Supreme Court Ruling Frees Families from Government Interference
by Dr. Dathan A. PaternoThe Supreme Court of the United States today struck down a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for the 7-2 majority, with Justices Breyer and Thomas dissenting.
One can just see the headline now: “Supreme Court Determines Violent Video Games Are Great for Kids!” Or, “Justice Scalia’s Children Must Be Embarrassed by His Utter Disregard for Parents’ Rights.”
Superficially, this appears to be a failure of government to support parents in their quest to protect children. Shouldn’t we applaud governmental restrictions on games that depict violent rape, dismemberment, and sickeningly graphic murder? Shouldn’t the Supreme Court want to help parents protect their children from this satanic drivel?
Well, not really. Scalia wrote that the gaming industry already does assist parents in this regard by providing useful rating systems for games—a system that experts consider far superior to our current movie rating system. The Court argued that states cannot create laws to deny children access to objectionable material.
The justices admitted that some of these games aren’t just objectionable, but horrific. Scalia hinted at the utter depravity of many of the current games (Justice Alito endured the task of researching just how bad these games are; our nation owes him a collective floral arrangement and “Thank You” card). No one needs to convince us of the abased nature of these games. We think they are shameful at best and neither of us would allow these games in our homes.
The majority ruled, however, that the evidence that violent video games cause future violence is weak and merely correlational. No direct cause has ever been established. Furthermore, any causal relationship was admittedly slim at best—having about the same effect as comic books and Saturday morning cartoons (remember Tom and Jerry?). If the government can’t restrict those, how could it restrict video games?
Government, in the end, has no compelling interest in forcing limits on children’s access to violent video games. This is, and always has been, the sole responsibility of parents. Government has no right to infringe on parents’ ability to monitor or achieve reasonable control over their children. If the government took that responsibility from parents, one could see how the family structure would be degraded.
In fact, the majority entertained the slippery slope of restricting minors’ access to certain material. If the government can restrict one type of objectionable material, it can object to other types of objectionable material based on non-compelling interests and evidence. For example, imagine the government restricting the dissemination of religious tracts because some pseudoscientific study suggests the activity tends to breed contentiousness and even violent behavior.
The question is, will parents take the bait and exercise the control that was rightly theirs all along? Government has parented all of us for so long that many parents might think, “if it isn’t illegal, it must be okay for my kids, or the government would have banned it.” This is the problem with the encroaching nanny state. We have gradually become accustomed to government deciding our safety for us–from helmets to seat belts. We want to believe that if it is dangerous, big daddy government will protect us.
This decision effectively slows down the reach of the nanny state. For this, we are thankful. It also reinforces our united belief that parents are the ultimate arbiters of what is best for their children and are the final human authority in a child’s life. This awesome responsibility rests on our shoulders, which should force us to redouble our own efforts and help equip all parents to take up that mantle of authority for their good and for the good of their children.
Co-authored with BigGovernment contributor Dr. Gina Loudon.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
224 Comments
Violent video games contribute to future violence no more than cap guns did. If you have children, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to make sure you raise them properly. PURE AND SIMPLE. You can not be on auto pilot and be a parent at the same time. Having children is not a responsibility that should be taken lightly. I think the court got this one right.
"… reinforces our united belief that parents are the ultimate arbiters of what is best for their children and are the final human authority in a child's life."
What a novel idea… NO???
Parents in charge of their own progeny… wow…
.
What a novel concept……..
Leave the parenting to the parents……
This is good news. The industry doesn't need Government regulation.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is a self-regulating industry. There are no laws that dictate decency standards for movies, and prior to their formation in 1922, they had 40+ censorship boards to deal with nationally. By creating a simple set of standards, the censorship boards were eliminated. It took another 46 years (1968) for the modern G-PG-R ratings system to be adopted (later adding PG-13 and NC-17). Again, there are no laws on the books, and the theaters manage their audience based on those simple ratings.
Given enough time, the gaming industry will get it right, and may self-regulate, but the government doesn't need to be in the middle of it – just let the industry, retailers and other interested parties work it out. That's how it is supposed to work.
Yeah, what a concept. About 700,00 various tight a$$ control freaks in DC are disappointed.
The industry does self-regulate. Every retail game recieves a rating and each rating explains the potentially objectionable content the game has (say, rated M for explicit violence and nudity or rated E for everyone due to a lack of objectionable content).
Now the liberal Californian parents will actually have to parent instead of letting the state do it for them. Liberal parent's in California will probably unionize now and say that sideline parenting while the state teaches moral values is an entitlement. Oh the burden of actually having to pay attention to what your own children do for entertainment. Amazing that it takes a Supreme Court decision to actually make parents responsible for their kids these days.
"Given enough time, the gaming industry will get it right, and may self-regulate, but the government doesn't need to be in the middle of it – just let the industry, retailers and other interested parties work it out. That's how it is supposed to work. "
Eh, the videogame industry is self regulating as is, almost like the MPAA. They have a lot of rating systems already, equivalent to G-PG-PG13-R-NC17 system (K-E-T-M-A). Hell, "A" rated games are never sold in any retailer, and I still get carded for buying M (must be 17+) rated games, even though I'm in my mid 20s with enough scruff to show I'm not even a HS student.
The problem is…parents tend to ignore these ratings, or don't ask what the game is about, how violent it is, and/or etc.
LOL, how long will it take for them to dream up another angle to get their foot in the door?
Never-mind answering that… I'm sure they have something already simmering on the back burner…
.
No actually some parents don't IGNORE the game ratings or how violent it is. SOME parents actually pay attention to the information that goes into their child's head. We monitor their web activities, use parental controls on the television, and make sure the games we purchase are age appropriate. I am sorry that did not happen for you.
The point is, those self regulations from the publishers are fine, but the distribution chain (aka retail stores) has to cooperate and voluntarily limit sales of the 'rated M' to adults, and the like – just like movie theaters will not admit unaccompanied minors to 'rated R' movies.. I believe they already do this with DVD movies 'rated R', but I don't know (I'm well past that age of being carded for things like that).
That's where the MPAA is ahead of the video game industry in self regulation.
I'm disappointed that Thomas would vote for the minority, with Breyer of all people. What was he thinking I wonder. Oh well, no harm done, but if something similar comes up that isn't that close, its going to be strange if the deciding liberal vote is cast by someone who is ordinarily a dependable vote for constitutional limits on government.
Why? Thomas is the only justice who ruled correctly. He said it's not a first amendment issue and should be remanded. He took the originalist point of view. Read his dissent.
I'm not a fan of video games in general, but this is a good ruling (not because I think they're "bad", I just don't enjoy them). Parents need to be aware of what their kids are doing and what games they're playing and not depend on the wisdom and benevolence of the state to babysit their children – all the way through college. Maybe more rulings like this would actually shock more people back into the formation of real families that communicate with and understand each other, rather than a collection of individuals sharing a common dwelling.
dont you have some glitter to throw on someone?
A couple of things: the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law…" It doesn't say California shall make no law. States are within their rights to limit speech, the press, etc, as Jefferson argued. Secondly, this is not a free speech issue anyway.
Objectionable speech is exactly the type of speech that must be protected under the 1st Amendment… good ruling
Do people who hold originalist views threaten you somehow?
…What? Whaa? uh? When did I accuse you or all parents?
I hope you know that words like "tend" and "some" does not equal all. I'm not accusing ALL parents of ignoring ratings, I'm saying there are those who do and don't, and I'm waving my finger at those who don't.
And trust me, the vast amount of 11-14 year old playing the shooters, call of duty and halo, show me instantly that there are parents out there not monitoring what their kids of playing or saying.
I'd like to see the stores that sell video games step up and institute their own policies of not selling violent games to minors.
Who's better than my wife and I to decide what our household consumes–? Certainly not government that has ZERO restraint in every other aspect of its being……
FH, if that's the originalist view then I'm going to have to say its flawed. I do see where you're coming from, but such an originalist interpretation fails to take into account the 14th Amendment. If you took your originalist view to the logical extreme, then every state and locality are well within their rights to ban gun ownership within the state or locality. In other words, the ruling on the DC gun ban should have went the other way.
It may not a free speech issue in the traditionalist sense of political speech or redress of grievances, but it is in the sense of freedom of expression which has been well established as an aspect of free speech by conservative as well as liberal thought.
American parents tend to be pretty permissive about violence (from a very young age, I watched Westerns and the tamer Bond movies) so I don't buy into the notion that allowing a kid to play CoD reflects a failure of parenting.
If a teenager has his or her head screwed on right and is experiencing media for fun and not to learn moral lessons, playing a M rated game, listening to a song with an MPAA warning, watching an R rated movie or even reading a horror novel is harmless.
Given the prices of video games, I doubt that many teens are buying them on their own money. Parents have to be buying them, or at least providing the money. If parents didn't enable the sales of these games, the industry would stop making them. The industry isn't out to destroy civilization, they're out to make a buck.
So you know what's best for my kid? You get to overrule my judgement about what my kid can or cannot do?
Wow……I'd skip running for president and just go straight to running for God.
Who the hell do you think you are? You have no right at all to make that decision for me. Mind your own dam business. You are part of the reason America has become a nation of meddlesome busybodies telling everyone what to do and not do, eat, not eat, drink, not drink, own, not own.
What part of individual freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution is givin you trouble? Butt. Out. MYOB.
Did you read the text of his justification for his vote (it starts on page 38 of the link below)? Bizarre stuff. He discovered a secret exception to the First Amendment no one knew about.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-144...
—
In my view, the “practices and beliefs held by the Foun-ders” reveal another category of excluded speech: speech to minor children bypassing their parents. McIntyre, supra, at 360.
—
How about sticking to the law as written? Crazy notion, but it just might work.
The distribution chain does voluntarily limit sales and it does a better job than the movie industry.
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/04/undercover-opera...
—-
Once a year the FTC recruits a group of 13 to 16 year olds and sets them loose on America’s retail establishment, tasked with attempting to buy movie tickets, DVDs, music and video games rated outside of their age range. The point is to see how well entertainment retailers are doing at enforcing the guidelines they agreed to enforce when they started selling this stuff in the first place.
How’d things pan out? 33 per cent of teens were able to purchase an R-rated movie ticket. R-rated and unrated DVDs were secured by 36 and 47 per cent of teens respectively. Parental Advisory-labeled music made it into the hands of more than 60 per cent of teens, a large number that can likely be attributed to retailers’ surprise that someone was actually purchasing a CD.
And video games? A mere 13 per cent of teens made it through the checkout process with a game rated Mature by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.
—
It's a rare moment, but I have to agree with you. This WAS a State initiative. And I don't see it as a "free speech" issue at all. Perhaps if they were arresting those who PRODUCE violent video games because they didn't like the "content."
But all this was, was the restriction to sell or rent these games to minors. How is that different from restricting sales of alcohol or tobacco to minors? Except that it was done on a State level, rather than the federal, where such prohibitions are LESS acceptable.
In essence, I see this NOT as a gain for "parental rights," but just another affront to States rights.
I'm actually taking a different stand on this. First, I wouldn't compare this to 2nd amendment rights, which are clearly set out. To make that comparison, you'd have to accept that this was a "free speech" case. It was not.
This was a case of restricting the sale or rental to minors of violent video games. Agree or disagree, it is no different than restricting the sale of alcohol or tobacco to minors. Or even closer to this situation, it's no different than restricting sales of pornography to minors.
I presume that parents could still buy or rent these games for their kids, so there is no restriction on "parents rights." And there was no penalty or restrictions placed on the producers of these games, so there was no violation of "freedom of speech" rights.
I see this as a case of restricting States rights to set the rules of conduct for the State.
No and that is the reason the gun laws are being challenged in the states as well as non federal governing bodies under the 14th Amendment provisions which extended the Bill of rights to the state governments. That is why Chicago had to change its gun laws, because of McDonald v. Chicago decide Jun 28, 2010.
It's a rare moment when I disagree with you.
First they came for the violent video games and I said nothing.
Then they came for the political books …
But maybe it's ok to restrict the sale or rental/loan of political books to minors in the states too?
It is the parents responsibility and only the parents responsibility to raise their children, period. If you want the State to raise your kids, move to a communist/socialist country and be happy!
"This decision effectively slows down the reach of the nanny state."
AMEN TO FREEDOM!
For that argument to hold, you have to accept the premise that this was a "free speech" case. I don't believe it was.
This was a law restricting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. It was not a law that outlawed the PRODUCTION of these games. THAT would be a free speech issue.
The nearest comparison to this case is the restriction on sales or rentals of pornography to minors. "Pornography" itself has been deemed protected as "free speech." But I haven't heard anyone complain about the restrictions on minors in that case. No one has complained that this "violates the rights of parents." Even though those laws are FAR more restrictive than this video games law. (Assuming that parents could still choose to buy or rent those games FOR their children)
So I wouldn't be so quick as to jump on the "free speech" bandwagon. This is more about a violation of States rights to pass laws that shape the societal desires of its citizens.
syvyn,
I understand your sentiment, but It was not your place to create your own store policy. Suggesting a new policy to the owner is fine, but If you want to play policeman, then expend the energy and resources and create your own store.
I'm still mixed on this decision. Although it is couched in "free speech", it's a lot deeper than that. I consider it similar to a ban on the sale of cigarettes to minors. Anyone with a brain knows cigarettes are stupid (what else costs so much, looks so stupid, and is so bad for your health?), but children often don't have the sense to avoid stupid, unhealthy, and dangerous things; thus the law regarding their purchase by minors. Although the ultra-violent video games have a mixed record on proveable harm to children, once again, anyone with a brain knows that it certainly does children no good to play them, and certainly desensitizes them to violence. Unlike books or old violent cartoons, the video games involve "being the character committing the violence", so are on a different level. I think parents should have a say in whether their kids can own these games. In a way, this ruling is putting the government in charge of what your kids can buy.
"Government, in the end, has no compelling interest in forcing…[limits on children’s access to violent video games]."
Can we not make this argument about the vast majority of laws passed at both the fedreal and state levels?
Yep, those bad parents, who always study Supreme Court decisions closely and make rational decisions based on them, will decide to become good parents after this. Because those bad parents really will do a better job when we actually make their job harder.
Agreed. He might have a point if he was talking about schools, for one example, undermining parental authority, but that's apples and oranges. No one is forcing parents to purchase video games for their children or to allow their children to purchase them.
Disgusting. I would have fired you.
Well, I'll make the case way down deep in this thread where no one is going to read it anyway. But here it goes.
I don't accept the premise of this article. This was NOT about "parental rights," as this law did not restrict the parent's rights to buy or rent these games FOR their children if they chose to. So that argument is bogus.
Secondly, it was NOT a "free speech" case, because the PRODUCTION of these video games was not restricted; only the sale or rental of them to minors.
I compare this to the production of pornography, which has been established as "protected free speech." And yet, it's sale or rental IS restricted to minors.
Does anyone here want to argue that those pornography restrictions to minors is somehow a restriction on free speech or parental rights?
The author of this piece is simply wrong in his presentation. And the SC was wrong in striking down this restriction.
Or put another way, "Has this decision now set the precedent that restricting minors from entering X-rated movie theaters is un-Constitutional?"
Think about that.
Restricting sales of a video game is not an issue of free speech, nor is it a Constitutional matter.
No, it isn't.
I can't buy this premise, one. I'm going to paste my comment from WAY down in this thread, because I think the point is valid, and definitely something worth considering:
Well, I'll make the case way down deep in this thread where no one is going to read it anyway. But here it goes.
I don't accept the premise of this article. This was NOT about "parental rights," as this law did not restrict the parent's rights to buy or rent these games FOR their children if they chose to. So that argument is bogus.
Secondly, it was NOT a "free speech" case, because the PRODUCTION of these video games was not restricted; only the sale or rental of them to minors.
I compare this to the production of pornography, which has been established as "protected free speech." And yet, it's sale or rental IS restricted to minors.
Does anyone here want to argue that those pornography restrictions to minors is somehow a restriction on free speech or parental rights?
The author of this piece is simply wrong in his presentation. And the SC was wrong in striking down this restriction.
Or put another way, "Has this decision now set the precedent that restricting minors from entering X-rated movie theaters is un-Constitutional?"
Think about that.
The originalist view of the 14th, one of the worst changes to the Constitution, does not incorporate the Bill of Rights. This is a modern interpretation by activist judges. Research it.
Many of you that I see speaking out against this decision of the SCOTUS are doing so under the argument of States' Rights. How many of you that are all in favor of banning violent video games were also completely and thoroughly opposed to McCain-Feingold because the Federal Gov. argued that it could ban a book for mentioning a candidate's name once in Citizens United v. FEC? You, as did I, argued, and rightly so, that it constituted a clear abridgement of Amendment 1's freedom of speech.
Remember also that the states can only regulate things not expressly prohibited to them in the COTUS. As the COTUS pretty expressly protects freedom of speech in the First Amendment, then it should protect it not only at the Federal levels but at the state level as well. Or do we want to make the argument that individual states can censor our media as they please?
Who'll second my nomination of JohnK144 for Chief Justice of the SC?
.
"This is a good point … for the legislative debate, it is not a matter of constitutional law and therefore irrelevant"
I agree with that. It's actually the second aspect of this decision that I find creepy.
Freedom of expression is an element of free speech, so it does become a constitutional matter. That's why video games fall under the 1st Amendment… they're no different than paintings or books.
One small step toward more Individual Liberty is always a good thing.
I'm sorry, but that argument just doesn't apply. First of all, the PRODUCTION of these games were not restricted. Secondly, it did not restrict parents from buying or renting these games for their own children. It merely restricted the direct sale or rental to minors.
I could use the example of pornography again, but I don't want to be redundant.
How about access to abortion for minors without parental consent or notification? Should that be unrestricted too?
The net effect of this decision has done NOTHING to protect parental rights, or free speech rights. All it did was to eliminate a simple safeguard for parents who may not be aware that their kids are buying material that they might find offensive.
And I'll repeat a line from the comment I made above:
Or put another way, "Has this decision now set the precedent that restricting minors from entering X-rated movie theaters is un-Constitutional?"
"I think parents should have a say in whether their kids can own these games. In a way, this ruling is putting the government in charge of what your kids can buy. "
Those 2 sentences are very conflicting. The Court is saying the gov cannot set rules with respect to the sale of video games because it would be restricting Free Speech, which it's clearly not allowed to do.
Parents have the ultimate say, gov't or not.
The Bill of Rights applies to the federal, not the states. This was the intent of the Founders, regardless of what activist judges have said about the 14th. This is a state matter, not a federal one. Buying a video game is not "objectionable speech".
Do businesses not have a right to set their own policy with regards to the sale of their products? I agree that he should not have tried to create a policy on the spot, but there's certainly nothing illegal with businesses putting a requirement for ID for the sale of their products.
Sales of games with mature ratings are still restricted the same way that theatres will still card you when you go to buy a ticket to an R film. Most places have a policy of not selling them without ID or parental consent. The issue is whether or not the state can make a law that gets someone in legal trouble for the sale.
90% of the time, a kid isn't going to make trouble is they get caught trying to do something they shouldn't. Most of the time, the ones who are are going to resort to some kind of elaborate trick to avoid trouble rather than threaten some kind of legal issue, and if someone does raise a legal stink, we might have to revisit this all over again.
But as a parent, I certainly don't think it's the government's place to decide what my kids get access to, when they get access to it, or anything else. At what point do I take responsibility as a parent. I might as well have left my son in the hospital and gone on home. The state'll make sure he gets raised OK.
And I'm going to repeat my argument that I've made to others.
"Pornography" is covered because it's an expression, much like paintings or books, and very much a 1st Amendment issue.
But still, we agree as a society that it may not be sold or rented to minors.
Nothing in this law restricted the production (free expression) of these video games. It merely restricted DIRECT access by minors. It did not restrict parents from providing them to their kids if they chose to.
In this way, the "restriction" was far less intrusive than the restrictions placed on porn, alcohol, or tobacco; all of which are illegal even for PARENTS to supply to their minor children.
This whole argument has been skewed, begun by the author of this article who simply got the premise wrong.
Thank you Supreme Court for getting it right once again. It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves.
YES! Parents have the ultimate say! But if parents aren't in the store, do they have the ultimate say? This is akin to allowing children to buy cigarettes or alcohol; both harmful to children, choices on purchases such as these should be left to the parents, not their children.
Are you saying that judges that overthrow restrictive gun laws like the DC gun ban are activist judges? Because its the exact same interpretation, only applied to the 2nd Amendment as opposed to the 1st.
Intent of the Constitutional framers or not, unless you're going to have the 14th Amendment repealed or the language cleared up, you'll just have to accept its existence.
"But as a parent, I certainly don't think it's the government's place to decide what my kids get access to"
But that is exactly the point. The government (i.e. the Supreme Court) HAS just decided what your kids have access to.
And again, the government (more like "society") has decided that minors should not have direct access to cigarettes, alcohol, guns, pornography, abortion without parental consent………… The list goes on. And I don't hear the hue and cry over those restrictions.
And unlike porn or alcohol or tobacco, you as a parent were NOT restricted from providing these games to your kids if you chose to. If anything, this simple restriction would have kept parents IN THE LOOP as to what their kids were exposing themselves to.
"Mom, I'm gonna go rent a game." Hopefully the parent asks the good questions and parents well.
Or
"Mom, I want to rent this game, but I need your approval to get it."
Don't get me wrong, I am 100% for parental rights. But the fact is, this restriction did NOTHING to take away those rights. It simply kept parents involved in that decision. No different than if the child wants to have that abortion. Parental notification SHOULD be required. At least in my opinion.
You actually just said the Bill of Rights applies to the federal and not the states !!
Dude that is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG…
I work at a vidoe rental chain and I can say that one ONE yes ONE parent has asked me about the rating system of games….most parents couldn't care less about the game their kid is getting….I had to tell parents about the new Duke Neukem game where two women seem to praying at the alter of Duke….the parents let their kid talk them into getting this game…
Any state can provide MORE rights than are found the the Bill of Rights but they cannot provide less.
The debates during ratification are not the law.
Sometimes the slippery slope is to both sides of the trail.
In a perfect world (government), where common sense is the norm, restrictions or laws to protect are not generally to be feared. In the world/country we live in today it seems that there is no boundary to what biggovernment will do to protect us from ourselves, so that every step they take sets precedent for the next.
We're now fighting government that stops students from the mere mention of "God" or "faith" and that bans students from even bringing a "sack" lunch to school. For every action there is not just a reaction, but another action.
No smoking in restaurants has become 'smokers will not be hired' in some cases.
Listing calories content has become banning toys in Happy Meals.
It's unfortunate that the progressive seculists seem to favor freedom for all that is unsavory while fighting all traditional values. Here in the NW now Nativity scenes wont be found in the public square at Christmas but this weekend a 30-40 foot 'rainbow' flag flew above the Space Needle for all to see, like it or not.
It would be good if children were not able to purchase extremely violent video games, but to progressives any step giving more government control is a step in the right direction, towards total control. This is an instance where parental control is the answer.
What are the words of the 10th would be a better question. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, _nor prohibited by it_ to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Do you live in a blue state? I'll be sure to call up the state legislatures of CA, NY and IL. I'm sure they'll be glad to know that they can start banning conservative talk radio. After all, 1st Amendment only keeps the Feds from doing that if I take you words to their logical extreme. However, since the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and prohibits the states and the feds from inhibiting it by guaranteeing it to the people, the states can't make laws to deny it anymore than the feds can.
It was about the state attempting to step in and assume a parental role. Which is Progessivism/socialism.
If you are a parent, it is YOUR responsibility to control what your children do. It is NOT the state's responsibility and the state has NO business forbidding the sale of something solely on the basis of "it's bad for the children."
Shut up, anti-Semite.
Pornography is obscenity. Video games are entertainment. Apples and oranges.
I do not believe pornography is protected by the 1st Amendment.
Demonstrating once again that followers of Ron Paul don't live in the real world.
If parents aren't in the store, they have failed as parents. It is NOT the duty of the government to do their job for them. That way lies socialism.
first of all, most stores card minors anyways, so this law was kinda pointless from the start, but I would appreciate it as a gamer if you would stop spreading false, bias info, these games can destress after a long day, so no their not "harmful" and they don't "desensitize" them either. Most of the studies that say they do are agenda driven or flatout bias, if your not a gamer, thats fine, but that doesn't mean demonize them either
If I wanted to destroy a society I would start by destroying the family.
Why is selling a 17+ rated violent and/or sexual video game to a minor legal but selling porn is illegal? I'm not even sure which way I'd argue on that topic, but it seems like a double standard.
Using the liberal's favorite tactic to make this a federal issue, it falls under the "Commerce Clause"
"I do not believe pornography is protected by the 1st Amendment."
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has long ago decided that pornography IS protected by the 1st Amendment. What you or I "believe" doesn't change that fact.
Some people would argue that pornography is "entertainment." Others would argue that video games that depict the killing of police officers is "obscenity."
But none of those arguments mean anything once the SC has "decided" that the States or the People can't restrict access to children.
Besides that, this law did NOT prohibit parents from providing these games to their children. It simply restricted DIRECT access to minors without the parents involvement.
I would argue that violent videos do cause some kids to reenact those images. Remember the wrestling kid? It's the parents' responsibility to raise their kids, so I think the ruling is appropriate.
"How about making no laws and letting people use common sense? How about letting private businesses make their own policies without needing the government to step in without force of law one way or the other? How about we keep the government out of it? Period."
OK. I have no problem with this kind of thinking.
The point that I've been trying to make is that we should be AWARE that we are making that decision.
This article makes the point that this is a win for "free speech" and "parents rights." But it does not go into the ramifications of the precedent. And that is something like you are suggesting. I don't necessarily disagree with that suggestion. But I DO believe that we should have all of the ramifications of this discussion on the table, rather than simply giving a "rah-rah" to this "decision," without ever discussing the larger picture.
A privately owned business is perfectly free to make their own business decisions and set their own policy. I can't see that we can be on both sides of this issue.
Seat belt laws are a perfect example. It was when so many young children started getting killed that public awareness was raised. But the law didn't try to parent for parents. They mandated seat belts for everyone. And it has unquestionably saved lives.
If we revert to this "there outta be a law" mantra, we'll be admitting we've been blowin smoke for three years howling for gov't to get out of our right to make private decisions for ourselves and our children.
Decisions have consequences. Give a kid a Corvette for his first car and it will likely be his last car. Your call. His choice. His consequences. You can't save people from bad judgement with law and regulation.
Sheaaat happens, John. Sometimes very bad sheaaaot. Life is neither fair nor premeditated. And no gun law ever stopped a killer from getting on or killing his target with another weapon if he couldn't.
It's more than a slippery slope. It reinforces all the wrong behaviors in parenting. You are responsible for teaching your children all about life…..everything. And you are accountable when you don't. it is what it is. But to make a one size fits all law is the only way gov't knows how to act. In the case of seatbelts, the outcome was lives saved. In the case of banning a video…..we'll, you'd never have gotten to see Die Hard till you were "deemed old enough."
And if we let this happen, the last three years has been a total waste of energy. We either step up and handle our own affairs, or we become serfs to a nanny gov't. I see no middle ground.
Hel-loh Sacramento!! Hel-loh 9th District!
Good Morning! DOE! Hel-loh!
Are you all listening!
What can I say, I was young and foolish. I wanted the manager to override me. I was never going to risk my job. But I felt I had to make a stand.
At least somebody gets it. If we can't regulate some material that can be sold to children, then we can't regulate any.
But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
~ The Federalist No. 51, Independent Journal , Wednesday, February 6, 1788 , James Madison
The antithesis to that:
… the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasnt that radical. It didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states cant do to you. Says what the Federal government cant do to you, but doesnt say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf…
~ 2001 Obama WBEZ Interview , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM
"You have to think "inside-out" to predict what a "progressive" will do."
That is what I was getting at when I said "slippery slope on both sides of the trail – double sided sword.
Why have we wasted three years screaming about getting gov't out of our private lives?
Why do we have kids who don't have the sense to come in from the rain? They've NEVER NOT been told from cradle to grave what they can and can't do. They've never had to learn any hard lessons.
Parenting is a full time job and you carry the beeper on weekends and holidays. If you can't manage that..don't have kids. How hard is that?
Don't tell me any adult here never looked at a girly magazine, smoked a cigarette, had a drink, or made out. And yet you survived. TALK TO YOUR CHILDREN ABOUT STUFF YOU KNOW THEY'RE CURIOUS OVER. BE THERE. PARTICIPATE.
I don't need a checker at Wally World to do my job for me. Products do not harm children. IGNORANCE DOES. The more you try to keep them from this stuff, the harder they'll try to get it.
Don't want them to smoke? SIT THEM DOWN AND LIGHT ONE CIGARETTE AFTER ANOTHER TILL THEY PUKE. Done. They'll never pick up another one again.
We don't get to have it both ways. Either gov't makes all the rules or we have freedom, even to be stupid, to make mistakes, to make dumb decisions that everyone knows will turn out badly. How are most children killed? By a friend warped by a computer game, or a car?
Yet we let them drive at 16. How mature were YOU at 16. Tell me most people here never bumped that accelerator up over 90…..just to see how it felt. Kids die every day from stupid driving decisions. And they kill people too, with a perfectly legal, 2 ton weapon. Nobody's howling for gov't to raise the driving age.
Free or regulated.
There is no "sensible middle ground" with gov't whether it's a TSA sicko or a checker at wally world.
That's exactly right, John. Let each business make their own 'BUSINESS" decisions based on internal company policy. If they want them in a locked case, don't want to carry them, or want to sell them to anyone, it's their right and should be their decision.
We as consumers will let them know with our dollars what we like and will or won't tolerate. But in taking this case, and ruling, the court now opened the door for gov't to step in and fine anyone who tries to exercise their right as a private business. Now they can be sued so naturally most stores will fall in line with the court's ruling.
Another "personal freedom" lost to gov't "one size fits all" mentality and tactics.
You folks who think this ruling is great don't have kids and don't understand that this ruling makes it harder for parents to parent, not easier. Junior uses his birthday money to buy a game where you rape women as a reward for completing the game; you take it away ; junior tells officials at school; you get accused of child abuse. Junior is playing really wretched games at the neighbors, you protest; but " everybody is doing it" because the supreme court says so. Your local high school has as required reading a book with necrophlia in it, (yes, this actually happened at least once) you want your child opted out, but the supreme court says that impressionable kids have the same rights as adults. If you want your kid playing stuff where people die like slasher movies, buy it for them. The thing I dislike most about libertarians is that just like all uber-leftist, they don't care about the real world results of of their utopian diktats.
Yep. And I appreciate the Federalist reference, because that's exactly the argument I was trying to ignite. It was just too simplistic for me that the article gave a big "hurrah" to this decision, but never approached the larger issue of where the government's authority begins and ends, in particular, as it regards "child protection" in this case.
I think it was important to prepare the table for the larger discussion, "Are we aware and willing to lift ALL restrictions on minor's access to anything? Or are there restrictions that should be in place?"
Interesting discussion. No?
And man, am I getting slammed for it. Haha
And I don't see that those laws have EVER worked, either.
Nobody under the age of 18 ever ever ever bought Playboy. And dad only buys it for the articles, lol! Sheesh, if you don't wanna parent, don't have kids. How hard it that? Teach your kids well and you won't have to worry about what they do when you're not looking.
Besides…..kids need a bit of space to explore and "sneak" and investigate things on their own. Who of us wants every minute of our day "supervised" by folks who are just positive they know what's BEST for us?
How's that alcohol regulation workin out for us?
I'm shocked to think anyone under 21 would drink. Nope, it's against the law so of course THAT never happens.
………….my story an I'm stickin to it, lol.
))))
This is a clear harbinger for how the court will react to Obamacare…………..replace government with parents and individuals being in charge of their healthcare reads right into this rueling.
If your children respect you, have been taught to respect themselves and others, and been allowed to explore these "taboo" subjects at home in an open and honest discussion…they won't be curious to the point of obsession and they won't be able to be turned into stone cold killers by a stupid computer game. Please.
Is your grand kid going to be allowed to drive a 2 ton weapon when they turn 16?
More kids kill themselves and others with cars than any computer game. Think about that. How on earth can you say you can teach a kid to be responsible and never hurt anyone with a 2 ton vehicle that will go up to 100 mph……….but can't teach them not to kill people because of a video game?
Seriously?
I have been wrestling with this one, I can tell you. I'm not quite a libertarian. I thought: Do we want movie theaters to let 13 year old kids into Rated "R" movies? How about letting them in to a porn theater?
But that led me to another question that I honestly don't know the answer to: is the movie rating system an actual LAW (like movie theaters will get fined if they let kids in to movies they are not supposed to be in) or is it just a rating system and the movie theaters follow them basically because it's good for business?
In the end, as this article has set out – the problem with the banning is that parents abdicate their responsibilities – parents don't pay attention because they think "someone else has it handled". No, YOU have to handle it.
I think it's better left up to the stores that sell such things – our policy is that we will not sell X Y or Z to a child if they are not the age covered in the rating. Again, a choice that stores can make in order to keep customers satisfied, but not having the government tell them what to do.
I completely understand where you're comming from John. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion you have started. It's just that we live in a topsy turvy universe, and what seems like a reasonable move can leave us on our head, with a concussion.
I saw you got a thumbs down when I first posted, and while i didn't agree with you on this issue i thumbed up. I don't thumb down for disagreement, only for ignorance, which never describes you.
ps: if you never get thumbed down, you're just lazy
"I don't thumb down for disagreement, only for ignorance, which never describes you."
I appreciate that. And that's my approach too. Comments have to be "offensive" or just plain nasty for me to thumb down.
"ps: if you never get thumbed down, you're just lazy"
Haha. Pretty funny. : )
I'm glad someone mentioned that. I wanted to read through the replies to this post before bringing it up. I'm surprised that on a site where people constantly talk about the Constitution that I had to read down this far before someone mentioned incorporation.
"But in taking this case, and ruling, the court now opened the door for gov't to step in and fine anyone who tries to exercise their right as a private business"
I didn't get that impression from reading the analysis on the ruling. As I understood it, the ruling was that California as a state gov could not pass a law restricting the sale of video games to minors. I didn't see where that limited businesses setting their own policies or following the ESRB ratings.
I hear that, John. That was the gist of my original post too. You just can't have it both ways. Either gov't does all our decision making, even as parents, or we do. No middle ground.
As for the THUMB system…..it's a joke. At least I hope it is. Anyone who cares about those thumbs has no life whatsoever, lol.
Standing up in fact to the posts with the most rec's, when it's dead wrong, is the essence of individualism. The agree or disagree function fosters herd mentality here. All it takes for some folks is to see a poster with a red flag. They don't even bother to read the post, just thumb it down and move on.
We have several "red flag" posters who have very relevant and interesting things to say. I don't always agree, but I always enjoy discussing issues with them and at least two of them are very civil and very astute in the points they make. One even changed my mind on a topic cause his argument was more compelling and more reasonable. It made me see I was the one having the "knee jerk" moment.
Decisions like this court case cause us "conservatives" to realize we really are still VERY different and hold very different views on some individual topics. We, the TP, the conservatives, are not in lock step any more than everyone who calls themselves a "liberal."
This is, I hope, eye opening heading into the election. We all won't like the final candidate. We all will find points of disagreement among ourselves over each one. This fantasy that "anybody but" will automatically get our vote is silly. I'm not throwing my vote away on someone I think won't be any better…..just different means to the same end. And I'll bet lots of folks here don't talk about it much but they won't support a total RINO just cause it's not obama. RINOs are no better. Just different to the same degree of bad.
It's kind of sad when there's more substance in comments than the articles themselves … well maybe not, but I am getting bored with a lot of mediocre pablum stories in the last months.
Thank you for saying "What you or I believe doesn't change that fact"
Pornography IS protected by the 1st Amendment, plain and simple, "belief" doesn't enter into it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.