Skip to comments.Court: Calif. can't ban violent video game sales
Posted on 06/27/2011 9:16:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments do not have the power to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed" despite complaints about graphic violence.
On a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out the state's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento had ruled that the law violated minors' rights under the First Amendment, and the high court agreed.
"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. "But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Time for someone to bring suit against the ban on Happy Meals? Or does this cover it?
Knowing California, probably not. They’ll have to be dragged kicking and screaming back toward Constitutional freedoms.
By the way, I don’t necessarily think these games are good for kids, but we need to work toward converting their parents.
Let's see how long this theory lasts when the desire, by parents, to expose their children to Biblical teachings on homosexuality through the institution of Christian churches, comes up against the homosexual agenda in states that have legalized same-sex marriage.
Damn skippy right. Children have parental units (for you Libtard morons). Parents are supposed to be the filter. The government should not be raising your children.
RE: Nanny-statism, I’m awaiting Moochelle to be a player in getting kid’s sugar bomb cereals banned from lower shelf placement in the grocery stores.
Put out a video game giving points for knocking off Justices of the Supreme Court and Members of Congress, by name, and the Court will reverse itself do fast that the rotation of the earth will slow by .003 nanoseconds!
So, how about they ban “Cars 2”?
Explosions, small-arms strafing, and a plot line WAY beyond the comprehension of the typical six-year-old.
Nothing, but nothing, was subtle about the violence in that film.
Did you read the article which said that the USSC ruled Kalifornia can not ban violent games from children? I am sure that goes for all states that try too
So now the SCOTUS is now loaded with Commies to ensure the complete installation of Communism in America by deepening the indoctrination process to children in once another avenue! Parents, be vigilant about monitoring your children’s computer use! And for heaven’s sake, Home School your children!
Excellent. It’s up to the parents and no one else
I don’t believe you read the article.
BUT SF CAN BAN PETS
I knew right away Thomas was one of the two. He can be a real pris.
I just don’t understand why otherwise good Christian people allow a bunch of perverts, Marxists, and deadbeats educate their children.
Why should they? Blaming video games for violence is just as stupid as blaming guns. But then again, I supose they have to blame something or someone. People cannot take responsibility for their own actions now, can they?
Supremes ‘Drive-By’ California Violent Video Games Ban
Kidz on the streets in Richmond and Oakland duck, cower.
I agree 100 percent, and it’s really the parents responsibility not to let their kids play violent games
That imbecile at the AP sneered at Thomas, without realizing that he made a statement that is truly essential to future conservatism.
“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,” Thomas wrote.”
Holy smokes! Ask yourself what non-parent adults talk *most* to children? Teachers!
Thomas has refuted the “right” of States and school districts to add things like “homosexual studies” to their children’s curriculum without parental consent. Nor can they just hand students radical materials and tell them to read it, or even just make them available to students.
This is not the first major league home run philosophical statement that Thomas has made, either. It would probably be a very good idea to review all of his previous decisions, because he is working at a level of legal rocket science.
There you go. That was what those things they used to call parents were for. To say yea to things that would be good for them and nay to things that were not good for them or would harm them.
I’m surprised and a little disappointed with Thomas. I thought maybe he was a “no law means NO LAW” justice.
This decision has nothing to do with teachers or speech that children are COMPELLED to hear. There is no parallel or logical connection at all.
Can’t wait for the FCC indecency challenge. I want to hear good old classic rock tunes like Pink Floyd’s “Money” on the radio unbleeped again!
what a shame California is becoming
You’re missing the point. Thomas read the commentaries and background of the 1st Amendment, because even back then, children were part of the free speech debates.
Children were, and are, to a great extent, legal chattels of their parents, something which the left has vigorously fought for decades, through the institutions of “in loco parentis” (in place of parents), the schools.
Thomas is known for making superb use of concurring decisions to not just agree with a decision, but to make impressive if sometimes peripheral use of them to go into detailed constitutional questions.
His most profound opinion was in McDonald v. Chicago, the gun control decision, where he wrote a 100 page thesis on the importance of the 1st section “Privileges or Immunities clause” of the *14th* Amendment. (Something which should be in many legal textbooks for the next 200 years.)
Everybody else had been focused on the 2nd Amendment, which is the *federal* arguments over gun control. But Thomas addressed the *State* arguments over gun control, which are just as important, but which had been ignored by the rest of the court. It was complementary to what everyone else was doing.
Back to the current case. There is no federal or State law prohibiting minors from seeing ‘R’ rated movies in theaters. It is left up to those showing the movie, and the children’s parents. But often, now, some schools, without notifying parents, are showing their children ‘R’ rated movies.
They are also requiring students to receive leftist indoctrination, by State law. So if States are permitted to intervene in prohibiting children from watching violent video games, they are also permitted to *require* children to watch content to which their parents are opposed.
So once again, while the rest of the court is addressing the federal issues of the 1st Amendment, Thomas is addressing the State issues of the 1st Amendment. In a way that is complementary to what everyone else is doing.
Excellent analysis and you are spot on.
Thomas’ position is the correct one. Scalia, as is often the case, is no the wrong side of this. He shouldn’t ignore Thomas, but should let Thomas lead. We’d be a better, freer country if Scalia would listen to Thomas.
Thomas is the best Supreme Court Justice since Fuller.
What about the impairment of contracts?
What about the interstate commerce, which though badly abused still is an enumerated power of the Federal government?
It seems that ‘free speech’ (1st amendment) is the worst reason to strike such a law down, especially because [as written] it applies to CONGRESS and to assert that ‘incorporation’ applies it to the state’s legislature is to assert that ‘incorporation’ is not the application of the same as-written Constitutional requirement/prohibition but instead the power of the federal government to apply some altered version thereof to the state to infringe upon that State’s sovereignty and thusly violating the 10th amendment.