Slashdot Mirror
Most Laws Attempting Limits of Violent Videogames Fail
circletimessquare writes "Good news for common sense: the New York Times examines the track record of state laws attempting to put additional limits on violent videogames, and finds that the courts have struck almost all of them down as unconstitutional. Especially notable is this gem of a quote, from Judge Richard A. Posner: 'Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low ... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.'"
Because this guy wasn't on the Supreme Court that ruled the obscenity wasn't protected by the First Amendment.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
I can understand his position... the GGP appears to list progressively more widely offensive things, and then finishes with gay sex. It implies that gay sex is the most offensive thing on the list.
At the end of the original French Le Petit Chaperon Rouge, there is a moral which makes the sexual aspect of the story pretty clear (translated into English):
"One sees here that young children, above all young girls, pretty, well to do and gentle, will do bad in encountering all sorts of people. . . I speak of the 'wolf', for all the wolves. . . without sound. . . follow young maidens. . . into houses, into lanes. But beware! know that the most gentle wolves, of all the wolves, are the most dangerous"
Judge Posner is probably one of the best legal minds of the age, it's sad that he wasn't one of the nominees to the Supreme Court.
I have to disagree because the proper end to this sentence is:
To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images is a decision best left up to parents, not the government.
Note that the good judge has gone on about his opinion of to what children should be exposed to and not to whose rights are what. It's this kind of judging that gets orders handed down from the bench as to what we should or shouldn't do instead of protecting our rights. Just because this judgement against censorship coicidentally falls on the side of individual rights it may be just that - coincidence. Otherwise the reasoning given indicates a judge who decides what is best on your behalf.