An Activist federal judge says computer games don't deserve First Amendment protection.

[Gonad the Barbarian]

<< it isn't against any law for a theatre to let kids into R or NC-17 movies, its a voluntary system >>



I think at least a couple of states have indeed adopted this into law.

 

[Jzero]

<< The proprietor of a theater can impose whatever policies he or she wishes, but as a practical matter you are barking up the wrong tree. If a given theater sets a policy of letting people in, in violation of MPAA guidelines, they face losing distribution from the studios and distributors, to say nothing of opening themselves up to community protests, etc. >>


The guideline was and is that someone under 17 has to be accompanied by an adult. We were in a group of people, the oldest of whom was 20. This was also before it became "trendy" to ban minors from the theatre, in fact it was the first I'd heard of it in my town.


<< Your diatribe against the theater manager sounds amazingly juvenile and unnecessarily personal. >>


I was 17. Sue me.

 

[Tominator]

Show me in the Constitution where ANY of the things are protected that are!

If one looks at the Federalists Papers one could only conclude the 1st Amendment protected Political Speech....

It was Activists Government that applied it to nearly every idiotic activity known to man.

Limbaugh was only stateing the obvious.

 

[FoBoT]

<< Show me in the Constitution where ANY of the things are protected that are!

>>



yeah, but doesn't it also say something to the effect "any powers not specifically included are reserved to the states"??

so why should a federal judge be in on this one?

 

[NesuD]

<< yeah, but doesn't it also say something to the effect "any powers not specifically included are reserved to the states"?? >>


Yeah it sure does. Unfortunately the civil war pretty much took the wind out of states rights and shifted most of the power over such things to the federal government. That was the real reason for the civil war to basically subvert the constitution. The ending of slavery was simply a PR sideshow to gain the moral high ground thus deflecting attention from the subversion of the constitution.

 

[Tominator]

<< so why should a federal judge be in on this one? >>



Good question! And the supposed 'Conservative Activists' judge is exactly right here. The Federal Government should NOT be able to tell us what we do unless specifically outlined in the Constitution.

This should be a State's Right and better yet, a local issue.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

To quote Penny-Arcade:

"If games can't communicate ideas, why does he care who buys them?"

 

[MadRat]

OMG - PacMan promotes pornography because they obviously wear no clothes! We must ban PacMan!!!

 

[bizmark]

<< The time for a counterstrike is now. >>



Did anybody else catch this quote?

Some of the comments from other folks reminded me of a supposed quote from the Pac-Man programmer/designer, when asked about whether video games influence kids (cited very loosly... it's been a while since I've seen this):

"There's no way that video games could be so influential to children. I mean, if they were, we'd have kids running around dark rooms listening to beeps and munching magic pills."

Anyway, on topic now: This ruling is bullsh!t!! I don't know where 'board games' and the like ever got un-protected. AFAIK I could make a board game about whatever the hell I want to, and if people want to buy it, that's their right. This judge is a moron.

 

[NFS4]

REPOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[junkyardDawg]

 

[junkyardDawg]

I don't understand how this is "activist". All he did was refuse to overturn a local ordinance.

 

[Mday]

the problem is that parents are not doing a good job...

they know enough to not let kids get playboy magazine, but they dont know anything about gaming. they are retards...