If this law remained in place there would of been so many misiterpatations that would render it unenforceable...And who would decide what is violent and what isn't. The last group we can to trust to make such decisions is the state.
>>Parents had a “sacred trust” to shield children from corrupting influences and to safeguard their development into responsible citizens.<<
Parents. NOT the government.
>>Parents had a “sacred trust” to shield children from corrupting influences and to safeguard their development into responsible citizens.<<
I hope this doesn’t indicate how he will vote when Michelle tells us what we can and can’t eat. But it’s the same logic. Yikes.
It was a stupid law in California, but it was an even dumber decision by the court.
Ken Klukowski, shut up.
Isn't this the job of parents and not government?
If this law remained in place there would of been so many misiterpatations that would render it unenforceable...And who would decide what is violent and what isn't. The last group we can to trust to make such decisions is the state.
If parents don’t want their children to have some product, don’t give them the money to buy it. If they do somehow come into possession of some product to which the parents object, take it away, destroy it, and throw it in the trash. That is how to restrict what they have.
I find no reason to believe that government would do a better job of parenting than parents, and I am tired of lazy parents abdicating their responsibilities. Who would want a mob of corrupt politicians deciding what is acceptable for their children?
I would not agree if this was a federal federal law, but it's not.
Given that this is a state law, and the absence of any compelling reason this is a form of speech that's within the intent of First Amendment protection I'm inclined to leave it to the states.
“The court upheld the law 7 to 2, but not on speech grounds. Scalia wrote for five justices that there are four types of speech outside First Amendment protection: obscenity, child porn, incitement and “fighting words.” “
You see boys this is why we can’t afford to have the Federal Government apply the 1st amendment to the States. Such an imposition demands that they cut holes in the amendment to the point where it is clearly whatever any injustice(Federal judge) wants the law to be.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, voted that the law was void for vagueness -- so poorly written that people could not tell where the line was drawn, which would require the statute to be rewritten.
This needs to be used more often. We have tons of businesses and individuals dinged for stupid technicalities.
Like this:
appeal to "a deviant or morbid interest in minors."
What does that even mean? I'm licensed as an attorney, and I still don't know what that means.
We as a society need to step back and think about not our values, which are important, but what is worth using criminal and civil fine penalties. Do I want my kids playing Scarface - the World is yours? Hell no. Should that be a LAW subject to criminal penalty? No. That's my job to police my home.
``Thomas showed how the Founders believed limited government could only endure if parents faithfully raised children to become virtuous and productive adults.``
Viz- this does not apply to ``gay marriages`` because gays cannot be parents naturally nor can they ``raise`` children from birth because they cannot procreate in a ``gay marriage``??
Ergo this law does not apply to ``gay marriages``??
What is going on here??
Does the court now have to re-define ``parent`` as it redefined ``marriage``??
The courts cannot have their cake and eat it too.
Otherwise there is a double standard existing in law for:
a.real marriages as existed in 1791 onward til 2011 with parents naturally having children and raising them from birth and
b. ``gay marriages`` which cannot raise children from their birth because neither gay partner can be a participant in the birth because gays in a ``gay marriage``cannot procreate.
The courts cannot return to 1791 and redefine marriage for 1791 nor redefine ``parent`` for 1791.
What if it was a ``gay marriage`` couple that had filed the lawsuit for an adopted child??
This opens a can of worms which borders on semantic devolutionary redefinition of everything in the 1791 dictionary which is absurd.
``Gay Marriages`` can never by the first, nor the middle but are always the last terms in any genealogical document.
Admittedly, the original public understanding of a constitutional provision does not always comport with modern sensibilities. It may also be inconsistent with precedent.YES! Let's restore the Constitution in it's true original genius of meaning!
SO much for community standards.
Next up the Kiddie Porn TV channel!!
How our grand parents survived Looney Tunes back in the Thirties and Forties I’ll never know ....
The internet is a video game. It will end up destroying us. Social networking will be the end of human to human face to face interaction. My 2 cents. Virtual reality will become reality.
He is very responsible (A's and B's in school), so I don't mind if he purchases the ‘violent’ games. He actually was a bit shocked to hear about the ruling.
In California, the schools teach homosexuality and how great gay marriage is without parental consent and if a young girl needs an abortion, the parent does not have the right to know.
At least if my son purchases a new game, he has to run it on on his game console at home and I can see if it is inappropriate. It is not like going to a movie where I would not have any idea what he is seeing.
Anyway, I think that this is best left to the parents.
I would like all the Pro-ban violent video games types to think back to about 1985ish.
Remember a certain VP’s wife and her crusade along with a bunch of Washington wives to ban any music they disagreed with? Thanks to a motley crew of musicians, Frank Zappa, Dee Snider (Twisted Sister) and John Denver, the damage they did was minimized to a warning sticker on albums and CDs. That was bad enough.
I’m 45. I grew up during the church led hysteria that the game Dungeons and Dragons was creating a generation of Satanists. Didn’t happen.
I also was around for PONG, PacMan and the first round of video games. None of us went mad from slaying dragons, shooting aliens and yes, even shooting bad guys. You know, just like every little kid with a Daniel Boone hat and a toy gun has imagined doing for a while now? And ‘played war’ with vivid imaginations for thousands of years before that? Oh....forgot about that huh?
If there is anyone here that can say with a straight face that VGs are any worse than movies, I don’t know what to tell you. Don’t give me that “They’re shooting virtual people so they will grow up to shoot real people” crap. If that were true, half this planet would be dead.
The regulation of video games belongs to #1 the companies who choose to make whatever types of games they want (for without games, the point would be moot) and #2, the Parents, Period. Government has no place in this at all.
Video game companies voluntarily created a rating system for parents, advertize the hell out of it, label every game and that’s all they SHOULD do. If parents are that damn lazy and uninvolved that they pay no attention to what their kids do, that’s the parent’s fault and I and every other person who has spent a lifetime enjoying a pastime should not have to suffer their, or governmental stupidity so that some Tipper Gore clone and homeowner association wannabee can exercise their ‘au-thor-a-tay’.
Oh, and many of those video game traumatized ‘children’ are now, and have been for some time, defending your country, operating on your family members, driving your school busses and cooking the meals at your 5 star restraunts.
Think about it before you rush to demand even more government in your lives. And stay out of mine.
I totally agree.
I love this Thomas character.
Your post demonstrates the differences between a strict constructionalist (Scalia) and an originalst (Thomas). They might agree 95% of the time, but the other 5% could get personal.