California vs. Video Games. Games Win!

[RockofStrength]

I don't like the ruling, as now it can essentially be extended to other forms of media. And I'm specifically talking about certain magazines of a particular genre.

IMO, that is still the parents responsibility. The day we tell the government to ban that which is found to be merely vulgar and indecent is the day they start naming things you hold dear as vulgar and indecent.

And, uh...unless it's just my computer wigging out, are several posts now ABOVE the OP as if they came before?

 

[rambone]

I don't like the ruling, as now it can essentially be extended to other forms of media. And I'm specifically talking about certain magazines of a particular genre.

Ever watched TV in another country? There are some places where the "Weather Girl" on TV delivers the forecast naked. The world doesn't stop turning when children see a boob.

Government censorship needs to be rooted out where ever possible. Vigilant parents and the free market should be left free to operate as designed.

 

[PatriotPride]

I don't like the ruling, as now it can essentially be extended to other forms of media. And I'm specifically talking about certain magazines of a particular genre.

If your child wants to buy porn, they'll find a way to do it. No legislation will change that. It's up to parents to teach their children, not the .gov.

 

[mrjarrell]

Colour me surprised that the this SCOTUS actually sided with the 1st Amendment in this case. In a 7-2 ruling they struck down California's law concerning the sale of video games to "kids". Now parents will be responsible for what their kids play, as they should be. If only the SCOTUS could rule like this in cases concerning the 4th Amendment.

First Amendment Trumps California in Supreme Court Battle Over Violent Video Games

 

[Westside]

+1 for Scotus. Parents should raise their children not the .gov.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't like the ruling, as now it can essentially be extended to other forms of media. And I'm specifically talking about certain magazines of a particular genre.

 

[mrjarrell]

You're still free to not buy anything you don't want. The ruling didn't change that.

 

[ryknoll3]

I don't like the ruling, as now it can essentially be extended to other forms of media. And I'm specifically talking about certain magazines of a particular genre.

Don't think it can.... the California DOJ wanted SCOTUS to expand on a previous court ruling that allows the prohibition on sales of porn to minors. SCOTUS ruled that the prohibition on porn was very narrow in its scope and does not include other forms of "expression". They didn't overturn the previous ruling.

Excerpt from a USA Today article here:

Supreme Court rejects ban on violent video games - USATODAY.com

"There is no tradition in this country of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence," Justice Antonin Scalia said for a majority, as he read portions of his robust opinion from the bench Monday.
"Grimm's Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed," he said, observing that the California law was the latest in a long series of failed attempts to censor violent entertainment for minors. Before video games, he said, were campaigns against cheap novels comic books, television and music lyrics.
Scalia stressed that only rarely, for example in situations of obscenity, has the court allowed exceptions from First Amendment coverage for books, magazines and other materials. In the 1968 case of Ginsberg v. New York, the court permitted an exception that allowed government to restrict the sale of sexually explicit materials to minors. At issue was a New York ban on "girlie magazines."
Today, the majority rejected California's request to expand the reasoning of that 1968 case and carve out another free-speech exception for violent materials.
"Our cases make clear that obscenity covers only depictions of sexual conduct, and we have previously rejected attempts to shoehorn violence into that category," Scalia said.
The ruling ensures that any limits on the sale of video games are set by the industry, which has a rating system in place.

 

[mrjarrell]

Why is this thread all mixed up? The OP is way down below the middle. Weird.

 

[rambone]

Why is this thread all mixed up? The OP is way down below the middle. Weird.

I know what Kutnupe14 is going to say before he says it.

 

[indykid]

What a wonderful idea, parents and responsibility in the home all in one sentence.

Wouldn't it be nice if the next step were to be parents and responsibility outside the home too!!!!!!

 

[Brandon]

Wouldn't it be nice if the next step were to be parents and responsibility outside the home too!!!!!!

That's just crazy talk now!

 

[NYFelon]

My son has an XBox_360 system, he's 9. I don't need the state or anyone else to tell me what he can play. I decide what is proper for him based on material or content, even genre. All the "But Joey has [GameXYZ]" don't matter a hill of beans. I said no. period.

 

[tv1217]

It's not the government's job to enforce morality, guys.


And by "guys" I mostly mean "kutnupe"