In Wednesday's ruling, U.S. District Judge David Hamilton said, ``It would be an odd conception of the First Amendment... that would allow a state to prevent a boy from purchasing a magazine containing pictures of topless women in provocative poses, but give that same boy a constitutional right to train to become a sniper at the local arcade without his parents' permission."
I have a strange feeling this judge has never shot a gun or played a recent video game. The experiences are completely different. The notion of "train[ing] to become a sniper at the local arcade" is ludicrous.
Secondly, how can he equate certain video games with porn?
Slashdot Mirror
- In Wednesday's ruling, U.S. District Judge David Hamilton said, ``It would be an odd conception of the First Amendment
... that would allow a state to prevent a boy from purchasing a magazine containing pictures of topless women in provocative poses, but give that same boy a constitutional right to train to become a sniper at the local arcade without his parents' permission."
I have a strange feeling this judge has never shot a gun or played a recent video game. The experiences are completely different. The notion of "train[ing] to become a sniper at the local arcade" is ludicrous.Secondly, how can he equate certain video games with porn?