Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SUPREMES STRIKE DOWN VIDEO GAME LAW
Drudge Report ^

Posted on 06/27/2011 7:44:41 AM PDT by Hojczyk

No details yet


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: lawsuit; ruling; scotus; videogames
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-280 next last

1 posted on 06/27/2011 7:44:45 AM PDT by Hojczyk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

What was the law?


2 posted on 06/27/2011 7:46:39 AM PDT by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_violent_video_games


3 posted on 06/27/2011 7:47:04 AM PDT by citizen (Romney+Bachmann I was thinking that during the CNN debate. Economic guy+Values gal. I like it a lot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: citizen

The high court agreed Monday with a federal court’s decision to throw out California’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento said the law violated minors’ rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments.


4 posted on 06/27/2011 7:48:06 AM PDT by citizen (Romney+Bachmann I was thinking that during the CNN debate. Economic guy+Values gal. I like it a lot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

The Supreme Court says California cannot ban the rental or sale of violent video games to children.

The high court agreed Monday with a federal court’s decision to throw out California’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento said the law violated minors’ rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=8216346


5 posted on 06/27/2011 7:48:46 AM PDT by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

SCOTUS is right on top of video games.

Treason, Constitutional abdication ... not so much.


6 posted on 06/27/2011 7:48:54 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Nothing surpasses the complexity of the human mind. - Leto II: Dar-es-Balat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

A 7-2 decision is fairly convincing. I wonder who the 2 dissenting justices were?


7 posted on 06/27/2011 7:49:18 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: citizen
Tis is the California "too violent video game" thing.

It affected only minors, but apparently the USSC by a 7 to 2 vote decided minors could play whatever video games they wanted (without the merchant being prosecuted and fined).

Now that doesn't mean a parent can't deal with the problem, just that California can't. But, of course, California has lots of things it can't deal with ~ budget, debt, illegal aliens, gangs, ~ a portent? Perhaps!

8 posted on 06/27/2011 7:49:39 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Kind of thought so. Recent USSC philosophy with respect to violent or sexual imagery has been that if it’s a fake and no actual human has been photographed in the literal situation shown, then no harm no foul. The whole MPAA rating system is a voluntary industry standard — nobody legislated that.


9 posted on 06/27/2011 7:49:50 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

So we have no right to have representation on what types of corruption we can prohibit minors from purchasing? We are then losing all of our rights to have any say in any decency standards for our communities at all.


10 posted on 06/27/2011 7:50:19 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

I got this notification via my iPhone. Does anyone know what this law is all about????


11 posted on 06/27/2011 7:50:34 AM PDT by alice_in_bubbaland (DeMint /Palin, DeMint/Bachmann, DeMint/Cain, DeMint/Ryan 2012!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Also this would not mean that a private retailer could not implement a restrictive policy in his or her own business.


12 posted on 06/27/2011 7:52:19 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fso301

The Communists that Obama appointed. That’s my guess!


13 posted on 06/27/2011 7:55:10 AM PDT by o2bfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
So we have no right to have representation on what types of corruption we can prohibit minors from purchasing? We are then losing all of our rights to have any say in any decency standards for our communities at all.

You have every right to restrict what your child can play and purchase. You have no right to restrict what other people's children can purchase based on the ratings of an unelected MPAA ratings group in Hollywood.

14 posted on 06/27/2011 7:55:10 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: citizen

Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)

The issue in this case was whether a New York criminal obscenity statute that prohibited the sale of magazines with sexual content to minors was constitutional on its face. A store owner was found guilty of selling two adult magazines to a 16 year old boy in violation of the criminal statute prohibiting the sale of such magazines to minors. The state supreme court affirmed the conviction and the store owner was denied leave to appeal to the state court of appeals. The store owner alleged that the constitutional freedom of expression secured to a citizen to read or see sexually explicit material could not depend upon the age of a citizen.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, finding that the statute did not “invade[s] the area of freedom of expression constitutionally secured to minors.” 390 U.S. at 637. The Court found that the criminal statute in question was rationally related to the interest of protecting children because both parents and the state have an interest in the well being of children. The Court also held that it was rational for the legislature to find that the minors’ exposure to sexually explicitly magazines might be harmful to children, even if the same material is suitable for adults. Thus, the Court found that the statute was constitutional and affirmed the lower court.

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/childrights/content/notes/landmark_01.html

Not sure how this is different.


15 posted on 06/27/2011 7:55:26 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

The stuff that can REALLY kill you, like ObamaCare, might be OK, though.


16 posted on 06/27/2011 7:55:49 AM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

This does seem uncomfortably close to opening the door to “virtual porn shops” into which any kid could waltz, his or her parent or guardian’s wishes be damned.


17 posted on 06/27/2011 7:55:50 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

it is called a mother and a father.

it is like the goop factory products, kids loved them but parents would never allow the mess in the house.

if a mother or father does not want they child to have this then the parents need to speak up with their wallets.


18 posted on 06/27/2011 7:56:27 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

So it would seem that this California law could yet fly in a new version that permits parental or guardian explicit bypass?


19 posted on 06/27/2011 7:57:54 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Except that you don’t need a law for that.


20 posted on 06/27/2011 7:59:04 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
This does seem uncomfortably close to opening the door to “virtual porn shops” into which any kid could waltz, his or her parent or guardian’s wishes be damned.

Maybe if the "kid" is over 18

My local GameSpot cards more kids than all the 7-11s within 20 miles.

21 posted on 06/27/2011 7:59:47 AM PDT by corkoman (Steadfast and Loyal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

How is this different than ratings on movies or prohibiting minors from purchasing Penthouses?

And for those who would say well this was a cartoon, I seem to remember that the movie Heavy Metal (all a cartoon) was rated R so that minors could not see it in the movie theater.


22 posted on 06/27/2011 7:59:53 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

Losing rights? The government needs not to be stepping in and playing the role of a parent. First of all these are video games re:NOT REAL. Second, as a parent one should be involved enough in their kids’ affairs to spot any material that is out of bounds and deal with it accordingly. Third, any whack job who is swayed by a video game enough to act criminally or violently is probably “off” to begin with. I for one am tired of our nanny state legislating to the lowest common denominator.


23 posted on 06/27/2011 8:00:54 AM PDT by yooling (God only asks for 10%. Uncle Sam wants it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fso301
I wonder who the 2 dissenting justices were?

Breyer and Thomas.

24 posted on 06/27/2011 8:02:37 AM PDT by GunRunner (10 Years of FReeping...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fso301

Thomas and Breyer.... Liberal vs. Conservative split


25 posted on 06/27/2011 8:02:49 AM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk
Good, this was a crappy "nanny" state law. The video game industry already has a rating system like the motion picture industry and virtually every retailer won't sell "mature" rated games to children. This was about making a WW II shoot em up equivalent to buying a pack of cigarettes or a X-rated magazine and most retailers would stop selling the games altogether rather than risk the fines or an onerous ID system, which would have a chilling effect on the gaming industry.

As someone who plays and enjoys "violent" video games, if you don't want your kids to play them, then don't buy them and if your 8 year old kid is running around with $60 bucks in his pocket and buying them behind your back, then you've got family problems worse than any violent video games.

26 posted on 06/27/2011 8:04:08 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: corkoman

This wouldn’t force any retailer of such items to open them up to kids — but it would permit the retailer to do so. Isn’t there even a vestige left of government having a place in saying that minors ought not to be corrupted?


27 posted on 06/27/2011 8:04:24 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

COME GET SOME

28 posted on 06/27/2011 8:04:35 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Oh so now children can also buy porn I guess by your standards. We might as well live in a dictatorship if we are not allowed to have representation in the making of laws to reflect public decency.


29 posted on 06/27/2011 8:04:49 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

I don’t believe it’s violent video games that are corrupting children all that much. I think it’s the violent and degrading pornography they have access to that’s really damaging them. 20 years ago an adolescent may have gotten a peak at his dad’s erotic magazines, but today they see the most shocking and repulsive pornography available just by finding someone with an unmonitored internet connection.


30 posted on 06/27/2011 8:05:07 AM PDT by scorpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518

That’s an odd couple.


31 posted on 06/27/2011 8:05:37 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

No, you have every right to prohibit your own kids from purchasing these games. The ruling just means you don’t have the right to force others to abide by your standards.


32 posted on 06/27/2011 8:05:48 AM PDT by Scutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: citizen

Interesting. What is the difference between this and selling pornography to minors?


33 posted on 06/27/2011 8:05:51 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yooling

Yes losing rights. I have a right to representation on laws to promote decency within my community and not just the personal freedom that you still think that you allow me to parent my own children. You though want to take away that right from me.


34 posted on 06/27/2011 8:06:42 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

The battle for community standards was lost long ago. Some of the comments from other FReepers are enlightening. There was a time when a majority could vote to restrict minors from purchasing obscene materials. It’s a complete sham to say parents are to blame, but that’s what you’ll hear from many posters. Parents cannot watch their minor children all of the time. Yet, some FReepers say society has no responsibility whatsoever to protect its children from filth as defined by a majority of voters. Now the SCOTUS is affirming the right of minors to go out and buy materials from adults who are more than willing to sell the products, the wishes of the parents notwithstanding. It just goes how far our morality has slipped over the decades. Keep in mind that such laws in NO way restrict the rights of ADULTS to obtain said obscene or violent materials.


35 posted on 06/27/2011 8:06:58 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Coming soon...DADT for Christians!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Scutter

So you want to take away my right to representation on making laws for public decency. You are promoting dictatorship then.


36 posted on 06/27/2011 8:07:54 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
...circumcision, goldfish, mops...
37 posted on 06/27/2011 8:07:54 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yooling

You are absolutely right. This is a personal responsibility issue on the part of parents and the state or fed should not be interjecting itself into this. Rulings and laws like this have a bad habit of being extended to other areas of life, often with unintended consequences.


38 posted on 06/27/2011 8:09:39 AM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: apillar

The sad situation today is not the typical conservative’s kid but the children who scarcely even see a parent or guardian. Why, this is as easy as getting an abortion.


39 posted on 06/27/2011 8:10:18 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Here’s a crazy idea: How about make parents responsible for their children’s entertainment choices rather than the government.


40 posted on 06/27/2011 8:11:41 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Scutter

A provision allowing explicit bypass by guardian or parent would more than address your concerns.


41 posted on 06/27/2011 8:12:06 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

A parent is being responsible by using their right to representation in making laws that will defend public decency for their children. Yet you want to take that right away from all of us.


42 posted on 06/27/2011 8:13:28 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Scutter

“No, you have every right to prohibit your own kids from purchasing these games. The ruling just means you don’t have the right to force others to abide by your standards.”

I am becoming increasingly amazed and dismayed at the inability people have to apparently read, understand, and think about the implications of written words.

This is NOT what the ruling states, as it is being reported. It states that the law was unconstitutional because it was a violation of the minor’s rights. In other words, kids have the RIGHT to purchase and own violent video games.

Think about that for a second. Your child has the First Amendment right to own violent video games. The implications are incredible. This is not the state trying to do the parents job. This is the state telling you that you can’t do your job. If you tell your kid that they cannot own a violent video game, you may be interfering with your child’s rights.


43 posted on 06/27/2011 8:13:38 AM PDT by Shadowfax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

I don’t understand why parents would want their children playing violent (really violent and violence against women) anyway. Of course, I don’t understand why parents permit their children to do a lot of things. Glad mine are grown.


44 posted on 06/27/2011 8:14:16 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Shadowfax

Pornography is next.


45 posted on 06/27/2011 8:14:30 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

Which can be done, but at the cost of keeping the kids in a virtual cage. I’d sooner that the parent or guardian be asked for an explicit yes before allowing just any old thing to be given or sold to a child by a stranger.


46 posted on 06/27/2011 8:14:52 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

Government does not have rights. Only individuals do.


47 posted on 06/27/2011 8:15:25 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Do we know who the dissenting justices were?


48 posted on 06/27/2011 8:15:46 AM PDT by Shadowfax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

The sad thing is that Gov’t has replaced the parent.


49 posted on 06/27/2011 8:15:59 AM PDT by Palter (Celebrate diversity .22, .223, .25, 9mm, .32 .357, 10mm, .44, .45, .500)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Do you know what games your children are playing and what impact all the violence can have on them?

According the American Psychological Association, violent video games can increase children’s aggression. Dr. Phil explains, “The number one negative effect is they tend to inappropriately resolve anxiety by externalizing it. So when kids have anxiety, which they do, instead of soothing themselves, calming themselves, talking about it, expressing it to someone, or even expressing it emotionally by crying, they tend to externalize it. They can attack something, they can kick a wall, they can be mean to a dog or a pet.” Additionally, there’s an increased frequency of violent responses from children who play these kinds of video games.

Dr. Phil also points out that violent video games don’t teach kids moral consequences. “If you shoot somebody in one of these games, you don’t go to jail, you don’t get penalized in some way — you get extra points!” This doesn’t mean that your child will go out into the world and shoot someone. “But they do use more aggressive language, they do use more aggressive images, they have less ability to control their anger and they externalize things in these violent ways. It’s absolutely not good,” says Dr. Phil.

Furthermore, the American Psychological Association says playing violent games correlates to children being less caring and helpful toward their peers. And these effects happen just as much for non-aggressive children as they do for children who already have aggressive tendencies. Children spend a great deal of time with violent video games at exactly the ages that they should be learning healthy ways to relate to other people and to resolve conflicts peacefully.

And, according to the National Institute on Media and the Family, it’s not just a concern when it comes to young children. Teenage brains are in the midst of growth spurts, making teens very impressionable. Just when teens are wiring the circuits for self-control, responsibility and relationships that they will carry with them into adulthood, violent games activate their anger center while dampening the brain’s “conscience.” And think of the more subtle impact: What do you think the effect is when your kids spend time with violence simulators that glorify gang culture, celebrate brutality, lionize crudeness, and trivialize violence toward women?

How can parents minimize any potential harm? Psychologists have found that when parents limit the amount of time as well as the types of games their children play, children are less likely to show aggressive behaviors. Other research suggests that active parental involvement in children’s media usage — including discussing the inappropriateness of violent solutions to real life conflicts, reducing time spent on violent media, and generating alternative nonviolent solutions to problems — all can reduce the impact of media violence on children and youth. If you play video games with your child, Dr. Phil suggests alternative activities that allow you to have more interaction with your child, such as playing a board game together or going for a walk and exploring together.

http://www.drphil.com/articles/article/297


50 posted on 06/27/2011 8:16:24 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-280 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson