Interesting SCOTUS ruling on violent video games.

• majorspark

  

  queencitybuckeye;816588 wrote:You've said this twice, and regardless of what the founders' intentions may or may not have been, you are wrong twice. The 1st Amendment goes WAY beyond just political speech.

  Yes I did but you failed to include what I posted just a few posts up.
  

  Freedom of speech in the constitution is primarily in the context of political expression for or against the government. That is the holy grail that should never be touched. I don't believe freedom of speech is limited to just political expression but outside of that non political expression has been reasonably restricted by all levels of government. I am sorry but prohibiting a 10yr old from purchasing a video game that allows them to simulate violent crime on other human beings does not limit anyone's free speech and is not what the 1st amendment was meant to protect.

  I noted that freedom of speech is primarily in the context of political expression. I clarified that freedom of speech is not limited to just political expression. Show me where I am wrong.
• I Wear Pants

  I'd argue that it is no longer primarily in the context of political expression even if it may have originally been intended for that. At least legally speaking because of our judicial history it has become much more broad in its meaning.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;817031 wrote:And majorspark, aren't you usually a "keep the government out of it type of guy" and a "not the job of the government to parent our children". I find it odd that you change those views in this case.

  In principle I am. Primarily I am a constitutional originalist. I adhere to that above all else. Even at times against my own personal beliefs. Gay marriage and abortion would be a couple of examples. There is no change in my views. Like I said I personally believe the California law is unnecessary. Parents should know what is going in in their house. I just can't find where in the hell the federal government has the authority to for all intents and purposes repeal a state law governing the activities of minors. Claiming free speech rights when they don't even possess the basic free speech right to vote.
• queencitybuckeye

  majorspark;817081 wrote:Yes I did but you failed to include what I posted just a few posts up.
  
  
  
  I noted that freedom of speech is primarily in the context of political expression. I clarified that freedom of speech is not limited to just political expression. Show me where I am wrong.

  
  Rights are binary, you have them or you don't. They aren't primarily anything.
• LJ

  

  majorspark;817078 wrote:This is good. The state passing a law backing them up is bad? Industry does not get a pass on other perceived constitutional issues.

  The 1st amendment protects the GOVERNMENT from limiting free speech, not private industry. Just like we can censor posters on here as much as we want without a constitutional issue.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  LJ;817107 wrote:The 1st amendment protects the GOVERNMENT from limiting free speech, not private industry. Just like we can censor posters on here as much as we want without a constitutional issue.

  
  100% correct, and to an earlier point the MPAA and cinema owners regulate themselves. It isn't as if the state governs over R rated or PG-13 films, and if they did I'm sure SCOTUS would rule likewise, or else the government could effectively prevent young people from seeing a film they don't want them to see.
• fan_from_texas

  You keep citing the 9th A., which has zero relevance here. The 9th A. says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." How is that relevant here? Speech is addressed in the 1st A. We're not dealing with something outside the Constitution; we're dealing with something specifically enumerated within the Constitution. Continually citing to a provision that has zero relevance here is mind-boggling--it just doesn't make any sense.
  
  None of the justices addressed the point you're raising. Breyer's dissent argued that the law was narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest; Thomas focused on the vagueness and precedent re similar limitations. Neither the majority nor concurrence addressed the issue. The parties didn't raise your favored argument at any level.
  
  So we're stuck with a situation here: dozens (perhaps hundreds) of lawyers and jurists across the country were involved with this case. These are very smart people who devote their lives to understanding these issues. After spending years looking at the case, none of them thought the argument you're supporting was worth raising. The leading libertarian legal academic blog, Volokh, didn't even raise the issue because it's so utterly tangential and irrelevant.
  
  So we have two possibilities: (1) all of these people with all of their training and viewpoints that cut across the entire spectrum from left to right to libertarian to everything in-between completely missed this issue after years of research and high-stakes litigation; or (2) a random OC'er with no legal training might possibly be wrong.
  
  I'm inclined to believe the latter.
• majorspark

  

  LJ;817107 wrote:The 1st amendment protects the GOVERNMENT from limiting free speech, not private industry. Just like we can censor posters on here as much as we want without a constitutional issue.

  Note percieved constitutional issues. I agree the constitution is in the context of limiting government. If a private industry wants to hire only white males they can. Even without any laws in todays world they would not do that because it would not be good for business. The vast majority would self regulate themselves. But there are state laws on the books forbidding discrimination against race, gender etc. that back that up. I have no problem with such reasonable laws and the state is within its authority to do so.
• fan_from_texas

  majorspark;817486 wrote: If a private industry wants to hire only white males they can.

  Are you sure about that? Better take a look at Title VII of the Civil Rights Act . . .
• Devils Advocate

  

  majorspark;817486 wrote:Note percieved constitutional issues. I agree the constitution is in the context of limiting government. If a private industry wants to hire only white males they can. Even without any laws in todays world they would not do that because it would not be good for business. The vast majority would self regulate themselves. But there are state laws on the books forbidding discrimination against race, gender etc. that back that up. I have no problem with such reasonable laws and the state is within its authority to do so.

  The problem with this is What IS reasonable. You could say that it would seem reasonable for a law stopping people from handing Satanistic literature to children at the park, But at the same time would not have a problem with the same senario exept thet the literature is Christan in nature. Is one OK and not the other?
  
  Community standards are also a hot button. What is reasonable in this community?
  
  The problem with drawing a line is that some PERSON has to draw it.
• majorspark

  

  fan_from_texas;817350 wrote:So we're stuck with a situation here: dozens (perhaps hundreds) of lawyers and jurists across the country were involved with this case. These are very smart people who devote their lives to understanding these issues. After spending years looking at the case, none of them thought the argument you're supporting was worth raising. The leading libertarian legal academic blog, Volokh, didn't even raise the issue because it's so utterly tangential and irrelevant.
  
  So we have two possibilities: (1) all of these people with all of their training and viewpoints that cut across the entire spectrum from left to right to libertarian to everything in-between completely missed this issue after years of research and high-stakes litigation; or (2) a random OC'er with no legal training might possibly be wrong.
  
  I'm inclined to believe the latter.

  (3) I just have a different opinion.
  
  I have my own opinons. I do not conform to the masses. Definitely at times could be wrong. You are a lawyer. Don't get your panties in a bunch because an unwashed commoner like myself dares to have a different opinion on a SCOTUS decision than all the great legal minds. I respect the knowledge lawyers possess concerning court decisions like this. Its their job and they devote their live to it. I am not going to drop to my knees and worship every word that decend from all the legal minds. When I disagree I will voice it and why. It will not be in an ignorant manner. I am not going to post false information. Just my opinion. One can respectfully disagree.
  
  I have a different governmental philosophy than many of my fellow Americans. How I interpret the constitution and the separation of powers. The role of the judiciary. It forms my opinions on matters such as this.
• majorspark

  

  fan_from_texas;817492 wrote:Are you sure about that? Better take a look at Title VII of the Civil Rights Act . . .

  I was talking in the context of the constitution. LJ was referring to a portion of the constitution and that its purpose is to limit government. I agreed it was to limit government not industry. You are referring to law that was passed making it illegal to do so. I pointed out that states have passed such laws as well and that it is illegal.
• majorspark

  

  Devils Advocate;817522 wrote:The problem with drawing a line is that some PERSON has to draw it.

  You are exaclty right. The declaration of Independence states that our rights are endowed by our creator. They are not granted by government. Now we have to create a goverment of men to guard and preserve the God given rights. At some point, at some level of governance, a group of persons is going to have to draw a line as to what is reasonable. 9 people in black robes, the federal legislature, the federal executive, state legislatures, local governments.
  
  Ultimately though the people themselves are the care takers. If one of these groups draws a "reasonable" line and the people can seek to change that through their elected representation. If that don't work than the can do what the founders did and through off that government.
• I Wear Pants

  I may have missed it or forgot to ask it but would you have the same opinion if the law was one banning the sale of violent books to minors (read as: The Bible)?
• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants;817031 wrote:Because none of the restrictions he applied were a relevant comparison. This is nothing like alcohol, tobacco, or pornography.

  
  I'm still not sold on categorizing video games/simulated activites as "speech" protected under the First Amendment. Under "speech" there is a definite exchange of ideas, whether spoken, written, artistic, etc. And the x-rated magazines and movies (mentioned by majorspark), which are already off limits to minors, would seem to be closer to "speech" than video games. Yet they are regulated in multiple ways at multiple levels (and rightly so). To quote one of his posts:
  

  I got it now. "Sexual speech" for minors = bad. Subject to regulation. "Violent speech" for minors = untouchable. Subject to no form of regulation. Unless of course it is a "hate crime".

• I Wear Pants

  How are video games not speech? Have you ever played one? There's more to them than just COD. Play Bioshock and tell me that isn't speech.
  
  Besides what I meant with the pornography thing is that obscenity is quite different from other forms of speech as far as what the government treats it as and there is a long legal history to go with that. They very rarely even consider adding new types of restrictions similar to what pornography has and when they do they vet them with an extreme amount of scrutiny. Video games have never been found to meet the criteria to put them in the same sort of "restricted" speech catagory as obscenity.
• stlouiedipalma

  http://stltoday.mycapture.com/mycapture/enlarge.asp?userphoto=0&image=36556892&event=157573&CategoryID=19221&thispage=1
• I Wear Pants

  Again, I think everyone is forgetting that there are lots of games that are more akin to literature (Bioshock, TES, Mass Effect, etc) in their presentation and fiction/writing quality than Call of Duty.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "And the x-rated magazines and movies (mentioned by majorspark), which are already off limits to minors, would seem to be closer to "speech" than video games."
  
  Again, this is self-regulated. It isn't as if the state can prevent someone from reading a Playboy magazine which is more of a political mag these days than it is a nudie mag - unless one enjoys pictures of heavily altered and airbrushed photos of barbie dolls.
  
  I have no idea why the 9th amendment is relevant.
• dwccrew

  

  fan_from_texas;817350 wrote:You keep citing the 9th A., which has zero relevance here. The 9th A. says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." How is that relevant here? Speech is addressed in the 1st A. We're not dealing with something outside the Constitution; we're dealing with something specifically enumerated within the Constitution. Continually citing to a provision that has zero relevance here is mind-boggling--it just doesn't make any sense.
  
  None of the justices addressed the point you're raising. Breyer's dissent argued that the law was narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest; Thomas focused on the vagueness and precedent re similar limitations. Neither the majority nor concurrence addressed the issue. The parties didn't raise your favored argument at any level.
  
  So we're stuck with a situation here: dozens (perhaps hundreds) of lawyers and jurists across the country were involved with this case. These are very smart people who devote their lives to understanding these issues. After spending years looking at the case, none of them thought the argument you're supporting was worth raising. The leading libertarian legal academic blog, Volokh, didn't even raise the issue because it's so utterly tangential and irrelevant.
  
  So we have two possibilities: (1) all of these people with all of their training and viewpoints that cut across the entire spectrum from left to right to libertarian to everything in-between completely missed this issue after years of research and high-stakes litigation; or (2) a random OC'er with no legal training might possibly be wrong.
  
  I'm inclined to believe the latter.

  
  Majorspark just got super owned.
• majorspark

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;817110 wrote:100% correct, and to an earlier point the MPAA and cinema owners regulate themselves. It isn't as if the state governs over R rated or PG-13 films, and if they did I'm sure SCOTUS would rule likewise, or else the government could effectively prevent young people from seeing a film they don't want them to see.

  It looks like the state governs it in Tennessee. This law has been on the books since 1989. It goes a lot farther that the California law. I don't know whether it has ever been challenged. It appears to me the Tennessee law most definitely would make it a criminal offense to sell a ticket to a minor to watch certain movies unless permitted to do so by a parent or guardian. Many R-rated movies would definitely fall under the content this forbids to be sold to a minor.
  

  TENNESSEE COMPILATION OF SELECTED LAWS ON CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES, 2010 EDITION
  TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED
  Title 39 Criminal Offenses
  Chapter 17 Offenses Against Public Health, Safety and Welfare
  Part 9 -Obscenity
  39-17-911. Sale, loan or exhibition of material to minors. -
  
  (a) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly sell or loan for monetary consideration or otherwise exhibit or make available to a minor:
  
  (1) Any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, video game, computer software game, or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body, that depicts nudity, sexual conduct, excess violence, or sado-masochistic abuse, and that is harmful to minors; or
  
  (2) Any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter, however reproduced, or sound recording, which contains any matter enumerated in subdivision (a)(1), or that contains explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violence, or sado-masochistic abuse, and that is harmful to minors.
  
  (b) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly exhibit to a minor for monetary consideration, or to knowingly sell to a minor an admission ticket or pass or otherwise admit a minor to premises whereon there is exhibited a motion picture, show or other presentation which, in whole or in part, depicts nudity, sexual conduct, excess violence, or sado-masochistic abuse, and which is harmful to minors.
  
  (c) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
  
  (d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the minor to whom the material or show was made available or exhibited was, at the time, accompanied by the person's parent or legal guardian, or by an adult with the written permission of the parent or legal guardian.
  
  [Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 2000, ch. 763, § 1.]

  http://www.tennessee.gov/tccy/tnchild/39/39-17-911.htm
  
  Tennessee law even tells retailers how to display this material in order to keep it away from the wandering eyes of a minor.
  

  TENNESSEE COMPILATION OF SELECTED LAWS ON CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES, 2010 EDITION
  TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED
  Title 39 Criminal Offenses
  Chapter 17 Offenses Against Public Health, Safety and Welfare
  Part 9 -Obscenity
  39-17-914. Display for sale or rental of material harmful to minors. -
  
  (a) It is unlawful for a person to display for sale or rental a visual depiction, including a videocassette tape or film, video game, computer software game, or a written representation, including a book, magazine or pamphlet, that contains material harmful to minors anywhere minors are lawfully admitted.
  
  (b) The state has the burden of proving that the material is displayed. Material is not considered displayed under this section if:
  
  (1) The material is:
  
  (A) Placed in �binder racks� that cover the lower two thirds (2/3) of the material and the viewable one third (1/3) is not harmful to minors;
  
  (B) Located at a height of not less than five and one half feet (5�&#65533 from the floor; and
  
  (C) Reasonable steps are taken to prevent minors from perusing the material;
  
  (2) The material is sealed, and, if it contains material on its cover that is harmful to minors, it must also be opaquely wrapped;
  
  (3) The material is placed out of sight underneath the counter; or
  
  (4) The material is located so that the material is not open to view by minors and is located in an area restricted to adults;
  
  (5) Unless its cover contains material which is harmful to minors, a video cassette tape or film is not considered displayed if it is in a form that cannot be viewed without electrical or mechanical equipment and the equipment is not being used to produce a visual depiction; or
  
  (6) In a situation if the minor is accompanied by the minor's parent or guardian, unless the area is restricted to adults as provided for in subdivision (b)(4).
  
  (c) A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor for each day the person is in violation of this section.
  
  [Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 1092, § 5; 2000, ch. 763, § 2.]

  http://www.state.tn.us/tccy/tnchild/39/39-17-914.htm
  
  The penalty for a Class A misdemeanor can be punishable by a $2,500 fine and/or 11 months and 29 days in jail.
  
  The penalty for a Class C misdemeanor can not be greater than thirty (30) days in jail and / or a fine not to exceed fifty dollars ($50.00).
• jhay78

  

  majorspark;819098 wrote:It looks like the state governs it in Tennessee. This law has been on the books since 1989. It goes a lot farther that the California law. I don't know whether it has ever been challenged. It appears to me the Tennessee law most definitely would make it a criminal offense to sell a ticket to a minor to watch certain movies unless permitted to do so by a parent or guardian. Many R-rated movies would definitely fall under the content this forbids to be sold to a minor.
  
  
  
  http://www.tennessee.gov/tccy/tnchild/39/39-17-911.htm
  
  Tennessee law even tells retailers how to display this material in order to keep it away from the wandering eyes of a minor.
  
  
  
  http://www.state.tn.us/tccy/tnchild/39/39-17-914.htm
  
  The penalty for a Class A misdemeanor can be punishable by a $2,500 fine and/or 11 months and 29 days in jail.
  
  The penalty for a Class C misdemeanor can not be greater than thirty (30) days in jail and / or a fine not to exceed fifty dollars ($50.00).

  
  Oh the horror! Tyranny and totalitarianism run amok in Tennessee! Surely it won't be long before all newspapers, TV, and all forms of entertainment are banned by the nazis who run that state.
  
  Seriously, I find myself agreeing with majorspark because I too have children. I'm just curious how many posters on here who agree with the Supreme Court also have children.
• fan_from_texas

  jhay78;819185 wrote:Seriously, I find myself agreeing with majorspark because I too have children. I'm just curious how many posters on here who agree with the Supreme Court also have children.

  
  I have a kid. I think it's best that his mother and I make decisions about his entertainment, not some bureaucrat in Madison.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  jhay78;819185 wrote:Oh the horror! Tyranny and totalitarianism run amok in Tennessee! Surely it won't be long before all newspapers, TV, and all forms of entertainment are banned by the nazis who run that state.
  
  Seriously, I find myself agreeing with majorspark because I too have children. I'm just curious how many posters on here who agree with the Supreme Court also have children.

  
  This is their obscenity statute - practically all states have it. But I can't think of any case where one has been upheld unless there was egregious sexual content that appealed to the "prurient interest." I'd hate to be be the Tennessee assistant AG that tries to argue that the state can prevent someone from renting Rambo V: This Time it's Serious. Read the statute - there is a provision that it has to be deemed "harmful to minors" - hence the compelling state interest. California couldn't meet the compelling interest burden, particularly when there is already a self-governing body.
• majorspark

  

  fan_from_texas;817350 wrote:You keep citing the 9th A., which has zero relevance here. The 9th A. says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." How is that relevant here? Speech is addressed in the 1st A. We're not dealing with something outside the Constitution; we're dealing with something specifically enumerated within the Constitution. Continually citing to a provision that has zero relevance here is mind-boggling--it just doesn't make any sense.

  Show me where in this thread where I cited the 9th amendment as a direct relevance to this particular SCOTUS decision. It was always indirect in nature. My only references to the 9th were in reference to other SCOTUS decisions or that enumerated rights arguably may get special treatment and the inconsistencies it may produce in judicial decisions.
  
  Let me ask you this question. Do you believe a non enumerated right has less legal/constitutional significance than one that was enumerated? I am not trying to be confrontational with my question. Just curious as to what your thoughts are. Like I said I have respect for the opinion of those that have devoted their life and career to the legal profession. I am sure you afford the same to some one like myself who similarly has devoted his life and career to engineering and business matters, concerning matters relevant to my profession.
  
  I respectfully may not agree. I would not disrespect a reasoned argument by an intelligent person like yourself into subjective matters concerning my profession. I don't think that is your intention. Without knowing someone personally and quickly grasping thoughts posted on a forum shit can be unintentionally taken out of context, or its intended meaning can be confused. The worlds of science and law are quite different. But there is a lot of subjective science out there. Regardless of historical precedence. I have read some compelling arguments from intelligent individuals not directly in the field.
  

  fan_from_texas;817350 wrote:None of the justices addressed the point you're raising. Breyer's dissent argued that the law was narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest; Thomas focused on the vagueness and precedent re similar limitations. Neither the majority nor concurrence addressed the issue. The parties didn't raise your favored argument at any level.

  From the minority:
  
  The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians. I would hold that the law at issue is not facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.
  
  I have stated in this thread my beliefs on original intent of the founders until so changed by the amendment process. The distension made mention of this. I have stated in this thread that constitutional rights applied to minors should be liberally interpreted. The minority agreed. In my opinion full constitutional rights are guaranteed only when the most basic constitutional right to vote is given. Prior to that full constitutional rights are given to adult parents or legal guardians to decide what a "legally" defined minor can or can't do.
  
  Prior to the 26th amendment the states possessed the power to define what age an individual was a competent adult with the ability to exercise his God given rights on his/her own and not through parental authority. Through the amendment process the states voluntarily gave up their authority to the federal government to determine a legal right to express the most important 1st amendment right to vote. As it should be. 18 being the age of fully afforded constitutional rights. This is case in point how I believe new federal powers should be disseminated.
  
  I would also note that that Jerry Brown attorney general of California, now governor, argued that the state of California should have the authority to regulate the purchase of material his states law for all intents and purposes deemed constitutionally defined minors not yet possessing full constitutional rights and not competent by law to purchase it on their own. Power was not given to the state to ban the material. But the full constitutional rights afforded to the parent was affirmed to the make that decision on behalf of the minor.
  
  I realize Jerry Brown is a convenient bed fellow. He would argue for federal power over his state if it benefited his political beliefs. Unless their is some kind of aggressious violation of state authority under the federal constitution I am more then comfortable with leaving these type of issues in the hands of state governments.
  
  A word of caution to my friends on the right enjoying a small "right leaning tilt" currently occupying the SCOTUS. A re-election of Obama and a continuing strong democrat presence in the Senate, coupled with the untimely departure of certain justices, and we would be in a whole new ball game. It could take a century to overturn judicial precedent. Their decisions affect all 300+ million of us.
  
  It only takes 5 people. The SCOTUS is very much a political body. Don't shit yourself. The pendulum will swing the other way.