Supreme Court rules that video games are Constitutionally protected expression

bobman1235

BlueFox wrote: »

why is there a distinction between sexual and violent obscenity? Violent images can be just as offensive as pornography, particularly in the vivid detail video games allow.

Just AS offensive? I can't imagine a single argument you can make where "normal" nudity / sexuality are MORE offensive / damaging to minors than violence.

nooshinjohn

bobman1235 wrote: »

Just AS offensive? I can't imagine a single argument you can make where "normal" nudity / sexuality are MORE offensive / damaging to minors than violence.

I saw my mother-in- aws naked **** a week ago and I am forever traumatized by that vision. I had to fight the overwhelming urge to claw my eyes out, and have had horrible nightmares since.:eek:

bobman1235

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I saw my mother-in- aws naked **** a week ago and I am forever traumatized by that vision. I had to fight the overwhelming urge to claw my eyes out, and have had horrible nightmares since.:eek:

Wow. Never have I felt more swiftly and perfectly put in my place.

:biggrin:

inspiredsports

Post # 32 by Gahaga632 reported as spam for removal

nspindel

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I saw my mother-in- aws naked **** a week ago and I am forever traumatized by that vision. I had to fight the overwhelming urge to claw my eyes out, and have had horrible nightmares since.:eek:

And I'm sure she appreciates you telling us all about it on the internet! :biggrin:

nooshinjohn

nspindel wrote: »

And I'm sure she appreciates you telling us all about it on the internet! :biggrin:

It's part of my ongoing, life-long recovery that I share with others the horrors of my experience. I am glad it was only me and not my little nephew. The damage that could have been done to him is unspeakable.

The next hurdle for me in my recovery is getting past the thought that my wife may very well look like her mother in 35 more years.:eek::eek::eek:

cnh

Two questions there, John:

1. What will 'you' look like in 35 years...or should we not go there?

2. How does one even get a glimpse of your mother-in-law in that state....this is, probably, a question best left unanswered!!

cnh

nooshinjohn

Question 1...
Hopefully I will look like me, only a bit more "distinguished" John Forsythe kind of way.

Question 2...

She just started disrobing in front of the entire family in the living room, forgetting that I was there.

kuntasensei

So how many dollars did you tuck in her g-string before you realized you were in the wrong place?

nooshinjohn

^^^lmao!:biggrin:

nspindel

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Question 2...

She just started disrobing in front of the entire family in the living room, forgetting that I was there.

Funny, that never happens to me.

kuntasensei

nspindel wrote: »

Funny, that never happens to me.

Clearly, you've never been to Mississippi.

nspindel

True!

BlueFox

bobman1235 wrote: »

Just AS offensive? I can't imagine a single argument you can make where "normal" nudity / sexuality are MORE offensive / damaging to minors than violence.

First, don't quote a newspaper editorial and attribute it to me. Just because I posted the editorial does not mean I wrote it. :rolleyes: Or even agree with the whole thing.

Anyway, they (not me) said "Violent images can be just as offensive as pornography". Granted, that is a judgement call. However, when I think of pornography I do not imagine " "normal" nudity / sexuality ", and, while I cannot speak for the editorial writer, I doubt if that is what they meant. There is some pretty wild stuff on the Internet that, while maybe 'normal' to some people, can be considered out of the norm for most others.

Anyway, I still have mixed feelings on this law. There are good arguements on both sides.

Demiurge

I disagreed with the California law and I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling on it.

Even though our rights are subject to limitations, I believe that our freedom of speech should have broad protections under the U.S. Constitution. However, the California law did not bar anyone from producing violent video games so nobody's freedom of expression had been infringed. It did, however, prohibit the sale to minors. I find it acceptable for a state to be able to pass stupid laws so long as those laws are Constitutional, as this one was.

As it stands, this wasn't an issue of upholding anyone's right to free expression. Had it been that, I would hope that the SCOTUS would strike down such a law as unconstitutional.

Bad ruling.

bobman1235

BlueFox wrote: »

First, don't quote a newspaper editorial and attribute it to me. Just because I posted the editorial does not mean I wrote it. :rolleyes: Or even agree with the whole thing.

Don't be all c**ty. I didn't "attribute" it to you, I just quoted you because it was easier to do so. My comment was directed at the general "you" not the specific "BlueFox" you.

Anyway, I still have mixed feelings on this law. There are good arguements on both sides.

Agreed.

mrbigbluelight

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Question 2...
She just started disrobing in front of the entire family in the living room, forgetting that I was there.

Not necessary for you to have to explain the unfortunate circumstances behind the incident, however it is necessary that you Post Pix or it didn't happen.

..... and yes, things have been extra slow at the Ponderosa lately.


They tried to ban comic books back in the '50's. Not violent comic books, not sexually explicit comic books, but ALL comic books. Seems they were contributing to the decline of the youth of the day.

If we want to ban literature/writings that are known to cause conflict, injuries, and death than we should ban ....... certain writings. :rolleyes:

Ditto for video games.

I don't need the government babysitting me or my kids any more than it does now.
If you do, my sympathies, along with the suggestion you get off the Freedom Bus and get out ot the country. There are plenty of countries around the world with goverments that will think for you and watch your kids.

-scoot- -scoot- -scoot- Okay, I'm putting my soapbox away now.

inspiredsports

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

Not necessary for you to have to explain the unfortunate circumstances behind the incident, however it is necessary that you Post Pix or it didn't happen.

..... and yes, things have been extra slow at the Ponderosa lately.


They tried to ban comic books back in the '50's. Not violent comic books, not sexually explicit comic books, but ALL comic books. Seems they were contributing to the decline of the youth of the day.

If we want to ban literature/writings that are known to cause conflict, injuries, and death than we should ban ....... certain writings. :rolleyes:

Ditto for video games.

I don't need the government babysitting me or my kids any more than it does now.
If you do, my sympathies, along with the suggestion you get off the Freedom Bus and get out ot the country. There are plenty of countries around the world with goverments that will think for you and watch your kids.

-scoot- -scoot- -scoot- Okay, I'm putting my soapbox away now.

Careful, Face will suggest you need a beer :biggrin:

(woo hoo, post 4,000)

schwarcw

cfrizz wrote: »

Basically parents have to be parents & monitor what games their kids are playing. Even if they buy the game, w/o their parents knowledge, it should be confiscated once it is brought home.

Police your kids so that the govt doesn't have to.

Right on Cathy! In my house the Supreme Court's opinions don't matter. The laws are made by me and my wife for what our child can and cannot do.

quadzilla

Yeah, problem is, you guys seem to be more of the exception nowadays, rather than the rule. Far too many people expect teachers, cops the courts, and government to raise their kids and keep them safe, as well as preparing them for "the world". And TV is their baby sitter.

Willow

kuntasensei wrote: »

Amen, SISTER. Amen.

Corrected for you......

tonyb

quadzilla wrote: »

Yeah, problem is, you guys seem to be more of the exception nowadays, rather than the rule. Far too many people expect teachers, cops the courts, and government to raise their kids and keep them safe, as well as preparing them for "the world". And TV is their baby sitter.

Interesting view....unfortunately not far from the truth. I often wonder if income level, entitlements, plays a role in this. Maybe for alot of it but not all as I have seen many upper income parents too busy making the coin to be bothered with parenting.

cfrizz

Sorry Tony, but I would say it's the other way around, or a non issue altogether, since it seems that all classes have this problem. The poor simply want to make money anyway they can and the upper income do it just for kicks.

The other problem is the fact that all newspapers & media only broadcast the poor areas crimes, and ignore the supposed better class areas.

I live in one of those areas and there is a HUGE drug problem with arrests made daily, but all they ever talk about are the poor minority areas.

It's wrong all the way around.

bobman1235

cfrizz wrote: »

The poor simply want to make money anyway they can and the upper income do it just for kicks.

Some poor want to make money by working for it, while quite a few others think they deserve to be given that money. If you're saying that that mentality doesn't exist, you're delusional.

The REALLy scary part is that even those who say they would never abuse the system, when given the opportunity, often do. I had two different friends get laid off in the past few years, both of whom were always outspoken proponents of welfare reform and making sure people don't abuse the system. They both eventually got jobs, but not before deciding to "take a little time off" because "they earned it," all while getting paid from the state. Joke.

cfrizz

Of course some do. My point, is that this problem cannot be laid on just one segment of the populations door.

bobman1235 wrote: »

Some poor want to make money by working for it, while quite a few others think they deserve to be given that money. If you're saying that that mentality doesn't exist, you're delusional.

The REALLy scary part is that even those who say they would never abuse the system, when given the opportunity, often do. I had two different friends get laid off in the past few years, both of whom were always outspoken proponents of welfare reform and making sure people don't abuse the system. They both eventually got jobs, but not before deciding to "take a little time off" because "they earned it," all while getting paid from the state. Joke.

tonyb

cfrizz wrote: »

Of course some do. My point, is that this problem cannot be laid on just one segment of the populations door.

I wasn't trying to do that Cathy, sorry if it sounded that way. My own personal observations include all classes of people, but I want to say more so on the lower end of the scale.

Just curious really as to what others experience on the subject matter.

BIZILL

my, oh my how views change as we age and more so when we become parents. bad ruling. so basically, kids can now just go in and buy gta series without issue? bad. kids always want to step past projected limitations regardless of what the parents tell them. a LITTLE bit of government is good in my book. too much becomes disastrous. it's nice to know others will be keeping minors in check if the kids are out to disregard what their folks tell them.

i was THAT kid when younger. now i'm THAT parent who has to be watchdog over the boys. of course, at $50-$60 a game, it'd be hard for any kid to just go out and purchase them, though it can be done. in any regard, it's my choice what i expose them to. next thing you know the fed will be throwing parents in jail for keeping these games out of childrens' hands.

funny too, normally i'm against just about any legislation. but i think this one was best kept in place.

F1nut

All video games should be banned. Complete waste of time and money....there, I said it.

tommyboy

BIZILL wrote: »

my, oh my how views change as we age and more so when we become parents. bad ruling. so basically, kids can now just go in and buy gta series without issue? bad. kids always want to step past projected limitations regardless of what the parents tell them. a LITTLE bit of government is good in my book. too much becomes disastrous. it's nice to know others will be keeping minors in check if the kids are out to disregard what their folks tell them.

i was THAT kid when younger. now i'm THAT parent who has to be watchdog over the boys. of course, at $50-$60 a game, it'd be hard for any kid to just go out and purchase them, though it can be done. in any regard, it's my choice what i expose them to. next thing you know the fed will be throwing parents in jail for keeping these games out of childrens' hands.

funny too, normally i'm against just about any legislation. but i think this one was best kept in place.

This has been talked about before. Just as in movies and music, the industry will enforce its own warnings, it just won't be illegal from the governments point of view. Kids still won't be able to go to the store and buy M-rated games, just like kids still can't go to a movie theater to see an R rated movie.

tommyboy

F1nut wrote: »

All video games should be banned. Complete waste of time and money....there, I said it.

Some people said that to me about my audio system, do you think I listened to them.