1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SCOTUS: Video game ban unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by MisterCreosote, Jun 27, 2011.

  1. JonnyD

    JonnyD Member

    The government sponsoring speech to counter the free speech of citizens is a bit chilling.
     
  2. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    So I assume you'd be just as jubilant if a law overthrowing restrictions on minors' access to porn were overturned. I can see the free speech argument, but it's a hypocrisy to see sex as something much more vital to restrict than violence. That's topsy-turvy
     
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Dooley - My objection to the California statute is legal, not policy. The porn ban grew out of the already existing doctrine that obscenity is less protected speech. There was precedent to build upon. Not so here. You'd have to carve out a brand new exception to the First Amendment. The state certainly made the argument that the violence ban is just an outgrowth of the pornography ban (not ban, but the right to ban, I guess is more accurate), but I didn't buy it and neither did seven of the justices. Namely because of what Scalia said - right or wrong, violence has always been a part of kids entertainment. My take might be different if we were discussing a Constitutional amendment to exclude violence for children from First Amendment protection, but that's not what was going on here. And as much as people tend to see Supreme Court decisions through a policy lens, there is a big distinction.
     
  4. JonnyD

    JonnyD Member

    Well, there was the striking down of the Communications Decency Act.
     
  5. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    Sounds great. Less government, the better. Don't tread on me.
     
  6. printdust

    printdust New Member

    And in other news, in our town the other day a friend of a friend told us that their adult neighbors let their 16 year old daughter sleep IN HER ROOM with her 16 year old boyfriend.

    Their reason? "We figure they'll do it anyway. At least we know where they were last night."

    Here's you $100 kid. Go build you a bomb.
     
  7. J-School Blue

    J-School Blue Member

    We have decided as a society that pornography is essentially its own class of speech, and it's treated fundamentally differently than anything else is treated.

    Whether this is right or wrong is subject for debate, but the distinction is pretty clear and thus far hasn't bled over into regulation of other types of media.

    I don't think violent video games should be placed in the same class of 'stuff we need to treat really, really differently' as pornography.

    I also think the way your friend's friends are raising their kids is fundamentally none of my business unless they are abusing said kid or encouraging said kid to commit crimes (ie: the bomb-making analogy), which it doesn't not sound like they are. So I won't be swinging by their house to shake my finger at them any time soon. What others do with their own time is their own business.
     
  8. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Yes, I get that porn is treated differently, without any logical underpinning. Maybe if Hollywood had had John Wayne do love scenes instead of gunfights, this anomaly would not have occurred. And yes, I guess I am arguing more for parental responsibility on porn to replace governmental sanction. That violence is OK but porn isn't is a sad statement about society
     
  9. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    What a copout. Someday there has to be a precedent. These folks, by not setting one, set one, I suppose
     
  10. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    I consider it government allowing more people the ability to have free speech.

    Frankly, I'd love to see the day when someone gets busted for soliciting a hooker, then take it to court and claim that their free speech rights are being violated because money = speech.
     
  11. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    It's not a copout. The Constitution was ratified in the 18th century. The Bill of Rights has frequently been evaluated, as guidance, based upon how the amendments would have been understood at that time. At other times, judges have tried to apply that understanding to a changed world, to the best of their ability. At other times, judges have gone down the activist route and invented First Amendment law out of whole cloth. Even an originalist like Scalia follows their precedent because it becomes embedded as part of our law. But that doesn't mean that he or anyone else has to make the same mistakes in subsequent cases of first impression. Like you Dooley, I think the distinction is fairly stupid. But it is what it is.

    Now, if you are suggesting the obscenity exception be overturned, I'm on board with that. It was wrongly decided, largely unworkable, and would cause nary a ripple in our society and laws to get rid of it. But do you keep the ability to ban sales of porn to minors? Without the foundation of an obscenity exception? I don't know how you get there.
     
  12. JonnyD

    JonnyD Member

    That's an even harder stance to sell in this day and age, when sharing ideas with the masses is cheaper and easier than ever. As long as there are public libraries with internet access, every single person in the country has the opportunity to have free speech that has the potential to reach every other person.


    I'm not sure why you'd love it so much. The judge would instantly dismiss the argument and we'd all move on with our lives.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page