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

Skip to comments.

Court: Calif. can't ban violent video game sales
Yahoo!News ^ | June 27, 2011 | Jesse J. Holland

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: firstamendment; forthechildren; freespeech; scotus; videogames

1 posted on 06/27/2011 9:16:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


2 posted on 06/27/2011 9:19:53 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
saying governments do not have the power to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed" despite complaints about graphic violence

Oh really.

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.

3 posted on 06/27/2011 9:20:38 AM PDT by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
7-2...WEIRD ALIGNMENT - The two dissenters - Thomas & Breyer!
Scalia majority opinion citing as an example of violence in literature...Hansel & Gretel baking their witch tormentor in the oven...

I wonder if Baked Witch tastes like chicken?
4 posted on 06/27/2011 9:20:49 AM PDT by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


5 posted on 06/27/2011 9:21:16 AM PDT by Steamburg (The contents of your wallet is the only language Politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Ah, yes, California, home of the sooooo progressive, hip, cool, modern, intelligent, green and wise people. Can't stop their children from hostile and violent video games but can restrict them from pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments and the American Flag. Wow, you guys really know how to fast track to hell, don't you.
6 posted on 06/27/2011 9:21:23 AM PDT by Bitsy (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


7 posted on 06/27/2011 9:23:59 AM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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!

/sarc


8 posted on 06/27/2011 9:24:38 AM PDT by BwanaNdege (For those who have fought for it, Life bears a savor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


9 posted on 06/27/2011 9:27:00 AM PDT by alloysteel ("If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

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


10 posted on 06/27/2011 9:30:56 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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!


11 posted on 06/27/2011 9:31:52 AM PDT by Paperdoll (NO MORE BUSHS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steamburg

Excellent. It’s up to the parents and no one else


12 posted on 06/27/2011 9:32:45 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll

I don’t believe you read the article.


13 posted on 06/27/2011 9:34:58 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

BUT SF CAN BAN PETS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2740583/posts


14 posted on 06/27/2011 9:40:57 AM PDT by GailA (NO DEMOCRATS, NO RINOS in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB
7-2...WEIRD ALIGNMENT - The two dissenters - Thomas & Breyer!

I knew right away Thomas was one of the two. He can be a real pris.

15 posted on 06/27/2011 9:44:36 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll

I just don’t understand why otherwise good Christian people allow a bunch of perverts, Marxists, and deadbeats educate their children.


16 posted on 06/27/2011 9:44:58 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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?


17 posted on 06/27/2011 10:01:24 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Supremes ‘Drive-By’ California Violent Video Games Ban

Kidz on the streets in Richmond and Oakland duck, cower.


18 posted on 06/27/2011 10:12:12 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard .. Obama: Epic Fail or Bust!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sport

I agree 100 percent, and it’s really the parents responsibility not to let their kids play violent games


19 posted on 06/27/2011 10:19:17 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


20 posted on 06/27/2011 10:25:55 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


21 posted on 06/27/2011 10:34:06 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: montag813; yefragetuwrabrumuy

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!


22 posted on 06/27/2011 11:03:30 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

what a shame California is becoming


23 posted on 06/27/2011 1:29:13 PM PDT by kevintime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

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.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Amendment_to_the_US_Constitution

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.


24 posted on 06/27/2011 1:38:32 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

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.


25 posted on 06/28/2011 8:26:16 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Thomas is the best Supreme Court Justice since Fuller.


26 posted on 06/28/2011 8:43:18 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

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.


27 posted on 06/30/2011 8:59:45 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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