Discussion: The Supreme Court II

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

SCOTUS FINDS CALIFORNIA BAN OF VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES TO MINORS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_884991.html

This Court has made a lot of decisions in the last week that I have strongly disagreed with in their effort to empower a corporate ruling class as much as possible....however, I very much agree with this decision. Unless it is broadcasting, the government has no power or right to regulate media under under the First Amendment and this type of content control is a slap in the face of free speech. Parents don't need the government doing their job for them. Finally, a good decision.

I have to disagree. If the speech would serve to incite violence, cause injury to innocent people, or belittle or harass another person in a violent or sexual nature then it should be subject to regulation or even criminal penalties.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by dnno1

I have to disagree. If the speech would serve to incite violence, cause injury to innocent people, or belittle or harass another person in a violent or sexual nature then it should be subject to regulation or even criminal penalties.

Video games don't do that. And words are just words.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by dnno1

I have to disagree. If the speech would serve to incite violence, cause injury to innocent people, or belittle or harass another person in a violent or sexual nature then it should be subject to regulation or even criminal penalties.

Video games do not incite violence, much less tell people to kill people. This is an age old debate. However, to date there has not been a single concrete study that legitimately proved that violent media (video games, cinema, music, literature, comic books, etc.) cause violent behavior. Desensitization to other violent media (how people who see a lot of horror movies become less scared of them)? Sure. But that doesn't mean they're going to pick up a machete and emulate Jason. The cause-effect people imagine seems to be something like cognitive dissonance to me.

In short, there is no evidence that playing GTA or some mindless FPS war game is going to cause children to start running over civilians in highjacked cars. With that said, I can completely understand why parents don't want their children playing them. That means refusing to buy them for their children and taking them away if the kids still somehow get copies of them. Don't ask the government to infringe the Constitution to do your parenting. Let's be honest.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

Video games do not incite violence, much less tell people to kill people. This is an age old debate. However, to date there has not been a single concrete study that legitimately proved that violent media (video games, cinema, music, literature, comic books, etc.) cause violent behavior. Desensitization to other violent media (how people who see a lot of horror movies become less scared of them)? Sure. But that doesn't mean they're going to pick up a machete and emulate Jason. The cause-effect people imagine seems to be something like cognitive dissonance to me.

In short, there is no evidence that playing GTA or some mindless FPS war game is going to cause children to start running over civilians in highjacked cars. With that said, I can completely understand why parents don't want their children playing them. That means refusing to buy them for their children and taking them away if the kids still somehow get copies of them. Don't ask the government to infringe the Constitution to do your parenting. Let's be honest.

You and I may not agree on much, but when we do, you're so spot on.

[bell110]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

SCOTUS FINDS CALIFORNIA BAN OF VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES TO MINORS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_884991.html

This Court has made a lot of decisions in the last week that I have strongly disagreed with in their effort to empower a corporate ruling class as much as possible....however, I very much agree with this decision. Unless it is broadcasting, the government has no power or right to regulate media under under the First Amendment and this type of content control is a slap in the face of free speech. Parents don't need the government doing their job for them. Finally, a good decision.

It's a good ruling, and quite honestly, I'm shocked by it.

[hippie_hunter]

I'm not, the courts have always defended the First Amendment pretty vigorously.

[Marx]

According to the AP, the Supreme Court is preparing to revisit affirmative action by taking up a case from Texas where a caucasian student claims that he was denied admission into the University of Texas based on race.

[Matt]

Talk is circulating that the House of Representatives is considering reviewing the possibility of impeaching Elena Kagan for her refusal to recuse herself from the Obamacare case (which she worked on as solicitor general).

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Only her, though? I'd heard there was another justice, Thomas I believe, that also had a conflict of interest and didn't recuse themself either.

[hippie_hunter]

Both Kagan and Thomas should have recused themselves in the Obamacare case IMO.

[SentinelMind]

I don't see a reason Thomas had to recuse himself. Being married to an activist who is passionate about politics isn't enough in my reason. It doesn't make you a direct party in the case. The left was just trying a tit for tat because they understood the compelling reason Kagan had to recuse herself. She worked on the legislation herself and worked for one of the parties in the case.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by SentinelMind

I don't see a reason Thomas had to recuse himself. Being married to an activist who is passionate about politics isn't enough in my reason. It doesn't make you a direct party in the case. The left was just trying a tit for tat because they understood the compelling reason Kagan had to recuse herself. She worked on the legislation herself and worked for one of the parties in the case.

It's a conflict of interest because in the end, his wife's interests are his interests as well. Kagan proved in oral arguments that she was not impartial the way a judge should be.

They're both guilty of being unprofessional.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Video games don't do that. And words are just words.

But they can. And whey the do cross that line, they can be subject to regulation. I really believe that the Supreme Court did not want to rule in favor of California because the did not want to create a new category of speech that could b regulated. Furthermore, the video game industry has for the most part done a very good job of policing themselves.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by dnno1

But they can. And whey the do cross that line, they can be subject to regulation.

I'm really starting to believe that you believe in Big Brother

I really believe that the Supreme Court did not want to rule in favor of California because the did not want to create a new category of speech that could b regulated.

More along the lines that the Supreme Court has been rather consistent in protecting free speech.

Furthermore, the video game industry has for the most part done a very good job of policing themselves.

The media has always been like this out of fear of the government. Comic books, music, and movies have all done the exact same things when the government put a lot of pressure on them.

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

Videogames have a ratings label for a reason. Parents should figure that out.

[Franklin Richards]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

More along the lines that the Supreme Court has been rather consistent in protecting free speech.

Consistently ignoring the First Amendment.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Pagan]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Video games don't do that. And words are just words.

So Radio Rwanda was just an exercise of free speech?

Words can be used to incite. To enslave. To empower. To calm. To hurt.
What is the Bible but just words?
What is the Constitution? What is the Declaration of Independence? The Pledge of Allegiance?
Words are thoughts communicated.
They are powerful.