Posted on 06/27/2011 7:44:41 AM PDT by Hojczyk
No details yet
What was the law?
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.
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
SCOTUS is right on top of video games.
Treason, Constitutional abdication ... not so much.
A 7-2 decision is fairly convincing. I wonder who the 2 dissenting justices were?
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!
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.
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.
I got this notification via my iPhone. Does anyone know what this law is all about????
Also this would not mean that a private retailer could not implement a restrictive policy in his or her own business.
The Communists that Obama appointed. That’s my guess!
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.
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.
The stuff that can REALLY kill you, like ObamaCare, might be OK, though.
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.
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.
So it would seem that this California law could yet fly in a new version that permits parental or guardian explicit bypass?
Except that you don’t need a law for that.
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.