1st amendment wins again: SCOTUS strikes down CA video game law

[Wreckem]

We have sexual depictions and violence in movies and on premium channels. That is why we have a rating system, let parents police their own kids. Censorship and outright bans are silly.


Tell that to Jack Thompson.

Thankfully he was permanently disbarred.

 

[a777pilot]

lol, religion "restricted". In your dreams.

Try reading a Bible during Study Hall.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Try reading a Bible during Study Hall.

Try studying during study hall, not reading fiction novels.

 

[Wreckem]

Try reading a Bible during Study Hall.

Try playing a video game during study hall.

 

[fskimospy]

Try reading a Bible during Study Hall.

So you think kids should be able to read whatever they want during study hall instead of...well... studying? Would it be ok if someone was reading a comic book instead?

That being said, everyone here knows study halls are a joke, and on that note I had quite a few hugely religious friends in high school and I'm quite certain they read the bible during study hall on any number of occasions.

 

[CPA]

Try studying during study hall, not reading fiction novels.

Does that include all fictional novels or just ones that you don't agree with?

 

[AznAnarchy99]

How is this a double standard? You cannot compare depictions of violence to depictions of sexual conduct. For instance, if my son watches a movie where someone is killed. It is easier for me to explain violence in terms of right and wrong. If there is a movie where a couple is going at it like rabbits... it is right... but it is wrong now. He along with most children are more apt to eventually participate in sexual conduct rather than violent conduct.

Another example, I think a 12 year old can detach the removal of a zombies head via a golf club from reality... versus say playing a game full of sexual content.

Don't know what you would do about a game with a mix though! But really... it is up to me to decide the maturity level of my children not the Federal government.

Only in America where dismembering a person is ok to watch and poke fun at but sex is immoral.

Anyways, I can see where Breyer was coming from...

"What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting the sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?" Breyer said. "What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman — bound, gagged, tortured and killed — is also topless."

 

[Wreckem]

Only in America where dismembering a person is ok to watch and poke fun at but sex is immoral.

Anyways, I can see where Breyer was coming from...

"What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting the sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?" Breyer said. "What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman — bound, gagged, tortured and killed — is also topless."

Read the majority opinion. It explains it quite nicely.

The video game biz shouldn't be treated any differently than movies or music. But again if this law was upheld, it would have allowed each individual state determine ratings for games, music, movies, etc.

At any major retailer a 13 year old kid isn't going to be allowed to buy a M rated game.

 

[blackangst1]

Excellent ruling.

 

[Wreckem]

Also, while not about video games there is other news that may make y'all happy.

SCotUS will be hearing the case dealing with law enforcement attaching tracking devices to cars without warrants in their next term.

Unfortunately, they denied the petition trying to overrule the feres doctrine. Which most figured they would, but I think its horse shit military members or their estate cannot sue the government when they get maimed or killed by malpratice.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Does that include all fictional novels or just ones that you don't agree with?

All, it's study hall. Nice try though. The only exception should be if the fictional novel is course material.

 

[woolfe9999]

How is this a double standard? You cannot compare depictions of violence to depictions of sexual conduct. For instance, if my son watches a movie where someone is killed. It is easier for me to explain violence in terms of right and wrong. If there is a movie where a couple is going at it like rabbits... it is right... but it is wrong now. He along with most children are more apt to eventually participate in sexual conduct rather than violent conduct.

Another example, I think a 12 year old can detach the removal of a zombies head via a golf club from reality... versus say playing a game full of sexual content.

Don't know what you would do about a game with a mix though! But really... it is up to me to decide the maturity level of my children not the Federal government.

In the absence of empirical proof that exposure to sexual content causes more harm than exposure to violent conduct, it's problematic to invoke the Constitution for one and not the other. You need a compelling state interest to override a Constitutional guarenty, so there has to be strong evidence of differential harm. So far as I can see, no such evidence has ever been adduced. Scalia's formulation that we override the First Amendment to ban sex because we "traditionally" ban sex is bootstrapping. It doesn't matter what we "traditionally" do or do not do; the only thing that matters is the quality of the reason for it.

 

[Lithium381]

I can't see this going over well with parents...... now they actually have to talk to their kids about it and make parenting decisions. . . government FAIL. The governments prime responsibility should be taking the responsibility away from everyeone else.


</joking>

 

[Craig234]

Read the majority opinion. It explains it quite nicely.

The video game biz shouldn't be treated any differently than movies or music. But again if this law was upheld, it would have allowed each individual state determine ratings for games, music, movies, etc.

At any major retailer a 13 year old kid isn't going to be allowed to buy a M rated game.

That doesn't answer Breyer's point.

Why would violence against the woman be protected for the child more than her nudity?

 

[Craig234]

Unfortunately, they denied the petition trying to overrule the feres doctrine. Which most figured they would, but I think its horse shit military members or their estate cannot sue the government when they get maimed or killed by malpratice.

I agree with you they should have some protection (it's the right who wants to reduce access to courts for protection for malpractice in other cases, siding with insurance).

But that doesn't mean the Court wasn't correct in interpreting the law (I haven't looked at the issue). It might be it needs Congress to provide remedies.

 

[Wreckem]

That doesn't answer Breyer's point.

Why would violence against the woman be protected for the child more than her nudity?

Because the Supreme Court has ALWAYS treated violence different from nudity. This decision reaffirms that. Upholding the law also would have created other problems.

Theres no way CA met the strict sctruntiny standard. It was the correct decision. I guess you oppose it because Scalia wrote it.

Bryer wasn't even close. His disent is meaningless. It was a Battle between Scalia and Alito over how broad the 1st amendment is. Scalia won. As did people who support the 1st amendment.

 

[Wreckem]

I agree with you they should have some protection (it's the right who wants to reduce access to courts for protection for malpractice in other cases, siding with insurance).

But that doesn't mean the Court wasn't correct in interpreting the law (I haven't looked at the issue). It might be it needs Congress to provide remedies.

The Court was the one that came up with doctrine with their interpertation of the US Torts Claims Act. They could have overruled their own interpertation, they have many times in the past. They choose not to grant cert. Congress will never address the issue. Well maybe one day.

 

[Craig234]

The Court was the one that came up with the original interpertation of the law. They could have overruled their own interpertation, they have many times in the past. They choose not to. Congress will never address the issue.

How does that say the Court was wrong? What Congress should do is one thing, it might or might not do it. It SHOULD re-regulate Wall Street a lot more. Will it?

 

[Craig234]

Because the Supreme Court has ALWAYS treated violence different from nudity.

That doesn't say a thing why it's right to allow violence and ban nudity.

The court has 'always' done a lot of things it later corrected.

This decision reaffirms that. Upholding the law also would have created other problems.

What do problems have to do with interpreting the 1st amendment consistently?

Frankly the court has historically been on shaky ground on morality laws about sex.

A tiny fraction of what's in today's legally sold porn would have put you in jail for decades not that long ago. Has the first amendment changed?

The court has had to deal with the law on one hand and 'cultural norms' on the other.

The most famous quote from the Supreme Court on the issue is a Justice saying he 'can't define pornography but he knows it when he sees it'.

No wonder they punted finally with the tossing of the issue to 'community standards'.
I wonder what those are if Larry Flynt lives in the same city with an anti-porn leader.

Theres no way CA met the strict sctruntiny standard. It was the correct decision. I guess you oppose it because Scalia wrote it.

You can't argue against my attacks on Scalia on the issues so you make an offensive personal attack you can't support. That's the behavior of an asshole.

A decent person would apologize. I'm not expecting you to.

Bryer wasn't even close. His disent is meaningless.

To you, which is about you and not the opinion. You can't argue against it apparently, so you call it names. I'm seeing a pattern.

It was a Battle between Scalia and Alito over how broad the 1st amendment is. Scalia won. As did people who support the 1st amendment.

And how are those people who support the 1st amendment doing on sex content in video games for children? Not well, as Breyer said.

 

[Wreckem]

How does that say the Court was wrong? What Congress should do is one thing, it might or might not do it. It SHOULD re-regulate Wall Street a lot more. Will it?

The Supreme Court has said they've wrongly decided things before. Hell there is a whole era theyve done that to.

Most people believe this is one of those decisons that was wrong(it was from 60 years ago).

Other federal employees can sue federal drs/hospitals. Spouses and children of military personal can sue. There is no legitimate reason for preventing a military servicemen from suing for malpractice.

 

[Wreckem]

That doesn't say a thing why it's right to allow violence and ban nudity.

The court has 'always' done a lot of things it later corrected.



What do problems have to do with interpreting the 1st amendment consistently?

Frankly the court has historically been on shaky ground on morality laws about sex.

A tiny fraction of what's in today's legally sold porn would have put you in jail for decades not that long ago. Has the first amendment changed?

The court has had to deal with the law on one hand and 'cultural norms' on the other.

The most famous quote from the Supreme Court on the issue is a Justice saying he 'can't define pornography but he knows it when he sees it'.

No wonder they punted finally with the tossing of the issue to 'community standards'.
I wonder what those are if Larry Flynt lives in the same city with an anti-porn leader.



You can't argue against my attacks on Scalia on the issues so you make an offensive personal attack you can't support. That's the behavior of an asshole.

A decent person would apologize. I'm not expecting you to.



To you, which is about you and not the opinion. You can't argue against it apparently, so you call it names. I'm seeing a pattern.



And how are those people who support the 1st amendment doing on sex content in video games for children? Not well, as Breyer said.

Why should I apologize? You routinely bash Scalia. Its just a logical assumption you would oppose anything he wrote because frankly you have displayed that tendancy.

As for Bryers dissent. Any dissent that gets no other signature is meaningless. Period. If it was a dissent with 4 signatures it might have some merit.

This was about a state law that restricted sales of certain "violent" games with vague standards on what constituted violent. Its not about pornography. If you want the pornography laws changed, bring a case and argue it. You can analogize all you want, but this specific law that CA passed could never have met the strict scrutiny standard, regardless of any rulings on porn. Maybe Roberts and Alito are right and CA could get it up to standard, but we will never know.

 

[JEDI]

Freedom of speech and the free flow of ideas is a great thing and I applaud the Supreme Court in this decision, only then why is religion restricted? Is not the idea to freely allow ideas to reach our children. All ideas to include violent games and....gasp....maybe even religion?

I wonder who will take the bait?

constitution separation of church and state (thank god).

and speaking of church, why is child porn banned again? why isnt the 1st admenent apply? how did this puritan idea get past the constitution?

 

[ElFenix]

Try reading a Bible during Study Hall.

i need a news article where a kid was reading a bible quietly to himself and was told not to and kids were allowed to do other non-school activities if you're going to make that claim.

 

[a777pilot]

Try studying during study hall, not reading fiction novels.

Need I say more?

 

[0roo0roo]

first walmart, then this, not bad