E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
apparently a ruling is forthcoming ...
Your post is very accurate. However, I suspect that violent video games, like it or not, will be protected under the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment, as well as Freedom of Expression. The intent of Free Speech and Freedom of Expression was never intended to be an "excuse" for violent games. The Court should find a balance in protecting the public from excessive violence for brains that are not fully developed in children and at the same time including the First Amendment.
kom526
They call me ... Sarcasmo
Keep the mature ratings in place and let the PARENTS decide what is right for their kids. It IS NOT THE JOB OF THE USSC TO DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT FOR OUR KIDS! If they start banning violent images in video games then what's next? Boxing? MMA? Baseball? Cartoons? Literature?
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
some weak minded persons might be influenced .......
but the Dalhmer did not have video games to get him started ....
I have been play these games for 15 yrs (Postal or Manhunter Never Thrilled me) I don't go around capping people my son and I used to play Half Life death match .... when he was younger than 10 .... he turned out fine ... and his 5 yr old sister used to watch .....
"..... daddy, did you kill Eddie again ..... "
.... yes dear I did .....
but the Dalhmer did not have video games to get him started ....
I have been play these games for 15 yrs (Postal or Manhunter Never Thrilled me) I don't go around capping people my son and I used to play Half Life death match .... when he was younger than 10 .... he turned out fine ... and his 5 yr old sister used to watch .....
"..... daddy, did you kill Eddie again ..... "
.... yes dear I did .....
LordStanley
I know nothing
How about the Supreme Court tackles the stupid parents that buy there 10 yr olds the Violent Video Games...
Tilted
..
I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict that we get a ruling in this case today. It was argued back in November and every case argued before it has already been decided. The Supreme Court's term is winding down now, so we should be getting the remaining opinions at an accelerated rate.
It wouldn't be the USSC deciding what is right for our kids. It's California that is purporting to do that. The Supreme Court is just deciding whether California is violating the Constitution in doing so.
It wouldn't be the USSC deciding what is right for our kids. It's California that is purporting to do that. The Supreme Court is just deciding whether California is violating the Constitution in doing so.
Tilted
..
Four more opinions were issued this morning, but this one remains undecided. It can't be much longer now, there aren't a lot of undecided cases left from this term.
EDIT: We got four decisions today, but we actually only got three opinions. Flores-Villar v U.S. was affirmed by an equally divided court with no opinion being issued.
EDIT: We got four decisions today, but we actually only got three opinions. Flores-Villar v U.S. was affirmed by an equally divided court with no opinion being issued.
Last edited:
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
rock paper scissors isn't working 
PsyOps
Pixelated
The fact that they would even take this case baffles me. I mean it makes about as much sense to ban 'violent' video games as it does to ban the TV sets that display them. Once they make such a decision, don't they have to decide what constitutes 'violence' in terms of what's dangerous to children? Where will the line be drawn?
Tilted
..
If you're opposed to these kinds of laws (which is what I infer from your post), wouldn't you want the Supreme Court to take this kind of case and make it clear that they aren't permitted? Again, it wasn't the Supreme Court that enacted the law, it is just doing its job and determining whether or not that law violates the Constitution (after having been asked to do so).
It HAS to be soon.
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
I guess today is it then ..........
nothing like waiting until the last
nothing like waiting until the last
Tilted
..
Here is the decision. The Court ruled that the California law violates the First Amendment and affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision permanently enjoining its enforcement.
Justice Scalia wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Alito wrote an opinion concurring in judgment, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, as did Justice Breyer. So, for those keeping score, it looks like there were 7 votes to strike down the law and 2 to uphold it (at least facially).
Justice Scalia wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Alito wrote an opinion concurring in judgment, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, as did Justice Breyer. So, for those keeping score, it looks like there were 7 votes to strike down the law and 2 to uphold it (at least facially).
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
can you summarize at some point the decanting Justices argument ...
I agree we should keep violent video games from 10 yr olds, although I think PARENTING is the bigger issue .......... we did not have such things when Dalhmer was munching Asians in the 90's