US Supreme Court: Video Games Qualify For First Amendment

Wrath0fb0b writes "The United States Supreme Court threw out a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors. Notable in the opinion is a historical review of the condemnation of "unworthy" material that would tend to corrupt children, starting with penny-novels and up through comic books and music lyrics. The opinion is also notable for the odd lineup of Justices that defies normal ideological lines, with one conservative and one liberal jurist dissenting on entirely different grounds. In the process, they continue the broad rule that the First Amendment does not vary with the technological means used: 'Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And the basic principles of freedom of speech... do not vary with a new and different communication medium.'"

Comments

The fall of the free empire

[el_jake]

We are not free but slaves of puritanism...

Re:The fall of the free empire

[amliebsch]

Whoosh?

Re:The fall of the free empire

[blackraven14250]

He whooshed so hard, my house almost collapsed.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[d3ac0n]

Heh, looks like he didn't even read the summary, let alone RTFA.

But he got First Post, so, um, Yay for him I guess?

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Gideon Wells]

Your house survived, but there is going to be a national day of mourning for the lost trailer parks due to this woosh.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[gstoddart]

We are not free but slaves of puritanism...

Very true ... in my lifetime, the most notable example of this was when Tipper Gore was trying to get a bunch of music banned. This, of course, led to Dee Schneider in the most ball-hugging jeans you could imagine testifying about why what she was proposing was just plain wrong.

Everyone wraps themselves in the flag, and talks about freedom, but often they only mean for people who they agree with. You can't have free speech if you don't support the right of people to say offensive things just because you'd rather not hear it (or because you think it's causing out moral decay).

It's amazing how vocal people can be about making sure that the rights of other people are limited so as not to offend their own sensibilities.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing how vocal people can be about making sure that the rights of other people are limited so as not to offend their own sensibilities.

mod parent up. A truly excellent line.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[hamburgler007]

The best part was how Dee so eloquently eviscerated her proposal.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[geoffrobinson]

If you are going to condemn any society with even modest morals legislation (excluding major things like murder) as tantamount to slavery, there has never been a free people ever.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[ackthpt]

We are not free but slaves of puritanism...

This is a major victory for News Delivered Through Video Games, no matter how bad the news is!

Re:The fall of the free empire

[nschubach]

Daniel "Dee" Snider would not be referred to as "her."

Re:The fall of the free empire

[nschubach]

Sorry. Reading comprehension fail on my part.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[tighr]

But would Tipper Gore?

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Flyerman]

You are correct, Tipper Gore is being referred to as "her"

Re:The fall of the free empire

[rwiggers]

It's amazing how vocal people can be about making sure that the rights of other people are limited so as not to offend their own sensibilities.

Very true... Suppose there's a hungry vampire just in front of you, about to die if not by your blood. Which right to live is bigger? (from a book I read a long time ago). Let's get a not so hypothetical and fantastic case, let's say you're in front of a severe renal patient and known to be a compatible donor. You don't want to live with a single kidney, which right is more important, his right to live or your right not to have your organs harvested?
You're always limiting the rights of other people, including their right to live, by asserting your rights. The problem is where to draw the line.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[SirGarlon]

Daniel "Dee" Snider would not be referred to as "her."

But Tipper Gore would. I think the key to understanding the sentence is knowing what "eviscerate" means.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Skarecrow77]

The answer to that is easy, if unpopular:
Your "right to live" exists solely by your ability to defend it.

You have the same "right to live" as anybody or anything else, which is none.

We live in a civilized society, where we have negotiated out most of the anarchist might-makes-right tendencies of our forefathers, but you walk down the wrong dark alley on the wrong night and those negotiations mean jack squat.

so, to answer your two riddles, the vampire and the renal patient have absolutely no right at all to your blood/organs, nor do they have a "right" to continue living either, but they certainly might make the attempt to continue living at your expense, hopefully (well, from your PoV anyway) you can stop them.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Knuckles]

Oh

Re:The fall of the free empire

[sarysa]

We are not free but slaves of puritanism...

Not sure if you read the article, but we non-puritans just won a 7-2 victory in the Supreme Court today. It's not 9-0 but it's still pretty decisive. Even [insert the opposing side of the other side that sort of matches your own ideology here] is on your side. I couldn't have jumped to ./ any quicker after reading the story elsewhere.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[gstoddart]

You're always limiting the rights of other people, including their right to live, by asserting your rights. The problem is where to draw the line.

I disagree with that thesis entirely.

Their right to live does not mean in any way that I'm required to surrender mine. Just because you might need an organ donation, doesn't confer an obligation upon me to give it to you. The same as the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" doesn't actually guarantee you a job or to be happy ... merely the right to look for it.

Because, as soon as you start doing the calculus of whose life is more valuable ... you start using the poor as spare parts for the rich.

In my opinion, both of your examples are nonsensical and contrived. That isn't about 'offending someone else's sensibilities' .... it's about making your own rights inferior to that of someone else. I don't see any ambiguity in where to draw the line you seem to think is a broad and fuzzy expanse ... your rights can't extend past the security of my own person.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is proper to mix up genders frequently so as to demonstrate how irrelevant their designation is among thinking people.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Anonymous Coward]

The her referred to above is Tipper Gore. Replace "her" with "Tipper Gore's". She's the one who was proposing censorship and being rebutted by Dee.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Rakarra]

Very true... Suppose there's a hungry vampire just in front of you, about to die if not by your blood. Which right to live is bigger? (from a book I read a long time ago). Let's get a not so hypothetical and fantastic case, let's say you're in front of a severe renal patient and known to be a compatible donor. You don't want to live with a single kidney, which right is more important, his right to live or your right not to have your organs harvested?

This was actually the scenario (or close to it) used to defend the moral right of allowing an abortion in the case of rape/incest. The notion that your body cannot be used to provide life without your consent (although in the philosophy readings I saw, the actual example was 'what if Fred Astaire needed one of your kidneys...").

Re:The fall of the free empire

[hairyfeet]

Ya know, I've always wondered about this...what is it that draws tornadoes to trailer parks? If there is a trailer park anywhere near the path you just know they are fucked, as it seems a tornado will go out of its way to take that fucker out. Since I doubt tornadoes are just snobs I have to wonder, what is it? Magnetism?

As for TFA frankly I'm shocked, but then again I'm really not. Any law that will affect a corporation in the pocketbook will get shut down, see Citizens United for example. The fact that this is ultimately good for the people should probably be seen as a side effect with the main goal making sure corps can sell GTA 47 to anybody with a buck. Not that I think that is a bad thing, as I let my kids play violent games but of course instead of just sitting them in front of the machine I actually showed them how it works and how files like DOOM Wads (boy I'm dating myself!) were translated into what they see on the screen, how scripts gave the illusion of AI, how textures could be edited to make the game "world" whatever they wanted it to be.

Of course while this did have the intended effect of showing the kids the difference between reality and gaming it did have one very strange unforeseen "side effect" and that was the way my oldest "cursed" when he played a game. I would hear "What is this? Tearing? Do they think this is DOOM? And who designed these levels? I've seen mods with better levels than this. And this AI is just pathetic! DUCK YOU STUPID BAD GUY!". Needless to say I had to chuckle at his little tirades against bad game design.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously because I want to keep the mod - both of you make very good points. Good debate, sirs! I'd have to say that your point about the poor being spare parts for the rich is very incisive.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Dcnjoe60]

You're always limiting the rights of other people, including their right to live, by asserting your rights. The problem is where to draw the line.

For a country based on certain inalienable rights, Americans sure don't understand the concept very well. While there are some exceptions, for the common good (such as not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) If someone is able to limit your right by asserting theirs, then you didn't have a right in the first place. The reason they are called inalienable or basic human rights is because they cannot be reduced by others (without violating said right).

So, in the United States, there is a current trend to ban smoking in public places. Why? Because all people have a right to breathe clean air (as clean as it may or may not be). Smokers on the other hand complain about their right to smoke, but there is no such right. I guess one could try and argue that smoking is a form of expression and therefore falls under the first amendment, but I doubt that would be successful.

Some rights are granted solely by the state and can indeed be forfeited by the individual, like if you are convicted of a felony, your right to vote is forfeit. That isn't another imposing their right on you, but a consequence of an action taken by you. However state granted rights are not the same as basic or inalienable rights. In the United States, the constitution grants the right to free speech. In reality, that right exists with or without the constitution. If it didn't, then the founders would not have had the "right" to declare independence. The constitution doesn't create the right, but codifies it, instead. That is an inalienable basic right. The right to vote is not the same type of right. The State dictates who may or may not vote and how it is to be done. The actual right, however, is for self determination and is exemplified by the notion to vote for one's political leaders. Not all societies allow voting for their leaders or at least not in the same way as the US, but all peoples are entitled to the right of self determination.

You mention a vampire and hunger in your post, although a bad example as the situation is impossible. However, use the example of the individual who needs an expensive medicine or they will die. They are poor and can't afford it. That does not give them the "right" to break into the pharmacy and steal it (thus impinging on the right of the pharmacist to his/her property). There may be a moral question involved, but that does not make it a "right."

People would be better served if they understood what is actually a right, and what their actual rights were. It would clear up a lot of the rhetoric in political campaigns and in general public discourse.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[cheekyjohnson]

While there are some exceptions, for the common good (such as not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater)

And whether the "common good" is actually "good" or not can be debated. There are people who disagree with that ban.

That isn't another imposing their right on you, but a consequence of an action taken by you.

I'd say that it's both.

In reality, that right exists with or without the constitution.

How so? What sort of authority dictates that? The right to free speech is merely your right to speak and not be arrested or punished by the government for the speech. They're the ones (as well as the people) who decides to give people that right, as far as I know.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[countertrolling]

...but you smoke a joint in front of the police station and those negotiations mean jack squat.

There...

We have 'negotiated' nothing.. we simply submit to authority to avoid being beaten to death... 'might makes right' still applies as much as it ever has.. it's hardly an 'anarchist' concept

Re:The fall of the free empire

[rwiggers]

You're always limiting the rights of other people, including their right to live, by asserting your rights. The problem is where to draw the line.

I disagree with that thesis entirely.

Their right to live does not mean in any way that I'm required to surrender mine. Just because you might need an organ donation, doesn't confer an obligation upon me to give it to you. The same as the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" doesn't actually guarantee you a job or to be happy ... merely the right to look for it.

I'd say you just confirmed my point. You don't have to surrender your right simply because the papers would be reversed then. Someone shouting that this or that genre of art is disgusting and should be forbidden is attacking a basic right (free speech) of someone else is just like someone shouting that organ donation should be compulsory is attacking a basic right (physical integrity or even your right to live).
Also, you can give someone the right to look for a job or happiness with no feasible way to achieve the goal.

Because, as soon as you start doing the calculus of whose life is more valuable ... you start using the poor as spare parts for the rich.

Sure. Don't we kinda do that already, in economic terms? (poor people's work pays rich people's health care while having (almost) none themselves)

In my opinion, both of your examples are nonsensical and contrived. That isn't about 'offending someone else's sensibilities' .... it's about making your own rights inferior to that of someone else. I don't see any ambiguity in where to draw the line you seem to think is a broad and fuzzy expanse ... your rights can't extend past the security of my own person.

You may redefine the security of your own person to include quite a lot.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Raenex]

If it's any consolation, I made the same mistake upon first reading. It was poor pronoun usage by the original poster.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[nschubach]

Thanks, but it's not going to stop the thirteen posters who will follow up pointing that out, even though I've corrected myself within a minute. (/petpeeve)

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Dcnjoe60]

While there are some exceptions, for the common good (such as not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater)

And whether the "common good" is actually "good" or not can be debated. There are people who disagree with that ban.

That isn't another imposing their right on you, but a consequence of an action taken by you.

I'd say that it's both.

In reality, that right exists with or without the constitution.

How so? What sort of authority dictates that? The right to free speech is merely your right to speak and not be arrested or punished by the government for the speech. They're the ones (as well as the people) who decides to give people that right, as far as I know.

If you want to go down that approach than all rights are granted by the state or an external deity. However, most nations have agreed on certain basic or inalienable rights. They have "agreed" to, not granted them, as the state cannot grant what is inalienable. In the United States, for instance, it is not the will of the people that says what a right is, nor the will of the legislature. Throughout its history, the people have willed one thing and the courts upheld something else. So, there must be something outside the will of the people that determines what is a right. The people have periodically amended the constitution, but that can only be done if such amendment does not impinge on some other right outlined there (for instance a new amendment cannot restrict, say the freedom of speech).

There are very few basic human or inalienable rights. There are many privileges granted by the state, but those are not rights. We just take them as such.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[cheekyjohnson]

However, most nations have agreed on certain basic or inalienable rights.

But they're not inalienable. They can be taken away by those same nations.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[DaftDev]

Ya know, I've always wondered about this...what is it that draws tornadoes to trailer parks? If there is a trailer park anywhere near the path you just know they are fucked, as it seems a tornado will go out of its way to take that fucker out. Since I doubt tornadoes are just snobs I have to wonder, what is it? Magnetism?

I wonder if it's because trailer parks are built on large sections of flat land?

Re:The fall of the free empire

[SuricouRaven]

I am a genderless blob.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Surt]

Tornadoes aren't drawn to trailer parks. Smaller, more common tornadoes are just sufficiently powerful to do substantial damage in a trailer park, because trailer parks are fragile compared to houses / business districts.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[osu-neko]

Bingo. We had a tornado literally go through our yard when I was a kid, and all it did was rip a few loose singles off the roof of the house, while completely demolishing our garage. Had our house been one of those trailers, it would have fared about as well as the garage...

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Skarecrow77]

Personally, I'd say we'd negotiated our right to smoke a joint in front of the police station away in order to get something else. That's the whole definition of negotiate. You gotta give something up to get something.

And yes, the point of my post was that "might makes right" still exists under the facade of polite modern life. Most people won't attempt to kill you for your money, your body, or simply their own amusement, but a few will and you must be prepared for them.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Yakasha]

It's amazing how vocal people can be about making sure that the rights of other people are limited so as not to offend their own sensibilities.

How, exactly, would your rights have been limited by this law?

Re:The fall of the free empire

[osu-neko]

For that matter, all forms of birth control, including abstinence, deny a person from coming into being who otherwise would. I always love the people who ask children of accidental pregnancies, "Would you like it if your mother had chosen to have an abortion?" as if that constituted a point in their favor. If they ask you that, ask them, "Would you like it if your mother has abstained from sex?" If they're glad she didn't, ask them if this then constitutes an argument in favor of outlawing abstinence.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[smelch]

So... I know a few of the loose singles are gone, but did the rest stay? I've got something I want to show them.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[harperska]

I would argue that rights fall into two general categories - active rights, and passive rights. Active rights give you the right to do something (e.g. right to freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to smoke a cigarette, etc.), and passive rights give you the right to not have something done to you (e.g. right to not be searched without a warrant, right to live, right to not breathe polluted air, etc.). In general, I believe (my opinion as I am not a constitutional law expert) that you may exercise any of your active rights, as long as they do not infringe on any other person's passive rights. Therefore, it is your right to smoke a cigarette as long as you don't infringe on somebody else's right to not breathe polluted air. Their choosing to breathe clean air doesn't infringe your right to smoke a cigarette, as they are not "not breathing polluted air at you" as that makes no sense. Not breathing polluted air is a passive action. Likewise, it is your free speech right to yell fire unless it will result in infringing others' right to not be trampled to death, whereas peoples' right to not be trampled to death does not infringe your free speech right to yell fire. And it is the right of the person dying of renal failure to receive a kidney transplant unless it infringes your right to make decisions regarding your own body. Now, if there were perfectly good spare kidneys just lying around not being used by anyone, it would then be infringing the renal patient their right to life to deny them one of those kidneys 'just because'.

Another interesting thing about active vs. passive rights, is that it is a passive action to not exercise an active right (it is clearly not true that every patron of the theatre makes a conscious decision not to yell 'fire' every time they attend a show), but it is an active action to not exercise a passive right. One could, for example, choose to allow yourself to be searched without a warrant. Perhaps because you have nothing to hide, and wish to discredit an accuser in a 'turn the other cheek' sort of civil disobedience. But the point is, you have to make the decision to let them search you for it to not be infringing.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[GodfatherofSoul]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't about banning music it was about assigning movie-like ratings to music that would require the same kinds of parental supervision on purchase as an R-rated movie.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Dcnjoe60]

However, most nations have agreed on certain basic or inalienable rights.

But they're not inalienable. They can be taken away by those same nations.

Actually, they cannot, at least without violating the individual's right. Rights are not a matter of law or reason, but instead philosophy. From those philosophical rights come those things that we routinely call rights, and they are, but they are not inalienable or basic human rights. Instead they are rights granted by the state.

The most basic right is the right to life. If the state (or anyone else for that matter) takes it away from you, then that right is violated. It is not up to the state to grant you right to life, it is yours by being human. All other rights are based on this right. You have the right to self-determination, too. That does not mean you won't suffer the consequences of choices you make. It does mean, however, that the state violates your right when it determines for you what class you will belong to.

Even in the United States, the so called right to bear arms stems from the right to life and bearing arms is a way to protect that right. Not only do you have the right to life, you have the right to protect that life. It is important to note, however, that by life, it truly means that - life, not a "way of life." Again, in the US, the right of free speech is because you have a basic inalienable right to self determination and to secure that right, you have to be able to express your ideas. Of course, even in the US, there are consequences to that expression, but that does not negate the right. In oppressive countries, not only do they restrict that right, but very often by exercising it, you have your right to self-determination and life restricted, too.

Just because the state punishes one for exercising basic inalienable human rights, does not mean that the state takes them away. The fact that the individual is punished or killed is a violation of their rights, not a negation of them.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[arth1]

How, exactly, would your rights have been limited by this law?

I can't speak for him, but my right to decide whether my children can make their own mind up about what to read/play is a right that I don't want limited.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[cheekyjohnson]

Actually, they cannot, at least without violating the individual's right.

Sure they can. If they take away the right that they granted the people, then it is gone. It no longer exists. There is no evidence for absolute rights, as far as I know.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Yakasha]

How, exactly, would your rights have been limited by this law?

I can't speak for him, but my right to decide whether my children can make their own mind up about what to read/play is a right that I don't want limited.

The law would not restrict that. You could still purchase any game you wanted and hand it over to your kid with no legal repercussions. Same as a glock.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Anonymous Coward]

bingo. there hasn't been.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[arth1]

What part of "whether my children can make their own mind up" did you fail to understand?

YOU should have no say in whether I allow MY children to buy something without my knowledge.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Toonol]

You're always limiting the rights of other people, including their right to live, by asserting your rights. The problem is where to draw the line.

There is a difference between a right and an entitlement. A person has a right to their own kidney. They aren't entitled to anyone else's kidney. Sure, there are contrived cases where the distinction is blurred, but with consistent definitions, that doesn't occur much.

There is a lot of confusion over rights, and many lists of 'rights' contain entries that are in no way rights. Medical care, for instance, isn't a right. Calling it a right is as nonsensical as calling a book a song. It is an entitlement. Maybe it's a good entitlement, worth having in law... but to call it a right is an indication of muddled thinking.

A vampire has a right to seek blood, but no right to take blood from anyone. The first is a freedom, the second is a theft.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Toonol]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't about banning music it was about assigning movie-like ratings to music that would require the same kinds of parental supervision on purchase as an R-rated movie.

Except it was an attempt to give those ratings the weight of law. Movie ratings have no legal standing. Any attempt by congress to require ratings on movies would fail for the same reason it failed for music.

As a side-note: Remember books? Barnes & Noble has more violence and sexual content than any video rental store. Underage sex, even. Where are the ratings on books? A fifteen-year old can legally purchase "Silence of the Lambs", or even "The Bible". Where's the outrage?

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Yakasha]

What part of "whether my children can make their own mind up" did you fail to understand?

YOU should have no say in whether I allow MY children to buy something without my knowledge.

I think you're the only one failing to understand something. Kids are not able to comprehend consequences or the effects things have on their lives. That is why 2 year olds will get mad at their reflections for not playing with them. That is why you lock up anti-freeze to prevent your kids from drinking it. That is why kids are not allowed to purchase firearms, or cigarettes, or alcohol.

But your kids must be special because they have the same decision making skills the day they're born as you. Right?

Re:The fall of the free empire

[tighr]

It's not your fault, it is Slashdot not dynamically updating a rapidly changing comment stream. My post was only three minutes after your original, and two minutes after your correction, but your correction wasn't on my screen until I had finished reading the comments and came back later on a refresh. I guess I could refresh before commenting.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Dcnjoe60]

Actually, they cannot, at least without violating the individual's right.

Sure they can. If they take away the right that they granted the people, then it is gone. It no longer exists. There is no evidence for absolute rights, as far as I know.

When inalienable rights (or absolute to use your term) are basic things such as the right to life or self determination, the state cannot take them away. The state can however violate them, which has the same effect. China only allowing male children and killing female is not taking away any rights. It is violating female children's right to life. That is why they are called human rights violations. Because the state cannot remove them, but only violate them.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[cheekyjohnson]

When inalienable rights (or absolute to use your term) are basic things such as the right to life or self determination, the state cannot take them away.

They certainly can take away your life. Maybe not your self determination, but that's because that isn't tangible. Where do these "rights" come from? What magical entity dictates that they cannot be taken away? Can you prove that any of these "rights" are inherent?

Re:The fall of the free empire

[arth1]

Oooo, the "think of the children" argument!

I think a 16-17 year old is perfectly capable of deciding what to buy.
You don't.

That doesn't give you a right to limit my rights to give my children the responsibility and freedom of making their own choices of what to buy, without it being subject to my approval. They learn that their parents honour their privacy and choices; something you want to remove. That's restricting my rights as a parent, no matter how you turn it.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[nschubach]

Nope, completely understand. What kills me are the replies I'll get tomorrow over the blunder. ;)

Re:The fall of the free empire

[jbengt]

The right to free speech is merely your right to speak and not be arrested or punished by the government for the speech. They're the ones (as well as the people) who decides to give people that right, as far as I know.

You have an unenlightened understanding of unalienable rights. The government can support or violate your rights, but they do not create those rights or give them to you.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[MaskedSlacker]

No, you just think that because you can't see your penis over your cheeto gut.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Unkyjar]

Rights are a philosophical concept. You can no more prove that inalienable rights exist than you can prove any other philosophical assertion.

I suppose to actually take away someone's right to life you'd have to do more than kill them, you'd have to make it so they never lived. Then they would never have had a right to life to be violated.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[jc42]

While there are some exceptions, for the common good (such as not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater)

And whether the "common good" is actually "good" or not can be debated. There are people who disagree with that ban.

Well, I've actually seen a case of people yelling "Fire!" in a theater, and nobody got charged with any crime, although there was nothing burning and there were at least a few cops present.

The situation was a movie whose name I've forgotten, but it was a comedy. The Good Guy and the Bad Guy had been stalking each other for a while, and in one scene, GG got the drop on BG. As GG was aiming his pistol, several dozen people in the theater hollered out "Fire!". Then the whole audience broke up laughing, and we all missed the next couple lines of dialog.

On another occasion, there actually was a fire in the theater, a rather minor fire at the concession stand in the lobby. The movie stopped, the lights came on, and a guy standing on the little "stage" below the screen calmly asked everyone to exit by the side door. He did explain about the fire, but didn't at any time yell "Fire!" or anything else.

So my experience (2 anecdotes ;-) says that we really need a new example. Shouting "Fire!" in a theater is now the rhetorical equivalent of "crying wolf", and no longer works in real life. For that matter, neither does "crying wolf", both because wolves are nearly extinct in most of the world, and because the few wolves that exist are generally extremely wary of humans, so they're no danger to us. But maybe "Wolves crying ``Human!'' would work."

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Yakasha]

Oooo, the "think of the children" argument!

Uhm, ok.

I think a 16-17 year old is perfectly capable of deciding what to buy. You don't.

Absolutely 100% wrong.
I think some kids are incapable of deciding in certain situations. Science agrees. To facilitate that in a general fashion (as all laws must), the law has determined that 18 years old is a generally accepted age at which most kids become adults and are then capable of making such decisions on their own. Some are still incapable of making the right decisions: so we have prisons and mental hospitals. Before 18, we have parents. Parents cannot be everywhere at all times, so we have laws to assist them in protecting their kids from the predations of others.

That doesn't give you a right to limit my rights to give my children the responsibility and freedom of making their own choices of what to buy, without it being subject to my approval.

It does, actually. Ever heard the term "You can please some people all the time, and all people some of the time, but you can't please everybody all the time"? That is what being "social" is all about. It is the entire basis of government, laws, and society. Generalizations are made for the betterment of most people. Your 16 year old might be capable of deciding whether or not to point an unloaded firearm at their friend's head and pull the trigger (by the sounding of your arguments, your kid would probably do exactly that and you'd be proud of him). Society, psychology, and history however, disagree. Most kids don't think that is ok, they just don't think about it. They don't think that *maybe* the gun is actually loaded and they didn't notice, so they don't follow the very basic firearm rule of never point a gun anywhere but the ground or your clearly visible target, loaded or unloaded, working or not working. live ammo or blanks. They are not responsible enough to be trusted with making that decision, and therefore are not allowed to buy guns on their own.

But beyond that, you seem to still fail to understand that the law in no way restricts your right or ability to have a conversation with your kid to determine if they're ready to play Modern Warfare, and then for your kid to play that game if your kid decides that.

They learn that their parents honour their privacy and choices; something you want to remove. That's restricting my rights as a parent, no matter how you turn it.

As do gun licenses, drivers licenses, alcohol sale restrictions, tobacco sales restrictions, tnt sales, ownership and usage restrictions, contract law, and numerous other things. You think it restricts your right to parent, when in fact it only restricts your right to not parent. Drop the Cheetos(tm), and actively do something instead of letting your kid raise himself.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[mosb1000]

I don't recall being present at these negotiations. Yet somehow, I am not exempt from them. This passes for "civilized society" by today's standards, but I don't think it's all that great. And I don't think the police could stop someone from killing you any better than you can yourself. They provide "justice" afterward.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[jbengt]

A right is not a guarantee. An unalienable right that is violated by a nation still exists as an unalienable right - it is not taken away, it is violated.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[ultranova]

I don't recall being present at these negotiations. Yet somehow, I am not exempt from them. This passes for "civilized society" by today's standards, but I don't think it's all that great.

You don't have a rules-enforcing chip in your brain, I presume? So just stop partaking in civil society and see if you'll do better without. Just don't whine about being thrown to prison or executed, since getting killed when you annoy someone more powerful than yourself is how life goes without civil society.

You want to partake of the benefits of an organized society (otherwise you'd just head for the nearest forest), and you want others to adhere to certain rules concerning you (otherwise you'd just break the law and ignore the consequences), yet you complain that you are bound by them too. Or perhaps you just want the rules to be entirely dictated by you. Either way, it's not very sympathy-inducing.

Of course, if your entirely complaint is about a particular rule - such as being able to smoke pot - you are in the luck: civil society has built-in means to try and renegotiate them, commonly known as the political system. Just don't confuse "negotiation" - where you talk with others about changing the rule, and could well fail - with "dictation", where you say the rule must be changed and it will be, no matter what anyone else wants.

And I don't think the police could stop someone from killing you any better than you can yourself. They provide "justice" afterward.

Which actually does quite a lot to stop people from killing you.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Golddess]

I think a 16-17 year old is perfectly capable of deciding what to buy.
You don't.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the core problem with any discussion regarding what "children" should or should not be allowed to do. The term encompasses everyone 0 to 18, and the people arguing for lax restrictions are thinking about people who are almost adults, while the people who want stricter restrictions are thinking pre-school age.

Do I think a 16-17 year old is perfectly capable of deciding what to buy? Maybe, but not the point. People are not born into adulthood, and until someone reaches adulthood, should not have the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges* as adults. But how do you determine if someone is an adult? At least in the US, the dividing line between between childhood and adulthood is that magic age of 18. You might argue that that arbitrarily chosen age should be lowered (and there are some who would argue that it is too low), but surely you recognize the need to have some firm, not subject to interpretation method of distinguishing a child from an adult?

*No I'm not going to talk about what those rights, responsibilities, and privileges should be.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[phlinn]

The real issue is the definition of public places. A privately owned bar is NOT a public place, even if open to the general public.

On the broader point, I like to phrase it this way: "There is no right to live, only a right not to be killed." There is a crucial difference between the 2. If the former existed, there would be situations in which one person having it would come into conflict with someone else having it. Any so called right which can not be equally held by everyone is not truly a right.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[cheekyjohnson]

You can no more prove that inalienable rights exist than you can prove any other philosophical assertion.

Then stating it as a fact is a bit much, is it not?

Re:The fall of the free empire

[cheekyjohnson]

No, I just don't agree. Rights are something that are granted. The fact that humans are able to speak does not mean that they have a "right" to. Also, where do these "rights" even come from? If not for governments enforcing them, they are not written or shown anywhere. As far as I know, there is no evidence that humans are "owed" anything or that they are "special." For instance, who are you to decide that it is not an inalienable right for me to take whatever I want from everyone else? Who decides what is and isn't an inalienable right? How? Maybe I'll understand if that is explained.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[arth1]

Except if that "child" does something heinous - then he or she is suddenly tried "as an adult". Double standards, all around.

Leave parenting to parents, please. They are in the best position to decide when a young person is grown up enough to face responsibility. If coddled, that may very well be at age 18 (or 30, for that matter). But if allowed to take responsibility, and being given some of the rights and privileges that come with responsibility, that may very well be sooner. Again, the parents should be in the best position to decide when their own children are adult enough - an arbitrary age limit is an excuse to enforce one's own moral values on other people's children.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Unkyjar]

That's a question for philosophers to debate, like existence itself and what it means for something to exist.

But to be fair, modern society operates on the principle there are human rights. So rejecting the premise means that your mindset is just advanced and you just need to wait for the downfall of modern society for others to catch up to you.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[ultranova]

If someone is able to limit your right by asserting theirs, then you didn't have a right in the first place. The reason they are called inalienable or basic human rights is because they cannot be reduced by others (without violating said right).

No, an "inalienable" right means a right you can't give up through legal agreements.

So, in the United States, there is a current trend to ban smoking in public places. Why? Because all people have a right to breathe clean air (as clean as it may or may not be). Smokers on the other hand complain about their right to smoke, but there is no such right.

On what basis do you claim such a right? And does it also forbid farting? If yes, what happens if you have stomach troubles - are you denied access to public places altogether? And how about the smell of sweat - are there minimum hygiene standards, and if they are, on what basis are you demanding your right to clean air trumps my right to see to conduct my personal hygiene as I see fit? And if the questions to "farting" and/or "hygiene" were negative, this starts seeming more about attacking smokers and less about anyone else's rights.

Coming up with new "rights" to stop other people from doing things that don't concern you is a pretty nasty abuse of the concept.

In the United States, the constitution grants the right to free speech. In reality, that right exists with or without the constitution.

In reality, it doesn't exist, with or without the Constitution. Your courts have a long history of deciding the First Amendment doesn't cover something because it's "obscene", never mind that the Amendment itself doesn't mention the word.

People would be better served if they understood what is actually a right, and what their actual rights were.

Yes, you would.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[mosb1000]

Yes, throw me in jail for smoking pot. Very reasonable. Very civilized. I don't know what I was complaining about.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[cheekyjohnson]

But to be fair, modern society operates on the principle there are human rights.

Really? I thought that most people at least required some evidence of something before they came to an absolute conclusion. Of course, whether or not most people do so does not matter to me.

And, indeed, humans rights are mentioned quite often, but how many people truly believe that they are similar to god-given inalienable rights, I wonder?

Re:The fall of the free empire

[ultranova]

A right is not a guarantee. An unalienable right that is violated by a nation still exists as an unalienable right - it is not taken away, it is violated.

In what way is this distinction a meaningful one? Whether your right to life is taken away or violated, you are just as dead. It doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter to anyone who cares about you or depends on you, and it doesn't matter to the state. Who does that leave, to whom it might make any difference whatsoever?

Re:The fall of the free empire

[hairyfeet]

I don't know about that, as here where I am (North central AR) the tornadoes follow the freeway except when there is a trailer park nearby and then it WILL veer and head straight for the trailer park. It is so predictable that when we listen to severe weather and the weatherman says a tornado has shifted someone will say "Is there a trailer park there?".

Maybe its a heat thing, I know they follow the freeways because all that asphalt holds in heat, maybe all that metal holds enough heat to "pull" the tornado in that direction? Because knock on wood every tornado that has rolled through this area in the past three years has stayed on the freeway...except when it takes out the trailer park on the south side, which has to be a good mile off of the road. After it trashes it, back to the freeway. Like I said if I didn't know better I'd think tornadoes are snobs.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Fjandr]

You're always limiting the rights of other people, including their right to live, by asserting your rights.

This is a failure to comprehend that the right to life is a negative right, not a positive one. What that means is you have the right to be free from another killing you, not that you have the right to force another to prevent you from dying. The latter is the reading of the "right to life" being a positive right. Negative rights require no action to assert. Positive rights require another to act in order to provide you with something.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[shutdown -p now]

which has the same effect

Hence why the entire distinction is pointless, and belongs to the field of philosophy (frankly, this smells more like theology to me - it's where most absolutes belong) and not law.

What matters in practice is whether you have right or not.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Golddess]

Again, the parents should be in the best position to decide when their own children are adult enough

So I should be disallowed from buying games, going to movies, reading books my parents disagree with, signing contracts, at age 20/30/40/90, just because my parents don't think I'm "mature" enough?

And just to clarify, I'm not saying that people should have the same rights and privileges at age 0 as at age 17.999, then suddenly have everything thrust upon them at 18. I'm only saying that there are some things which should only be allowed once you cross the threshold into adulthood (which again, I am not naming what I think those things are because that is not what this is about).

There are certainly flaws with the arbitrarily chosen age of 18. But it's a hell of a lot better than your proposed "whenever the fuck your parents wish to let you" system.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Outtascope]

And I don't think the police could stop someone from killing you any better than you can yourself. They provide "justice" afterward.

The police do NOT (or rather should not) provide justice before, during or afterward. That is NOT their responsibility, nor their purview. They provide for the protection of you, your things, and your rights as defined by the law during the heat of the moment, as they are to provide protection to others from you. One cannot abdicate their responsibility for their own safety, but the utilization of an organized police force serves to prevent the atrocities and escalation of violence the would result from individual dispensation of justice. As such, I prefer that the cops are there to maintain peace and provide an avenue to arrive at civilized resolution of disputes whenever possible. Anyone who has ever played COD on-line or anything similar (hell, even Netrek provided a scary insight into the mentality of a distinct portion of the general populace) should be acutely aware of how bad things would get if governance and justice were left to the impulse whims of the individual.

The COURTS are there to provide justice, via a constitutionally guaranteed right to a trial by a jury of your peers, such that you are bound by the jurisprudence of the society within which you reside, but not by the whims of mob rule (ideally). A police officer who believes that his or her purpose is the provision of justice constitutes a threat to society in their own right, and should be relieved of their privileged position of power.

The system is far from perfect. But no system of, by, and for the people will ever achieve perfection. This does not mean that a system devoid of consensual governance would be better. Or even survivable. I, along with most people, do not wish to live our lives in a form of varying degrees of combat every day. Which is why we maintain a system of justice that in general punishes those who decide to live their lives in such a fashion.

And nepomuk still sucks ass.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[shutdown -p now]

So where do those rights come from?

(I would prefer an explanation which does not involve the words "God", "Creator" etc)

Re:The fall of the free empire

[mosb1000]

Since the police can't be everywhere, all the time, they won't prevent you from being murdered. That's all I'm trying to say. What they do is try to catch the criminals afterward.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Lundse]

Distinguish between positive and negative rights first. Then discuss rights. (Not necessarily aimed at parent, just the discussion in general).

Eg. if we say the renal patient has a positive right to life, we do, de facto, owe him a kidney. If he has a negative right to life, we are not allowed to murder or eviscerate him - nor him us.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[arth1]

So I should be disallowed from buying games, going to movies, reading books my parents disagree with, signing contracts, at age 20/30/40/90, just because my parents don't think I'm "mature" enough?

One word: Emancipation

Re:The fall of the free empire

[zeroshade]

How is it better than letting the parents decide? Seriously, I just don't understand why so many people want the government to decide for them what their children should be allowed to do.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[zeroshade]

gun licenses, driver's licenses, alcohol sale restrictions, tobacco sales restrictions, tnt sales, ownership and usage restrictions, contract law,...

Now name something that is actually comparable to video games. Everything you mentioned has a serious change of either physical injury of themself or others, or financial injury of themself or others (possibility of law suits or other financial situations due to contract law and the like). If someone suggested that a book was to be banned for children, most people would find the idea ridiculous. They would say that the parents should decide whether to allow the child to read the book or not. Why is it different with video games? There's no proof that a violent game is any more or less harmful than a particularly violent book.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[jbengt]

You might not agree, but the USA is founded on the axiom that basic human rights are inherent, and not just granted by some government.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Yakasha]

gun licenses, driver's licenses, alcohol sale restrictions, tobacco sales restrictions, tnt sales, ownership and usage restrictions, contract law,...

Now name something that is actually comparable to video games. Everything you mentioned has a serious change of either physical injury of themself or others, or financial injury of themself or others (possibility of law suits or other financial situations due to contract law and the like).

That is not the basis for the restriction on sales to minors. Cigarettes do not hurt others (dont get pedantic on me), neither does booze or other drugs. The sales restrictions are about harm to the child due to their inability to use the items in question responsibly.

If someone suggested that a book was to be banned for children, most people would find the idea ridiculous. They would say that the parents should decide whether to allow the child to read the book or not. Why is it different with video games?

Its not. You are emotionally confusing the effects of the law. The CA law was not a "ban on video games". The CA law was a ban on sales directly to minors. Incidentally, there is a ban on the sale of certain literature directly to minors. There is even a ban on certain literature from appearing in child accessible public libraries. There is definitely a ban on certain visual artwork being sold to minors, which is very comparable to the video game sale ban and has already been ruled by the supreme court as constitutional.

There's no proof that a violent game is any more or less harmful than a particularly violent book.

See my other posts. There is published (APA) scientific work linking violence in media to increased aggression, and through that, violence. That is enough to show that a reasonable restriction on access should be considered, and is probably constitutional. The fact that violent books do not share the sale restriction is irrelevant. Many, many things become restricted only after additional information becomes available, and you have to start somewhere.

Re:The fall of the free empire

[Yakasha]

Now name something that is actually comparable to video games

libel, slander, and inciting to riot are examples of current constitutionally acceptably restricted speech, providing the basis that restricting speech, in and of itself, is not unconstitutional.

Everything you mentioned has a serious chance[sic] of either physical injury of themself or others,

Everything mentioned has a well-known chance of obvious harm.

If someone suggested that a book was to be banned for children

Like Hustler?

most people would find the idea ridiculous

Since the courts take into consideration the ideas and goals of the people of the country and have thus upheld certain speech restrictions; and have repeatedly had to rule on new laws restricting speech, I disagree. Most people think censorship is good and needed... they just don't grasp that they're hypocrites and actually believe "only speech I don't like should be censored."

Why is it different with video games?

Its not. Movies are restricted through the voluntary ratings system which was, arguably, put in place to avoid government interference in the same. Would government interference be allowed right now? Perhaps not. But that is ok for my point because I can always fall back to pornography and other obscenity laws. Try using a screenshot from LSL on the cover and see if that is acceptable.

Better yet, why don't you go make a game about raping small children. Make it nice and detailed. Then see if you run afowl of 18 USC 1466A. I'm really curious how the courts will rule there.

There's no proof that a violent game is any more or less harmful than a particularly violent book.

So because they're both harmful, and books are allowed, we shouldn't bother with games. Either your point is irrelevant or your logic is flawed.
Unless you're actually trying to go around the bush and say violent video games are not harmful... Other than the scientific evidence published by the APA that I've quoted in this thread... you'd be absolutely right. There is, however, the power of reason to support such scientific claims.

Med students arrive for 1st year and puke/get disgusted by the sight of the corpse they have to dissect. By graduation, med students cut open corpses and live patients without hesitation, because they have been desensitized to the horrors of seeing a sick/dead person. They no longer see the corpse/patient as a person, but a task, like a programmer looks at his computer.

"Desensitization" is used to treat phobias through repeated exposure.

Repeated exposure to anything makes you think of it as just an every day occurrence. You're not amazed and wondered by the oxygen entering your lungs... it just happens. You don't think about it.

Why would you expect your brain to work any differently for any other subject matter? If you are repeatedly shown violent images, you will become desensitized to them. They won't phase you at all. And anything that doesn't immediately strike you as odd or wrong is then more likely to be done by you while in a mood that precludes clear planning.

Children are worse. Children don't have the frame of reference to categorize something they experience correctly. You see a tree for the first time and you instantly categorize it a 1000 ways: brown, green, tall, wood, tree, leaves... safe. A kid sees it and they only categorize it maybe 10 ways: big, scary, brown, green. They have to figure out for themselves if its safe or scary or whatever. By having ready access to violent media before they're ready, they're more likely to categorize the violence they see incorrectly.

The CA law, like other restrictions placed on children, helps to ensure that people who's goal is to make money (not a bad thing, just the goal of 99.999% of businesses), do not u

Re:The fall of the free empire

[zeroshade]

Everything mentioned has a well-known chance of obvious harm.

That's exactly my point. Video games do not meet that criteria.

Like Hustler?

Maybe I should have been more specific, if someone suggested that a book be banned for children due to violence, most would find it ridiculous. Imagine someone claiming that the bible should be illegal to be read by minors due to the violence in it? Or many of the classic fairy tales?

Since the courts take into consideration the ideas and goals of the people of the country and have thus upheld certain speech restrictions; and have repeatedly had to rule on new laws restricting speech, I disagree. Most people think censorship is good and needed... they just don't grasp that they're hypocrites and actually believe "only speech I don't like should be censored."

I agree with this completely. Most people do believe that speech they don't like should be censored and speech they do like shouldn't be. That doesn't make them correct, nor does it mean it's constitutional.

Why is it different with video games?

It's not. Movies are restricted through the voluntary ratings system which was, arguably, put in place to avoid government interference of the same.

Precisely my point. This law would have singled video games out as different when they are not.

Better yet, why don't you go make a game about raping small children.

If you fall afoul of child pornography laws, then it will obviously be seen as illegal regardless of being a video game. Unlike the california law, the laws outlawing child pornography make no distinction between mediums.

So because they're both harmful, and books are allowed, we shouldn't bother with games. Either your point is irrelevant or your logic is flawed.

If they're both harmful, why should one be allowed but the other not? If your only argument is based on possible harm, and they are equal, then you can't treat one differently than the other. Either you outlaw violent media in it's entirety for children or you don't at all. To single out video games specifically is hypocritical, at that point it's not the content you're objecting to it's the medium.

Unless you're actually trying to go around the bush and say violent video games are not harmful... Other than the scientific evidence published by the APA that I've quoted in this thread... you'd be absolutely right.

I'm going to quote the Supreme Court Majority Opinion on this one:

"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' (appropriate for all ages), or even when they view a picture of a gun."

"One study ... found that children who had just finished playing violent video games were more likely to fill in the blank letter in 'explo_e' with a 'd' (so that it reads 'explode') than with an 'r' ('explore'). ... The prevention of this phenomenon, which might have been anticipated with common sense, is not a compelling state interest."

As you can see, the validity of these studies as any kind of lasting harm to a child is debatable.

Why would you expect your brain to work any differently for any other subject matter? If you are repeatedly shown violent images, you will become desensitized to them. They won't phase you at all. And anything that doesn't immediately strike you as odd or wrong is them more likely to be done by you while in a mood that precludes clear planning.

Why would you expect the different medium to change this phenomenon of desensitization? The same reactions occur whether they are watching a movie, rea

Re:The fall of the free empire

[MikeBabcock]

Luckily you were not included in the preparation of the international declaration on human rights.

As an American Conservative...

[d3ac0n]

Let me just say; Hear hear! Well done Supreme Court.

Our rights (ALL of them) are not to be given away to petty tyrants for any reason, even "For the Children".

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Kenja]

The counter argument is that children dont have the same rights as adults. That being said, I have no issue with parents being required to make decisions as to which games they allow their kids to play, provided that information is out there for them to make an informed decision.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

Let me just say; Hear hear! Well done Supreme Court.

Our rights (ALL of them) are not to be given away to petty tyrants for any reason, even "For the Children".

As a fellow conservative, I must disagree. I see no problem with a state limiting what a minor may buy. Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes, I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games.

Note: No is saying that minors are not allowed to play these games, only to PURCHASE them. As a parent, I not only appreciate the idea that I would have to be the one to purchase the material, but I also like the idea that other parents would have to purchase the material for their kids. It's a parent's responsibility to keep up with what their kids are doing. This law would have helped a parent do that. As for the parents too lazy to get off their ass to buy the games? These are the same parents that won't monitor what their kids are doing and are EXACTLY the parents of the kids I don't want owning violent/pornographic video games.

With all that said, I would more than likely buy such games for my kids and even play them with them, but I like the idea of ME being in control.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[JSBiff]

This case isn't about the rights of children. It's about the rights of the stores, the publishers, and the developers.

Honestly, however, most stores will probably *voluntarily* continue to not sell Rated-M videogames to minors, because they will not want to P.O. the parents and the large (but perhaps minority) portion of the population that thinks it's not right to sell such material to minors. This ruling doesn't mean stores are forced to sell them to minors, just that they have the *freedom* to choose to sell them, or not.

In particular, it's sometimes hard to determine whether or not you *are* selling to a minor - consider an online retailer: it would be pretty easy for a minor to order something with their parent's credit card, name, address, so they wouldn't know they were selling to a minor.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Kenja]

Guess you should have finished reading then. Ah well, ignorance is bliss, right?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[jdastrup]

While I agree with most of what you said, you also understand that if your child buys a violent video game without your permission, even if the state/country/store/vendor allows it, then you're not in control of your child, are you?

Another example, cigarettes. So what if a store can't sell them to your child. He/she can still get them somewhere else, have someone else buy them, etc. I don't really care if a store can sell my son cigarettes or not. I raise my children not to smoke, regardless of the source of the cigarette. If he/she smokes anyway, it's not the store/friend/anyone else fault, except his/her and my lake of parenting skills.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[JSBiff]

You totally missed the point since you stopped reading. The GP isn't saying the government is requiring something of the parents, but simply that because the government is NOT requiring retailers to police what games children buy/play, by default, the parents are required (not by law, but by the LACK of law, and by their own set of standards) to take responsibility for what they do and don't want their children playing.

That is to say, the parents are required by their own conscience to BE good parents, or not.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[jdastrup]

..and lake of speling skilz.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[h4rr4r]

I suggest instead all video games be sold only to those 18 or older. That way we don't need yet another regulatory body deciding what games can be sold to minors.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

I see no problem with a state limiting what a minor may buy

You need to demonstrate harm before you can do that. What problem are you (or the state) trying to solve?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[zzsmirkzz]

I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games.

Because that is the state putting a restriction on speech which they are specifically denied the power to do. This is what the Supreme Court determined and is true. Just because you "do not see the reason", doesn't make it false. Read the Constitution and learn & accept the limitations on the power of The State that were included - they were put there for a reason, from lessons learned from the experiences of the people at the time. When it comes to abuse of power from the State/Government they knew a lot more than we do, they lived through it - their experience/wisdom should be learned from and respected.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you feel that the government has any business deciding who can buy what games, you're not actually a conservative at all.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The counter argument is that children dont have the same rights as adults."

And the counter counter argument to that is that children are suppose to be raised by their parents, not by the government. A good parent will forbid their kids to play/listen/watch something inappropriate for them until they feel they are mature enough to handle it - and hand out their own punishments (Which need not be physical.) for breaking their own house rules.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[mcgrew]

This isn't an issue with the children's rights, its about the publishers' rights to free speech. However, I can see making them label the games so the kids' parents can decide. Parenting is for parents, not governments. I let my daughters play Quake when they were 12 (in fact we had lots of fun fragging each other on the home network) but it was MY decision. They were my kids, and I raised them like I wanted to (both are still gamers, the youngest is now assistant manager of a GameStop store making damned good money for someone her age).

Re:As an American Conservative...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If you feel that the government has any business deciding who can buy what games, you're not actually a conservative at all.

Historically speaking, conservatism's libertarian wing is something of an anomaly, and exists largely in reaction to the rise of the concept of welfare states. It's those scurrilous 'liberals' with their 'innovation' who want to destroy the moral foundations of society by decriminalizing blasphemy, lesse majesty, and other such crimes against the morality of the people.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Qzukk]

Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes

None of which are protected by the first amendment, BTW.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Mongoose Disciple]

Eh.

You can't make it impossible for anyone to get anything, but that doesn't mean that making it harder for someone to get something serves no purpose.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[anyGould]

Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes, I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games.

My first reason would be - because it doesn't seem to stop kids from getting their hands on it anyway. And oddly enough, the most common place for kids to sneak out booze/porn/ciggies from is... from their parents. ;)

Re:As an American Conservative...

[h4rr4r]

The middle one should be.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[somersault]

What if the parents are too lazy to be parents, and so just buy any game their kid wants? I'm not trying to make a moral judgement here, I just think it's silly to equate a good parent with one that will buy stuff.

It's incredibly easy for anyone to get anything these days without buying it. If the parent won't buy it, the kid can torrent it. I can just imagine the lobbying now: Lazy parents encourage piracy! Kill them all (and their kids!).

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ALeavitt]

How can you call yourself a conservative while at the same time supporting expansion of government power over the lives and speech of citizens? I think it might be time for you to look up what defines a real conservative.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a game label system already in place.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Qzukk]

Obscenity is excluded so that the jobs of the morality police are easier.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[gumbi west]

Then you might want to become a liberal. Thomas (arch-conservative) and Breyer (moderate liberal) voted against the majority but Alito (conserative) and Roberts (conservative) indicated that their support for the decision was soft and that they thought it was too sweeping according to the WaPo story on it. That makes the next challenge, essentially, start from a 5-4 decision... ripe for change and "clarification."

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

First I laughed; then my mind was blown (figuratively, of course.)

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

The counter argument is that children dont have the same rights as adults

If you are talking about Rights, with a capital 'R', (like freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc) children do have the same rights. Neither Congress, nor the states' legislatures, have the authority to abridge these rights. Yes, their parents can send kids to bed without a cookie, and the state can refuse to issue a driving license to minors, but those aren't Rights.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Martin Blank]

The state can and does put limits on speech where harm is likely or actual. The Supreme Court has ruled that they must be reasonable restrictions. I haven't yet read the decision itself in its entirety, but the excerpts that I have seen from skimming through it have suggested that one of the major issues is that no significant harm to children has been demonstrated. Children cannot purchase pornography, for example. Libel and slander laws are generally constitutional. The Supreme Court has also found that the state can place certain limits on tobacco advertising such as requiring that in-store ads be no lower than five feet from the floor.

I'm glad to see this ruling come out. I'll read it in more detail later, but there are a few quotes from the majority opinion that make the point strongly.

The California Act...does not adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults is not uncritically applied to children. California does not argue that it is empowered to prohibit selling offensively violent works to adults—and it is wise not to, since that is but a hair’s breadth from the argument rejected in Stevens. Instead, it wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children.

That is unprecedented and mistaken. “[M]inors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them.” No doubt a State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed. “Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.” (Citations omitted)

Even taking for granted Dr. Anderson’s conclusions that violent video games produce some effect on children’s feelings of aggression, those effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media. In his testimony in a similar lawsuit, Dr. Anderson admitted that the “effect sizes” of children’s exposure to violent video games are “about the same” as that produced by their exposure to violence on television. And he admits that 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” (appropriate for all ages), or even when they “vie[w] a picture of a gun.”

Of course, California has (wisely) declined to restrict Saturday morning cartoons, the sale of games rated for young children, or the distribution of pictures of guns. The consequence is that its regulation is wildly underinclusive when judged against its asserted justification,which in our view is alone enough to defeat it. Underinclusiveness raises serious doubts about whether the government is in fact pursuing the interest it invokes, rather than disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint. Here, California has singled out the purveyors of video games for disfavored treatment—at least when compared to booksellers, cartoonists, and movie producers—and has given no persuasive reason why. (Citations omitted)

[T]he Act’s purported aid to parental authority is vastly overinclusive. Not all of the children who are forbidden to purchase violent video games on their own have parents who care whether they purchase violent video games. While some of the legislation’s effect may indeed be in support of what some parents of the restricted children actually want, its entire effect is only in support of what the State thinks parents ought to want. This is not the narrow tailoring to “assisting parents” that restriction of First Amendment rights requires.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[mjackson14609]

Note that the "reasoning" of Thomas was that the original view of the First Amendment at the time the Bill of Rights was enacted "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."

Re:As an American Conservative...

[nschubach]

There are some "conservatives" (I'll call them the Glenn Beck inspired conservative) that feel that the intent of this country was as a "Word of the Bible" following Christian country with all morals and values enforced.

Ironically, it would make The Constitution the most hypocritical document ever written... but that's not part of their thought process.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, wouldn't it be nice if there were some kind of labeling system in place to advise parents about the content of the video games offered to the children. Perhaps something that could quickly convey an appropriate age range, dividing games up into games for teens, adults and other mature people, and games for everyone (maybe they could add another category for everyone over 10 (we wouldn't want to scare the 5 year old)). The best result would be if that system were market driven (no need to involve the government in the industry), low on regulation, and let the industry police itself.

--AC

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you might want to become a liberal.

Since I don't worship war criminals, I won't ever want to become a liberal.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Wyatt Earp]

"As a fellow conservative, I must disagree. I see no problem with a state limiting what a minor may buy. Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes, I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games."

One of the reasons Justice Scalia gave was that, historically, many children's books and stories were very violent. "Unlike depictions of "sexual conduct," Scalia said, there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White.Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore," Scalia added.

A 7-2 split is pretty strong, even though two members of the majority made it sound like they'd support some sort of lesser restriction, that still puts it at 5-4 against any restrictions.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Schadrach]

We'd best make it a criminal offense to sell certain books, movies, music, comics, etc to children because they might be corrupted by the evil influence of Elvis' hips. With more or less the sole exception of pornography, these are unhindered by law -- why should video games (which have a rating system similar to movies with similar voluntary enforcement, note that books have no such restrictions) be the exception?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Sloppy]

Note: No is saying that minors are not allowed to play these games, only to PURCHASE them.

Limiting purchase is also limiting sale and distribution; the speaker's rights are being infringed. Nobody has come up with a way to limit someone's ability to buy something, which doesn't somehow also limit someone's ability to sell something. And since so much speech today is for-sale speech (i.e. not everyone is handing out pamphlets for free; some people sell books), putting limitations on sales in considered equivalent to putting limitations on publishing.

Imagine a 1776 law saying that Thomas Payne is free to distribute his "Common Sense" pamphlets, but will be punished if he hands them to some particular class of people (e.g. native born American taxpayers, or slaves, or foreigners, or children -- pick your poison, because it doesn't matter), thus needs to check the ids of those to whom he hands copies of "Common Sense." No matter whom you single out as a receiver of speech and how well you argue there are good reasons for government to limit what they receive or how their receive it, you're also harming Payne.

The founders would want to make these sort of laws illegal. So they did. It's up to us to either stay the course on that decision, or have the balls to say the First Amendment was a bad idea.

Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes

Alcohol and cigarettes don't have explicit clauses in the constitution saying that the government isn't allowed to pass laws against them. Speech is special.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[d3ac0n]

Obscenity is excluded so that the jobs of the morality police are easier.

No, Obscenity is excluded so that parents and families don't have to deal with issues of trying to protect their kids from public displays and advertisements that include pornographic images.

It's one thing to task parents with the duty of proper child rearing, which society has always done and which this SCOTUS decision reinforces. It's something else entirely to then turn around and make that task nearly impossible by allowing the porn/adult industry to inundate all of public life. (more than it already has, that is.)

Societies generally set their own standards of acceptable public discourse, and in America we have set the standard that certain things (such as porn and certain types of intimate behavior) belong in a private setting. If you live in America and don't like that, you are free to either get the obscenity laws altered/removed (unlikely) or move to a country more amenable to your viewpoint. (I hear the town of Amsterdam is lovely this time of year.)

If you are not an American and are speaking on American laws, well then you opinion holds little weight anyway.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[h4rr4r]

I am American and have lived outside the USA. We need to get over our sex hangups. Public displays of violence, like the ads for major blockbusters are surely worse for children than seeing images of procreation.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[wintercolby]

In particular, it's sometimes hard to determine whether or not you *are* selling to a minor - consider an online retailer: it would be pretty easy for a minor to order something with their parent's credit card, name, address, so they wouldn't know they were selling to a minor.

If it's the parent's credit card being used, the parent will learn about it when they look at their statement, I know I reconcile mine. If it's a stolen credit card being used, there are already bigger problems in that household than a child buying a violent video game. Ultimately, the online purchase age verification takes care of itself with the use of a credit card.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some "conservatives" (I'll call them the Glenn Beck inspired conservative) that feel that the intent of this country was as a "Word of the Bible" following Christian country with all morals and values enforced.

You are grossly mis-representing what Glenn Beck inspired conservatives believe. Never would he advocate that the morals and values be "enforced". This is typically a position of a Statist* who insists on some level of control, not the ideals of a Constitutionalist. Instead, he states that morals and values are important on a personal level and the Government shouldn't be involved at all.

*I use the word "Statist" instead of "leftist/liberal" or "rightist/conservative" because they exist on all sides. One who wishes to control how much salt you eat is just as bad as someone who favors the use of red-light cameras/GPS to control how fast you drive.

Ironically, it would make The Constitution the most hypocritical document ever written... but that's not part of their thought process.

Insert generic random insult about your thought process not being adequate, and a misuse of the word "ironic".

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Osgeld]

I think there is a rather large difference tween whiskey and ico

Re:As an American Conservative...

[d3ac0n]

As a fellow conservative, I must disagree. I see no problem with a state limiting what a minor may buy. Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes, I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games.

Note: No is saying that minors are not allowed to play these games, only to PURCHASE them. As a parent, I not only appreciate the idea that I would have to be the one to purchase the material, but I also like the idea that other parents would have to purchase the material for their kids. It's a parent's responsibility to keep up with what their kids are doing. This law would have helped a parent do that. As for the parents too lazy to get off their ass to buy the games? These are the same parents that won't monitor what their kids are doing and are EXACTLY the parents of the kids I don't want owning violent/pornographic video games.

With all that said, I would more than likely buy such games for my kids and even play them with them, but I like the idea of ME being in control.

Ok, first of all, which clod marked this guy Troll? His response was an insightful and thoughtful counterpoint to my post, and while I don't necessarily agree with him, it is a good post and deserves to at least be at '1'.

EDIT: Before I could post this response, He was modded up. I leave my previous statement in as support for dissenting opinion and open discussion free of mod point abuse.

That aside, (and more to the point of ArcherB's post) while I can understand wanting to restrict the purchase of inappropriate material to minors, The way the California law was written was bad. It not only removed rights from minors, but put the burden of enforcement on the games industry and the individual stores. it was an impossible request for them to undertake.

Now, if stores want to THEMSELVES restrict sales of video games rated for older kids and adults to minors "except when accompanied by a parent", I'm all for that. But the state had no place in this.

Ultimately, it is up to the parents to do their job. It's not like this stuff is just plastered everywhere for free, the kids have to have the money and go into the store and buy it. Once they have bought it, they then have to take it home and either install it on a family owned PC or put it into the game console and play it on the family TV. Any parent who misses that is either not paying attention, or is a moron. In which case their kids are likely lost causes anyway, and this law would not have helped.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[surgen]

Ultimately, the online purchase age verification takes care of itself with the use of a credit card.

Prepaid debit cards have age restrictions?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[TheDarkNose]

Then you might want to become a liberal. Thomas (arch-conservative) and Breyer (moderate liberal) voted against the majority but Alito (conserative) and Roberts (conservative) indicated that their support for the decision was soft

And Scalia (doubtlessly the most conservative person on the court) WROTE the majority opinion. Basically what we see is that conservatives and liberals are divided among themselves. As always.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Jeremy Erwin]

Imagine if the British had laws on the book criminalizing sedition and treason.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason you like it is because you're the one in control, as with other things, it sure is shitty for the ones who aren't in control. Imagine if it wasn't in your control, but it was in the control of your neighbor, would you still like it?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obscenity is not excluded by the 1st amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see "except in the case of nude girlies" in there.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[d3ac0n]

That's fair, and you have a right to your opinion.

(Incidentally, I am also an American, and I have also lived outside the United States.)

However, as a parent, I don't want to have to deal with public displays of nudity and sexuality and the loss of innocence for kids that comes along with it. For adults, yes, it's not a big deal. When you bring kids into the equation, it's a problem. And when you are talking about society as a whole, Kids are ALWAYS in the equation. Thus, we have Obscenity laws designed to keep those kinds of things in private where they belong.

Incidentally, I agree with you on the violence. We have become far too loose with both sex and violence in public, and it's impacting our society for the worse.

In the case of this SCOTUS decision though, the California law did less to help parents than it did remove rights from minors and force an undue burden of enforcement on the game makers and retail outlets. It was right for SCOTUS to strike this one down.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[paintballer1087]

Pornography /= Procreation

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Qzukk]

No, Obscenity is excluded so that parents and families don't have to deal with issues of trying to protect their kids from public displays and advertisements that include pornographic images.

Funny how your ideals don't match our reality. How many arrests under obscenity law have anything to do with selling or showing porn to children? When you have to fly porn producers from California to Pennsylvania in order to find someone they offend, what is the point of "community standards"?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[cheekyjohnson]

The counter argument is that children dont have the same rights as adults.

Not the same rights. But where does it say anything about this specifically in the constitution (or something related)?

I have no issue with parents being required to make decisions as to which games they allow their kids to play, provided that information is out there for them to make an informed decision.

I suppose I do, then. If the money belongs to the kid, then I certainly don't see the harm in them buying the video game on their own without their parents' consent.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[wintercolby]

Good point . . .

On a side note, before there were prepaid debit cards, when we wanted "R" rated movies or cigarettes we just stole them. Kids will always find ways around age restrictions, sometimes what they do to get around the restrictions is worse than what's being restricted.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Toonol]

Historically speaking, conservatism's libertarian wing is something of an anomaly, and exists largely in reaction to the rise of the concept of welfare states.

Nonsense. The libertarian movement is a descendent of 18th and 17th century century concepts of laissez-faire freedoms and natural rights of man. You may be correct in that the recent resurgence of libertarianism is fueled in part as a reaction to the increase of the welfare state and encroaching socialism, but its roots run far deeper, and tie closely to the principles used as a basis for our own constitutionally-limited state.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Toonol]

(I'll call them the Glenn Beck inspired conservative)

You'll call them that because you are ignorant of Beck's positions. Have you listened to any of his defenses of atheism?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[The Archon V2.0]

Gee, wouldn't it be nice if there were some kind of labeling system in place to advise parents about the content of the video games offered to the children.

Be nicer if they would use it. I've seen adults brandish a copy of Everquest and say it's not for anyone under 18 because of the well-endowed elf chick on the cover, even as that big T for Teen sticker was visible.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArsonSmith]

Exactly, as a parent I would agree with both of you. I don't think minors should be allowed to purchase anything without a parent or guardian present. Perhaps, other than basic sustenance in extreme situations.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, I believe GP did use Ironically correctly, as in the false intent of the "Beck Conservative" using their stance on the founding fathers to mean something completely different than the text written.

Whether their interpretation of Glenn Beck's overly gregarious religious angle is correct however is up for debate.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ElectricTurtle]

Argument from tradition is a fallacy, and it disheartens me to see Justice Scalia resort to it, even if I agree with his ultimate position. At best it just shifts the question to 'why is it right for children's stories to be violent but not sexual?'

Re:As an American Conservative...

[blair1q]

And the morality police are... anyone? anyone? Bueller?

Conserrrrvatives. That's right. The people who insist they must have this freedom are the same ones who insist you must not.

Conservatism. Rolling back reason and equality to the 18th Century for over 200 years.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

If you feel that the government has any business deciding who can buy what games, you're not actually a conservative at all.

STATE governments. Not the FEDERAL government. I believe that STATES should have the right to determine what a child should and should not be allowed to purchase.

This is a state's rights issue which falls in line perfectly with my conservative beliefs.

The reason this was voted down is because the court says it violates the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech). Making a purchase is NOT an expression of Free Speech. If it is, I want to voice my opinion and go buy a big fat joint! Playing the game is not even a free speech issue.

MAKING the video game, however, absolutely is an expression of free speech. But that's not what was on trial here. What was on trial is "does the state have the limit the purchasing power of minors". I think it does.

And since this is NOT a free speech issue, then I feel that this ruling is a violation of the 10'th Amendment. The federal government has no business telling states what age people should be to do things, just as I feel the feds have no right to encourage (read, BLACKMAIL) states into making the drinking age 21.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Wyatt Earp]

Scalia went all tradition and history in the majority opinion on DC v Hiller.

I've not read all the opinions yet, theres a great quote by Alito about Mortal Kombat

"Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat. But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones. Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy..."

Guess Justice Alito (an Opera buff) liked playing Mortal Kombat.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes

None of which are protected by the first amendment, BTW.

And buying video games is? I could see how MAKING a video game is protected by the first, but buying one?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

Glenn Beck on Atheism

Results:
YouTube - Glenn Beck Attacks Atheists and Interviews James Dobson ...
YouTube - Glenn Beck blames godlessness for America's problems
Friendly Atheist Glenn Beck Calls for Americans to Unite. Not So Fast Atheists
"If you happened to catch Glenn Beck on CNN Headline news, there was a segment entitled "Atheist Agenda" regarding the new movie Golden Compass"
MNpublius Glenn Beck: Atheism = Insanity

Yeah, quite a history of Atheism defense there...

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

No, Obscenity is excluded so that parents and families don't have to deal with issues of trying to protect their kids from public displays and advertisements that include pornographic images.

How about if I market porn as a video game?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[nschubach]

If I'm ignorant, maybe it's because of his approach. I've attempted to sit down and watch episodes of his but I can't stomach to watch them anymore. My father has just about all of his shows recorded and every time I'm at the house Glenn Beck is on. At no point have I heard him "defend" atheism. Maybe if he spent less time preaching how Jefferson was really a Christian and more time on his "defenses of atheism" I might have had a chance to hear them. Every time I've tuned in, he approaches a matter in such a way that the religious scripture was right and anyone not following that scripture is obviously on the wrong side.

So, I'm sorry if that's what my perception is of him. Maybe he needs better marketing toward those of us that don't believe the founding fathers set up this country to be a mecca for Christianity.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Qzukk]

Well, except when they're liberals like Tipper Gore.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[jc42]

On a side note, before there were prepaid debit cards, when we wanted "R" rated movies or cigarettes we just stole them. Kids will always find ways around age restrictions, sometimes what they do to get around the restrictions is worse than what's being restricted.

Another good point. It brings to mind the glaring "elephant in the room" example of this phenomenon: the humongous illegal-drug industry spawned by the anti-drug laws. I was about to include "in the US", but it's the same in most of the world.

Outlawing something that most people don't find wrong and part of the population wants is mostly a way to get such illegal activity. And once the illegal supply process has become a business, there's strong pressure from most of the political spectrum to not interfere with it by legalizing the material in question.

OTOH, the US did repeal Prohibition. And the Supreme Court has had the sense to apply the obvious reasoning to video games. Maybe there's hope yet that other such "moral" laws will be overturned. We just need, as in this case, some business interests to fund the legal appeals. The US government may not listen to its citizens, but it does listen to its businesses.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[cheekyjohnson]

The state can and does put limits on speech where harm is likely or actual.

That doesn't mean it is constitutional (even if the supreme court allows it).

Children cannot purchase pornography, for example.

And what harm does allowing them to purchase pornography do?

The Supreme Court has also found that the state can place certain limits on tobacco advertising such as requiring that in-store ads be no lower than five feet from the floor.

Is that really considered a person's free speech? The company is merely acting for a group of people, but it isn't an actual person (which is what free speech is supposed to apply to).

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes, I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games.

My first reason would be - because it doesn't seem to stop kids from getting their hands on it anyway. And oddly enough, the most common place for kids to sneak out booze/porn/ciggies from is... from their parents. ;)

You are right. But that's the parent's responsibility. If you call buying something "free speech", then you strip that right away from parents.

As a side note, if making a purchase is protected under the First Amendment, wouldn't NOT making a purchase also be protected under the First Amendment? Would that make ObamaCare unConstitutional?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Hatta]

I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games.

Because children have first amendment rights too. The fact that you can't see this is why conservatives are so fucking scary.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

How can you call yourself a conservative while at the same time supporting expansion of government power over the lives and speech of citizens? I think it might be time for you to look up what defines a real conservative.

This is a state's rights issue which falls in line perfectly with my conservative ideals. Supporting the SCOTUS on this would be a liberal thing.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[cheekyjohnson]

Making a purchase is NOT an expression of Free Speech.

This, along with the supreme court apparently deciding that donating to someone's political campaign is free speech, is what I don't understand. I don't see how either are speech or writing at all.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Hatta]

Pornography is protected by the Constitution. The problem is that the Constitution is not respected by those who are charged with upholding it. There is no obscenity exception in the First Amendment.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[cheekyjohnson]

protect their kids

Protection usually implies harm. I wonder where that harm is?

well then you opinion holds little weight anyway.

This is likely true even if you live in America as long as you're severely outnumbered by the opposition.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[cheekyjohnson]

and it's impacting our society for the worse.

Is that your opinion, or did you actually mean to state that as a fact? I don't recall anyone explicitly proving that either things are harmful in a majority of cases (a study that shows real-world effects).

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

The reason you like it is because you're the one in control, as with other things, it sure is shitty for the ones who aren't in control. Imagine if it wasn't in your control, but it was in the control of your neighbor, would you still like it?

Are you suggesting the child should be in control? As a parent IT'S MY JOB TO BE IN CONTROL!

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be legal to ban the sale of all video games to children. The court is saying the government does not get to chose the content because of the first amendment.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[frosty_tsm]

Ultimately, the online purchase age verification takes care of itself with the use of a credit card.

Prepaid debit cards have age restrictions?

When the kid is smart and capable enough to get a prepaid debit card to make an online order, they are either approaching 18 or are smart enough to get around any age restrictions.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

What one considers "obscene", others consider beauty. Maybe society in North America should stop demonizing the perfectly normal human body, and stop glorifying violence.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[cheekyjohnson]

Limiting purchase is also limiting sale and distribution

I don't see how sales or distribution is free speech.

the speaker's rights are being infringed.

I'd say that that only applies when the government directly punishes them for their speech.

but will be punished if he hands them to some particular class of people

How is handing someone something speech? The content contained in the pamphlets is speech, of course. Punishing him for the content of the pamphlets or for anything he said would be a violation of his rights, though.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

The way the California law was written was bad. It not only removed rights from minors, but put the burden of enforcement on the games industry and the individual stores. it was an impossible request for them to undertake

We certainly agree here. Since stores are not the only outlet for video games, how would distributors like Steam or even iTunes verify age?

Ultimately, it is up to the parents to do their job.

And part of that job should have been to purchase violent video games if you want your kids to have them.

It's not like this stuff is just plastered everywhere for free, the kids have to have the money and go into the store and buy it. Once they have bought it, they then have to take it home and either install it on a family owned PC or put it into the game console and play it on the family TV. Any parent who misses that is either not paying attention, or is a moron. In which case their kids are likely lost causes anyway, and this law would not have helped.

Kid: Dad, can I have $50 to go buy Bambi's Fairly Land Math Adventures?
Parent: Huh, what? I'm watching the game. Go get me another beer.
Kid: OK, here's your beer, dad. Can I get that math game. Bambi... something or another?
Parent: Fine. Here's $60. Bring me home some smokes. I'm almost out and I'm too drunk to drive.
Kid: They won't sell me cigarettes. I'm too young.
Dad: I'll have your mother get me some on her way home from the club.
Kid: She's not my mom, dad. She's a stripper who shacks up with us.
Dad: Whatever. Go play it in your room so I don't have to hear it.

As opposed to:
Kid: Dad, can I have $50 to go buy a game about school? But I need you there to buy it.
Dad: Sure, let's go get it.
(Later, at the store)
Dad: What? This is "Shoot Up Your School 4" with the "Upload your yearbook" mod. I'm not buying you that!
Kid: PLEASE-PLEASE-PLEASE!!!
Dad: (Yes or No. You make up your own ending.)

Re:As an American Conservative...

[countertrolling]

What makes STATE governments any less troublesome than the FEDERAL government?

The rights, for what they're worth, belong to the individual. The only purpose any government should serve is to protect the individual from any other individual or group.. When the state fails to do that, the feds have every right to step in with its civil rights acts, etc.

I find it much more troubling that the courts would consider that some people or groups don't qualify for 1st amendment protections.. The right to speak as one wishes is universal. The 1st amendment is very explicit on that.. there are absolutely no qualifications spelled out on that... and that's what the courts should ultimately recognize, but they never will.. Since too many people believe the 1st amendment goes too far in protecting those rights, they ought to have their little constitutional convention to fix that, instead of reading into existing law what's not there.

Don't bogart that joint!

Re:As an American Conservative...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Conservatism's libertarian wing...

Libertarian (or sometimes "classical liberal") ideas go back a good deal further, as you state; but they were, until fairly recently, seen as an anticonservative group, reacting against divine-right monarchies, state churches, and so forth.

Libertarianism is not new; but the idea that it is (largely) a wing of conservatism is.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Culture20]

How is handing someone something speech? The content contained in the pamphlets is speech, of course. Punishing him for the content of the pamphlets or for anything he said would be a violation of his rights, though.

So "You're allowed to write anything you want on paper, but if you ask people to read it, you're going to jail" isn't placing restrictions on free speech?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Chris Burke]

Are you suggesting the child should be in control? As a parent IT'S MY JOB TO BE IN CONTROL!

No, he's suggesting that the parents of children who aren't yours should be in control. However you are advocating having the government be in control, instead, completely undermining your capitalized declaration.

You don't realize this (or realize that this was the point the GP was making) because the law is trying to control other parents' children in the same way you would choose to control yours. And so by advocating that the government enforce your parenting decisions on others, you are trying to exercise the control you in the next post say should be held by the parents.

Now imagine the shoe were on the other foot, and that the law under consideration was based on how some other parent thought children should be raised that was different than yours. Now they're taking away your control, but not in a way you agree with. Still okay?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[zzsmirkzz]

I don't think minors should be allowed to purchase anything without a parent or guardian present.

I don't think I'd personally agree with that rule/law. However, since it would not limit a specific type of speech (since it sounds like a blanket law, applying to all goods/services) it may stand a better chance of being upheld. It wouldn't attempt to restrict speech (of any particular type) it would only attempt to restrict trade/commerce.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[blair1q]

That was the moment liberals stopped liking her.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[steelfood]

I see no problem with a state limiting what a minor may buy.

State != parent

Re:As an American Conservative...

[wintercolby]

Outlawing something that most people don't find wrong and part of the population wants is mostly a way to get such illegal activity.

And it all starts with speeding on the highway. Such a minor crime, and we see people getting away with it all the time. People do it because they think they have something to gain, but it really isn't much. Just a few minutes a day even if they're driving for more than an hour each way. The governments legitimacy as a rules and standards making body declines from there. Citizens see that some of the laws really aren't that serious. Hell, even the police speed everywhere. The citizens start to wonder about the other laws, and which of them is legitimate and right, and are the cops breaking them too?

Now, is it the liberals or the conservatives who want the drugs to be illegal? What about speeding? And gay marriage, fully automatic weapons, abortion, and freedom to worship the Pagan gods of old? I must be an ultra-conservative, because I want the government out of everything to do with personal choices and decisions that don't infringe upon my neighbors' rights. I must admit that speeding could affect others on the road, and I don't recommend breaking that law (by much).

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Chris Burke]

STATE governments. Not the FEDERAL government.

14th Amendment says that distinction is no longer important when it comes to the rights of citizens.

MAKING the video game, however, absolutely is an expression of free speech. But that's not what was on trial here. What was on trial is "does the state have the limit the purchasing power of minors". I think it does.

"You're allowed to make this work of artistic expression, but you're not allowed to distribute it to a class of people" is without a doubt a Free Speech issue. Trying to separate the making from the selling is a clever dodge around Free Speech but not one SCOTUS is going to fall for.

You can disagree with how the decision was made -- after all, Free Speech is not without any restrictions at all so just because it is involved doesn't mean the decision must go a certain way -- but it is certainly a Free Speech issue.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ALeavitt]

States' rights countermand the constitution? That isn't in line with conservative ideals, that is in line with a dissolution of the federal government. Just give up trying to defend your ridiculous stance as bring ideologically in line with anything related to conseravtism and admit that you want the government to force everybody to abide by your morality. The simple fact of the matter is that the "liberty" that you most likely give lip service to but don't truly believe in means that other people are free to do things that you might not agree with.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[cheekyjohnson]

but if you ask people to read it, you're going to jail

Not because you asked them to read it, but because you gave it to them.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

Read Thomas' whole opinion before you agree with him. He holds that minors have no right to speak or be spoken to without express parental consent. That seems pretty far from anything that has ever been accepted by our country or society in general.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ALeavitt]

Calling oneself a conservative does not make it so. Actually espousing conservative beliefs, on the other hand, would go a long way to actually proving one's conservative leanings. Some of those beliefs might include (but not be limited to) limited power of government to abrogate the rights of the citizenry.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[SuricouRaven]

They'll just get the games pirate. I work at a school - we just busted five students last week for bringing in GTA3 and GTA:SA on USB sticks to actually play during lessons on the school computers.

Idiots thought we wouldn't notice. We'd have spotted them on the screen-viewer, if the sudden running out of space on the fileserver hadn't alerted us first.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[cheekyjohnson]

Actually, rethinking that, I think you're right. That would indeed be placing restrictions on certain speech (because they handed something to someone that contained certain speech).

Re:As an American Conservative...

[SuricouRaven]

"And what harm does allowing them to purchase pornography do?"

Be quiet! You're not allowed to question the widely-held but utterly unproven assumption, or else you'll be branded a pedophile-supporter and made the subject of a campaign of harassment, intimidation and legal fishing.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an interesting point buried in the opinion (in the footnotes actually) about the extent to which the state should enforce laws on minors:

"And it perhaps follows from this that the state has the power
to enforce parental prohibitions—to require, for example, that the
promoters of a rock concert exclude those minors whose parents have
advised the promoters that their children are forbidden to attend. But
it does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children from
hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent. The
latter would mean, for example, that it could be made criminal to admit
persons under 18 to a political rally without their parents’ prior written
consent—even a political rally in support of laws against corporal
punishment of children, or laws in favor of greater rights for minors.
And what is good for First Amendment rights of speech must be good
for First Amendment rights of religion as well: It could be made criminal to admit a person under 18 to church, or to give a person under 18 a
religious tract, without his parents’ prior consent"

Re:As an American Conservative...

[SuricouRaven]

The two-party system in the US screws up all other attempts at political classification. There is only one classification that really matters: Republican or democrat?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[SuricouRaven]

Minor nitpicking. The standard legal excuse of those who seek to impose censorship is to declare that the offending material isn't 'real' speech, and so isn't protected. They don't so much ignore the first amendment (They are often highly patriotic people who would defend the bill of rights with great vigour) as imagine some loophole by which they may decide it doesn't apply. The legal concept of obscenity is the most obvious example: If something is defined as legally obscene in the US, precident says that it isn't real speech because it doesn't say anything of value to society and so may be censored. This is the exactly approach that used to be used to restrict discussion of contraception - it was just ruled to be obscene, no different than pornography. Indeed, pornography is still technically illegal in the US today at the federal level - even perfectly ordinary adult pornography. It's simply that the law goes unenforced. There is an occasional brief revival of enforcement, the last one in 2005 with the Adult Obscenity Squad, as a show to win conservative political support - but they never go anywhere.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901570.html

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's a parent's responsibility to keep up with what their kids are doing."

Exactly that. There is no law, nor will there ever be one, that would help a parent do that. Either the parent accepts responsibility for their own actions and the lives of their children, or they don't. It all happens regardless of the law.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[dhermann]

Because that is the state putting a restriction on speech which they are specifically denied the power to do.

The state is allowed to restrict free speech when it is rationally related to prohibiting what is in the state's best interests. Hate speech, potentially disruptive student speech, etc. are all totally legal to abridge and regulate. Maybe you should read the Constitution and the hundreds of cases of First Amendment case law that go along with a full understanding of the subject... or not spout pointless, melodramatic rhetoric about a subject which you clearly do not comprehend. Your pick.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[cpt kangarooski]

the state can refuse to issue a driving license to minors, but those aren't Rights.

I'd prefer to have the basis for issuing or canceling a driving license to be the ability to drive safely. If a minor can demonstrate that ability, I don't mind if they're issued a license; if an adult cannot, I don't mind if they lose their license. We can verify that they still possess this ability by only issuing licenses for a year, so that people have to be retested annually.

People should have the right to be tested for this at any age, and to have a license issued to them if they pass, provided they have an adequately clean driving record.

People's rights can be abridged if there is due process; e.g. a person can be put in prison if they are fairly tried and found guilty of a crime for which imprisonment is a punishment, and sentenced accordingly. Why shouldn't drivers licenses be a right as well; one which is only abridged when there's a good reason. Age doesn't seem to me like a good enough reason, all by itself.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[dbet]

In the words of the late George Carlin: Fuck the children.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Chris Burke]

Right, they typically acknowledge that there's a Free Speech issue, but argue that the speech in question should not be protected as a way of resolving that issue.

ArcherB is arguing that there is no Free Speech issue to begin with, that the video games being made should in fact be protected, but restricting the sale of works of art does not have free speech implications for said works.

So, falling below the standards of the usual Censorship Brigade.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

congress shall make NO law. get it yet?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

Are you suggesting the child should be in control? As a parent IT'S MY JOB TO BE IN CONTROL!

No, he's suggesting that the parents of children who aren't yours should be in control. However you are advocating having the government be in control, instead, completely undermining your capitalized declaration.

You don't realize this (or realize that this was the point the GP was making) because the law is trying to control other parents' children in the same way you would choose to control yours. And so by advocating that the government enforce your parenting decisions on others, you are trying to exercise the control you in the next post say should be held by the parents.

Now imagine the shoe were on the other foot, and that the law under consideration was based on how some other parent thought children should be raised that was different than yours. Now they're taking away your control, but not in a way you agree with. Still okay?

What you're implying is that I believe the state should make the decision and not the parents, or that I'm trying to make a parent's decision. Not true. If parents want to buy this type of game for their kids, I fully support them. I can't wait 'till my kid can play Call of Duty. This law would force parents to make the decisions and not leave the decision to the children of lazy, inattentive parents, or the zit-faced teenager running Game Stop. So, yeah, I have no problem with a law making parents be parents. If you strip away the parent's responsibility for their kids, you put that responsibility to someone else (the state, the store) or no one at all. The parents need to be responsible for their kids. This law would ensure that it is truly the parents that are responsible.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[anyGould]

Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes, I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games.

My first reason would be - because it doesn't seem to stop kids from getting their hands on it anyway. And oddly enough, the most common place for kids to sneak out booze/porn/ciggies from is... from their parents. ;)

You are right. But that's the parent's responsibility. If you call buying something "free speech", then you strip that right away from parents.

I can't say I'm following you. The ruling says that the government can't unilaterally decide that kids can't buy these video games. Says nothing about parents telling kids not to buy them (or even the stores refusing to sell them, a la movie ratings). What rights are being stripped from parents?

And seeing Thomas dissent ("kids don't have rights") makes me very glad I'm safely up here in Canada. I would love someone to get him in front of a camera and ask him exactly what rights he believes youth aren't entitled to.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you and fuck the case law. what part of "congress shall make no law" don't you get? just because various senile old lawyers have found clever ways to argue against it over the years doesn't change anything.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[jc42]

I must be an ultra-conservative, because I want the government out of everything to do with personal choices and decisions that don't infringe upon my neighbors' rights. ...

Nah; that would make you either a libertarian or a liberal, who are the ones that think that we should have control over our own personal lives (as long as we don't harm others in the process). At least here in the US, "conservative" now means that the government stays out of economic issues (leaving the corporations free to police themselves), but monitors and controls our personal lives to the max. Oh, and the government also runs the military and polices the world, though there are some "conservatives" who approve of the ongoing process of handing that over to the corporate world.

You'll have problems finding many people who call themselves "conservative" and approve of things like gay marriage, abortion, or the worship of Pagan gods. ;-)

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it usually liberals like Tipper Gore and Hilary Clinton that try to limit the sale of Mortal Kombat, Doom, et al - ?

I think this more a matter of being a prude in general rather than a party thing.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing you've never heard Glenn Beck? But probably read a lot of liberal reviews of him.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Toonol]

Ok, I didn't pick up on that emphasis in the original comment. I'll concede that point.

Larry Niven said that "Libertarianism is a vector". You don't ever reach a true libertarian state, you just move further away or closer to it. I think our culture and government has shifted to a point that, where once the 'liberal' parties were closer to the libertarian vector, the 'conservative' parties have taken that spot.

Probably because a hundred years ago civil liberties were in a much worse state than economic/property liberties. Now, it's the other way around.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a fellow conservative, I must disagree. I see no problem with a state limiting what a minor may buy.

As a conservative, you fail to see the huge problem with removing a parent's right to limit or not limit what their minor may buy.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[zzsmirkzz]

The state is allowed to restrict free speech when...

I wasn't being 100%, fully-spelled out, accurate in my comment. I was speaking in context about this specific issue. Which means that the Supreme Court has ruled that this does not fall under one of the existing exceptions to the First Amendment therefor the State does not have the power to restrict this speech. The parent was saying he could see no reason why the state isn't allowed to do this, and I pointed out the reason - it is Constitutionally prohibited from doing so.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

thats not conservatism. idiot.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

Just give up trying to defend your ridiculous stance as bring ideologically in line with anything related to conseravtism and admit that you want the government to force everybody to abide by your morality.

Claiming that buying a video game is "Free Speech" is ridiculous. If buying a game is "Free Speech", then why isn't buying porn "Free Speech"? Why not cigarettes? Better yet, why is NOT buying health insurance not considered "Free Speech"? Making a game is free speech. Buying one is not.

As for forcing my morals on others, I'm not trying to force my morals on anyone. I'm trying to make parents be parents. Are parents responsible for their kids or not? I assume you agree that parents are responsible, then why not MAKE THEM RESPONSIBLE!?!!?

No one is saying that a kid can't play these games. I plan on doing all kinds of gaming with my kids... already do, for that matter. But since my kid is 4, we are limited to Wii Bowling and Kid's Fit. If I wanted him/her to play Call of Duty, then that's what we will be playing. What I don't want is for him/her to turn 10, start mowing lawns and going out and buying "Blow Up Your School w/ Yearbook Picture Upload and Modelling" or "Rape-a-Ho v4" without my knowledge. Yeah, I'll find out when he/she plugs it into the TV, which is in the family room, but not all parents are that attentive.

With liberty comes responsibility. If you don't have one, you can't have the other. This law takes the responsibility away from the parents and puts it in the hands of kids.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[dhermann]

Apparently it did change something. It changed the interpretation of the Constitution. But please, go on. I'm enthralled.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[dhermann]

So you are using the ramifications of today's ruling as proof of your opinion when debating the merits of today's ruling? I think there's a word for that...

Re:As an American Conservative...

[zzsmirkzz]

So you are using the ramifications of today's ruling as proof of your opinion when debating the merits of today's ruling?

This isn't the first time a violent video game law was struck down on First Amendment grounds. It has, multiple times, in multiple courts. The fact that the original parent couldn't think of a reason why the state could not do this was the entire point in my original post. They can not do this because it restricts Free Speech which the Government is prohibited from doing in the First Amendment (as it is not one of the exception cases which you pointed out).

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a fellow conservative

Adding religious based censoring laws (and that's exactly what this was) is not conservative.

The term for what you are advocating is called fundamentalism. If you are uncomfortable using this term please reexamine your beliefs.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ALeavitt]

Parents are already responsible for what their kids play. Ignoring the fact that most kids who are under 17 are not legally able to hold jobs and thus do not have the purchasing power to even procure video games without parental consent, any responsible parent (of which it sounds like you are an example) is at least somewhat cognizant of what media his child is consuming. As I am sure you already know, this extends beyond the boundaries of one's own home and into the homes of the child's friends. If you, as a parent, know that little Billy's parents let him watch all of the horror movies that he wants and that is something that you do not approve of your child watching, then it is not only your right but your responsibility as a parent to prevent your child from watching those movies over at little Billy's house, up to and including barring your child from going over to Billy's house to play. That is just common sense.

Now, in the instance of video games, parents actually have much more control than they do over music, literature, pictures, and movies. If a parent doesn't want his kid to play video games, he can simply unhook the console. If he doesn't like his kid playing certain video games, he can either not purchase those games for his kid or disable the ability for the console to play games above a certain rating threshold. To be blunt, a responsible parent already has more than enough means to exercise that responsibility. Beyond that, video game retailers already subscribe to a voluntary system whereby they agree not to sell video games to minors. This system is similar to the system that movie theaters and rental operations have been a part of for decades. In fact, the system in place is already extremely effective.

However, when you want to bring the government into play and give them the power to oversee this entire arrangement, you are not only trampling on the rights of others, you are asking the government to exceed its mandate and limit free speech. It is simply not acceptable in a modern free society to limit the production or distribution of material deemed to be speech simply because one deems it questionable. Aside from the fact that not all people agree on what is or is not questionable, you are asking the government to take on the role of a parent. I fail to see how abdicating one's role as a parent and asking the government to step in and do the job instead is in line with conservative ideals.

The fact of the matter is that conservatives-in-name-only like you are happy to carry the constitution in their breast pockets and flog it at any opportunity in an argument, but when it comes time to put your money where your mouth is and actually support the rights espoused within, you would rather take the easy way out and cede your rights and liberty to the government. That doesn't sound very conservative to me.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Martin Blank]

That doesn't mean it is constitutional (even if the supreme court allows it).

That is in your opinion. I'm not happy with all of the Supreme Court decisions over the years, but in practical terms, the Supreme Court does define that which is and is not constitutional.

And what harm does allowing them to purchase pornography do?

I'm not entirely sure. I didn't follow that particular trial. There is a general acceptance, though, that allowing such things is a bad idea, and the last decision to deal with it in the 1970s was presumably based on evidence that it does (or at least did) cause harm to minors. The Court has for more than a century been rather skittish on limits to speech and has put in place tests to determine whether something falls into the narrow exceptions allowed to be regulated or prohibited.

Is that really considered a person's free speech? The company is merely acting for a group of people, but it isn't an actual person (which is what free speech is supposed to apply to).

Since the Court ruled that outdoor advertising limits imposed by the state of Massachusetts were overreaching on a First Amendment basis, the answer to that question would appear to be "yes" in their eyes. I am uncomfortable with providing what are sometimes described as citizenship benefits upon corporate constructions, but as a corporation is composed of one or more persons, I can see an argument where freedom of assembly and freedom of speech combine. I'm not sure if that's how the Court sees it, as I have not read the relevant decisions, but it's about the only mechanism that I can conceive that allows for it.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[TheRedDuke]

Let's be honest - this really isn't a liberal/conservative issue, which should be evident from the way the Court was split. Besides, you'll recall Lieberman and many "PC" Dems (including majorities in the very liberal California legislature) applauding this legislation when the Governator signed it. Any political extremism, on the whole, is fucking scary.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[cheekyjohnson]

That is in your opinion. I'm not happy with all of the Supreme Court decisions over the years, but in practical terms, the Supreme Court does define that which is and is not constitutional.

Essentially, yes. Technically, no. That is not how we define "constitutional" or "unconstitutional."

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this more a matter of being a prude in general rather than a party thing.

True, but "conservative" isn't a party in the first place, it's a mindset; you can be a conservative Democrat. "Conservatives" conserve; that is, they prefer things to stay as they are and change slowly, it's the opposite of "progressive" which is also not a party affiliation (you can get progressive Republicans).*

[I'm also being overly simplistic, in reality people are rarely purely conservative or purely progressive. You can encounter social conservatives who dislike social change (gay marriage, abortion, welfare, gender equality, etc) but may also be economically progressive (in favor of major changes to tax and business regulation) and vice versa (economic conservative, socially progressive).]

* As an aside, the issue you mention about Mortal Kombat and Doom are generally political opportunism than a true issue. It's a hot topic in the media at that moment so the politician seizes on the outrage in some population segments to score points for an election, consequences and rational strategy be damned. (By the by, anyone who participates in these games should be treated as wearing a fluorescent "I'm a political whore without principles" sign)

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not really a conservative. That's why. He just thinks he is, he's just as nanny state as the libs, just in a different way.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[gangien]

Perhaps you need to learn the difference between states and congress. Then please reread the first amendment.

Spoiler: the first amendment does not restrict states at all. It restricts congress.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Pflipp]

> This is what the Supreme Court determined and is true.

You do realize there is a difference, right?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

... no, it's technically true as well.

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court ...The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"

That's from Article III Sections 1-2.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's a false and hypocritical issue. I approve of the outcome of the case, but not on the basis of free speech. A majority of adult/mature rated games are designed for and played by adolescents. ID checking is a joke. The games can be bought on line if the kid has access to a credit card or can purchase a money order. I agree, it's the parents duty to instill values and supervise their children whether it's watching cable TV, porn on the internet or violent games. How many convictions have there been for sale of these games to minors? The overturned statute was designed to appease lazy parents.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess Justice Alito (an Opera buff) liked playing Mortal Kombat.

I'm pretty sure you mean Scalia, as Alito didn't bring up that game, I thought. Besides, Alito was busy arguing that graphically killing someone in a video game is somehow worse than getting a graphic description of a brutal murder in High Literature.

Also, it's not entirely out of left field, as certain justices' (and their clerks') enjoyment of Mortal Kombat was brought up in the oral arguments to the case.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[gumbi west]

Interesting to see where he would stand on a similar law outlawing women's speech. I'd think he would have to say the same.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[shutdown -p now]

This case isn't about the First Amendment rights of children, though, it's about the First Amendment rights of sellers.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[jwhitener]

What I don't understand is why the court can make a ruling like this about violent 'speech' but in the same ruling elude to it being alright to limit sex 'speech'.

One justice explains that historically we have regulated sex, but historically we have not regulated violence. And that was partially his basis for protecting violent content based on the first amendment.

It seems to me that history shouldn't have any impact on what is or isn't free speech. Both sex and violence in a game, book, movie, etc.. have been upheld as an artistic right under the first amendment many times. Why our historical regulation of sex has bearing on whether the first amendment protects it isn't logical.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[jwhitener]

I posted up above about that very statement by Scalia.

It just doesn't make sense to me why history has anything to do with it. Both sex and violence in books, movies, etc.. have been protected by the first amendment for a very long time.

Scalia's reason has no legal weight (I assume he had more reasons though...I hope). A post higher up mentioned that one of the legal precedents for banning/restricting speech if it can cause immediate harm. Yelling fire in a theater, inciting violence, etc.. Scalia's reason would have made more sense if he said that cases x,y,z have shown that pornography is harmful to young children, whereas cases a,b,c have shown that violence has been around for a very long time with minimal harm done to children's development.

Instead he just says, "well, kids have always had violence, so its protected. Whereas kids haven't been exposed to a lot of sexuality, so its not protected".

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's a fact, despite everyone's best efforts to fuel the prison industry, the engine keeps puttering out. We're in the midst of the biggest recession in decades and the crime rate refuses to stop plummeting!

Put down the damn controllers and go out and smash a few heads, the companies that want prison (slave) labor depend on you!

Re:As an American Conservative...

[AK Marc]

I tried, but there were no defenses of atheism on the first page of Google results. But there were a number of articles and clips for blaming atheists (or godlessness, if he makes a distinction) for America's problems and "attacking" atheists. But no defenses of atheism that I could find.

Does he list his positions anywhere? Or is the fluidity of his positions one of the reasons he's interesting?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[AK Marc]

It is a liberal/conservative issue, but you are making the mistake of assuming that Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservative. Liberals - let the kids buy whatever. Conservative - when I was a kid, we didn't have any of those newfangled computers and they rot kids brains and anything that prevents change is a good thing.

Just because politics has hijacked the terms liberal and conservative to form boogiemen doesn't change the fact that they still also hold their previous meanings and there are no other words that are appropriate.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[AK Marc]

No, the conservatives are still conservative, and the liberals are still liberal. The issue is that Democrats aren't liberal and Republicans aren't conservative. The party is mostly unrelated to the status of liberal/conservative (other than the label those who associate with the parties apply to themselves and the other party).

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

Sorry, but I don't think a 5-year old should be allowed to buy a game where the main character chops the heads of civilians with a shovel and soaks stray dogs in gasoline before setting them ablaze (Postal2). I'm willing to give some leeway and say it's OK if the parent buys it, buy Dammit! I want to know for certain that the parent is involved. I want to be absolutely sure that the parent is involved so we don't have another one of these oblivious parents using the excuse, "I didn't know what my yung'un was doin'." And, if the 5-yr old can buy the game, then the parent is free to use that excuse because the state has deemed that a child of any age is free and mature enough to make that decision without the parent's knowledge or consent.

As for this being a free speech issue. Bullshit! This is actually LESS of a free speech issue than child porn is. After all, if a child has free speech rights, then why can't a child, say, a 13 yr old girl, pose naked on the Internet? Seriously, how is playing a fucking video game MORE free speech than writing "Free Tibet" on a pair of a minor's chest and posting it on the Internet? Fact is, it's not. If a child has full Constitutional protection of Free Speech, then they should be allowed to truly express themselves. There is no exception clause in the Constitution. Either 5-yr old kids have 100% Constitutional protection or they don't. You can't say that buying a video game is free speech for a minor but getting naked for a PETA ad is not under any reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment, even if you think that "Free Speech" really means "Free Expression".

In other words, A CHILD'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE GRANTED THROUGH THEIR PARENTS, and even that has limits.

One more thought. If citizens are have the freedom of speech, then how can a school teacher, a government employee and representative of the government, tell a class room full of kids that they are not allowed to speak? How can a school board tell a child what to wear, have his hair and where to be and when? Kids are required to go to school by law, and they are required to be silenced from time to time. How is that NOT a violation of the First Amendment if minors have full Constitutional Protection.

This is not a conservative/liberal thing. This is a common sense thing. If parents are responsible for their kids, make parents be responsible for their kids?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ALeavitt]

There are dozens of things that prevent a five year old from purchasing and playing a violent video game. I have listed a number of them in previous posts. Apparently you are too fucking stupid to pick up on them. With a parent like you, god help your poor offspring. These obstacles include, but are not limited to:
1. A five year old should not have $60 with which to buy a video game.
2. A five year old should not be playing video games with no parental supervision.
3. A five year old should not have access to a video game console without any parental controls.
4. A five year old would ALREADY BE UNABLE TO PURCHASE A VIOLENT VIDEO GAME because of the rating system already in place and the fact that stores abide by this policy.
It is clear that you don't understand the simple fact that the government limiting speech is a violation of the constitution. You have also made it clear that your conservative values include expansion of government powers to review and limit the sale of video games. I assume that you want to pay for that rating agency with your taxes. You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know what a conservative is, and it truly makes me sad to know that you both vote and are raising a child.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Wyatt Earp]

From the PDF - JUSTICE ALITO has done considerable independent research to identify, video games in which “the violence is astounding,”. “Victims are dismembered, decapitated, disemboweled, set on fire, and chopped into little pieces. . . . Blood gushes, splatters, and pools.” Ibid. JUSTICE ALITO recounts all these disgusting video games in order to disgust us—but disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ALeavitt]

Also, it made me laugh when I realized that you haven't picked up on the fact that this isn't about a child's right to purchase a video game, it's about video game publishers' right to publish video games similar to the manner in which book publishers and movie publishers and music publishers make their respective media available to the market at large, without the work being ghettoized as somehow not speech and therefore to be regulated by the government. You are so myopic and unable to understand simple situations that left even conservative and liberal justices agreeing, and explaining their agreement in very simple language, that, once again, I'm just laughing.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[zeroshade]

Actually, Sex, under the title of "obscenity" has not been upheld as an artistic right under the first amendment. Obscenity is not protected under the first amendment and hasn't been for quite some time. Thus historical regulation comes into play in the form of precedent and previous Supreme Court decisions. In order to allow sex, or obscenity, as protected under the first amendment, they would have to overturn previous precendent and decide to bring it back under first amendment protection. This is why Yee tried to argue that extreme violence should be considered obscene and thus seen without protection as obscenity.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[zeroshade]

I don't want to have to deal with public displays of nudity and sexuality and the loss of innocence for kids that comes along with it.

Loss of innocence? You realize that the reason why it's seen as a "loss of innocence" and is regarded as such a big thing is because we, as Americans, make such a big deal about it. We repress it. In fact, if public displays of nudity and sexuality were more commonplace, as they are in other countries, then it would no longer be such a big deal to kids, it would be a normal thing. But of course....treating nudity and sexuality like a normal thing would destroy society...right?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[cffrost]

I don't think minors should be allowed to purchase anything without a parent or guardian present.

So, trampling on the human rights of a demographic is fine, just so long as you're not a part of that demographic? Why should my kid be prohibited by law from picking up groceries on the way home? Maybe if you taught your kids to be responsible consumers instead of untrustworthy crybabies, you wouldn't feel the need for a literal nanny-state.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[cheekyjohnson]

Sorry, but when most people say "constitutional," they mean, "follows the constitution." The supreme court can't change facts and pretend that freedom of speech doesn't exist. They can interpret the constitution, but that isn't the same thing as altering it, and they can easily be wrong.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy solution. Say that you're allowed to give away video games to minors; just not to sell them. That way, the speech is free, but no one's going to do it.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[wintercolby]

But I'll have any easy time finding conservatives arguing for relaxed gun control and reduction of government. It's much easier to find liberals who believe in gun rights than it is to find conservatives that believe in freedom other than the rights of the wealthy and the corporation.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

1. A five year old should not have $60 with which to buy a video game.
Ever heard of Grandma? And if a 5-yr old could never buy a game without a parent there to pay for it, what is the harm in this law?

2. A five year old should not be playing video games with no parental supervision.
Agreed. But if a parent won't get off his/her ass to go buy the game, what makes you think that hey will bother supervising? Kids with parents who won't bother to even look at the games their kids are buying are exactly the kids that shouldn't be playing them!

3. A five year old should not have access to a video game console without any parental controls
See #2

4. A five year old would ALREADY BE UNABLE TO PURCHASE A VIOLENT VIDEO GAME because of the rating system already in place and the fact that stores abide by this policy.
Do all stores have this policy? Same for movie theaters, right? When I was 13, I rode my bike to a video store (a new idea at the time) and rented Terminator (the very first one) on Betamax and took it home and watched it. My dad knew what I was doing and was OK with it, but the store clerk never asked or cared. Terminator was rated R, by the way.

It is clear that you don't understand the simple fact that the government limiting speech is a violation of the constitution.

Speech comes out of your mouth. It could be stretched to say that it is any kind of self expression. Purchasing a video game is not speech. Read my previous example where I said that if buying a video game is speech, why is a naked PETA protest NOT speech? Oh ,wait! It is... unless you are a minor. So, either you agree that minors have free speech rights, meaning they can use their bodies as a tool for expression, of you have to admit that minors are not afforded the same Constitutional protections as adults. Also see my example where a government employee is allowed to tell kids not to speak. How is that NOT a violation of free speech.

You have also made it clear that your conservative values include expansion of government powers to review and limit the sale of video games.

Google "States Rights"

I assume that you want to pay for that rating agency with your taxes.

I don't live in California and don't care what they do.

You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know what a conservative is...

Oh for Pete's sake. Click here.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

Also, it made me laugh when I realized that you haven't picked up on the fact that this isn't about a child's right to purchase a video game, it's about video game publishers' right to publish video games similar to the manner in which book publishers and movie publishers and music publishers make their respective media available to the market at large, without the work being ghettoized as somehow not speech and therefore to be regulated by the government. You are so myopic and unable to understand simple situations that left even conservative and liberal justices agreeing, and explaining their agreement in very simple language, that, once again, I'm just laughing.

There is nothing that says publishers can't make anything they want. I hope they do. I hope they make the raunchiest, bloodiest, most realistic blood and boob fest they possibly can. I want them to make a game where the player can see strippers and then get to kill them. That is their right to make any game they want. That's what freedom of speech is all about.

However, like porn, children should not have unrestricted access to it. If buying porn is not protected under freedom of speech for minors, how is this? And if kids are not allowed to buy porn, then the power to purchase is not free speech, is it?

So, rather than laughing, you should try reading. Rather than hurling insults you should counter what I'm actually saying and stop replying to comments I never made. (it's called a strawman)

But here... try this one for size. The rap band 2 Live Crew released an album years ago called "As Nasty as They Want to Be". It contained gems such as "Dick Almighty", "The Fuck Shop", "I Ain't Bullshit'in", "Me So Horny" and "Get The FUCK Out Of My House". It was an awesome album. I was a head banger at the time and I owned this album because it was that good. I can't tell you how many complaints I received from teh 2nd floor of my college dorm over this album. I lived on the eighth floor.

Even though a "clean" version of the album was created for kids and radio play, the explicit version of the album was called obscene by law and banned. It certainly was obscene, but why was it banned? Because kids could buy it. If kids were unable to purchase the explicit version of this album, 2 Live Crew could have gone before the Senate panel and told them, "What's the problem? It's against the law for kids to buy this album. It is for adults only. If adults can purchase actual video of porn, why can't adults buy an album with us black guys talking about porn?"

The point is that if children are not able to purchase violent video games, when the purity police go after video game manufacturers over violent or obscene video games with their "think of the children" argument, the game makers can tell them to get bent because kids can't buy the game. This actually frees video game makers to make any game they want without fear of parental groups coming down on them. So, if your concern is truly about the video game makers' rights, then you should be all for this law. As it stands, I think you are 12-yr-old who likes the idea of being able to do something without having to ask mommy for permission. It makes you feel like a big boy.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ALeavitt]

Firstly, "states' rights" refers to, and I quote, "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States." As curtailing free speech, which includes production and publication of video games (as found in this case,) is expressly prohibited by the first amendment, I don't understand why you think that states' rights is even an applicable term here. Furthermore, to call yourself a conservative because you support gross expansion of the power of state government over the lives of the citizenry is so laughable on its face that I don't even know how to respond. Conservative vs. liberal is not simply a question of whether the federal government or the state government is the one creating laws limiting rights. Once again, I suggest that you look up the definition of a conservative. Pay attention to the concepts of limited government, personal liberty, and individual rights. Finally, the fact that you still have not picked up on the fact that this is less about the right of a child to purchase a video game and more about the fact that video games themselves are considered speech makes me think that you are too dense to understand this ruling of the supreme court, even though they explained themselves in simple language. Tell me, did you read the individual opinions? Did you even read excerpts? They explain themselves very plainly and in simple speech that even somebody like you should be able to understand.

Finally, pardon me for asking, but would you call yourself a Christian conservative? I'm just a little curious, that's all.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[JSBiff]

Here's a question. "Marriage" is an act of the State. You receive a "license", and then others are forced by the State to provide certain privileges based upon that license.

Is that strictly a personal choice which does not affect others? Or is that the State using its powers, to interfere?

Here's another question:

I know this is a hotly contetested issue, but you brought it up not I. You claim that you believe in freedom that does not affect others. I believe you'd find that most Conservatives believe that a fetus is another person, separate from the mother, and that abortion infringes upon the most basic of that person's human rights - the right to live. Does not the weakest in our society deserve the full strength of law to protect their right to live?

You may disagree that a fetus is a person, but you must acknowledge that if someone DOES believe a fetus is a person, then they are fully consistent, as a Conservative, in expecting law to protect that person's life from being taken by another, when they are innocent of breaking any law.

If you look deeper than your own prejudice, you can see the consistency in the logic of many Conservatives, but you choose to see only that which you wish to see.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[jc42]

"Marriage" is an act of the State. You receive a "license", and then others are forced by the State to provide certain privileges based upon that license.

Here in Massachusetts, part of the history that came out during the political process that led to legalized gay marriage was that, during various part of Massachusetts' history, Quaker and Jewish marriages were not legally recognized. There were even times when Catholic marriages weren't recognized. The above "privileges" argument applied to all of them, as well as to the gays. Most people here now think it was unfair to exclude Quakers, Jews, et al from the privileges of marriage. Is there any argument other than "My God doesn't approve of it" that says that the state shouldn't recognize all of these marriages?

Such laws are currently in effect in a lot of the world. Historically, it has always been common for states/nations to have an "established" state-supported religion, and it has been common for the law to only recognize marriages performed by the clergy of the state religion. But the fact that such discrimination is common doesn't make it right.

You may disagree that a fetus is a person, but you must acknowledge that if someone DOES believe a fetus is a person, then they are fully consistent, as a Conservative, in expecting law to protect that person's life from being taken by another, when they are innocent of breaking any law.

Indeed, but you do run into a few logical problems when you say that only people who call themselves "conservative" have the right to impose their beliefs about such things onto others who don't have the same beliefs. Why shouldn't the others be able to impose their beliefs on the "conservatives"?

Thus, there's a common principle in Jewish law that a fetus is "alive" 40 days after conception. Should Jews who believe this be allowed to impose their standard on others?

Of course, it's not clear what a "Yes" answer to this might mean. Would Jews be able to force an unmarried non-Jewish woman to have an abortion against her wishes? I sorta doubt that anyone would say "Yes" to this, not even a Conservative Jew. ;-)

But the really fun answer to this issue is the scientific one, which deals with the claim that (human) life begins at conception. The historical name for this belief is "spontaneous generation", and it was convincingly disproved in the early 1800s, notably by Louis Pasteur, but also by others who tried variants on the same experiments, with the same results. The scientific answer to "When does life begin?" is simple: "It doesn't." At least for cellular life (ignoring viruses for now ;-), it's firmly established that, although life may have arisen out of non-life early in the planet's history, this no longer happens. Life only continues as a branch from previous life.

In particular, it's quite true that a fertilized human ovum is a living human. It's a cell that is alive and contains only human DNA. But it's also true that the unfertilized ovum (and all those sperm cells) are alive and human.

So if you believe abortion to be murder, it makes just as much sense to consider engaging in abstinence to be murder. Both intentionally and knowingly cause the death of living humans, namely all those unfertilized ova. And sperm, too, of course; though it's not clear how one is expected to deal with the millions-to-one ration of sperm and ovum production in humans.

Anyway, from a scientific viewpoint, it's clear that the moment of fertilization is just as arbitrary a "start of life" as 40 days or first detectable heartbeat or any other proposed start time for "life". These are all basically religious criteria; they have no basis in actual fact (as determined by many scientific researchers).

This doesn't mean that we should ignore such cutoff points, though. It just means t

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Warmlight]

I agree, it is the parents responsibility. Not the governments. We should limit freedom because you are not comfortable with the choices other people might make for their families? Laws should not help parents parent. And it's none of your or anyone else's darned business what anyone else decides or (like the example you gave) doesn’t decide to do. Limiting others freedom for your personal comfort is wrong.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

Firstly, "states' rights" refers to, and I quote, "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States." As curtailing free speech, which includes production and publication of video games (as found in this case,) is expressly prohibited by the first amendment, I don't understand why you think that states' rights is even an applicable term here.

Fine. Apply this to my teacher telling her students to be quiet example. A teacher is a government employee. Wouldn't you consider a government employee telling citizens to not speak to violate free speech? When you can how this is allowed, we'll move on to you next point.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ALeavitt]

To be honest, I see no more need to respond to your facile example than to respond to allegations that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater constitute free speech. Regardless of the numerous rulings that have taken place surrounding school speech and the protection thereof (and I suggest that you start reading with Bethel School District vs. Fraser in which justices found, for example, that

The role and purpose of the American public school system were well described by two historians, who stated: "[P]ublic education must prepare pupils for citizenship in the Republic. . . . It must inculcate the habits and manners of civility as values in themselves conducive to happiness and as indispensable to the practice of self-government in the community and the nation." C. Beard & M. Beard, New Basic History of the United States 228 (1968). In Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76 -77 (1979), we echoed the essence of this statement of the objectives of public education as the "inculcat[ion of] fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system."

) the protection of speech in school simply is not an applicable example. You keep looking at this as a ruling on a child's right to purchase video games. That is not an example of speech. What is considered speech, as was supported by the Supreme Court, is the publication of a video game. If you could tell me why video games should not be considered speech in the way that literature, movies, music, or any other type of media are, I suppose I might agree that the government would be within its mandate to regulate them. However, as the Supreme Court ruled that video games fall under the umbrella of speech, they are protected by the first amendment. Pushing all of that aside, however, you are still a shitty conservative for wanting to cede the rights of citizens to choose what type of media to consume to the government.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

To be honest, I see no more need to respond to your facile example than to respond to allegations that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater constitute free speech.

Right. Because yelling fire in a crowded theater is a threat to safety. Making kids respect quite time is not a public safety issue.

And, your quote lays out a good explanation as to why public school is needed, but does nothing to explain why a child has free speech rights over his/her parent's wishes, yet has no free speech rights when confronted by a government official. The only valid explanation is that children have limited free speech rights.

You keep looking at this as a ruling on a child's right to purchase video games. That is not an example of speech.

RIGHT! That's what I've been saying. A child's purchasing power is not a free speech issue.

What is considered speech, as was supported by the Supreme Court, is the publication of a video game.

And here is where I feel the court, or at least those defending the California law screwed up. There was nothing in the law that prevented the publication of a video game. There was nothing in the law that prevented a publisher from marketing their game to children. The only thing the law did was prevent children from purchasing them WITHOUT A PARENT. That "without a parent" is the critical portion. There was nothing to prevent children from owning the game or even playing it. The law was to prevent children from purchasing the game without parental consent.

What is considered speech, as was supported by the Supreme Court, is the publication of a video game. If you could tell me why video games should not be considered speech in the way that literature, movies, music, or any other type of media are, I suppose I might agree that the government would be within its mandate to regulate them. However, as the Supreme Court ruled that video games fall under the umbrella of speech, they are protected by the first amendment.

Nope. Exactly the same. And in the same way that a child may not buy a Penthouse Magazine from the corner store, they should not be able to purchase a video game with content designated for adults only.
Now if you can tell me why a child should not be allowed to purchase a DVD of "Riding Ms. Daisy" but be allowed to purchase Postal2, I'm all ears. Like you said, these forms of media should be treated the same. If a video game is rated to be for adults only, then only adults should be allowed to purchase it, exactly how other adults only material is handled today. While I don't know if it's a national law or not, but where I live, it is illegal to even show a kid pornography, much less sell it to one. Giving a kid the latest Oui mag will get you put on the predator's list.

Pushing all of that aside, however, you are still a shitty conservative for wanting to cede the rights of citizens to choose what type of media to consume to the government.

Nope, still state's rights. If a community wants to keep strip clubs out of their community or away from school kids, which many do with no Constitutional issues, I'm OK with that. And, just as a community may want to keep kids out of strip clubs or strip clubs a respectable distance from schools, I see no problems with a community making that decision for themselves. On the flip side, if a community wanted their school kids to take a field strip to the local "adult book store", I'm OK with that too. That's what state's rights are all about. I have a whole lot more power swaying my city hall or state capitol that I do with the Supreme Court of the United States. That's why this is a conservative, state's rights issue.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually history so far showed that it makes incentives for shadow market of what is prohibited. Luckily with digital stuff they will just pirate it instead of going to shady places.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ALeavitt]

So in essence what you are saying is that you refuse to read the justices' opinions in the recent decision, you refuse to read established case law, you refuse to accept the classification of video games as speech, and you support the expansion of government power over citizens at the expense of the taxpayer... yet somehow you expect me to believe that you are actually an ideological conservative who is capable of a rational discussion? I'm sorry but I have given you the benefit of the doubt for long enough. I'm done here.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[ArcherB]

So in essence what you are saying is that you refuse to read the justices' opinions in the recent decision, you refuse to read established case law, you refuse to accept the classification of video games as speech, and you support the expansion of government power over citizens at the expense of the taxpayer... yet somehow you expect me to believe that you are actually an ideological conservative who is capable of a rational discussion? I'm sorry but I have given you the benefit of the doubt for long enough. I'm done here.

You claim that I can't have a rational discussion, but you refuse to even acknowledge my point. My point is that free speech rights are limited when it comes to children, and even some adults. All branches of government have upheld this. The 14th Amendments states that all citizens are afforded equal protection and rights under the law, yet an 20 year old war vet may not buy a beer. A 12-yr old may not buy a Penthouse. A 16-yr old may not buy a bong. There are age limits on all kinds of things, even for adults. So if those are not in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, as the Justices cited, then how is this a violation? That's the one question you keep ignoring because you simply can't answer it.

I'm OK with video games being speech. Just as I'm OK with pornography being speech or a 2 Live Crew album being speech. However, even speech has its limits when it comes to children. I don't know how many times I need to say it, but let's try it in bold to see if it soaks in:

IF A COMMUNITY OR STATE MAY LIMIT A KID'S "RIGHT" TO PURCHASE PORNOGRAPHY, THEN THE SAME COMMUNITY OR STATE MAY LIMIT A CHILD'S RIGHT TO PURCHASE A VIDEO GAME.

Yes, they are both speech. I'll even say that making a video game and making a porn are both speech. But a community has the right to impose age requirements to purchase them.

So, answer my question. If a community can limit how much pornography a 10 yr old may purchase, why can they not limit what video games a child may purchase? What is the difference?

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games.

Because children have first amendment rights too. The fact that you can't see this is why conservatives are so fucking scary.

He doesn't speak for us, as I am sure you don't speak for thoughtful democrats.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand the constitution then. Or the Founders. They were all in agreement that, what we would call today "Judeo-Christian" morality, was foundational to any society - and certainly this one's- survival. Go read the Federalist papers. Go read The 5000 Year Leap. They didn't mean that everyone had to be a Christian, but the majority had to believe in a Creator and basic moral law.
It is political speech they meant to protect - not obscenity for instance - but those sorts of things would be under local regulations - certainly not federal ones.
As for violence the problem is that America has been "weiniefied" to the point that we have a misunderstanding of an apropriet level. Fighting bad guys is valid, and much of the value system for this has always been taught through play and literature (to children), whereas sex is age related (physicaly and mentaly) and as a result can cuase developmental distortions.
But, the big deal is the modern idea of seperation of church and state is neither in the constitution, nor intended by the founders. It was invented by liberal SC jurors in the 1900's. The Founders, once again, believed that it was the morals of the people that controled a nations greatnest - DON'T take my word for it - go read their words.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the children's first amendment rights in question. Its freedom of speech not freedom of listening, or freedom of access. The Court has often said there is a right to speak, but no right to make anyone hear. Further more, children don't have a right to vote, and an option to not go to school. Nor can they buy alcohol or cigarettes. How is this different? Isn't voting the ultimate in political speech?
I probably disagree with the California law (I haven't seen its details), but a state probably has the right to restrict what minors may purchase - their parents or guardians though have the right (mostly) to determine what they actually read/play/participate/etc in.
Oh, and BTW good use of your freedom of speech. The F-Bomb is always a convincing argument that communicates decorum, literacy, and intellect. And its versatile too!

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because of course you have absolute control over what your child will do and what opinions they will have.
That someone supplies them with easily obtained tobacco, alcohol and drugs will of course not affect the situatuon in any way.

And of course, sex is much worse that drugs and violence.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[Anonymous Coward]

Beware of painting with a broad brush. I'm a fiscal conservative (want a flat tax & balanced budget) and a free speech liberal (respect the right of others to voice what I disagree with.

Re:As an American Conservative...

[MikeBabcock]

As a fellow conservative, I must disagree. I see no problem with a state limiting what a minor may buy. Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes, I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games.

At no point was this lawsuit about what a minor should be able to buy, but whether the product should be available at all.

The product is already being marked to be unavailable to minors, as are cigarettes. Plenty of adults already hand cigarettes to minors, despite laws against it, probably substantially more than give M and AO rated games to minors.

As another Conservative Christian who actually spent time studying theology as a profession, I must say that I find it deplorable how some Christians (and many other groups) are so quick to try and stomp out others' rights, forgetting their own rights are at risk down the line.

I will defend the right of anyone to publish anything, because as soon as I don't, I don't have a leg to stand on when they try to ban the Bible.

The truth will set you free.

wow

[codepigeon]

Didn't see that coming.

Re:wow

[Amorymeltzer]

If you'd followed the proceedings you should have. The oral arguments are worth checking out for everybody, and there are a few choice quotes. The reference to Mortal Kombat is lovely, but my personal favorite is where (page 57) Sotomayor points out that since the law only covers violence against humans, "a video game that portrayed a Vulcan as opposed to a human being, being maimed and tortured" would be totally scott-free.

Responsibility Where It Belongs

[jarich]

The court said that parents should filter what their children see and do. Score one against the nanny state monitoring us for our own good.

Re:Responsibility Where It Belongs

[ArcherB]

The court said that parents should filter what their children see and do. Score one against the nanny state monitoring us for our own good.

If a parent won't get off their ass to buy the games for their kids, this parent won't monitor what their kids see and do.

Re:Responsibility Where It Belongs

[hedwards]

Right, and the alternative is telling all parents what they can and can't allow their children to buy. Don't delude yourself, banning children from buying these materials isn't likely to result in any shortage of such materials getting into the hands of children. Which presumably this is all about.

Re:Responsibility Where It Belongs

[Anonymous Coward]

If a parent won't get off their ass to buy the games for their kids, this parent won't monitor what their kids see and do.

That's not a problem that the state should deal with.

Re:Responsibility Where It Belongs

[Drethon]

And just as likely to lead to some kids wanting those materials more...

Re:Responsibility Where It Belongs

[ArcherB]

Right, and the alternative is telling all parents what they can and can't allow their children to buy. Don't delude yourself, banning children from buying these materials isn't likely to result in any shortage of such materials getting into the hands of children. Which presumably this is all about.

If the parent is OK with their kids owning this type of game, they can buy it for them. Just as if it is OK for a kid to smoke or view porn, the parent can purchase it for them. This is not about banning children from playing these games or even owning them. It's about forcing parents, or at least an adult, to be aware of what their kids are buying.

This is not about limiting what a kid may or may not play or see. This is about two things:
1) Forcing parents to make the decision of the materials their children have access to.
2) A state's right to decide what material is OK for children to purchase.

Re:Responsibility Where It Belongs

[fermion]

Which if this was all that was said, this would be fine. However, I think it continues the argument that corporations are somehow persone who deserve protection under the constitution. Corporation are not person for two reasons. First, they cannot die, second, they cannot feel significant consequences. If a corporation no longer exists, they people simply go somewhere else. The US is built on the idea that aristocracies should not exist, that others should have equal opportunity for pursuit of happiness, and giving civil rights to something that cannot die and does not feel consequences is a violation of that principle.

This distinction is important for the further. If we get thinking machine, and if the idea of civil liberties still exist, it will be important. It is even important know with the assignment of patents and copyrights to the corporation. What is going to happen later when a famous author transfers to a robot then demands that the copyright on the work should be extended until his mind dies, which is never. What happens when some sociopath puts his mind in a robot, and the robots kills people. The robot is punished, and the sociopath is free to go on 'killing'.

We really have two or three corrupt justices that have been bought out by a few psychotics at high levels of the corporate world. The justices have been seduced by drugs and golf courses, and even though we might occasionally get a decision that makes sense, many more are going to set presidencies that will echo like dred scott.

Re:Responsibility Where It Belongs

[jwhitener]

And yet somehow that same court (Scalia), in the same case, said the same is not true for sexually explicit material.

Score one for selective enforcement.

Re:Responsibility Where It Belongs

[zeroshade]

1) Forcing parents to make the decision of the materials their children have access to.

Parents already have to make that decision, regardless whether it is enforced by the state, the store itself or neither. Where are the children going to play these games? If a parent doesn't know what their child is up to in this type of case, the problem is the parent. This type of law doesn't protect against a parent who doesn't pay attention, they will just purchase the game for their child anyways.

2) A state's right to decide what material is OK for children to purchase.

In cases of obvious and documented harm, that may be fine and allowable, if there is no documented and obvious harm, the state should have no right to decide that a child cannot purchase something.

Free Speech Applies to Speech

[tmosley]

Nice to know that the Supreme Court recognizes speech as speech.

The people who failed that test should be disbarred. Maybe exiled.

Re:Free Speech Applies to Speech

[idontgno]

The people who failed that test should be... Kicked from the #law_of_the_land chat channel as an obvious bot. Think of it as a human rights Turing Test.

Interesting 7-2 division

[CokeBear]

Only Thomas and Breyer dissented; one of the most conservative, and one of the most liberal.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[geoffrobinson]

I thought that was weird too. Reading the dissents is often an interesting thing to do. Especially when it doesn't breakdown according to normal voting groupings.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[hedwards]

Thomas isn't conservative, he's bought and paid for. If you don't believe me, just google Justice Clarence Thomas conflict of interest. He regularly behaves in a way which judges sitting on lower courts would get kicked off the bench for.

The fact that Scalia seems to think his views are extreme should be a pretty good indication of Thomas' fitness to sit be an associate justice.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[Cheeko]

And to the points made in the dissent in this case, at least they were well thought out and reasonable. I think the court made the right call, but I did find it interesting in Thomas' argument about how even in speech matters the parent is still the intermediary, I can say what I want, but the parent has control over what their children can here. I don't find this totally unreasonable of a concept.

My issue with the law was that government would have to make a determination of what content meets a violent standard and that is definitely against the free speech framework. Its also a slipper slope in terms of ever changing social standards.

I think in this case the 2 dissenting votes had more to do with interpretation of the role of the parent in the law as it was structured, versus the role of government in the law.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[Nikkos]

"And to the points made in the dissent in this case, at least they were well thought out and reasonable."

They wern't reasonable in my opinion. One justice compared violent videogames with child porn, and the other missed the point of the arguments entirely.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[Anonymous Coward]

The most interesting part of this was that Clarence Thomas offered his own opinion. THAT is rare.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[BlaKnail]

Breyer's dissent has a bit of nice reasoning in it, actually.

"But what sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13 year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her? What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restrict- ing sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman—bound, gagged, tortured, and killed—is also topless? This anomaly is not compelled by the First Amendment. It disappears once one recognizes that extreme violence, where interactive, and without literary, artistic, or similar justification, can prove at least as, if not more, harmful to children as photographs of nudity. And the record here is more than adequate to support such a view. That is why I believe that Ginsberg controls the outcome here a fortiori. And it is why I believe California’s law is constitutional on its face. "

Basically, the court had previously ruled that it's ok to ban porn sales to children, and the court is generally bound to prior rulings unless overturned by new legislation. The logic used to ban pornography sales to kids still applies to this case. Not saying it's a good law, but Breyer's position makes a lot of sense.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[bugs2squash]

It's always interesting to learn more about what "liberal" and "conservative" mean. In this case the line seems to be drawn based on whether sex or violence is the greater evil.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[surgen]

Thomas' argument about how even in speech matters the parent is still the intermediary, I can say what I want, but the parent has control over what their children can here.

This was an interesting argument, but it kind of fell apart when I thought about the situation at hand.

Essentially: How can a child be at a game store, in position to buy a game, without the parent having relinquished (or be ineffective at) their roll as the intermediary?

If the parents want a store to drop their child off at confident that they will not be sold a violent game, it is a failing of the market to create such a store. Such stores could exist side by side with stores that do sell violent games to children (the situation we currently have). It is not the place of government to create that type of store at the cost of every store that would not follow the model.

Furthermore, legislation against the child buying that M-rated game isn't going to do anything to stop all the other forms of speech the child will potentially be subject to while in the store without supervision or on the way to/from the store.

As Scaila says in his opinion, such legislation does not enforce parental authority, but instead imposes government authority.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[nschubach]

My biggest question with the ruling is now: "How does this affect the FCC language blacklist?" If video games are protected as free speech and the content contained within can be violent and/or full of language how does that differ from a television show's rights of free speech?

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[geoffrobinson]

That is not rare at all. Thomas doesn't comment during the question and answer period with the lawyers when it is argued before the Court. He writes opinions all the time.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[Anonymous Coward]

The extremes on either end of the spectrum only disagree on one point: who should be making the decisions on behalf of the individual citizen. The extreme left wants the Government to make all the decisions while the extreme right wants God to do the same.

Those stuck somewhere in the middle think the individual should be in charge of the individual. Censorship is for the extremists.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[Jeremy Erwin]

A typical Breyer cite:

Weber, Ritterfeld, & Mathiak, Does Playing Violent Video Games Induce Aggression? Empirical Evidence of a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study, 8 Media Psychology 39, 51 (2006).

A typical 0Thomas cite:

C. Mather, A Family Well-Ordered 38 (1699).

Truly, one can be wrong in a myriad of ways!

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[dkleinsc]

I can say what I want, but the parent has control over what their children can hear.

The fact of the matter is that the parent has no control either, but it's not the end of the world that they don't.

For instance, somebody could go up to a baby on the street and shout profanity at them. The parent can't actually stop that from happening. They can be royally pissed off at the guy who did that, but the kid heard the word. Similarly, the kid is going to learn about sex, violence, drugs, and rock and roll far sooner than the parent would ever want to admit, probably not from their parents but from their older friends and acquaintances.

Basically, every kid in human history has learned about that stuff, and many of them learned it by going behind their parents' back. The biggest mistakes most parents make are assuming their kids are innocent, and assuming their kids are stupid.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[Anonymous Coward]

Utter lie. Funny how they all attack Thomas and not Breyer.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[ZombieBraintrust]

Basically Thomas's thinking you shouldn't be able to sell anything contain speach to a child without the parents being present. The other justices through this law out because it singled out games. Any law would have to apply evently to books, music, movies, and games when dealing with children.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[Dhalka226]

How can a child be at a game store, in position to buy a game, without the parent having relinquished (or be ineffective at) their roll as the intermediary?

It's not an unreasonable question, but I think you're too absolutist in your analysis. I can buy (select) video games at 7-11. It's two blocks from my house and one block from our elementary school. If I was a child, it would not be unreasonable that I was given the freedom to go out to that store. A few birthday cards with $10 in it would take care of the purchase.

Now, I admit: I have never looked at the games there. I don't know what they offer. I don't know if they have some sort of corporate policy regarding what rating of video game they are willing to carry, but the fact that they do carry them is proof enough to me that a store, at a reasonable distance from a child given appropriate levels of freedom for their age, could very well sell these types of video games. It's probably even more true in smaller towns where a handful of stores sell pretty much everything that is available.

It may not be likely, but it is certainly possible without a parent being a failure at their job.

If the parents want a store to drop their child off at confident that they will not be sold a violent game, it is a failing of the market to create such a store.

That's only half true (and though somewhat off-topic, it's why I don't like libertarianism). Wanting these stores does not get them created. Not even wanting and using them -- unless such stores are used enough by enough people to turn a profit. Even then, if they can make more money by being a more generalized store rather than their claim to fame being "we don't sell violent video games!", they should well do that too. And that's without getting into any issues of cost or other reasons that such a store might not do well.

The market does not solve every problem. It never has and never will.

I don't believe that violent games are dangerous to children (nor porn, for that matter). I don't believe they should be banned. But I also don't have a problem with this law, at least not from the perspective of the store/game maker's free speech rights and only slightly from the perspective of the state asserting censorship over content.

For me, the real question about a law like this is actually the rights of children. Parents have a right to protect children and I don't object to the state helping them do so, so long as it does not affect adults. But children have rights too, and while courts have typically given parents (and schools) wide latitude to violent those rights, at some point they have to be bestowed. Is that point really the magical 18 year old age? They're driving and very possibly having sex by 16, they can get a job, but they can't buy a video game? If such a scheme is to be tolerated, step number one would be to decide at what point children have the right to make that decision for themselves (their parents' wrath notwithstanding). I'm utterly unconvinced that that would be 18. Even at 16, compared to other things we allow them to do, I'm not convinced but I would accept it. Frankly I would put it closer to 13 and would expect any law to be crafted with that in mind.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[Anonymous Coward]

Racist.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[Funksaw]

Reading it, I can see why. Thomas believes that video games, by their "interactive" nature, are not protected speech, and doesn't agree with the idea that free speech automatically applies to new technologies. Thomas is an jerk, but we knew that. Breyer, on the other hand, makes the argument that games are protected by free speech, but that California's law doesn't prohibit the consumption of material to minors, only the sale of the material to minors. Viewed from that perspective, it places violent video games in the same category as Playboy magazine. Breyer doesn't make the argument that California has proven that games are harmful, he just makes the argument that it's not unconstitutional to restrict the commerce of goods from minors, and that the rules were not ambiguous or vague. Nor did it restrict consumption of speech - only the *sale* of it to a specific group. While I happen to agree with the court majority opinion, I can see Breyer's point.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[surgen]

Now, I admit: I have never looked at the games there. I don't know what they offer. I don't know if they have some sort of corporate policy regarding what rating of video game they are willing to carry, but the fact that they do carry them is proof enough to me that a store, at a reasonable distance from a child given appropriate levels of freedom for their age, could very well sell these types of video games. It's probably even more true in smaller towns where a handful of stores sell pretty much everything that is available.

It may not be likely, but it is certainly possible without a parent being a failure at their job.

I guess my problem with Thomas' line of thinking is that in general saying that parents are an absolute intermediary is pretty pathetic. I attacked a certain instance of it in my post, but there is no way to control the speech someone is exposed to for 17 whole years. Like you say, its not even a failing of a parent to control their children to such that extent.

Yeah, I don't really believe in the market failure thing either, I just threw it in for good measure.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[kmac06]

and the court is generally bound to prior rulings unless overturned by new legislation.

Or the court overturns itself, which it usually reluctant to do, but certainly can be done.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[deisama]

"All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance -- unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion -- have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests. But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.
Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prosecuting/overview.html#ixzz1QVrlPM12
"
The states can regulate obscenity so long as it has no free speech to protect. If the kid had bought a hustler or playboy and not just a magazine full of naked women, they would have had a pretty solid case to work with as he could have claimed he was interested in the information in it, but since it was deemed as just obscene, they were allowed to to restrict it to minors.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=390&invol=629
I skimmed through it, and they seem to be looking at it as pure obscenity, so the free speech issue never comes up.

Video games on the other hand have a much stronger case for free speech. And once you can prove that it is trying to convey ideas, than it is protected by first amendment

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[i_b_don]

I'm confused... doesn't this already apply to movies and TV? Can a child rent or watch a rated R movie by themselves? Isn't the FCC regulating the TV my children see by some puritan standard? How is this any different from what already exists?

d

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[Anonymous Coward]

...the court is generally bound to prior rulings unless overturned by new legislation

This isn't quite correct; SCOTUS generally respects its prior rulings, but is not bound by them (lower courts are bound by SCOTUS rulings, of course). In Brown vs. Board of Education, SCOTUS overturned its previous decisions that allowed for "separate but equal" accommodations; there was no new law that made them do so. Stare decisis is the term for the respect of prior rulings.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[Lord Kano]

Utter lie. Funny how they all attack Thomas and not Breyer.

They will invent all kinds of justification for attacking Thomas, but they won't come right out and tell the truth. They attack him because he's conservative and black.

LK

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[Lord Kano]

Don't let reality get in the way of a good Thomas bashing.

LK

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the conservative view of life is that it is okay to kill, but wrong to love -- we shouldn't let two consenting same-sex ADULTS marry- becausetheir love and commitment somehow violates the sanctity of my, heterosexual marriage. Love, and commitment and sex = bad and harmful and dangerous. God forbid we allow 16 year-olds to view movies that contain nudity. -- conservative no, no.

But gratuitous mutilation and violence and torture of women (or men) -- solid conservative values protecting the "absolute" first amendment rights of seven year-olds.

In the immortal words of Bob Dylan, Wowee, pretty scary.

Re:Interesting 7-2 division

[geoffrobinson]

It's not racist because he's a conservative.

Re:First Post

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the current BTC to /.FP conversion rate?

How... Ironic.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

" JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.

The Court’s decision today does not comport with the original public understanding of the First Amendment. The majority strikes down, as facially unconstitutional, a state law that prohibits the direct sale or rental of certain video games to minors because the law “abridg[es] the freedom of speech.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. But I do not think the First Amendment stretches that far.

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. I would hold that the law at issue is not facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and reverse and remand for further proceedings."

Justice Thomas should, perhaps, stop to consider that the "practices and beliefs of the founding generation" establish a number of other interesting boundaries to the distribution of various freedoms...

Re:How... Ironic.

[erroneus]

I think judges don't know what speech is any more. Recently we saw that confidential data having to do with what drugs are being prescribed to be used in marketing is speech. Now, adult materials in the form of a game is speech.

My first reaction, like so many others was "okay, then kids can buy porn now too right?" I think judges are flipping coins in their chambers and announcing rulings or something like that.

Re:How... Ironic.

[dcollins]

To play devil's advocate, a consistent response might be -- Some of those other practices and beliefs were overturned via the amendment process, which isn't the case here.

Re:How... Ironic.

[retroworks]

The irony is interesting, on more than one level. But his central point, which is that "freedom of speech" allows restriction of speech to children, is a sound one. As online games replace video games, this ruling could have had profound precedent on censorship of the internet insofar as children have access to "redtube" and "youporn". I don't know whether the result would have been good or bad, but it looks like the Supreme Court is kicking the can down the road a bit farther, whereas Thomas would have allowed government to distinguish between content directed at children.

Re:How... Ironic.

[geoffrobinson]

Breyer dissented as well. Why did you leave that out of your analysis?

All rights get limited at some point. I'm not agreeing with Thomas, but you need to be fair.

Re:How... Ironic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. While I disagree with the interpretation, I do not disagree with the reasoning for coming to it.

It's not the place of the Supreme Court to rule that the Constitution itself is unconstitutional. Therefore, if you believe the Constitution states one thing, then you cannot simply ignore that because of modern ideals without changing it and the Court (Supreme or otherwise) does not have that power.

Also, I'm fairly certain that the GP was getting at slavery as the ironic piece.

Re:How... Ironic.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I find is argument a bit dodgy when it concerns a first-amendment challenge to a state law regulating adults.

If little Timmy Jones were to, after being denied a hit of sweet, sweet, GTA, file a civil-rights case against Mr. and Ms. Jones for the suppression of his free speech rights, the fact that the constitutional framers did not see themselves as freeing children from the restrictions of their parents/guardians would be relevant to his getting shot down. As far as suggesting that the mores of the writers(as well as the letter of the document) don't suggest that parents couldn't regulate their children, he is correct. That doesn't seem to go sufficiently far to justify the state regulating the 'speech' of sellers toward people who enter their stores.

The other thing that seems a little problematic, with his 'argument from the mores of the time the document was written' approach is that(for no reason to be found in any constitutional amendments), he focuses on a single aspect of those mores, rather than importing them wholesale: Even if there is concrete evidence that state restriction of people's speech to children was indeed accepted, the definition of "children" at the time almost certainly wouldn't have been "people under 18". That being the case, shouldn't the mores of the founders demand that a law restricting speech to/from those under the modern definition of child be shot down for infringing upon the rights of 15/16/17(or whatever the exact age range was at the time, consult your local historian) year old adults, while one that was careful to only apply to 'children' in the late 18th century sense would be ok?

In the same vein, other than a few, quite specific, places(abolition of slavery, voting rights for blacks/prior slaves/women, assurance of 18+ people the right to vote) the constitution doesn't bother mentioning mores at all. Unless the law specifically touches upon one of those amended rights, you could justify the constitutionality of anything that a late 18th century crowd would have been OK with.

Re:How... Ironic.

[Anonymous Coward]

The ironic thing is that the porn would be less 'corrupting' than the violence..

Re:How... Ironic.

[PieSquared]

Because Breyer dissented for a different and less interesting reason? "It's okay to abridge the freedom of children to protect them" vs "the founders' society didn't give kids freedom of speech, so we can't grant it to them on the basis of the constitution."

You might disagree with the first, but if the second was applied everywhere then the very justice that voiced this opinion wouldn't be allowed to hold office. (Or, well, if you ignore the 14th amendment.)

Re:How... Ironic.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I was thinking of some of the laws that applied to slaves(eg. state-level restrictions on educating them, for instance) and later the various jim-crow stuff.

The 14th amendment specifically codified certain rights in a way that likely contradicted the framers' intentions; but anything not so codified, and there was a lot, would presumably apply equally to the 'framers' understanding of the limits of a right' argument.

Re:How... Ironic.

[ZombieBraintrust]

The judges didn't rule you couldn't ban violence from childen. They ruled you couldn't arbitrarily ban violence in only video games. The ruling says they threw it out because "the basic principles of freedom of speech... do not vary with a new and different communication medium." California can rerite the law to ban selling anything containing violent speach to children without a parent being present. If they do they might get a different verdict.

Re:How... Ironic.

[cheekyjohnson]

which is that "freedom of speech" allows restriction of speech to children

How so?

is a sound one

Doesn't that depend on who you ask?

Re:How... Ironic.

[SatanicPuppy]

People still buy porn?

Weird.

Re:How... Ironic.

[dachshund]

To play devil's advocate, a consistent response might be -- Some of those other practices and beliefs were overturned via the amendment process, which isn't the case here.

The problem here is that there's nothing to amend. Where in the constitution are minors excluded from First Amendment protection?

Unfortunately, to adopt your approach we would be forced to explicitly amend every single clause of the constitution, if there's even a suspicion that 18th century Americans would have read it differently than the modern understanding.

A century of case law and tacit legislative approval (legislators can always amend the constitution to clarify issues where they believe the court's interpretation is wrong) gets thrown out the window vs. one justice's historical interpretation of a single era.

It's not a pretty argument.

Re:How... Ironic.

[Lord Kano]

which is that "freedom of speech" allows restriction of speech to children

How so?

Try buying a Hustler before you're 18.

LK

Re:How... Ironic.

[AK Marc]

Right, the ruling was essentially "if violence is bad, and that's the justification for infringing on the freedoms of citizens, then you must craft a law based on that and ban The Bible, Rambo, and Fallout equally, and not just single out Fallout while allowing the other two (which doing so is de facto proof that the law is not there to protect children from violence, but instead to target a single medium for unconstitutional restrictions)."

Most may not necessarily agree with the reasoning (that if they came back with something that banned all violence to children it should at least be heard again), but the ruling itself is mostly agreeable.

Re:How... Ironic.

[cheekyjohnson]

You most likely can't, but where in the constitution does it say that?

Re:How... Ironic.

[erroneus]

I would totally love to see the bible banned for children. :)

This doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids can't buy porn.
Kids can't see R-rated movies.
Kids shouldn't be able to buy violent video games.

As a life long gamer I see absolutely no problem with restricting sales of games with violence or sex to adults only.
What's the point of challenging that? Do we want 8-year olds to save their lunch money and play Grand Theft Auto?

Re:This doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

You, like many people who don't live in the US or don't understand how the laws work, are missing the point, which is that the *government* does not regulate any of those things. The US movie industry is self-regulating, that is, production houses submit their movies to the MPAA, which gives the film a rating. The producers don't *have* to do this, but if they don't, their movie likely won't be shown in any US theaters, who generally require every film to carry an MPAA rating.
Again, the government has nothing to do with this. Additionally, the government cannot punish theaters for allowing kids in to R-rated movies, as that would be unconstitutional restriction of free speech. It's entirely up to the theater itself, a private company who has the right to deny access to anyone they want.

Currently, the video game industry works the same way: ESRB ratings are voluntary, not required by law, but publishers submit their games for ratings because they want their games in stores. It's up the stores, private companies, to decide whether to enforce these ratings.

Re:This doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point of challenging that? Do we want 8-year olds to save their lunch money and play Grand Theft Auto?

Absolutely correct! The government really needs to step in here and properly parent children. I can't tell you how many times I've seen parents teach their children lies and non-sense - and then the children grow up to be dysfunctional adults. Children are our future and we need the government to step in and teach them the proper values because obviously parents are just incapable of monitoring their children.

Re:This doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that it is up to voluntary standards bodies to promote enforcement of these guidelines.

There is no LAW prohibiting kids from seeing rated R movies, nor should there be.

Re:This doesn't make any sense.

[potat0man]

Kids can see R-rated movies under the law. It's theaters that won't allow them in by policy.

Do we want 8-year olds to save their lunch money and play Grand Theft Auto?

I don't. But there are better ways to prevent this from happening. Parenting. And supporting store policies that don't allow sales of violent games to minors. No need to brandish police force or put people in prison over it.

Re:This doesn't make any sense.

[somersault]

What's wrong with 8 year olds playing Grand Theft Auto? Great game. Honestly, anyone that talks about GTA as if it's some horrific soul destroying thing, has never played it. There are many darker games out there. I was playing stuff like Mortal Kombat when I was 9. You could rip your opponents head off, with their spine still dangling and dripping blood. You could rip out their still beating heart. To this day, I've never actually tried to do either of those things for real.

Re:This doesn't make any sense.

[Charliemopps]

Pointing out other violations of the constitution does not make this one ok. In most cases however, you're talking about a companies policy to not sell to minors... which is a world of difference from a LAW forbidding it. Stores can continue to ask for ID, they just can't be forced to by law. I think the exception here is for porn, which I believe was held as an exception by the court. I personally would never want a minor to be able to buy porn without parental concent, but that's for parents and businesses to work out together. When the government gets involved in deciding which media is appropriate for your child to see, that's far more damaging to their future than them seeing a gang of midgets pooping on each other.

Re:This doesn't make any sense.

[surgen]

What's the point of challenging that? Do we want 8-year olds to save their lunch money and play Grand Theft Auto?

Seeing as how when I was 8 is the only time a GTA game was ever any fun, yes.

Re:This doesn't make any sense.

[Toonol]

Kids can't buy porn.
Kids can't see R-rated movies.
Kids shouldn't be able to buy violent video games.

You should know this, but if you don't: There's no law that restricts children from seeing R-rated movies. Any such restriction would be found unconstitutional, just as the law about videogames was. Kids aren't generally allowed to see R-rated movies because theaters simply don't let them. No other reason.

Kids will generally not be allowed to buy 'M' rated games. Not because of a law... that would be unconstitutional... but because most reputable dealers will simply decide not to sell those to them.

Re:This doesn't make any sense.

[cheekyjohnson]

Do we want 8-year olds to save their lunch money and play Grand Theft Auto?

Honestly, I couldn't care less. I don't see the harm in it.

Re:This doesn't make any sense.

[i_b_don]

Funny... I'm pretty sure the FCC is part of the government and they regulate the "speech" that is shown on TV. They specifically say that certain material is inappropriate (and thus banned) from certain hours because they are prime kid watching hours. Why is this ok when "regulating" other things isn't?

There have also been laws used against people who provide pornography to kids, is sex sooo much worse than violence?

d

Re:This doesn't make any sense.

[amliebsch]

That's a fair question. The Supreme Court upheld FCC regulation because of the nature of radio waves, actually. They found it significant that, unlike books, newspapers, movies, etc., radio waves would penetrate into your home and be available inside whether you wanted them to or not. It was the fact that radio waves cannot be barred from entering your private domain (short of living in a Faraday cage) that they thought the FCC should be allowed to regulate content, because unlike with other speech you can't just say "no." That's why cable and internet, for example, are not covered by FCC content rules, because you have to intentionally bring them into your home.

Also, please note that "pornography" that can be outlawed is not just "anything with nudity." It specifically sexually explicit material, for solely prurient purposes, with no social or artistic merit.

Re:This doesn't make any sense.

[Lord Kano]

It's entirely up to the theater itself, a private company who has the right to deny access to anyone they want.

Not exactly. Try denying access to someone because they're a Jew, or a woman.

LK

Re:First Post

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, how many Bitcoins to a LIbrary of Congress?

Sudden outbreak of ... uh what?!

[erroneus]

We need a new tag for this...

The Terminator wanted this law.

[Animats]

The strangest thing about this law was that it was supported by Arnold Schwarzenegger .

Re:The Terminator wanted this law.

[F.Ultra]

Well that is not so strange, you can still make tons of violent movies/games without wanting them to reach children.

Great ruling...

[Super Dave Osbourne]

The issue is that we have a huge responsibility as a society to have some values, they may and often do vary, for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a family doesn't value life then feed them violent games and let the mayhem begin. But don't expect me to pay for the jailing of those offenders when they act out their fantasy in a violent or criminal manner. Teach someone caring, love, tranquility and happiness and likely you will have just that in their and your lives. Teach them violence and they will often result to this as the way to play out their understanding of resolution to a situation. Society, freedom comes with a price. That price is responsible, reasonable teachings to the children and adults if needed via either education in a free society or in the penal system. The US penal system I can only guess loves this ruling, it means more folks showing up for 'work' at the jails.

Re:Great ruling...

[codepigeon]

Can you cite your references? There was a recent study that said the complete opposite of what you are claiming. http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html
I believe it was even posted here on /.

Keep the old wives' tales to yourself.

Re:Great ruling...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you continue to pent up your aggression like the "good church" wants, you'll eventually get caught with your hands in a kid's pants. It's healthy to express your aggression in safe manner outside of the real world rather than let it build up inside and let it spill out the next time you are confronted.

Re:Great ruling...

[Bengie]

"There was a recent study"

That's just one. There have been many many other studies over the past decade, all coming up with the same.

If you take the FBI crime graph for the past half-century, and mark when major consoles were released, you will see a sharp decline or at least an increased downward trend after each one. Crime is at an all time low. It's just the media that blows things up. When GTA was released, there was a nice decrease.

We may not know if they're causing the drop, but it is an interestingly strong correlation.

Re:Great ruling...

[cheekyjohnson]

"Reasonable" is subjective. Also, I recall no study that has ever directly linked violent video games to real-world violence or explained why there isn't more violence despite the fact that so many people seemingly play violent video games. All I've seen is studies that link violent video games to temporary aggressive thoughts.

Re:Great ruling...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the rise of violent videogames (about when the first PlayStation was released in 1995), youth crime has dropped significantly.

I understand that your opinion is based on "common sense" but it simply doesn't conform with reality. Could it be that if you've taught someone caring, love and tranquility then playing violent videogames will have no effect at all? Or that playing violent videogames actually allow us to address the darker shadows of ourselves so that we don't act out in the real world?

Of course, none of that is common sense. So it's obviously untrue.

Common sense would likely say that if you drop a bowling ball and a golf ball at the same time from the same height, the bowling ball would hit the ground first. Common sense would be wrong.

Because you're comparing apples to oranges.

[oneiros27]

First, there's two different issues here ... porn vs. violence. The courts have long established that porn is considered obscenity, and therefore, does not qualify under the First Amendment. They've never said the same thing about violence, which they're re-affirming here. (Although, I wasn't sure if they were saying that animal cruelty was or wasn't considered obscene)

In the case of kids seeing R-rated movies -- it's not illegal. It's the movie producers an theatres acting as a group to set standards, but it's *not* the law.

Likewise, the video game producers could voluntarily rate their games (and many do), but as people's experience may vary depending on how you play the game, they're notoriously difficult. And the ratings only serve as a recommendation system for the purchaser, unless the retailer makes it their policy to not sell items with stronger categories of markings to children. ...

And oddly enough, for some of my formative years, I lived in Europe ... where they were much more accepting of the naked human body (not porn, just nakedness), but that violence was to be avoided. The A-Team was considered violent, but there was nothing wrong with naked people in toilet paper commercials.

Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Violence in society is not attributable only to violent video games. If the do-gooders want to curb immorality and violence, they need to start in their own backyards first. We fill the minds of our youth with violence and immorality from the day they are born with crap from the Television, radio, church, school, & homes. To throw rocks at the video game developers over violent gaming is hogwash.

The nation's government is filled with immorality from top to bottom.
Graft, greed & corruption is standard operation with those scum bags.
We glorify violence with televised war mongering and footage.
All is lost, all is lost ..

Now abolish software patents

[sourcerror]

Now abolish software patents, because it's mathematics applied to a different medium. (Other than the human mind.)

Score 1 for parents in California...

[markw365]

As a non-native Californian living in the PRK. I'm still amazed at the rights the state takes away from parents in the name of "It's for the children." Work permit from the school?!? As a parent of 3 teens, I'm the work permit, grades slip, work stops. Done. Just because some parents are slackers, the state tries to impose the "proper" way to raise children with rules and regulations often written by bureaucrats and legislators that have no children. My kids know the rules and know what's allowed, I do not need the STATE telling me how to raise them. This is a great ruling, the legislator here needs to get back to the basics and get off their social agenda. 60 cents a gallon gas tax and you need an offroad vehicle to drive down most major roads here. :)

Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[n1ywb]

Except that material can and is still deemed "obscene" and banned for children, typically due to sexual content. What sort of country do we live in where gratuitous ultraviolence is OK but procreation is still taboo? All this talk about how important first amendment protections are for violence but heaven help the children if they see somebody's ding dong! Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to censorship. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy.

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[WillAdams]

It's fake violence, but real sex.

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[nschubach]

There is "cartoon sex" that's also considered porn.

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[Wyatt Earp]

While traditionally sexual content has been restricted for minors, violence has existed in children's stories and books for hundreds of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansel_and_Gretel#Plot - for example

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[InsertCleverUsername]

Agreed. I've often wondered why our puritanical society is quite happy to let kids see horrific violence, but practically craps itself if there's a wardrobe malfunction or somebody says one of the seven deadly words. Helpful for military recruiting perhaps?

And hey... Isn't this the same society that wanted Rockstar's head on a pike for the Hot Coffee mod --THAT USERS HAD TO FIND AND DOWNLOAD OF THEIR VOLITION?!?? Why are the Supremes protecting little Johnny's right to sex, violence, and potty-mouth now?

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[Morty]

Agreed. I've often wondered why our puritanical society is quite happy to let kids see horrific violence, but practically craps itself if there's a wardrobe malfunction or somebody says one of the seven deadly words.

Because it's tradition. The legal system is all about precedents. That means it's really about perpetuating traditions rather than doing what's right. The precedents say that that sex is obscene while violence isn't, so the Supreme Court justices perpetuate that tradition.

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[n1ywb]

It's fake violence, but real sex.

I'm pretty sure they're not really having sex in R movies.

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[n1ywb]

While traditionally sexual content has been restricted for minors, violence has existed in children's stories and books for hundreds of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansel_and_Gretel#Plot - for example

Don't you have even a passing familiarity with the Bible? It's full of sexuality. "He knew her and she knew him and these two sisters got drunk and screwed their father". Not to mention various creation myths from other cultures. The nile was a big blob of semen according to the ancient Egyptians.

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[wintercolby]

I'm just curious, where would you draw the line with minors viewing sexual content? Would it only be procreation, or would any form of smut or strange fetish also be acceptable? At face value, I agree that there is a strange disconnect in violence being okay and sexual content remaining taboo. As soon as I start to think about what should be permissible sexual content, I stop. I wouldn't want to begin to dictate what other people's kids are allowed to see at what age.

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[Anonymous Coward]

What sort of country do we live in where gratuitous ultraviolence is OK but procreation is still taboo?

What pornos do you watch? I don't see any procreation in any of the videos I've seen online.

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[Hatta]

The line is wherever the minors wish it to be. If they're curious, let them at it. There's no evidence that any harm will come to them.

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[Wyatt Earp]

The Hebrew Bible full of sexuality and punishment for sexuality.

But in your example, daughters of Lot got their father drunk and slept with him because there were no other men around.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0119.htm#30

And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar; and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

And the first-born said unto the younger: 'Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth.

Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.'

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not "protecting violence", so much as free speech. Though you are correct, pornography is the one example where they threw out the rule book. Everyone decided that little Johnny seeing some boobs was going to irrevocably corrupt his soul, because our country is (still to this day) by and large full of religious moral conservatives who think that freedom means "free... as long as you comply with what we think is morally right".

Eh, what're you going to do? At least they didn't throw out the rules again in favor of moralist crusaders' opinions.

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Violence is easily determined to be right or wrong(he was about to kill some kids, so the good guy shot him). Love and sex are more complicated(it feels good, don't do it)

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[InsertCleverUsername]

Ah... Very astute. It also goes a long way in explaining our ridiculously hypocritical stance on legal vs. illegal substances, gun laws, and erasing half-a-year's education every summer by removing kids from school.

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[n1ywb]

My point is that how is a fake sex scene where maybe you can see a a little T&A so bad that we can't allow children into the theater, but it's fine to let them simulate beating hookers to death in GTA? It's awfully contradictory. Violence good, sex bad. WTF. FWIW I love R. Crumb's illustration of that scene: http://dunedinschool.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/crumbs-genesis.jpg

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, that's all fine and dandy. The girls couldn't get a date, so they instead get their dad drunk enough so he wouldn't be able to realise he was ploughing his own daughters, yet somehow not so drunk that his dick wouldn't work. Very righteous. Of course the drunken incest drew little attention from God, but poor old Mrs Lot's pausing to admire the fireworks caused God to smite her where she stood. Perspective, Yahweh!

The daughters themselves were probably somewhat confused after their dad had earlier offered them up for gang rape in order to persuade a crowd to not bum his angelic house-guests silly. I can see why God decided to save these reighteous people.

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly because of the moral basis behind the foundation of our entire system. That being, derived from the Christian based faiths. In general they preach that sex for "recreational" or non-reproductive reasons is a sin. Certainly one could argue that 99% of pornography depicts sex of the recreational variety. On the other hand, violence is much more acceptable. Only the most extreme of violence, murder, is a sin.

I'll grant you that as time goes on, the Christian based faiths have become more liberal, if only as a direct effect of the burden caused by the need to remain relatively contemporary to remain appealing to the masses. However it was these older roots and beliefs that shaped the core of our legal system. This sense of morality still pervades society today, and leads to the situation you describe. It's okay for a 17 year old to go to a movie about war with people getting shot and blown to gibs, but they have to wait another year to look at pictures of naked people. How does any of that make sense in today's world? It doesn't, not at all.

I for one would much rather have people thinking that nudity was okay and walking down the street naked as a jaybird than people thinking violence was okay and walking down the street stabbing and beating everyone. Both might not be pretty situations, but at least in the former no-one gets hurt. An overly dramatic example I'll admit, but I believe it illustrates my point.

Bottom line is that there certainly is a reason that "obscenity" is not granted protection under the first amendment, whether you or I agree with that or not. It also has a lot to do with context. Obsecenity exists purely for the sake of obscenity; to tittilate and arouse. Any actual speech going on takes a very distant second. Violence is generally accepted as a much smaller portion of society actually seeks out content that exists purely for the sake of violence (IE, Snuff films.) Violence is more commonly used as something to help illustrate the story being told. War movies are the perfect example. Lots of violence, but it makes sense given the context. Akin to this is softcore porn. Lots of sex helping to illustrate the story. Lots of softcore porn is treated the same as R rated movies, and any 17 year old can walk into a FYE (the only B&M I've ever actually seen stocking softcore porn) pick it up, pay for it, and walk out without a second glance. It's the context here that is important. Escalate this to the next level with gonzo hardcore porn where people are having sex to have sex and you hit the "must be 18 to even *watch*" restriction. I'm quite certain that if any company actually started commercially producing and marketing hour plus long films of people brutally beating, maiming, and killing one another with no story to speak of, you'd have to be above 18 to legally watch it, let alone buy it. And no-one bring up the Saw films to argue that point. They were garbage that no-one should have been allowed to watch regardless of age.

Re:Why is sex obscene but violence is not?

[Anonymous Coward]

The stuff deemed obscene is not about procreation and what level of violence are speaking of? Pretending to be a soldier fighting terrorists? Briar's dissent is crap/ a lie because his example would be banned under the imaginary circumstances he set up on the basis that its obscene.
The sexual material that we are talking about be banned for children in 99% of cases is gratuitous non-procreation related sex and or stimulation (for most males and some females mere vision is actually part of the sexual act) The human body has special functions related to sex and they are not developed until adolescence - both physical and mental. A human is not fully ready to explore that until completion of adolescence.
Sense there is little specificity in your argument (what violence compared to what sex), and since you lied by calling recreational sex pro-creation, what is your real goal here? To encourage children to not be mean and instead embrace the beauty of sex? I wonder why you (and others making this argument) would want to encourage children to have sex for – and with whom.

Interesting reasoning

[highlander76]

I'm not saying I disagree with the decision but I spotted an interesting justification in the pdf. "This country has no tradition of specially restricting chil-dren’s access to depictions of violence."

What about Rated R movies?

Another interesting bit: "...Cali-fornia’s Act does not adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults isnot uncritically applied to children."

So restriction to porn is only OK because it was done before? What about the first ban on porn? Shouldn't that be thrown out and thus the whole history of the ban on porn be thrown out?

Re:Interesting reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Rated R movies?

Private theater policy only. No force of law.

Re:Interesting reasoning

[The Moof]

What about Rated R movies?

What about them? As far as I know, there is no law restricting the sale of R-rated movies, and the MPAA rating system is strictly voluntary, just like the ESRB. Not to mention that the FTC continues to release their annual report that the ESRB is the best voluntary rating system in terms of its enforcement at the retailer level.

Re:Interesting reasoning

[bobbomo]

I know Walmart/Target have store policies (not law) against selling PG13/R movies or M games to children.

Does anyone know if movie theaters are required to card children for PG13/R movies? or is it up to that business' own policy?

Re:Interesting reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. It is entirely the retailers choice to not permit a child into an R rated movie, or not to sell M rated games to kids. It is not however illegal.

Re:Interesting reasoning

[Wyatt Earp]

The Movie Industry sets film ratings and private companies (the movie theaters) restrict access, the US and state governments don't.

How is porn different?

[ubergeek65536]

What makes grand theft auto protected and porn not?

Re:How is porn different?

[Toze]

Everyone will admit to playing video games.

Re:How is porn different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because courts have accepted that porn is "harmful" to children.

And if you don't believe viewing images of naked people can cause real harm, I have a goatse link for you...

Re:How is porn different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people have commented about porn, but I think a more appropriate analogy is with the movies. Kids under 14 still can't get into R-rated movies. I don't see how purchasing violent video games is any different from buying tickets to a violent movie.

Re:How is porn different?

[canajin56]

There are quite a few differences, actually. First and foremost, to restrict any speech, the government must be able to show the court that the speech in question would "surely result in immediate, direct, and irreparable damage to the nation and its people". The accepted argument is that grossly obscene pornography causes harm to the viewer and also to the moral fabric of the nation. Once you have established this, it's easier to also say that since children are not adults, that the threshold for "obscenity" might be lower, and therefore that things not considered obscene to sell to an adult are still obscene to sell to a minor. On the other hand, there is no law restricting violent media for sale to adults, so the government of California was required to pass a much harder test, which they did not. Without showing this, there are no grounds by which the sale can be restricted. The relevant quote is "...California’s Act does not adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults is not uncritically applied to children." That is to say that since "depictions of violence" is not an existing category of speech that is held to be unprotected when it reaches a certain threshold, that the law must pass very strict guidelines. As opposed to a law that took existing "bar" that must be passed, and lowered it when applied to minors instead of adults.

The second difference is basically an appeal to tradition. Pornography has long been restricted. Violent entertainment has not been. Appeal to tradition is not typically a valid argument. But in this case it is. If violent media was so harmful, surely somebody would have done something about it. So since California has long objected to restricting violent movies from sale to minors, they are in a tight spot with regards to videogames. Along the lines of the first, they must not only show that some violent things are clearly and surely harmful to children, they must also show that this harm is specific to videogames, since the law is singling those out. That is, since they are not banning movies or books, they must show that this harm is not caused by movies or books. On the other hand, pornography laws do not single out the medium, so this is again a different argument.

Going back to the first point, though: Pornography is broadly illegal depending on the judge you get. The law bans depictions of sexual activities that have no artistic, literary, or scientific merit. All of those things are entirely up to the judge to decide, and the hokey plot-line used to guide actors from fuck to fuck is not easy to argue as artistic or literary ;) Typically most states leave most porn alone, although people can and do get thrown in jail for a long LONG time for making porn that involves pissing. Rape fantasy porn is another one that can get you locked up for 10+ years. But a lot of states will even go after oral and anal sex. In fact, I think about 23 or so states ban oral and anal sex across the board, not just in porn! And if you think that would be unconstitutional, you're dead wrong. The Supreme Court has in fact upheld bans on consensual oral or anal sex, in private, even between a married couple. Prosecutions are rare against straight couples, but happen to gay men from time to time. Usually for being caught in public bathrooms, but at least a few times police have kicked down the door of a suspected homosexual, caught him in the act, and arrested both men. These warrant-less break-ins are upheld because the police argue they received a 911 call and got the wrong street address, and so had a good-faith reason to be there. Texas had its law struck down by the Supreme Court, but only because it discriminated against gays exclusively. Rick Santorum made his name (or at least, he made his mean mean the frothy mix of lube and semen that results from unprotected anal) as the guyl fighting tooth and nail (his words, even) to uphold this law. Other states that

Re:How is porn different?

[cheekyjohnson]

And if you think that would be unconstitutional, you're dead wrong. The Supreme Court has in fact upheld bans on consensual oral or anal sex, in private, even between a married couple.

The supreme court can't redefine "unconstitutional." Just because they say something is constitutional (or unconstitutional), that does not mean that it really is.

Re:How is porn different?

[zeroshade]

And if you think that would be unconstitutional, you're dead wrong.The Supreme Court has in fact upheld bans on consensual oral or anal sex, in private, even between a married couple.

Can you please cite that? For example This case showed the Supreme Court stating that consensual oral and anal sex cannot be banned in private, overturning a previous ruling.

Re:How is porn different?

[zeroshade]

It's not against the law for a 14 year old to buy tickets to an R-Rated movie, it's the policy of the theatre.

Well, at least that's consistancy.

[Kirin Fenrir]

Amidst all the bending over backwards to let corporations do whatever they want under the reasoning of Free Speech, it's nice to at least see the Supreme Court being consistent in their application of the First Amendment.

porn as a video game??

[Anonymous Coward]

saw a comment about porn being restricted from minors.

It got me thinking. What if i developed a video game that used real actors, but it was like Leisure Suit Larry. you basically guided the male protagonist through the game and you got extra points by having sex. But, its not animated. its like the dragon lair game where its filmed and you then pick the scene you want to go to.

is that a game, or is it porn. if i sold it as a video game would it be protected speech and a kid could buy it. i see a whole market opening up for EB games. /s
by the way, i'm trademarking/copyrighting/patenting/monetizing this idea by way of this post. if anyone tries to do this please not my lawyers will be contacting you. /s

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

The article mentions books as a comparison, so here's mine.
If it's a-ok for a 5 year old to buy an M game, is it then, a-ok for that same 5 year old to go buy porn? Then waltz into a theatre and see an R rated movie? Don't get me wrong, I agree this shouldn't be a law, but I just don't like the comparison.

So....

[krazytekn0]

This would then open the door for kids to be able to go into any movie they want without parental permission... Or buy porn... I don't know if I agree with this one. It's just one case citation away from unknowingly exposing kids to all the other "media" restricted to adults.

Re:So....

[nschubach]

If you don't know where your children are going, are you really parenting? At the same time, at some age parenting dictates that you have to let your kids sneak out and experience the real world. You're never going to keep them in a bubble their whole life.

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize they technically *can* already go to any movie they want without parental permission, at least in the US, right?

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

No it wouldn't. The only media restricted by law is pornography because it is considered obscenity rather than speech, thus not protected by the 1st amendment. Movies ratings are self-regulated by the movie industry, just as video games were, and will continue to be, self-regulated by the games industry. What the law was attempting to do was create a new obscenity law that would apply solely to violent games.

This is crap reasoning

[geoffrobinson]

I'm sorry. I see this all the time on Slashdot.

Just because they have a legal reasoning disagreement doesn't mean someone is bought and paid for.

Hey, Ginsburg supports abortion rights. She must be bought and paid for by the abortion lobby. Or she may just support that there is a legal right to have an abortion.

Re:This is crap reasoning

[skids]

Just because they have a legal reasoning disagreement doesn't mean someone is bought and paid for.

Just because someone mentions a reasoning disagreement and Thomas being bought and payed for in the same post, does not mean they are holding the reasoning disagreement up as an example of why Thomas should be kicked.

Porn or Game

[aenigmainc]

saw a comment about porn being restricted from minors. It got me thinking. What if i developed a video game that used real actors, but it was like Leisure Suit Larry. you basically guided the male protagonist through the game and you got extra points by having sex. But, its not animated. its like the dragon lair game where its filmed and you then pick the scene you want to go to. is that a game, or is it porn. if i sold it as a video game would it be protected speech and a kid could buy it. i see a whole market opening up for EB games. /s by the way, i'm trademarking/copyrighting/patenting/monetizing this idea by way of this post. if anyone tries to do this please not my lawyers will be contacting you. /s

Re:Porn or Game

[Anonymous Coward]

A game like what you describe would be either unrated or would be rated AO, either of which would mean that most retailers would refuse to carry it. The few that would are likely sex shops anyway, and most (all?) of those don't allow children to even enter the store, let alone buy anything.

It seems unlikely to me that a traditional game studio would produce a game like this. Such a game is far more likely to come out of a porn production company, where they have their own distribution channels that don't depend on the big-name retailers such as Walmart, Best Buy, and Gamestop.

Re:Porn or Game

[aenigmainc]

question wasn't whether i could get it into walmart. question was what did it qualify as, porn or video game.

Lord of the Flies + Pick-a-path books ..

[oneiros27]

You gotta love supreme court opinion that reference both Lord of the Flies:

California's argument would fare better if there were a longstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence, but there is none. Certainly the books we give children to read--or read to them when they are younger--contain no shortage of gore. ... And Golding's Lord of the Flies recounts how a schoolboy called Piggy is savagely murdered by other children while marooned on an island.

...and 'Pick a Path' / 'Choose Your Own Adventure' type books:

California claims that video games present special problems because they are "interactive," in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome. The latter feature is nothing new: Since at least the publication of The Adventures of You: Sugarcane Island in 1969, young readers of choose-your-own- adventure stories have been able to make decisions that determine the plot by following instructions about which page to turn to.

And understands the difference between causation and correlation:

The State's evidence is not compelling. California relies primarily on the research of Dr. Craig Anderson and a few other research psychologists whose studies purport to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children. These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them,6 and with good reason: They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively (which would at least be a beginning). Instead, "[n]early all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology." [] They show at best some correlation between exposure to violent entertainment and minuscule real-world effects, such as children's feeling more aggressive or making louder noises in the few minutes after playing a violent game than after playing a nonviolent game.7

Re:Lord of the Flies + Pick-a-path books ..

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree.

I think if the subject matter to you is interesting, the supreme court opinions are really great reads. These men and women are extremely intelligent and well versed people.

Just in case you missed it in the summary: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf

Re:Lord of the Flies + Pick-a-path books ..

[cheekyjohnson]

California's argument would fare better if there were a longstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence, but there is none.

How does tradition matter in the least?

Re:Lord of the Flies + Pick-a-path books ..

[Thrull]

You gotta include the footnote to that last one. It is golden:

"(7) One study, for example, found that children who had just finishedplaying violent video games were more likely to fill in the blank letter in “explo_e” with a “d” (so that it reads “explode”) than with an “r” (“explore”). App. 496, 506 (internal quotation marks omitted). The prevention of this phenomenon, which might have been anticipated with common sense, is not a compelling state interest."

Re:Lord of the Flies + Pick-a-path books ..

[trappa]

It's called precedent.

Re:Lord of the Flies + Pick-a-path books ..

[cheekyjohnson]

Not sure I agree with that. If something is "wrong," I don't think tradition should matter in the least.

Re:Lord of the Flies + Pick-a-path books ..

[nyri]

And understands the difference between causation and correlation:

The State's evidence is not compelling. California relies primarily on the research of Dr. Craig Anderson and a few other research psychologists whose studies purport to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children. These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them,6 and with good reason: They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively (which would at least be a beginning). Instead, "[n]early all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology." [] They show at best some correlation between exposure to violent entertainment and minuscule real-world effects, such as children's feeling more aggressive or making louder noises in the few minutes after playing a violent game than after playing a nonviolent game.7

The footnote 7 in question in hilarious:

One study, for example, found that children who had just finished playing violent video games were more likely to fill in the blank letter in “explo_e” with a “d” (so that it reads “explode”) than with an “r” (“explore”). App. 496, 506 (internal quotation marks omitted). The prevention of this phenomenon, which might have been anticipated with common sense, is not a compelling state interest.

Re:Lord of the Flies + Pick-a-path books ..

[zeroshade]

Precedent.

Not surprising

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> we non-puritans just won a 7-2 victory

Sort of, yes. This is how everyone expected the case to come out, because it's really hard to convince nine intelligent people whose brilliant and successful clerks grew up playing mortal kombat that violent video games mess kids up... and it's doubly hard to do so without somehow implying that the government can ban books.

Does anybody know of any really good studies on the subject of violent video games? (Something that actually has a control group, for example?)

Re:Not surprising

[cheekyjohnson]

Does anybody know of any really good studies on the subject of violent video games?

I'd also like to see one that shows real-world effects and explains why violent crime rates aren't exceptionally high despite the seemingly high amount of people that play violent video games.

Re:Not surprising

[SuricouRaven]

This is politics! Studies don't matter. No, what is needed is one anecdotal account. Ideally with a weeping mother of the victim who can talk about how her daughter was murdered over a game of Grand Theft Auto.

Anyone who cares about video game violence

[Osgeld]

should really watch the tv more, in the last couple of months CBS has thought it to be a good idea where one of the leader roles commit flat out murder over personal grievances

first CSI where the criminal is captured, then freed and then beat to death with multiple detailed and slow-mo reinactments by fishburne
then there was the mentalist gunning a guy down in the middle of a mall
then criminal minds where dude flips out and beats someone to death

but my number one right now has to be last nights Hawaii 5-O, when one of the main cops flips out and proceeds to take out an entire squad of commandos, including a good friend, by him self with a pistol, his two hands and some knives...

now this isnt some Reb Brown shit where it looks so silly you cant take is seriously, its full on creepy plotted out silence of the lambs shit, available on over the air TV at 7pm sunday (you know for the kids)

Here is a transscript of the proceedings...

[DarthVain]

Lawyer: "Violent video games make children violent! Think of the Children!!!"
Judge: "How is this different from violence kids are subjected to via other mediums such as movies, books, and TV?"
Lawyer: "It's interactive! This effects children's brains differently causing severe trauma , and leads to violent behavior!"
Judge: "Do you have any proof of that? Medical tests, analysis, studies, or published material?"
Lawyer: "Well, er... not exactly..."
Judge: "Bullshit. Case dismissed."

Video Game Suggestions

[StealthPanda]

So I have read through a lot of the decision, and I have come out of it with some video game "recommendations" from the Supreme Court:

Not Safe For Work, most likely:

15 Lah, “RapeLay” Video Game Goes Viral Amid Outrage, CNN (Mar. 30, 2010), http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-30/world/japan.video. game.rape_1_game-teenage-girl-japanese-government?_s=PM:WORLD.
16 Graham, Custer May be Shot Down Again in a Battle of the Sexes Over X-Rated Video Games, People, Nov. 15, 1982, pp. 110, 115.
17 Scheeres, Games Elevate Hate to Next Level, Wired (Feb. 20, 2002), http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2002/02/50523.
18 Thompson, A View to a Kill: JFK Reloaded is Just Plain Creepy, Slate (Nov. 22, 2004), http://www.slate.com/id/2110034

Have fun!

It's not about conservative versus liberal...

[flibbidyfloo]

It's about paternalistic busybodies versus those that believe the right of free speech (and thought) is of paramount importance to our way of life. Either you believe you have the right to tell other people how to live or you don't.

Speech is not guns or alcohol, nor is it rape or imprisonment. All analogies comparing speech to "things that are not speech" are nonsense.

Those who seek to control speech really seek to control thought.

Re:It's not about conservative versus liberal...

[Yakasha]

It's about paternalistic busybodies versus those that believe the right of free speech (and thought) is of paramount importance to our way of life. Either you believe you have the right to tell other people how to live or you don't.

Speech is not guns or alcohol, nor is it rape or imprisonment. All analogies comparing speech to "things that are not speech" are nonsense.

pornography.

Those who seek to control speech really seek to control thought.

If you're a kid being affected by this ruling or the law, you probably shouldn't be posting here.

If you're an adult and you're offended by anybody, including the government, in a questionable situation telling your kid "Ask your mom for permission first", you're... weird.

Though I guess if you're already letting EA parent your kid, you should be offended by any law that prevents it.

Re:It's not about conservative versus liberal...

[flibbidyfloo]

If you're an adult and you're offended by anybody, including the government, in a questionable situation telling your kid "Ask your mom for permission first", you're... weird.

That's a silly generalization to make. Maybe the kid did ask his parent, and they said yes. the law wouldn't have required a permission slip, it would have prevented anyone under 18 from buying a game at all. The parent would be required to come down to the store to buy it for them, which is not the same as getting permission.

So you're telling me that, my hypothetical "kid", who is 17, drives a car, and has graduated high school, who I may even trust with a credit card, shouldn't be allowed to buy a video game that you think might be too violent for him? It's really none of your business, and that's where these lines are drawn. You're a Nosy Nelly who thinks they know what is best for everyone, and I think you should MYOB.

I think that for every law that prevents my kid from doing something you think is dangerous or bad for them, there should be a corresponding law from my perspective. So, California gets a law preventing minors from buying Call of Duty, and Texas gets a law preventing minors from buying bibles or attending church without their parents, because I believe that religion is more harmful to minors than just about anything else. Sound like a fair trade?

Re:It's not about conservative versus liberal...

[Yakasha]

If you're an adult and you're offended by anybody, including the government, in a questionable situation telling your kid "Ask your mom for permission first", you're... weird.

That's a silly generalization to make. Maybe the kid did ask his parent, and they said yes. the law wouldn't have required a permission slip, it would have prevented anyone under 18 from buying a game at all. The parent would be required to come down to the store to buy it for them, which is not the same as getting permission.

You're right. One requires you to put down the potato chips and TV remote, pick up your laptop, and order the game. Requiring you to physically go to the store (or physically pick up your laptop and click a couple links), is effectively the same thing as a permission slip that was notarized to prove that the actual parent gave permission.

So you're telling me that, my hypothetical "kid", who is 17, drives a car, and has graduated high school, who I may even trust with a credit card, shouldn't be allowed to buy a video game that you think might be too violent for him?

No. I think I don't want my 12 year old to buy the same without my permission. Since the level of effort such a ban ads to your day or parenting style is negligible, the ban is reasonable. Same as requiring a driver's license is a reasonable requirement to drive a car. Just because I know how to drive well doesn't mean you do. The extra effort it takes me to prove I know how to do it is negligible compared to letting any idiot with a key get on the road and kill people.

It's really none of your business, and that's where these lines are drawn.

You're right. Go to the store, buy Leisure Suit Larry for 5 year old. I don't care. I won't try to stop you. If you think your kid is ready for it, enjoy it. I merely think its reasonable to say stores can't sell the same game to MY 5 year old. While you're at it, buy 'em a 40 and a 9mm. Two more legal choices you get to make that require your physical presence @ the store.

You're a Nosy Nelly who thinks they know what is best for everyone, and I think you should MYOB.

Silly sounding insults are still insults and another excellent reflection of your anti-social, possibly anarchist beliefs.

I think that for every law that prevents my kid from doing something you think is dangerous or bad for them, there should be a corresponding law from my perspective. So, California gets a law preventing minors from buying Call of Duty, and Texas gets a law preventing minors from buying bibles or attending church without their parents, because I believe that religion is more harmful to minors than just about anything else. Sound like a fair trade?

So, you think firearms, tobacco, alcohol, cars, small explosives, pornography, sudafed, joining the military, getting married to pedophiles, and every other thing currently restricted to 16,18,21+ or any other age is an insanely stupid law that infringes on your right to raise your kid? huh.

Well, no, I think its a horrible trade. I think kids should not be allowed to buy ammunition, crossbows, large knives, antifreeze, razor blades, or anything else that is questionably harmful to them without the express persmission of their parents.. And I believe requiring the actual physical actions of the parent to procure those items is a reasonable requirement.

Re:It's not about conservative versus liberal...

[flibbidyfloo]

So, you think firearms, tobacco, alcohol, cars, small explosives, pornography, sudafed, joining the military, getting married to pedophiles, and every other thing currently restricted to 16,18,21+ or any other age is an insanely stupid law that infringes on your right to raise your kid? huh.

Well, no, I think its a horrible trade. I think kids should not be allowed to buy ammunition, crossbows, large knives, antifreeze, razor blades, or anything else that is questionably harmful to them without the express persmission of their parents.. And I believe requiring the actual physical actions of the parent to procure those items is a reasonable requirement.

Oh, and here's a question: What do any of these things have to do with video games? No one ever died, got lung cancer, got liver failure, blew off a hand, made illegal drugs, went to war, or was molested by any video game. As for marrying a pedophile, WTF? There's not an additional age requirement for marrying perverts is there? And pornography? We'll have to disagree on that one too, because I find this country's anti-porn laws almost as ridiculous as the anti-video game ones.

The fact that you can lump together things that are *actually* dangerous (guns and alcohol) with things that you only perceive as dangerous (pornography and video games) is why we will not convince each other no matter how long we argue. Until you can accept that there is a rather large difference between "doing violence" and "thinking about violence", and accept that the latter does not necessarily lead to the former, any more than looking at Playboy results in rape, then you cannot see my side.

Re:It's not about conservative versus liberal...

[Yakasha]

You're still making assumptions about my beliefs. Please read my post carefully, I'll try to be clearer.

I only mentioned pornography as an example of what is currently constitutionally restricted, but I do see where you got confused. Now...

Oh, and here's a question: What do any of these things have to do with video games? No one ever died, got lung cancer, got liver failure, blew off a hand, made illegal drugs, went to war, or was molested by any video game.

What do "illegal drugs" have to do with liver failure, cancer, dieing, losing body parts, killing people, or molesting people? Why would you even group those together? What is so bad about "illegal drugs" besides not having "The Man's" permission to produce/procure/sell/possess them?

The fact that you can lump together things that are *actually* dangerous (guns and alcohol) with things that you only perceive as dangerous (pornography and video games)

One could say you only *perceive* guns & alcohol as dangerous as properly trained and used correctly, they're both quite fun, and safe.

But then, http://www.themedguru.com/20110223/newsfeature/chinese-man-dies-after-playing-video-games-non-stop-3-days-86143775.html, nobody ever died by using a game or alcohol too much, right?

But how about some more long term negative effects of violent video games:

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2010-26571-001
habitual media violence exposure predicted faster accessibility of aggressive cognitions,

In other words, seeing a lot of violence in media (that is media as in tv/radio/games, not media as in cnn), makes it easier to be aggressive.

So you have the extreme possible immediate harm caused by irresponsible usage (as most anything can, and kids are often known to do), and subtle negative long term damage (ever seen a 40 year alcoholic's liver, or a a 40 year angry man's coronary, the negative effects on both quality and duration of life are comparable)... shown by respected scientific studies to be real dangers. How about an unsubstantiated (because I've run out of time to get an actual link... I'm sure you can find something) harmful effect in between? Getting fired, cut from the team, expelled, etc due to excessive usage or mimicking/imitating something seen or done in the game?

So now we have "illegal drugs" that you equate as a negative side effect akin to losing a hand or dieing of cancer and I see as a wonderful and safe way to alter my state of mind (Which most vertebre, including you, seek to do); violent video games which have scientifically suspected harmful effects that you disagree with, but which I lend some credibility to; and guns which, despite any confusion by my earlier arguments, both of us seem to agree with the law that kids should not have unrestricted access to.

Now you have 3 options to deal with the disagreements:

• Total cave-in to my beliefs
• compromise
• screw you, its my way or the highway

Lucky for us, the country is founded on compromise and understanding... its a constitutional democracy. The combination generally lets the majority get what they want, while keeping the extremes in line by way of the Constitution. However, the founding fathers understood that the Constitution even could be abused, so they put in the courts to help ensure things were interpreted reasonably according to the believed goals of the framers. Hence Freedom of Speech has been consistently and continuously upheld as NOT being license to say anything you want; you can't slander, libel, incite riot or insurrection, or use any other form of speech that has a reasonably good chance of harming others. But because we

Re:It's not about conservative versus liberal...

[flibbidyfloo]

So, you think firearms, tobacco, alcohol, cars, small explosives, pornography, sudafed, joining the military, getting married to pedophiles, and every other thing currently restricted to 16,18,21+ or any other age is an insanely stupid law that infringes on your right to raise your kid?

Oh, and here's a question: What do any of these things have to do with video games? No one ever died, got lung cancer, got liver failure, blew off a hand, made illegal drugs, went to war, or was molested by any video game.

You're still making assumptions about my beliefs. Please read my post carefully, I'll try to be clearer.

I only mentioned pornography as an example of what is currently constitutionally restricted, but I do see where you got confused.
What do "illegal drugs" have to do with liver failure, cancer, dieing, losing body parts, killing people, or molesting people? Why would you even group those together?

I wasn’t just talking about drugs here, I was responding to your list of restricted items that you seem to think somehow justify restricting video games. I’ll break it down item by item:
Firearms: untrained use may lead to death
Tobacco: any use by anyone may lead to cancer and death
Alcohol: use may lead to liver cancer or death
Cars: untrained use may lead to death
Small explosives: untrained use may lead to losing body parts or even death
Sudafed: trained use may lead to creation of illegal drugs, untrained use may lead to exploding meth labs, overdose, and death
Joining the military: use may lead to death
Video games: untrained use may result in not completing the level?

See the difference? All of the restricted items you mentioned, except porn, can lead to death (yours or others) when used improperly, and are therefore restricted. Video games cannot. I pointed these out to show that most of your examples were irrelevant and can be ignored. The extremely rare case of someone dying while playing video games is a straw man. The guy was playing an MMO that wouldn’t have been restricted anyway, the guy wasn’t a minor, and he’d spent far more money on his binge than any minor likely could. In fact, if he had been a minor, I suspect his parents would have prevented it from happening.

What is so bad about "illegal drugs" besides not having "The Man's" permission to produce/procure/sell/possess them?

This is another conversation entirely. For the record, I am pro-legalization of all illegal drugs, but let’s not get sidetracked.

One could say you only *perceive* guns and alcohol as dangerous as properly trained and used correctly, they're both quite fun, and safe.

One could certainly say that, but one would be incorrect. Guns and alcohol are inherently dangerous, which is why they require proper training and use to be safe. Video games are no more inherently dangerous than monopoly, and violent video games are no more inherently dangerous than discussing or studying violence.

But how about some more long term negative effects of violent video games:

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2010-26571-001 habitual media violence exposure predicted faster accessibility of aggressive cognitions,

In other words, seeing a lot of violence in media (that is media as in tv/radio/games, not media as in cnn), makes it easier to be aggressive.

It’s weird how the abstract linked above doesn’t mention anything about video games. I only see mentions of violent movie clips. Are you proposing that we ban the sale of violent movies to minors? If so, good luck with that.
We could play dueling link to studies supporting our sides all day, but I stand by the assertion that there is no credible evidence supporting the

Re:It's not about conservative versus liberal...

[Yakasha]

I wasnâ(TM)t just talking about drugs here, I was responding to your list of restricted items that you seem to think somehow justify restricting video games.

Yes you were, you listed illegal drugs as a negative side effect comparable to cancer, death, and losing a limb. A list is implied relation.

Video games: untrained use may result in not completing the level? See the difference? All of the restricted items you mentioned, except porn, can lead to death (yours or others) when used improperly, and are therefore restricted. Video games cannot

Typical stance of many short-sited youngsters unable to comprehend long-term negative side-effects. That is why we don't want you to drink booze or view pornography. New science is pushing people to seek restrictions on products such as violent video games as information about the negative side-effects become apparent. As always, the courts err on conservativeness and strike down early laws like this primarily (if you read the decision) on the basis that society has not viewed violence and aggressiveness in a negative light in the past.
Recent science, as I've already quoted for you, shows there are negative effects directly correlated to violent media. Even if they never become immediately obvious.

This is another conversation entirely.

Then don't mention it.

For the record, I am pro-legalization of all illegal drugs, but letâ(TM)s not get sidetracked.

And by your other expressed views in this post, you think that ice cream trucks hanging out at elementary schools should thus be pushing heroin and AKs on the 1st graders, but its not a problem because only fail parents do not program their kids early enough to never make a bad decision.

I donâ(TM)t understand the question.

Ya... let me put it in 3rd grade format: Is there any "ban on direct sale to minors", of any product, that you would consider reasonable?

One could certainly say that, but one would be incorrect.

Begging the question: Assuming as fact that which has not been accepted as fact.

Ever heard a story about a gun jumping up and shooting somebody under its own power? Ever heard a story of a tornado killing somebody under its own power? Tornados are dangerous. Guns are inanimate objects that can be used by dangerous people to cause great harm to themselves and others, as can baseball bats and money. Your dangerous is not my dangerous.

Itâ(TM)s weird how the abstract linked above doesnâ(TM)t mention anything about video games. I only see mentions of violent movie clips. Are you proposing that we ban the sale of violent movies to minors? If so, good luck with that.

Reading comprehension fail. The study talked about violence in media. The method they used to test their theories used video clips. And its not like any violent video games have cut scenes, or... clips. I appreciate the effort of actually clicking the link and briefly scanning the page though.

Do you think it is reasonable to require such permission for a product that *you* think is dangerous, perhaps homeopathic cancer drugs, abortions, or prostitution, but others do not?

Nope.

Do you think it is reasonable to require such permission for a product that you think is perfectly safe, but others do not?

Nope.

Now we get to the heart of the issue. What is the basis for your blind support of the sale of any product to any minor at any time without care for the consequences of your actions? Anarchist? Ignorant literal interpreter of the Constitution? Evil?

You keep forgetting to limit the discussion to violent video games, which is what this is about. Someone with an addictive

Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not hypocrisy. It would be hypocrisy if the very people who want to censor porn demand uncensored access to it themselves.
Deciding that violence is ok for kids but porn is not may be inconsistent, or contradictory, or just plain stupid, but it is not hypocritical.

To answer your question, we live in the sort of country that still obsesses over its puritanical cultural heritage. I think that is dumb, but I am just one among many. Puritans can vote too, for better or for worse.

As an American Liberal...

[yakovlev]

Agreed, Hear hear!

The court's opinion shows that they "get it." Basically, they argue (convincingly) that violence, both by legal precedent and by community standards, is not allowed the same liberal restrictions as obscenity. Furthermore, the California law does not restrict speech in a specific way that sufficiently furthers any compelling state interest. While I think they go a little far in some places (particularly in their over-broad argument about the state interest for helping parents) I think they do an excellent job of laying out the issues involved and ruling correctly.

Justice Alito, in his concurring opinion, also makes some excellent points. I think he "gets it" too, he's just not willing to rule on the free-speech argument if he doesn't have to. In many ways, I think I would prefer his ruling to be the controlling one, as his would allow the court the leeway to allow a specific, well-defined law to be considered alone, instead of the current poorly-defined one.

Thomas' dissent is frightening. From his points, I wouldn't want this guy anywhere near the bench, not just on the Supreme Court. His standard would allow any restriction on speech to minors, up to and including a law that stated "It is illegal to speak to a minor without prior consent from their parent or legal guardian." The only thing of value in his dissent is a comment to the effect that Alito may not have been allowed to make the decision he did, based on procedure, and that only the majority opinion could be used to strike down the law at the Supreme Court level. Instead, Alito should have suggested remanding to the lower-level courts to decide. On that point I suspect he may be correct.

I haven't gotten to Breyer's dissent yet, and may comment on it later. From what I see, I disagree, but it is not nearly so dangerous of a view as Thomas.

Three other rulings today

[schwit1]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.html

Two product liability lawsuits where the businesses sued had no nexus in the states where the suits were brought.
The third concerns the legality of using public campaign funds.

Call me crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

But, I do think desensitization to violence is damaging to children.

Re:Call me crazy

[halivar]

Then don't buy your children violent video games.

State Law Vs. Store Policy

[Illpalazzo]

Well I think it's great that the Supreme Court states that the fining stores for selling/renting games to minors is unconstitutional. I don't expect much to change in the way they are purchased though. Stores and businesses reserve the right to sell to whomever they like and I don't see that changing for risk of angering parents, activists groups, etc. As long as it's store policy, I'm sure kids will still be carded at stores.

Do you child-proof your house?

[Yakasha]

Do you lock up the anti-freeze until your kid is old enough to understand why drinking it is bad? Or do you just store it in their closet and tell them "dont touch."?

Do you just tell your baby to not lean out the 3rd floor window looking at birds? Or do you install window bars to make sure they don't fall to their death?

Do you secure your 55" TV to the wall, or just tell your kid "dont pull this on top of yourself."?

You baby proof your house or you go to jail for negligence while crying "I told him to stay away from the pool." But since you can't baby-proof the world, certain things need to be banned from being given/sold/offered to kids without the parent's explicit permission.

Is violent video games one of those things? I'm not getting into that argument here. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the extreme argument of "nothing should ever be banned to kids ever because you're violating MY right to raise my kid by shadowing the little robotic automatons 24 hours a day to make sure my programming is not faulty."

And on a side note, I have yet to see anybody explain the difference between violent video games and pornography. Why is shooting somebody in the face "art", but a naked lady not?

Re:Do you child-proof your house?

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the extreme argument of "nothing should ever be banned to kids ever because you're violating MY right to raise my kid by shadowing the little robotic automatons 24 hours a day to make sure my programming is not faulty."

Parents should be able to do whatever they please to their children. After all, children clearly have absolutely zero rights and parents are always correct.

Why is shooting somebody in the face "art", but a naked lady not?

Because the people who make laws don't like the latter, and there has been no significant movement to challenge these laws.

Re:Do you child-proof your house?

[sixsixtysix]

Why is shooting somebody in the face "art", but a naked lady not?

because most people don't get horny when they shoot people, and apparently being horny is bad. /shrug

Re:Do you child-proof your house?

[Yakasha]

Why is shooting somebody in the face "art", but a naked lady not?

because most people don't get horny when they shoot people, and apparently being horny is bad. /shrug

Absolutely.

Next question: Why is a non-animated picture of a naked lady, taken with her consent, naughty, but an interactive 3-D game where you score points raping, sodomizing, and strangling the same image of a women while she screams in protest, protected art?

But if you take a screenshot of that *exact same game* to put on the cover of the game... you're once again in the naughty spot.

Where's Jack-O when you need him?

[Just Some Guy]

Sometimes, I almost miss ol' Jack Thompson. He should be good for a laugh right about now.

Very bad ruling

[Yakasha]

Just to make it a separate post:

What, exactly, is the difference between a naked lady, and raping said naked lady?

Why is a "choose your own rape adventure" protected "art", but a plain old picture of the same naked lady lewd and bannable?

7 of 9 educated supreme court justices agree:

[Yakasha]

Naked women are lewd, disgusting, and harmful to children... unless you interactively rape one.

How is this different from movie ratings?

[GodfatherofSoul]

An 8-year old can't walk into a theater playing "Deep Throat" and by sensible regulation of airing times for rated content, isn't going to see Skinemax pornos on TV at the typical waking hours for that age. I don't see how slapping content ratings on video games is any different. For those of you for this ruling, how do you reconcile the fact that children can have access to "adult content"? Putting the burden on parents to monitor their children at absolutely every instance of their lives just isn't practical.

Re:How is this different from movie ratings?

[sixsixtysix]

except that rating boards are totally skewed. we don't need more "violence is ok / sex is bad". naked people should be way more acceptable than killing people, video games or otherwise.

Re:How is this different from movie ratings?

[zeroshade]

You're right, just as the ban on violent games is unconstitutional so should the ban on pornography. If you can't prove harm (which has not been done for either) then there's no reason to censor it.

Putting the burden on parents to monitor their children at absolutely every instance of their lives just isn't practical

No, but putting the burden on parents to know what their children play, watch, and do (roughly) and be able to speak to their children about it in an honest fashion is completely practical. If your child watches pornography and/or plays violent video games and you have absolutely no idea, or the child would never admit it to you, then you have a problem. The problem is not the responsibility of the government, it's the responsibility of the parent. Why do you believe you need to monitor your child at absolutely every instance in order to "protect" them?

Need to see the video to appreciate it

[dangle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pvmyNnepTk

On Breyer's Dissent

[yakovlev]

Breyer's dissent, unlike Thomas's, is well worth reading.

Breyer correctly recognizes that restrictions on violence in videogames, even to minors, requires strict scrutiny.

Breyer disagrees with Alito on whether or not the statute is vague, which is the primary reason why his is a dissenting rather than a concurring opinion. In making this determination he relies on historical literary references such as the works of Homer or Lord of the Flies. He ignores more modern children's literature/cinema which depicts violence that would fall under what he considers to be an acceptably narrow definition of violence. On this point I consider Breyer to simply be wrong, and Alito to be correct. The definition of violence needs to include "Nightmare on Elm Street" and exclude "Mulan," before we even get to the "community standards" portion of the statute.

Breyer then appears to commit a judicial no-no by doing his own research to determine if the research shows that violence in video games is harmful to children. Ultimately, though, he only uses this to support his claim that the courts should defer to the Legislature in determining if there is a causal link between video game violence and psychological harm to children. This is in contrast to the majority who basically says that unless the State can get further research, it is the opinion of the court that no link exists. Breyer makes a convincing argument on this point, to the extent that I'm not sure whether I agree with him or with the majority.

Breyer then argues that since we're only limiting the *sale* of video games to minors that the restriction is sufficiently narrow to be acceptable under strict scrutiny. This is basically the point I was uncomfortable with in the majority opinion, so I agree with him. If a sufficiently narrow statute (see Alito's concurring opinion) were drafted, I agree with Breyer and Alito that it might pass strict scrutiny, even though I disagree with Breyer and agree with Alito that the statute under consideration fails.

Where Breyer does seem a bit confused is that he tries to shoehorn an "action" component into playing a video game. It always seems a bit of a stretch when he does it, and I can't tell whether that's a failure on his part to understand or a failure on his part to articulate the point he's trying to make. To me, he fails to show how using a controller to play a video game is any different than using a remote control to play a movie, or a pencil to write text or draw a picture. Ultimately, his argument doesn't appear to hinge on this, so I tend to just ignore these parts.

In summary, while I disagree with Breyer on most points, his opinion is well worth reading to get a second look at how the case could have been considered.

Thomas's argument is that the First Amendment only protects you if you think like a Puritan, and it's horrific to me to see anyone on the Supreme Court who basically believes that children have no rights except those their parents give them.

Re: I don't want my 12 year old to buy the ...

[DocSavage64109]

"No. I think I don't want my 12 year old to buy the same without my permission."

So you are ok letting your 12 year old wander the city doing who knows what while unsupervised (since a supervised 12 year old would be unable to buy said game), but you don't want a store to be able to sell him a game with any amount of violence? Have fun with your kid turning to more destructive outlets while you're actively ignoring him/her.

Re: I don't want my 12 year old to buy the ...

[Yakasha]

"No. I think I don't want my 12 year old to buy the same without my permission."

So you are ok letting your 12 year old wander the city doing who knows what while unsupervised (since a supervised 12 year old would be unable to buy said game), but you don't want a store to be able to sell him a game with any amount of violence? Have fun with your kid turning to more destructive outlets while you're actively ignoring him/her.

Lol. ty /. for the disingenuous extremist quips. While people like you think the only two options for raising kids are:

• Shadow them 24/7 to make sure they do nothing wrong
  and
• Completely ignore your kids to let them do absolutely anything they want

Some responsible parents, like me, take an active interest in their kids lives to attempt to raise them to be well-mannered, informed, educated, critically thinking adults capable of handling responsibility and making moral decisions. To that end, my kids are given increasingly complicated responsibilities according to their own development.
The very first time I let them out of my sight is not the same moment I'm ready to kick them out of the house to live on their own. There are steps in between: playing in their room unattended, playing in the back yard unattended, playing the front yard, walking to school, the park, the mall, driving, and most of those later steps involve me not being present or filming their every move for later review.

I am also smart enough (being a programmer maybe helps this) to know that I cannot possibly think of every possible naughty thing that would ever appear in a game. Nor do I have the free time to play every game from start to end, finding every secret level and bonus item, before letting my kids play it. So again, I rely on something in between to give me a base to make my decision. Requiring my kids to come ask me to buy a game for them (or a gun, or alcohol, or pornography, or whatever) is the best way to accomplish that without putting undue hardship on others. However, some psychopath asshat like you that never considers that other people develop differently, being able to give a 9 year old a 40 and a glock without restrictions, would change my stance on when my kids are allowed to go outside.

Have fun with your ignorant close-minded black and white world. I'm sure you'll do great in politics if/when you mature.

Re: I don't want my 12 year old to buy the ...

[Anonymous Coward]

pot. kettle. black.

I was merely stating that if they are unsupervised enough to buy games you don't want them to buy, then they could be doing other things without your notice.

Re: I don't want my 12 year old to buy the ...

[Yakasha]

pot. kettle. black.

I was merely stating that if they are unsupervised enough to buy games you don't want them to buy, then they could be doing other things without your notice.

No, you stated very clearly that by virtue of me not wanting my kid to purchase a game without my permission that I am an absentee parent that lets my kids wander around town unsupervised. Now that I've pointed out your b.s., you're backtracking to try and save face and sound like you had a valid argument where none existed. Insults are not arguments, they're childish attempts to control the conversation by directing it to a topic you actually know something about so you don't sound ignorant.
I won't bite.

Refute my points: starting by differentiating the ban on pornography with the ban on violent video games. Or explain how removing age restrictions on things like guns and alcohol will improve society or your ability to parent.

In short, join the discussion or stfu.

Re: I don't want my 12 year old to buy the ...

[flibbidyfloo]

IMO, a responsible parent doesn't let their 12 year old have the money to buy things unsupervised, and doesn't leave them roaming the mall by themselves where they might buy something unsupervised.
IMO, a responsible parent instills in their child what is expected of them. If you don't have the time to research every game your child plays, looking for everything you may find offensive, then you need to either adjust your expectations, or not let your kid play so many games.

If your kid comes home with a game you didn't authorize the purchase of, then you take it away. It's very simple. This is how my brother does things and it works really well. The kids don't get to play the PS3 when he's not around. He doesn't have to sit there monitoring it constantly, but he knows what games they are playing, and he only lets them have games that are rated appropriately to his values. That's what the voluntary rating system is there for. If his kids come home with a game he isn't sure about, he doesn't let them play it.

Oh, and who do you think is playing every secret level of every game to make sure it isn't too violent for your kids? How do you know they have the same definitions as you and are you sure they should be the ones with the power to decide?

Your position is untenable in a free society, and that's why every federal court struck down this law. This isn't a case of a single "activist" judge you can disagree with. It's the way our constitution was written. If you don't like it, you should probably either figure out how to parent better, or move somewhere that allows more legal restrictions on liberty so you can keep slacking off on your own responsibility while you waste your time worrying about what everyone else is doing.

Erroneus = Jorge Bastida

[Anonymous Coward]

Jorge Bastida = fat going bald piefaced worm -> http://a3.twimg.com/profile_images/532361793/

Re:Erroneus = Jorge Bastida

[erroneus]

I am older and have less hair than this fellow. Try again please.

Explain conservatard hypocrisy...

[lpq]

Explain why 'R' and 'X' rated movies are not available for rent or sale in almost every state (I don't know of any that allow it)....

Explain to me the difference...

Re:Explain conservatard hypocrisy...

[zeroshade]

Actually, R and X rated movies ARE available for rent and sale in almost every state. They are just not allowed to be rented or sold to a minor.

Re:Explain conservatard hypocrisy...

[lpq]

Duh...

We are talking about a law that controlled sale of something
to minors!

Context!

Re:Explain conservatard hypocrisy...

[zeroshade]

Context isn't telepathic. If that's what you meant, then SAY that.

As for an answer to your question, it's because the American public seems to think that depictions of nudity and sexuality are much more harmful than violence and as such long ago carved an exception to free speech that "Obscenity" is not protected. Thus the difference between an ultra-violent video game and a rated "X" movie, is the movie violates ridiculous puritanical values and is considered obscene, the game is just violent.

Re:Explain conservatard hypocrisy...

[lpq]

"Context is within a single discussion." This thread is about restricting rights of minors. It's not like I posted under a law about farm implements being sold to farmers, or anything that applied to adults. The thread is very specific -- about what we can restrict for minors.

The court acknowledged it's right to censor, things *arbitrarily*, in their words

"The most basic principleâ"that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas,subject matter, or content, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573â"is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words."

included in those are "incitement" to 'illegal acts' like the violent video games that bonus for killing people and cops, or raping women at will, would all fall under that category. Yet because they are on the new medium 'video games' they are 'ok'...

Why not make a game out of you playing the character and showing oral genital penetration, girl-on-guy-on-guy-girl-girl... or any combo? We'll see how fast video games are protected.

They dig themselves in further when they make the comment:

Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny, i.e., it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 395. California cannot meet that standard. Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively.

The above last sentence -- the exact same is true about most blocked porn and subsequent behavior -- in fact the opposite is true as seen in other countries where pornography isn't censored,-- violet crime against women drops significantly.

Clearly this is a matter about how the US allows our children to be programmed. They are not to be programmed for sexual relations, love, sex. They are not desensitized to the site of an unsexual naked female or people performing 'natural, *legal* acts in view of public (sex in public)... There's no reason, inherently, why going to the park and seeing a couple
engaged in intercourse, should be differently than seeing them having
a lunch together in the park. It's social 'control'.

But this isn't even about public view (which would be a further level than what is talked about here) -- this is about private use. They are obviously *lying* when they claim cite there being "no ill effects on children in viewing the respective "acts", later in life -- when you compare the exact same effects of seeing porn as a child and adult behavior. Their case against 'porn' is doubly damned, as not only are there no studies showing later harmful effects of exposure, BUT there are studies that show later attitudes about sex and women that are more mature -- being able to differentiate between 'sex' and 'love'...not a distinction made by most anti-port crusaders.
The point being is that viewing acts as being 'incitement' to illegal acts is NOT true of most porno films (a segment, of them, that include illegal acts would be an exception to this statement).

Something as tame as playboy -- without any couple-scenes in action -- and no explicit body-part shots, is still forbidden for-sale to minors. The fact that the US military uses violent video games to train soldiers bespeaks volumes about their affectiveness in programming later behavior.

But the effect of non-violent porn has been shown to lower aggression against women.

So clearly they support violence and aggression training as well are against training that might lower violence against women.

I don't have the ability to go into all the resources showing beneficial effects of 'non-violent porn' in a society, vs. the 'benefits' of using violent video games to *TRAIN* for violent action... but they are very well documented.

That's the hypocrisy.

Re:Explain conservatard hypocrisy...

[zeroshade]

I don't disagree that there is a disconnect in society where sex and nudity is seen as the worst possible thing to expose children to. I also don't disagree that there has been no proof that pornography causes any lasting detrimental effects on children.

Where I will disagree is that violent video games do not incite any illegal acts, in fact quite the opposite. Video games have been linked with a decrease in violent crime.

Why not make a game out of you playing the character and showing oral genital penetration, girl-on-guy-on-guy-girl-girl... or any combo? We'll see how fast video games are protected.

I don't get your point here. The point the Supreme Court made was that despite any inherent differences as a result of it being a new medium, there is no difference with respect to the law. Violent video games are protected because they don't fall into one of the categories to which there is an exception. Currently precedent states that obscenity is not protected speech. Thus it is logically consistent that a game which features sex would not be protected under the concept of obscenity.

This has nothing to do with "programming" of children. There's no hyprocrisy in this decision (there is, in fact, hypocrisy in society's elevation of obscenity to be the horrible boogeyman but that's a different situation). The majority opinion decided that they were not going to create a new exception to free speech for violence and they also decided that violence does not fall under obscenity. Seeing as these are the only ways that they could constitutionally allow a censorship free speech, the law was unconstitutional. There's no hypocrisy there, just they decided not to overturn a past ruling by the court to change the precedent regarding obscenity.

Re:Explain conservatard hypocrisy...

[lpq]

If you are still confused, there's an entire article about this... Supreme Double Standard: If Violent Video Games Are Free Speech, Why Aren't Sexual Images?

It seems I'm not the only one who well understands the problem, just someone who apparently isn't as good as explaining it...

erroneus makes blackmail threats on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928

new to slashdot, why is my comment hidden?

[BloodyHypocrite]

new to slashdot, why is my comment hidden?

what I meant to post.

[BloodyHypocrite]

No it wouldn't. The only media restricted by law is pornography because it is considered obscenity rather than speech, thus not protected by the 1st amendment. Movies ratings are self-regulated by the movie industry, just as video games were, and will continue to be, self-regulated by the games industry. What the law was attempting to do was create a new obscenity law that would apply solely to violent games.

One more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

One more reason why America is the greatest country on Earth.

It is unlikely you will ever see a decision like this in any other country with so-called freedom of speech.

Duh!

[tk702000]

Nothing more need be said.

Somewhere in Florida...

[DiEx-15]

...Disbarred Lawyer Jack Thompson is crying uncontrollably.

Why? You didn't try again here

[Anonymous Coward]

Where you ran after getting blown away http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2253808&cid=36521452 on each of your libelous points, and then when it was exposed, you tried to blackmail others on it as well here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928

Re: I don't want my 12 year old to buy the ...

[Yakasha]

You could have saved a lot of time by just stating up front "I have no kids. I have no education on child rearing. I have no education in child psychology. I'm horrible with logic and reading comprehension. But I'm an expert so here is my advice on your parenting style:"
Anyways I'll try to keep the rest of this short and civil by only responding to your key screwups.

Your position is untenable in a free society

My position of "restricting the sale of a possibly harmful product directly to minors is ok" is so untenable it has not been used for any other product or service successfully or long term?

You do know that many items have been restricted since our country's founding, right?

while you waste your time worrying about what everyone else is doing.

Really? And at what point did I say I cared what you did? At what point did I say "dont play violent video games, they're harmful to your tiny developing mind"? At what point did I say "kids should never play violent video games", or anything of the sort?

I just said the ban is reasonable and constitutional because the good outweighs the negligible effort it puts on parents like your brother. I cited pornography to directly counter your claim that other examples were not comparable. You never covered that btw.

So now it is very simply stated: The CA law banning the sale of violent video games directly to minors is both reasonable and constitutional. Pornography being the first and clearest example of previous "successful" bans for people that can't think about the issue in an abstract manner. For everybody else: guns, alcohol, cigarettes, tnt, driving, and joining the military also work as they are potentially harmful to minors because minors don't fully grasp the consequences of their actions. Whether or not violent video games are harmful is a separate question; irrelevant to the issue of constitutionality and nearly so to tenability.

Re: I don't want my 12 year old to buy the ...

[zeroshade]

starting by differentiating the ban on pornography with the ban on violent video games.

You're completely right, there shouldn't be a ban on pornography either.

Re: I don't want my 12 year old to buy the ...

[flibbidyfloo]

You could have saved a lot of time by just stating up front "I have no kids. I have no education on child rearing. I have no education in child psychology. I'm horrible with logic and reading comprehension. But I'm an expert so here is my advice on your parenting style:"

I'm not sure why you make this assumption. I simply stated that my brother uses a particular parenting technique that you could benefit from. I didn't say anything about mine. I'm not really offering parenting advice to you, I'm merely couching my argument in such a format as a rhetorical device to make a point. You obviously half at least half a brain, so I wouldn't expect you to take parenting advice from the /. forums.

My position of "restricting the sale of a possibly harmful product directly to minors is ok" is so untenable it has not been used for any other product or service successfully or long term?

You do know that many items have been restricted since our country's founding, right?

If that is your position then you are in the wrong argument, because there is no credible evidence that what we are discussing is a "potentially harmful product". We are talking about something that falls into the same category as books. Some of those used to be banned or restricted from minors, but that didn't hold up very well, did it? Your tween can now thankfully go to the library, or Amazon, and get an uncensored copy of "Huck Finn" or "As I Lay Dying" without your presence.

Really? And at what point did I say I cared what you did?"

You've repeatedly indicated that you care what my kids do. You wouldn't let them buy something, even with my explicit permission. You would restrict their rights to engage in activities that have nothing to do with you or your children. Again I say it's none of your business if my kids want to read banned books or play violent video games. The fact that you imagine it may be harmful to them is irrelevant, because you are not responsible for them.

I cited pornography to directly counter your claim that other examples were not comparable. You never covered that btw.

I mentioned in a different post in this thread: I think the anti-porn laws here are almost as ridiculous as the ones you want for video games. However, at least porn usually involves real people, so there are some arguments you can make about it that you can't make about video games. There are real naked women in Playboy. There are no real dead soldiers in "Black ops". They are two different kinds of fantasy, and therefore not analogous in my opinion.

So now it is very simply stated: The CA law banning the sale of violent video games directly to minors is both reasonable and constitutional. Pornography being the first and clearest example of previous "successful" bans for people that can't think about the issue in an abstract manner. For everybody else: guns, alcohol, cigarettes, tnt, driving, and joining the military also work as they are potentially harmful to minors because minors don't fully grasp the consequences of their actions. Whether or not violent video games are harmful is a separate question; irrelevant to the issue of constitutionality and nearly so to tenability.

So hopefully it's plainly stated now: Video games are speech, like books and movies, not things like guns and naked women. As such, they are protected by the constitution. If there is harm to be found, it is a harm that good parents will protect their children from, not that the government needs to legislate about. Every court has agreed, and I'm thankful for it.

countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheat the moderation system - here's how, to downmod others (here is where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others to his fellow trolltalk.com friends):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652

And, here's where his "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618

As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.

(Talk about low, and bogus!)