Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Strikes Down California's Violent Game Ban
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down as unconstitutional a California statute purporting to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. In a 30-page decision (PDF), in Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, the federal appeals court ruled that 'the Act, as a presumptively invalid content based restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the 'variable obscenity' standard from Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968). Applying strict scrutiny, we hold that the Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment because the State has not demonstrated a compelling interest, has not tailored the restriction to its alleged compelling interest, and there exist less-restrictive means that would further the State's expressed interests. Additionally, we hold that the Act's labeling requirement is unconstitutionally compelled speech under the First Amendment because it does not require the disclosure of purely factual information; but compels the carrying of the State's controversial opinion.'"
Grand Theft Auto III, Doom, Mortal Kombat II, Resident Evil 4, Super Mario Galaxy, Pong....let's show these uptight bastards!!
We ban R-rated films from minors without a parent accompanying the kids. The reason for this is the graphic nature of many films.
More specifically, the reason for this is a common belief that the graphic nature of many films makes them "inappropriate" to be viewed by minors. This belief, however, is based on ideology rather than evidence.
There's a reason these things should not be available to kids without guidance. The human brain does not develop its judgement part until between 18-22 years old
This is blatantly false: minors make judgments all the time. Perhaps you meant to say that minors make judgments you disagree with.
and the judgement of kids younger than 18 is notoriously horrible.
You could say the same thing about any other group: "the judgment of women is notoriously horrible". And it'd be just as inaccurate. You could even come up with five examples of women making bad judgments, but you'd have to overlook the countless examples of everyone else making their own bad judgments.
I love libertarian views, but this stuff is not meant for people who have no rational frame of reference.
Luckily, most minors do have a rational frame of reference, whether you care to admit it or not.
I do not want these people influenced by something they are physically incapable of understanding.
There's no rational reason to believe minors are "physically incapable of understanding" them in the first place. What makes you think there is?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Okay...and that still doesn't make his post make any more sense. Nice try though.