Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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".
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Whoosh?
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
He whooshed so hard, my house almost collapsed.
Didn't see that coming.
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?
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Your house survived, but there is going to be a national day of mourning for the lost trailer parks due to this woosh.
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
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.
Agile Artisans
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Nice to know that the Supreme Court recognizes speech as speech.
The people who failed that test should be disbarred. Maybe exiled.
Only Thomas and Breyer dissented; one of the most conservative, and one of the most liberal.
Reality has a liberal bias
" 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...
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?
We need a new tag for this...
The strangest thing about this law was that it was supported by Arnold Schwarzenegger .
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.
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.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Now abolish software patents, because it's mathematics applied to a different medium. (Other than the human mind.)
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. :)
The best part was how Dee so eloquently eviscerated her proposal.
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.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
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.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
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?
What makes grand theft auto protected and porn not?
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!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Daniel "Dee" Snider would not be referred to as "her."
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Sorry. Reading comprehension fail on my part.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
But would Tipper Gore?
You are correct, Tipper Gore is being referred to as "her"
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.
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.
Caffeine is my anti-drug!
Duranin - A NWN2 Roleplaying Persistent World
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.
Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
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.
Oh
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
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.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
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
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.
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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...").
You gotta love supreme court opinion that reference both Lord of the Flies:
...and 'Pick a Path' / 'Choose Your Own Adventure' type books:
And understands the difference between causation and correlation:
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
> 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?)
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
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)
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."
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 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.
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
...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
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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.
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.
If it's any consolation, I made the same mistake upon first reading. It was poor pronoun usage by the original poster.
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)
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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?
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?
I am a genderless blob.
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.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
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.
Sometimes, I almost miss ol' Jack Thompson. He should be good for a laugh right about now.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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?
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.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
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.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
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.
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?
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.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Naked women are lewd, disgusting, and harmful to children... unless you interactively rape one.
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.
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.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
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.
Then don't buy your children violent video games.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Nope, completely understand. What kills me are the replies I'll get tomorrow over the blunder. ;)
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
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.
No, you just think that because you can't see your penis over your cheeto gut.
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.
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."
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pvmyNnepTk
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.
"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.
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.
Which actually does quite a lot to stop people from killing you.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
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.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
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?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
No, an "inalienable" right means a right you can't give up through legal agreements.
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 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.
Yes, you would.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Yes, throw me in jail for smoking pot. Very reasonable. Very civilized. I don't know what I was complaining about.
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?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
"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:
and
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.
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
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.
So where do those rights come from?
(I would prefer an explanation which does not involve the words "God", "Creator" etc)
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...
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.
new to slashdot, why is my comment hidden?
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.
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.
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
Nothing more need be said.
...Disbarred Lawyer Jack Thompson is crying uncontrollably.
I am older and have less hair than this fellow. Try again please.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Luckily you were not included in the preparation of the international declaration on human rights.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)