a law was in place against buying said product)... or at least attempting to coerce someone else to break the law (if the law were against selling said product).
Hmmm... has anyone every bothered to actually think of the CONTEXT that this was written and created? Or has everyone just gone and accepted that the current exploited form is what it was originally intended as? As I recall, it was largely put in place to protect the people from an opressive government. The right to speak out against the government without reprecussion and to restrict the government from stepping on the religious rights of the people.
I'm mean, I'm all for free speech... but let's keep things in perspective here. Also, when the "rights" of an individual in regards to free speech begins to tread on the rights of other individuals (such as parental rights.. or even religious rights in conflict with another's "free speech" rights), where does the line get drawn? Who's rights prevail? In most cases, parental rights have prevailed.... How's that for precendence!
And one more thing... are we all so naive as to think the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were perfectly designed to address all issues that would ever come and affect the society? Please! Many (not all) the ammendments stuck on to the constitution, and the laws added creating this spagetti legal system of ours... they were to try and deal with the situations where this Bill of Rights just isn't realistic!
Never try to apply idealistic views to reality... idealistic views are merely guidance... not dogma.