Bozell Column: Losing Your Head at the Supreme Court
On Election Day, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case Schwarzenegger vs. Entertainment Merchants Association. The irony of this case name was obvious: the celebrated violent-action-hero governor of California had signed a bill into law in 2005 forbidding the sale of ultraviolent video games to minors, a law that lower federal courts prevented from ever going into effect.
Why should the Supremes care about this? After all, a year before that, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a law making it illegal for anyone under 14 years old to tan indoors under any circumstances. (Children from 14 to 18 can tan – with parental consent.) The fine for salon operators for each violation is as much as $2,500 per day. Somehow this did not become a cause celebre, and was not fought all the way to the Supreme Court. Indeed, 32 states are inhibiting the freedom of minors to tan, and no one cares.
But interfere with their right to fry their minds and there’s hell to pay. Video-game manufacturers don’t want politicians tampering with their sales to minors, so here comes the march of the First Amendment fundamentalists, who argue that the principle of freedom of speech covers the enthusiastic distribution and sale of every kind of child-corrupting media horror. For them there must be no helpful hurdle or brake for children to go around their parents and grab what Justice Samuel Alito called “the most violent, sadistic, graphic video game that can be developed.”
Paul Smith, a lawyer for the game manufacturers, argued that when they wrote the Bill of Rights, our founding fathers essentially guaranteed that a ten-year-old boy can acquire a game with graphic beheadings and disembowelments. “The existing solutions are perfectly capable of allowing this problem to be addressed,” Mr. Smith says, “assuming it is a problem.”
Assuming it’s a problem? Does Mr. Smith have children? Is he one of those parents who believes grade-schoolers should not only watch an incessant parade of graphic violence, but participate in it, interactively? You don't have to believe that every video-game player will act out his virtual violence in the real world to know it certainly will have noticeable anti-social effects on young children.
Requiring the parent to buy these games is hardly shredding the Constitution.
Smith's suggested hurdles for child purchases were the industry’s own ratings, blocking technologies, the cost of the games, and the difficulty of playing them at home in secret. Cheers for Justice Samuel Alito, who wasn't buying any of this foolishness.
“And you say there is no problem because 16-year-olds in California never have $50 available to go buy a video game, and because they never have TVs in their room and their parents are always home watching what they with their video games,” Alito asserted incredulously. “And the video games have features that allow parents to block the playing of violent video games, which can’t be overcome by a computer-savvy California 16-year-old. That’s why there is no problem, right?”
Smith also tried to argue that children's literature has traditionally involved graphically violent themes. Justice John Roberts, who has young children, shot back: "We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg with mercy, being merciless and decapitating them, shooting people in the leg so they fall down." Roberts was reading from a description of "Postal 2," a 2002 game often cited as ultraviolent. "We protect children from that. We don't actively expose them to that."
Let's hope the justices take the time to watch the promotional videos for “God of War 3.” It isn’t exactly “Little Red Riding Hood.” Made by sick minds at Sony for the PlayStation 3, it’s been promoted on YouTube in a clip showing how the protagonist Kratos (the main interactive character) graphically, slowly, realistically tears the head off Helios, the sun god. Sony obviously believes this is an awesome virtual feat for any twelve-year-old.
Sadly, you just can’t talk to some people about the psychological impact of scenes like this. Justice Sonia Sotomayor compared the effects of this violence to the violence in Bugs Bunny cartoons, which is beyond ridiculous.
Justice Elena Kagan tried to dismiss the whole content controversy by insisting that “Mortal Kombat” was “an iconic game, which I am sure half of the clerks who work for us spent considerable amounts of time in their adolescence playing.” The message: the kids will be all right. But “Mortal Kombat” was only “iconic” in that it was a gory first when it debuted in 1992, with game play like decapitations, electrocution, and ripping out the still-beating heart of an opponent with bare hands.
It makes you wonder how those Justices would feel if the game title was “Supreme Court Massacre.”
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Hell Hath No Fury Like A Gamer Scorned...
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:56am.
You seem to conveniently leave out your hero Justice Scalia's arguments, and I quote: "Justice Scalia asked how manufacturers would know what games are covered under the law, saying that if he was such a producer, he “wouldn’t know what to do.” Morazzini answered, “I think they would know what to do."; or "Justice Scalia asked how manufacturers would know what games are covered under the law, saying that if he was such a producer, he “wouldn’t know what to do.” Morazzini answered, “I think they would know what to do.;
"In response to comments from Justices that the statute was vague, Morazzini said that the state had to start somewhere, and that it could eventually build a consensus, to which Justice Scalia remarked, what would be next to be targeted after violence.. drinking? Smoking?";
"Justice Scalia wondered if the statute might eventually lead to a “California Office of Censorship” overseeing what could and could not be sold to kids, to which Morazzini responded that “California is not acting as a censor.”"
You also left out this bit by your other hero Justice Alito: "Justice Alito asked exactly what constituted a minor, is it a 17 year old? A 10 year old? He received the clarification from Morazzini that the statute considers minors under the age of 18 as one entire group."
Here are the facts, Jack [Thompson]: The PTC's claims that video game retailers have not done enough to prevent the sale of Mature-rated games to minors is dissproved by their OWN evidence, especially after you bring up their new follow-up study that says that the number has gone down from theur previous study of 20% to about 19%. Of course, even if it were 0%, it would still not be enough for you because the truth of the matter is you want these violent video games to be banned period, regardless of who buys it. That's Jack Thompson syndrome, and it might do you some good to avoid following in Jack Thompson's shoes of telling gamers to, and I quote "Got to Hell." How very Christian of him: I though the pupose of Chrisitians was to save people from Hell.
Of course, this ain't the first time people lie to get things they don't like banned: The great comic book purge of the 1950s was instigated by one Dr. Fredric Wertham, who it should be noted had tried to defend the Rosenbergs, who were found guilty of passing secret intelligence on Americam to the Soviet Union and were promptly executed.
That is why your argument can be summed up in two words: EPIC FAIL
Morazzini said that the state
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:03am.
Morazzini said that the state had to start somewhere, and that it could eventually build a consensus, to which Justice Scalia remarked, what would be next to be targeted after violence.. drinking? Smoking?"Justice Scalia is a little late to the party. Smoking is already targeted in movies deemed to have an influence on tweens and teenagers. (See my comment below). Not by law, but by the "consensus" of liberals. What we need is a national consensus that a desensitization to violence is worse for our kids than tobacco. So far we seem not to have arrived at that point.
Speaking of FAIL
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:04am.
First Paragraph Cut&Paste: FAIL
Spelling: FAIL
OVERALL: EPIC FAIL Now....."Got to Hell" hit and run troll.
I agree with Mr Bozell here sticks
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:23am.
I am a huge advocate for free speech, but for adults. I have played god of war 3 and there were scenes I wanted to look away but could not because I was part of the game.. This should not be watched by children, and I have no problem with anyone under 18 should not play this game.
Please answer me honestly and tell me you think this is exceptable for a 12 year old child to play.
shawn
Submitted by well99 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:14am.
That is to much for a 12 year old...but then so is Itchy and Scratchy from Simpsons.
Your right well
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:34pm.
As violent as it is Itchy and scratchy try to be humorous about it. god of war is one of the most violent games I ever played. The character Kratos is a very disturbed person and you have no choice as the player to kill innocents to advance in the game.shawn
Submitted by well99 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:53pm.
I havent played it.They do have ratings for games.GOW3 is mature which is 17.Just a note:Someone or something being hacked up is no different because there is humor with it.I think parent need to be parents and make sure of what their kids activities are.Including what games they are playing.With the internet it is easy to do.Also some of the games they have out..well they are pretty stupid and excessive.
Well
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:56pm.
I agree it should be up to parentsI see where you're going with this, Shawn...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:54am.
...but consider this. My impression of itchy and scratchy was that it was a metephor by the Simpsons creators illustrating how the general public was being desensitized by violent cartoons and by extension... violent video games. You shouldn't use this as an example to defend violent video games.
Thank you for agreeing that this game should not be played by children. I think that view is universal.
[haven't created a new signature yet... this new site is still buggy!]
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
My goodness! We are now in
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:06pm.
My goodness! We are now in favor of legislating morality?
Who are YOU or the state to decide what some 17 year old gamer is allowed to do in a fantasy? Should not this authority reside with the parents of said gamer?
What a silly argument NL
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:29pm.
Of course it's up to the parents. That is why they have to present when they buy the game.The problem is...
Submitted by dirtydan64 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 2:01pm.
that typical Liberals are always looking for a way out to relieve the Parents of there parental duty to over see what there "Children" are doing. playing, friends they have ect.. ect .... ect... Whose to say that these parents that are out to have these games banned, protected from children to buy shouldn't have kids in the first place ? Lets get real here, I know it's hard to grasp the concept of reality but for God's sake if the SCOTUS grants this power to the states or localities to ban and or have the oversight to restrict sales to persons under the age of 18 what the hell is gonna be next ? That's the real question that needs to be asked if this then what does the future hold for our young adults, minors and parents.
The Nanny State must be stopped and I'm not defpending Kalifornia as I could care less what happens to this state as a whole but when it impinges on my freedoms or others outside of there state borders then by God everyone needs to speak up and be heard !!!! To date those wacky scienstist still haven't proved that 2nd hand smoke is the leading cause of Cancer but were going to allow 3rd parties to legislate form there arm chairs on what the rest of the populist can or can't do ??? The state legislature should of never allowed this bill to make it to the well of the floor in Kalifornia let alone to their State Supreme Court !!! Time to wake the hell up people and time for Americans to do there job's as parents and start parenting !!!
It makes sense to protect children
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 2:09pm.
Alcohol and cigarettes are not sold to minors either. Parents have contol of what kids can watch on tv, but they would have no control of what games their kids play if there were no age restrictionsAlcohol and cigarettes are
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:24pm.
Alcohol and cigarettes are real, tangible items that can have deleterious effects on their users' bodies.
We are talking about FANTASY here. A video game is entirely unreal. Nothing which occurs in it has any real, tangible existence. If your avatar is killed in such a venue, your real tangible body suffers no effects. All other persons and things contained therein are not real.
I was talking about a previous thread of yours in the forum. I was pointing out YOUR hypocrisy, since these games are being regulated by the state for MORAL reasons.
No hypocrisy here NL
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:17pm.
I have always held the position that after you are over 18 that you can enjoy your individual freedoms, but not until you are 18. There is nudity, sex and profanity In a video game, just like a movie that is rated resticted Remember a restricted movie does not mean adults only, a minor is allowed to view it as long as accompanied by adult, just like a video game.If the state can decide who
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:08pm.
If the state can decide who is permitted to partake of certain 'vices', in this case based upon chronological age, then the state is most certainly legislating morality. This is something you have argued vehemently against in the past. That you condone state actions of this kind in some specific situations is rank hypocrisy. You are not truly opposed to the state legislating morality when that morality agrees with your own. What would you say if the state decided that users needed to be 19, 21 or even older to partake of these games? This is no different than arbitrarily deciding 18 year olds may consume this content but 17 year olds may not.
Come on NL
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:29pm.
Is this really NL or really an imposter? Is this the same man that slays trolls with one hand behind his back and always comes up with cogent points? Your comparision is bordering on grasping at straws. Once again, ok for arguments sake let's use My past words, that you are trying to use against me. Yes, parents have the right to police morality for our kids until they are 18. As far as the state goes, if a 12 year old is not allowed to go into a movie theater and watch Saw 3, without an adult present, then the same should go for buying Grand Theft Auto. Edit ok I sure hope I explained it to you so u understand Mr NL sir? But just in case you try to come after me with the hypocrisy angle again. Adults and adult entertainment =good. Children and adult entertainment without an adult present=bad. I hope I explained this clearly and we can let the horse rest in peaceThere are times when your
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:07pm.
There are times when your mind is completely concept-proof. I think this is one of them.
By prohibiting the sale of video games BASED UPON MORAL CONTENT to persons under a state specified age without parental consent, the state is legislating morality. The state is making an arbitrary decision about what constitutes age of consent to consume this content. This is no different than the state determining what the apppropriate age of consent is to consume alcohol, use tobacco, engage in sexual intercourse or view pornography.
You are in agreement with this policy. Therefore, you support the legislation of morality when it suits you.
Q.E.D.
I am in agreement with the policy
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:15pm.
because 18 is the age when people can join the army, view pornography and vote. ONE MORE TIME. You have to be 18, to watch a restricted movie or be with a parent or guardian over 18. the same should apply to violent video games.
Moral content can be legislated to minors, but not for adults. Yeesh NL. Adults are not children and children are not adults. Dude, let it go.
Actually you don't
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 5:15am.
"You have to be 18, to watch a restricted movie or be with a parent or guardian over 18."
You have to be 17, or with a guardian over 17. And here's another tidbit....the age restrictions on movies aren't law.
Some more tidbits
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:58pm.
NC-17, No one 17 and under is admitted.
R rated, Under the age of 17 must be acompanied by an adult over the age of 21.
NR and X (XXX) are not official ratings.
It also looks like some filmakers are getting irritated by the MPAA, There is also the FAB rating system, which is used for some direct to video releases (B movies).
And it looks like Michael Lauter is pissed too, he started a new voluntary rating system called VoMeR. Some movies will use it next year.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Movie makers are upset by the
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 1:15pm.
Movie makers are upset by the uber-conservatives at the MPAA because the organization has no accountability, and no room for negotiation. In fact, it's difficult to say even who is in charge of the mysterious MPAA.
NL207
Submitted by gfrrman on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:30pm.
Laws and rule of law to the left are ALWAYS a "grey area". The last D'bag I heard say that was John "I was in Vietnam(twice over gigilo) Kerry. The suit fits! as with shawn
'I was for the war before before I voted against it'...John(I was in Vietnam, threw my medals-self inflicted wounds to get them- over the White House fence) Freakin' Kerry
G
What is unfortunate is Bozell's
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:48pm.
What is unfortunate is Bozell's attempt to frame the issue in strictly liberal vs. conservative terms and using selective quotes to reinforce that percepton. One gets the impression that if the video were entitled "Supreme Court Liberals Massacred", Brent would be first in line at the nearest game store.
Jer
As would---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:02pm.
any conservative.
Conservative vs. liberal is a life force, you know.
Kinda like good (us conservative heroes) against evil (you liberal dudes and dudettes, or duds, for short).
MD
I will respectfully submit...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:57am.
...that violent video games can do far more damage, psychologically speaking, to the overall mental health of teens or even young adults, as much as alcohol, and tobacco can do to to the physical health of said individuals.
[still searching for that signature...]
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Every law legislates morality.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:04pm.
Forbidding murder legislates morality. Forbidding rape legislates morality. Punishing theft is legislating morality. All of these things are evil which is why the people passed laws to prevent them.
A person who is not of legal age is not an adult. That person is a child. Should the people pass laws to limit the exposure of children to objectionable material? I don't see why they can't. State's rights and all that. The first amendment applies to Congress in case you hadn't noticed, and "the people" most certainly does not include children.
Visions and Principles blog
Porn
Submitted by dbz77 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:51pm.
Can states forbid bookstores from selling copies of Penthouse or Mein Kampf to minors?
Penthouse, yes. Mein Kampf,
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:21pm.
Penthouse, yes. Mein Kampf, probably not.
Jer
In a word
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:29pm.
Yes.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Sorry, toney...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:48pm.
One word isn't enough.
On what grounds could a state prohibit the selling of Mein Kampf to a 17 year old?
Jer
Excuse me...Sorry, Denny. One word isn't etc.
LOL Jer
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:07am.
Did my name change confuse you? :-)
(you can call me either)
I was actually refering to the porn part.
but states have prohibited books to minors. And if a state can figure out how to ban Happy meals I'm sure it could find a way to ban MK.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
it wasn't a state banning happy meals ..... it was the
Submitted by porpoiseboy on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:27am.
completely insane city of san fran. i mean both the state AND the city are whacko.....i just lke to things straight.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
The best social program is a JOB...ronald reagan
That's true
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:16am.
And I knew it. (and technically they didn't ban happy meals, just the toy)
I guess I should have said that more clearly.
If a government entity in the US can figure out a way to ban happy meals, they could probably figure out a way to ban Mein Kampf.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Children aren't "people"?
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:18pm.
Exactly what are they, then?
Jer
Jer you
Submitted by gfrrman on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:06am.
better slow down. You may not realize the can of worms you are about to open so go discreetly. I don't like to have to call you what you are, but you are treading on DANGEROUS grounds here. Be delicate..please?..ie:
Children aren't "people"?...careful
G
Don't worry about it, gfrrman...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:45am.
I know exactly what the implications are with respect to my post as well as yours. That issue has been debated in depth here long before you began posting regularly, and I'm sure it will be debated much more in the future.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by gfrrman on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:48am.
....finally something that which we can AGREE! That is also an idea that I will NEVER debate. Minds will never be swayed, one way or the other I believe. I leave that one alone...ALWAYS!
G
No they are not, they are
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:02am.
No they are not, they are minors and until they reach legal age have restriction placed on them. Parents are resposible for their actions.
One Problem
Submitted by dirtydan64 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:58pm.
What you say maybe true however answer me this, if at the age of 18 your able to vote but your not legal to drink, not legal to buy smokes but every one is ok with the fact there old enough to make the decision to join out Military but in doing so are still unable to do any of the above but send them to the front lines to protect the rest of us here sits fine in the minds of those that wish to banish the kids form having fun, I mean young children until there 21.
When you start letting states dictate age limitation to something such as video games & it's content your getting into a slippery slope and the Liberals are always quick to jump on that bandwagon no matter the unforeseen consequences because they can't see that far ahead of there own nose !!!
I see this as a private
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 2:16pm.
I see this as a private contract issue more than a free speech issue. I would offer that is the direction Alito approaches it from. I also see it as a check on Democracy issue as well. I would offer that this is the point Scalia is tagging on the 'concensus' front.
Do I think young kids young kids should be exposed to wicked gore? Al included?
Joking about the internet creator aside, of course not. That's why, as a parent, I am very strict about what video games I allow my kids to play. I limit their "shoot 'em up" games to military or paramilitary. As I have a teen, I allow more and more advancement into other realms depending on how he advances in the maturity department. The point being, this part of it really comes down to parental responsiility. One way I exercise this is by keeping money out of their hands.
The test here, I think, could unintentionally affect everything from the targeted video games to a snickers bar. To be sure, Happy Meals are in jeopardy as well. If a kid is not able to buy a video game that some find objectionable, then what really is there to stop the sale of a candy bar or Happy Meal? Some find those objectionable too. A Mountain Dew? Or like a school here recently banned, how about an evil chocolate milk?
If the NANNY GOVERMENT angle is taken to its logical ends, then kids under 18 will not be able to engage in commerce. I am not so sure that isn't the right thing to do to put an end to this hit and miss garbage that really only serves lawyers by creating a means for case after case to be litigated.
If a person wants to say a kid can't buy a video game, then you have to accept they can't buy a milky way either. The only basis on which they can be denied the freedom to purchase is by invoking the inaility to engage in a legal contract. A sale is exactly that. As an aside, this is the same positionI take when 21 is the age limit for alcohol. It amounts to having your cake and eating it too. 18 is of age for a contract then 18 it is across the board. Enter driving - how does a 16 year old then buy gasoline or a car? On that note, which is more "dangerous" - a kid with a video game controller in his hand or a steering wheel?
On that front age 18 limitations sure do pesent conundrums sometimes. So we settle for hit and miss random regulatory schemes baed on "consensus"? Ever changing rules are harming our society and I think Scalia touched on that. How can we abide by "rules" when they change more than some people change their underware? How can blanket rules honestly be based on subjectivity and remain making any semblence of sense? I don't think they can and that this is one reason our society is in the shambles it is.
Here is a thought - How about we leave this decision to parents to be made in the family environment. If we depart from this longstanding bit of properness then I offer we do it the right way by ending all commerce by those under 18 on the basis that minors cannot engage in a contract. "Consesus" so often times harms this country and maybe this is a way to finally demonstrate it.
Apples and Oranges
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:05pm.
Milky ways and Snickers are bad for your health and can give you cavities but I see no reason why you have to be 18 to buy these products. In God of wAr you disembowel victims and can see when their entrails come out. In Grand Theft Auto, you have sex with hookers for fun and beat them up and rob them of their money to get extra points. This is the same as a restricted movie. If you are not allowed to sell the movie Scarface to a minor, I do not see why you should sell a violent video game to a minor. No one is saying adults can't enjoy the game, just not minors.The 'Why' is so very Important.
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:44pm.
That is the problem with subjectivity. One person's snickers is another person's grand theft auto.
We are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights, right? Well, until the age of 18, responsibility for rmonitoring their exercise belongs to parents. After that, it belongs to the adult themslves. If we are going to establish that kids cannot buy things as a matter of government intevention over parental intervention, then it has to be because they cannot engage in a contract, not because some thing, this, that or the other, is, or might be, harmful to them in someone's eyes.
I find it to be a tremendously serious action to remove from a parent the authority to decide what their children can and cannot do. Most especially when it is based on some subjective notion that harm "might" come to pass. There, we start getting into the violation of "innocent until proven guilty" territory. Equality is one thing but establishment of blanket rules claimed as collective due process is quite another.
I understand your intentions are genuine and even honorable. I don't want someone selling my kids games that are outside of boundaries I set for them either. First, notice I set those bounaries, not others, and second, notice that zero goverment involvement is needed for me to execute that directive. What is required is that I tend to my children.
I have had it up to here with government imposed bans and mandates that claim "it's for the children" and "safety" as their basis of authority. Govenment has no legitimate Constitutional authority to micromanage our daily lives like this, not even minors, as this is what parents, self determination and personal responsibility are for. And that is why so many fled the Old Country in search of the respect for Individual Liberty that this nation was founded upon.
I see your point Ashrak
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:57pm.
I just believe in the delicate balance of preserving adult entertainment and protecting our children at the same time. Not an easy task, but hopefully things will work outDefinition of a minor?
Submitted by gfrrman on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:22pm.
Anyone that would not have their face shown if they were "alleged" criminal. That would be under 18. Check the media EVERY DAY
"Socialism is a philosophy of FAILURE, the creed of IGNORANCE and the gospel of ENVY"...Winston Churchill
G
And your
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:27pm.
......point is?shawn of the deadhead
Submitted by gfrrman on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:34pm.
did you ever "gradgigate" from the "Evelyn Woodhead Sped Reading" course? ""Justice Alito asked exactly what constituted a minor, is it a 17 year old? A 10 year old? He received the clarification from Morazzini that the statute considers minors under the age of 18 as one entire group." "Redding comprension"...by shawn..
"point is" you're an idiot
Geez
G
No girlyman
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:38pm.
U obviously have a case of look at me disease. I think Ed Shultz and Keith Olbermann have it too. Your in good company ;-)Shawny
Submitted by gfrrman on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:42pm.
your "point is" without premise or substance. Smoke another one and go back to the 70's disco girl.
And learn to "comprend"
G
But I do have a point geekman
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:49pm.
Your whole schtick is coming on threads and do nothing but name call and try to get people to notice u. You are obviously starved for attention and love the adulation u get from certain members when you go on one of your tirades. Not that there is anything wrong with that. If it gets you through the day then so be it.shawn
Submitted by gfrrman on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:37pm.
that was "brilliant"! Pot/kettle
hit the bong again
G
Is your name Roe v Wade Girlyman?
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:53pm.
Because that comeback was an abortionThe kids WILL be all right!
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:56am.
They will not be adversely influenced by violent decapitations and disembowelments. Nor will they be induced to promiscuity by ubiquitous presentations of promiscuous sex without consequences as recreation.
What they WILL be harmed by, and laws must forcefully prevent, is the depiction of charcacters smoking in movies and TV shows.
Wake up and smell, the coffee, Mr. Bozell
\RAGING SARC
Ban the Happy Meal toy
Submitted by Tim Graham on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:04am.
Notice this happened in the same week that San Francisco banned Happy Meal toys because the kids won't be alright with a cheeseburger and fries!
exactly Tim
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:27am.
Happy meals in San Francisco bad, but abortion for teens without telling their parents is good.
Yes, Tim, irony is so ironic,
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:37am.
Yes, Tim, irony is so ironic, isn't it??? LOL
And they don't even notice it.
And to further the irony...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:11pm.
one of those extra Happy Meal toys is now included with every purchase of God of War 3.
Jer
(No subject)
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:39am.
error.
Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:07am.
How about a game where you can play Sen. Robert Byrd, Grand Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of the KKK out to lynch, burn, and destroy "race mongrels", Jews, Catholics and foreigners. Would Sotomayor and Kagan want that banned? Why? It would depict one of the 'greatest' Democrat icon's of the 20th century in all his glory.
I think
Submitted by dirtydan64 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:11am.
it's time someone or possibly one of the developers put a game such as you describe on the shelves for all to purchase and see what the ramification are upon it hitting the shelves, IMO I think it would be well worth the time and effort to make a point and maybe then it would put these types of cases to rest once an for all !!!
Mr. Bozell
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:22am.
Before you let loose the partisan hound within you please read the oral argument!
Sadly, you just can’t talk to some people about the psychological impact of scenes like this. Justice Sonia Sotomayor compared the effects of this violence to the violence in Bugs Bunny cartoons, which is beyond ridiculous.
Concerning the Bugs Bunny thing: Sotomayor had a point there and one you surely support:
One of the studies, the Anderson study, says that the effect of violence is the same for a Bugs Bunny episode as it is for a violent video. So can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny?
Please notice that she didn't say that she thinks that this comparison is sound. I think she is worried that such studies could lead, within the framework of the Californian law debated, to a broad censorship of content.
The quote is from page 7 of
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1448.pdf
troglodyte, Bugs Bunny
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:34am.
troglodyte, Bugs Bunny cartoons have been outlawed.
Not by a Supreme Court ruling, but by societal pressure laid on, largely by liberals. They became "inappropriate," disapproved of, shunned, and eventually just disappeared.
Liberals are all for using societal pressure to further their politically correct goals. So why can't liberals get behind a movement to "ban" these violent video games by societal consensus? Oh, no, in this case, they are "all for" the first amendment!
mb
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:38am.
Why do you think that the entirety of "liberals" do not want to outlaw the sale of violent videogames to minors?
Let me think now....
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:56am.
....because I don't hear and see a lot of them supporting that?
where is Mr. Bozell's liberal counterpart saying publicly that he/she hopes the Supreme Court would come down on the side of the children? Or leading a call for parents and society to act forcefully and make this garbage simply not tolerated?
Good grief. Liberals have no problem mobilizing against a corporation that they think is not sufficiently supportive of the gay agenda, or any of their other peeves. They can't get together and protest what's been shoveled into the entertainment trough in front of our kids?
mb
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:59am.
But you see a lot of them supporting the sale of videogames to minors? Otherwise your inference is quite weak.
If you look into the oral argument I posted above, then you will see both sides questioning whether the voluntary measures of the industry are sufficient enough. I don't think that there are many people out there who want this stuff being sold to children (excluding the industry and, yes, children). I think there is a consensus, both that video games should be banned and surprisingly enough that they deserve 1st amendment protection.
No that's what's weak. You
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:21am.
But you see a lot of them supporting the sale of videogames to minors? Otherwise your inference is quite weak.No that's what's weak.
You are implying that since I have no proof that liberals actually support violent video games, I have no right to infer by their lack of action, that they don't care.
You are talking about Supreme Court proceedings; I am talking about speaking out in the public square.
And as Mr. Bozell said, forbidding the sale of these games to those under 18 (you know, like cigarettes!!) "is hardly shredding the constitution".
Yet that seems to be what this is about.
It seems to me that Mr. Bozell is castigating those who pooh-pooh the possiblity of an ill effect of these games on kids, and hoping that the Supreme Court decides that it's not unreasonable to restrict them to adults.
Do you have a problem with that? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
mb
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:30am.
Your inference wasn't that they don't care but:
"Oh, no, in this case, they are "all for" the first amendment!"
which again is equivalent to supporting the sale.
There is a difference between
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:15pm.
There is a difference between "supporting the sale" and supporting the "right to sell."
mb
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:23pm.
OK that is true.
motherb
Submitted by gfrrman on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:28pm.
We all know that liberals ALWAYS want is best for "the chiiiiiildren".
G
Violent videogames have been
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:05am.
Violent videogames have been around since the beginning. The only difference is that the game play and graphics have gotten better. I used to play a game called Caveman Games, Olympic games for the Stone Age. One of the games involved grabbing your wife by the hair, and spinning her around before tossing her for a maximum distance.
I guess I lucked out - Tossing my wife through the air has never even crossed my mind.
If music is rated, if movies are rated, it's not a stretch to rate video games. Parents should make the decision whether their children are mature enough to play adult themed games, and shouldn't have to worry that a 16 year old clerk is going to sell their kid a restricted title.
Of course there is always the game of "Fool the conservatives"
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:10pm.
You sign up on conservative websites. Troll out to the max. Get banned about 16 times. Then pretend you are reformed whilst still trolling just as much as evah.
Terms of Use state that
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:51pm.
Terms of Use state that you're supposed to keep your posts relevant to the topic.
Yes but once it becomes stale
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:01pm.
Yes but once it becomes stale there is more leeway. The topic is stale now. Besides Troll season is always in topic.
So how is this post
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:07pm.
relevant to the topic ?
Whatever viscous sticky troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:33am.
If you feel my posts violated the terms of use, you are always free to report the violator to the proper authorities. There is no paid moderator here checking every post. Report me if you felt that post was sooooooooo out of line.
But then no, you won't, will you. You are bluffing, hoping to unnerve the word bully. Because you know well my post was within bounds.
Sniff. Sniff. trollie thinks threats of violating the terms of use and claiming the word bully is on the verge of a meltdown will unnerve the mean mean mean word bully.
trollies never did think things through.
You made the threat trollie. Report me or shut up. Your constant references to the Term of Use is a desperate troll whine when it is not backed up. Might as well be screaming WOODSHED like you have in the past. Another empty whine because you never actually manage to create a woodshed forum and list the grievances of the mean mean mean word bully.
Woodshed!!! I must admit I
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:27am.
Woodshed!!!
I must admit I am a little hurt that you haven't started a forum on me by now. Why is that? You seem to have created a forum for just about every other liberal you've become obsessed with, but for some reason, no forum for ADK.
It's probably because you can only fill it with more lies. And what keeps you banging your head against the wall, not knowing what is in fact true...well that alone is what keeps me coming back for more of your blather.
Who's your pick today, Vet? I'm picking the Bills over the Bears.
Whatever Dead Nwahs Zipppers.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:49am.
You want a woodshed forum, quit whining and create one. Crybaby.
Sniff...sniff... JWF won't
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:52am.
Sniff...sniff...
JWF won't make a forum for me. Wahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!
Whatever nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:10am.
You ain't gonna stop because you have a pathological need to get in the last word. As usual. But you is reformed now right? You not trollin no more, right? you is reasonable now right? Yeah, you is not trollie. You is reasonable.
31. Never let your opponents have the last word.
Always get the last word, even if your last "word" is merely a "The sound of a weasel sneezing!" or a disturbing picture, which has the added bonus of inflaming the regulars of a non-binaries group. With this goal in mind keep posting replies to the thread until you have clearly been ignored; keep checking occasionally just to be sure. Sometimes it helps to post your reply as a new thread.
29. Unreasonably proclaim your reasonableness.
If your method to deliver misinformation is not among the more articulate, you can try to claim to be reasonable. Of course if you really were reasonable, you would not be a troll in the first place; however, compared to your more radical comrades you might seem to be more reasonable. You cannot be certain what the readership of the newsgroup will accept as reasonable without your prompting them to think of you that way. Therefore you need frequently mention how reasonable you are.
troll bible.
I'm going to make a move now
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:11am.
I'm going to make a move now from the conservative playbook.
I demand you apologize for making up lies about me. I am not, nor have ever been your little play toy, nwahs.
Hey everybody, I am in full on meltdown mode. Look out.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:35am.
Here are the signs of a full on meltdown. Please feel me your pity. See if I am matching up.
1. Constantly whining others violating the terms of use.
2. Screaming WOODSHED when my troll ways are pointed out. Yet never actually bothering to create a woodshed forum.
3. Ranting about threads getting disrupted or mucked up when my troll ways are pointed out.
4. Calling others liar over and over without actually providing any proof they are lying.
5.. Lashing out at a moderator.
6. Claim people are secretly supporting me.
7. Claim people are secretly complaining about those that point out my troll ways.
8. Whining that I am not scared of those that point out my troll ways.
9. Claiming people that point out my troll ways are in a meltdown or will meltdown soon.
10. Constantly whining that yeah, I was a nasty viscous troll with multiple accounts years ago but I am reformed now. Not trollies no more.
11. Talking down to male users that dare to point out my troll ways by calling them female names or nicknames - for example - Betty or Sweetheart.
12. Claim anyone that dare point out my troll ways are actually the trolls not me.
13. Claim I am being stalked on an open public website or rant that no one is allowed to respond when I replyed to another user.
Wait. Those things don't describe me at all. They are all symptoms of the troll that is Dead Zippers.
Sorry guys. No meltdown here. Please disregard and destroy this post so as to keep it out of enemy hands.
We need a better class of
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:29am.
We need a better class of troll hunter here ©
Forgot.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:44am.
13. Whine endlessly when others call you by the name of known trolls.
14. Make post after post noting the time others make comments as though everyione needs to live, work and breathe on your schedule. Make creepy stalkeris posts what time to post and what time to go to bed.
I'll bet you forgot a few
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:51am.
I'll bet you forgot a few more.
No. But I have examples nwahs style troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:30pm.
1. Constantly whining others violating the terms of use. Dead Zippers: Name calling is a Violation of Terms. ... Terms of Use state that you're supposed...
2. Screaming WOODSHED when my troll ways are pointed out. Yet never actually bothering to create a woodshed forum. Dead Zippers: ...just start a forum already... ... WOODSHED ... Woodshed!!!
3. Ranting about threads getting disrupted or mucked up when my troll ways are pointed out. Dead Zippers: ...you to disrupt every thread... ... Haven't you disrupted this thread quite enough?
4. Calling others liar over and over without actually providing any proof they are lying. Dead Zippers: Every time you call me zippers it is a lie. ... And you're lying.
5.. Lashing out at a moderator.
6. Claim people are secretly supporting me. Dead Zippers: We're all over it. Everyone but you. ... Multiple people have called you out...
7. Claim people are secretly complaining about those that point out my troll ways. Dead Zippers: Ask Dave - he had a gem...
8. Whining that I am not scared of those that point out my troll ways. Dead Zippers: You don't scare me, JWF. You're...
9. Claiming people that point out my troll ways are in a meltdown or will meltdown soon. Dead Zippers: The Vet is doomed for a meltdown soon. ... You're not far from a meltdown.
10. Constantly whining that yeah, I was a nasty viscous troll with multiple accounts years ago but I am reformed now. Not trollies no more. Dead Zippers: I made amends long ago, and those I hurt have forgiven me.
11. Talking down to male users that dare to point out my troll ways by calling them female names or nicknames - for example - Betty or Sweetheart. Dead Zippers: cutie-pie. ...
12. Claim anyone that dare point out my troll ways are actually the trolls not me. Dead Zippers: You're the worst kind of troll - one who...
13. Claim I am being stalked on an open public website or rant that no one is allowed to respond when I replyed to another user. Dead Zippers: ...Says Newsbusters' resident stalker.
14. Whine endlessly when others call you by the name of known trolls. Dead Zippers: Every time you call me zippers it is a lie. ... I am not, nor have ever been your little play toy, nwahs.
15. Make post after post noting the time others make comments as though everyione needs to live, work and breathe on your schedule. Make creepy stalkeris posts what time to post and what time to go to bed. Dead Zippers: Get some sleep, man. The date stamps of your posts can only mean... ... Now get some sleep. ... Isn't it bedtime yet?
Of course, I would give examples of nwahs doing every single one of those but they have not brought back the old comments yet.
Hang on there... Gotta set my
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:34pm.
Hang on there... Gotta set my fantasy lineup.
Any recommendations on defense this week?
Whatever nwahs
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:39pm.
31. Never let your opponents have the last word.
Always get the last word, even if your last "word" is merely a "The sound of a weasel sneezing!" or a disturbing picture, which has the added bonus of inflaming the regulars of a non-binaries group. With this goal in mind keep posting replies to the thread until you have clearly been ignored; keep checking occasionally just to be sure. Sometimes it helps to post your reply as a new thread.
Well thanks for nothing. I
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:53pm.
Well thanks for nothing.
I went with the Giants D/ST. And I won 2 of 3 leagues with them!
I once heard of a video game
Submitted by eaglescout1998 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 2:13pm.
I once heard of a video game called Custer's Revenge for the Atari 2600. Basically, the object is to overcome arrow attacks to reach the other side of the screen . . . and then rape a naked, large-breasted Native American woman.
Political correctness---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:00pm.
shot down the Custer's Revenge video.
Gay guys in San Francisco complained that they were not fairly represented.
They wanted the large-breasted Native American woman replaced by a flamer in high heels, wearing a boa.
MD
Yes
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 4:53pm.
It should be up to parentsYou, sir, are an idiot.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 5:59pm.
Did Howdy Doody play violent video games? Uhm, no.
How about Anne of Green Gables? Uhm, no.
How about George Washington? Uhm, no.
How about Louis XIV? Uhm, no.
Hadrian? Constantine? Gengis Kahn? Jesus? Cicero? Adam? Eve?
Your argument is a lie. Please learn something about technology, and when it was exactly that video games were invented and who pioneered the first violent ones.
Visions and Principles blog
Point out where I lied.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:52pm.
Point out where I lied.
Better be happy you didnt say
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:09pm.
Wrong
Could I put
Submitted by dmaley1714 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 2:53pm.
God of War in a Mappy Meal if it had carrots and apples? Liberals say yes.
(No subject)
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 3:29pm.
Dude.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 3:49pm.
That was the quietest post ever.
Maybe Boudin censored
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:32pm.
Maybe Boudin censored him/her-self?
Save
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:05pm.
And "Home", seem synonmous to me I guess?
Being a Constitutionalist i
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:43pm.
Being a Constitutionalist i fail to see where SCOTUs is involved in a states affairs restricting the sale of what it deems a violent video game. Or for that matter saying what can and cannot be sold in a Happy Meal. If Californians want to ban spitting on the sidewalk then they under the Constitution can do so.
To me it boils down to the Constitution and SCOTUS is not involved. Our society has defaulted to a SCOTUS descision as the end all argument an that is not what SCOTUS was for.
I personally have no problem with the state restricting sales to a minor as a minor has fewer rights than an adult. Now when they become legal age then they are responsible for their own actions, but until then their parents are liable for their actions; how liable depends on teh situation and the parents and kids.
Selective Incorporation is Garbage
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:10pm.
As a Republican form of government is demanded at all levels, state and local governments are bound to observe, protect, respect and defend Liberties that are outside the scope of government control just as much as the federal government is. One place "defaulted" to SCOTUS in error was allowing it to say basically this:
Our founders fought a war of independnece to gain their freedom from government interference and upon their victory they formed a federal government with all kinds of boundaries but that those boundaries did not apply to state and local government. Those governments had free run to alllow and disallow anything.
HOGWASH!
The notion that state and local government is not bound by inalienablle rights is a non sequitur. It does not follow.It makes no sense and must be rejected as such.
Inalienable rights are had by all, they don't come from government and government doesn't get to micromange their exercise, much less deny their exercise. 'Tis fine to say that children have a brake on the wheel of exercise but authority to apply it rests with parents- not government. It is not that they have fewer rights, it is that they have less capability to exercise them on their own without guidence. That is a prental responsibility, not a governmental one. No, not even a state governmental one.
Rember, exercise of a right cannot in and of itself bring harm - for if it does, it is not a right being exercised.
Children have rights to the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:17pm.
Children have rights to the extent that the parents vouch for them. If the parents tell their children they cannot do something then they are bound by their parents wishes. And the Constitution realizes the rights are not boundless and that actions have consequences.
The Constitution specifically states that the state governments have free reign to make laws concerning their citizens as long as it does not conflict with the laws specifically given to the federal government.
These laws fall under the Constitutionality of such laws made by the states.
But those....
Submitted by dirtydan64 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:25am.
restriction only apply when you are in the public square, not in your home except if you live & breathe in the sunny state of Kalifornia I guess. But lets poise the question of if the State is allowed to banish this game to sales of adults only what will then be next. When then would the state say that no minor can be involved in any commerce as been pointed out earlier because that's basically what the State(s) are asking permission to do are they not ?
It could under public decency
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:10am.
It could under public decency statutes, of course those in Cali are looser than most. Minors are minors and they are restricted in commerce, they cannot sign legal binding agreements and taht is commerce. They cannot buy tobacco or prescription drugs or or model glue or any number of items. The local government is well within its bounds to make laws like restricting teh sale of the game.
Issues like this are
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:34pm.
Issues like this are fascinating, because they demonstrate the false dichotomy of political debate. If someone asked me the difference between liberals and conservatives on the issue of government regulation, I'd probably describe them as polar opposites. But the fact is that both liberals and conservatives have areas where we think government should step in and regulate some aspect of our lives, and other areas that we want government to stay out of. The difference is just which areas are which.
The only reason this issue makes people look like hypocrites is because we tend to describe our positions as more extreme than they are. I think very few conservatives want government completely out of their lives, and very few liberals want government in every aspect of theirs!
Fascinating
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:59pm.
No conservative wants government completely out of their lives. That would be an Anarchist.
The difference is conservatives understand that government is the greediest monster out there and if it's not held in check, it becomes out of control. Like banning happy meals.
It seems to me that another difference is that conservatives care about mental health, especialy that of children, a lot more than liberals.
But liberals worry about physical health, for everybody.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Denny and
Submitted by gfrrman on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:32am.
the libs take phys. ed out of the school, you know, kickball, hopscotch, tetherball, running around and having fun and burning off pent up energy from sitting in the classroom most of the day, because someone may WIN!!! THAT might hurt a childs' "seeeeeelf esteeeem". So instead NO ONE can be "better" at anything than anyone else. Then they "wonder" why the kids are fat from the GOV"T school FREE breakfasts, lunches and DINNERS. Pizza, sodas, fries,vending machine food..etc. They just "meant well". Hell be-damned with the outcomes...G O V E R N T M E N T schoools.......FAT-ASSED kids...can't understand?...well..duh
"Whatever Government/unions touches it destroys"..Greg C
G
Minors
Submitted by dbz77 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:48pm.
Have courts ever ruled that minors have the right to watch porn or read Hitler's Mein Kampf?
Courts are not to
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:43pm.
Courts are not to "rule".
They are to apply that which will comply with the Supreme Law of the land.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Oh, please... They do it
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:56pm.
Oh, please...
They do it (rule) constantly. It's precisely what they were and are designed and empowered to do.
Jer
Yeah---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:40am.
rule as in "make a decision".
Problem is, there are too many judges who seem to approach the word "rule" as if they were a monarch reigning over the commoners.
MD
"make a decision"
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:56am.
"make a decision"...correct--which is precisely the context in which dbz77 was using the term.
Jer
However
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:02pm.
a difference between the lib and the conservative is that the lib wants the federal gov't to control state level and lower level issue.
Whereas the conservative sees that the only valid controls for the citizen should be identified and determined in the context of the state and local community where the communities wishes and understanding of their particular needs are considered in the "solution(s)".
Also, while yes the parent should parent and that is the appropriate solution, parents don't always parent and letting these children float around a world of good and bad ideas without parents trumps this idea that they should discern right from wrong at such early ages.
shawns lyin, no conviction, hypocrisy
Submitted by gfrrman on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:46pm.
"You also left out this bit by your other hero Justice Alito: "Justice Alito asked exactly what constituted a minor, is it a 17 year old? A 10 year old? He received the clarification from Morazzini that the statute considers minors under the age of 18 as one entire group."
And my comment was that have you seen anyone on tv that was an alleged criminal that had their face revealed unless they were going to be tried as an adult...uh ..no, therefore under 18 is a "MINOR".
"I am a huge advocate for free speech, but for adults. I have played god of war 3 and there were scenes I wanted to look away but could not because I was part of the game.. This should not be watched by children, and I have no problem with anyone under 18 should not play this game."
See any hypocrisy here yet shawn...MINOR!
"Please answer me honestly and tell me you think this is exceptable for a 12 year old child to play...".and NOW!! shawn!!
"As violent as it is Itchy and scratchy try to be humorous about it. god of war is one of the most violent games I ever played. The character Kratos is a very disturbed person and you have no choice as the player to kill innocents to advance in the game."
"I agree it should be up to parents." So which is shawn, minors get to choose or the courts!!!"
SHAWN...make up your mind.GLAD I"M NOT YOUR KIDS, they'd be looking at me like WTF!!
"Milky ways and Snickers are bad for your health and can give you cavities but I see no reason why you have to be 18 to buy these products. In God of wAr you disembowel victims and can see when their entrails come out. In Grand Theft Auto, you have sex with hookers for fun and beat them up and rob them of their money to get extra points. This is the same as a restricted movie. If you are not allowed to sell the movie Scarface to a minor, I do not see why you should sell a violent video game to a minor. No one is saying adults can't enjoy the game, just not minors.
..so which is it shawn???(see above,can't have it both ways with the kids, you have to be a parent NOT their friend)
"U obviously have a case of look at me disease. I think Ed Shultz and Keith Olbermann have it too. Your in good company ;-)"
"Your whole schtick is coming on threads and do nothing but name call and try to get people to notice u."
"Is your name Roe v Wade Girlyman?
Because that comeback was an abortion"
Pot meet kettle...
I rest my case your honor...boy that was soooooooo easy
pathetic...shawn...nice try on the putdown...but pathetic.
better luck next time...foot in mouth desease by your own words.
G
????????????
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:05pm.
Huh? Dude I said you are an attention seeker, which is quite obvious. All u had to do was tell me what the point of your was and that would be fine, but you had to do the namecalling again because your starved for attention Dude if want a civil discussion I am game. I believe violent video games should not be sold to children, it's really very simple.
edit
I also used the 12 year old as an example. 18 is the age that most states recogniize as being and adult. So I hope that clarifies my position to you. I do hope you did not hurt your fingers with all your wasted copying and pasting.
shawn r u so
Submitted by gfrrman on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:49pm.
juvenile that when you have your own words used against you, YOU have to resort to again call ME the name caller? I used NO disparaging words and I'M the name caller? Look up the word displacement( YOU!!). I cut and pasted to show you your juvenileness..and you go down that road again. Facts is facts. Read your own posts!! And Btw with your OWN post you were ALL OVER THE MAP. That's why I HAD to copy your drivel. Please reread your comments in order. I don't doubt what you are saying NOW but I will bust chops on BS when I KNOW THEY SUCH!! YOU typed your own words so accept the facts.....and I am NOBODYS' DUDE! See you are a loyal MTV watcher...shows with maturity level("Dude") Grow up and c o m p r e h e n d! You are soooo easy to bust! Great entertainment...THANKS!!
g
time for my cut and paste.
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:05am.
I used NO disparaging words and I'M the name caller?"point is" you're an idiot"
Gee, no name calling on your part dude.
Also please specify my hypocrisy. I believe violent video games should not be sold to people under 18. I believe it is parents responsiblity, so therefore, the parents should be present when they buy the game.
Again please show me how you busted me. Thank you sir.
In case folks are interested...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:29am.
gfrrman, as usual, was the instigator of the insults and name-calling:
"Shawn of the Deadhead"Submitted by gfrrman on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 15:34.
did you ever "gradgigate" from the "Evelyn Woodhead Sped Reading" course? ""Justice Alito asked exactly what constituted a minor, is it a 17 year old? A 10 year old? He received the clarification from Morazzini that the statute considers minors under the age of 18 as one entire group." "Redding comprension"...by shawn..
"point is" you're an idiot
Geez
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2010/11/06/bozell-column-losing-your-head-supreme-court#comment-1372109#ixzz14ZRRfBHVHmm Jer
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:56am.
I guess he does not think idiot or disco girl are disparaging words. I read through his cut and paste diatribe a few times now and I still can't figure out his point. The only thing I can think of is that I used the word children instead of the word minor a few times. Is it really so hard to understand I do not believe children should be playing these games, but it is not up to me to dictate to other parents what they can decide with their own children? Therefore their parents should be present if their underage kids want to buy a violent game.Well, shawn, to be fair...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:09am.
"disco girl" came after you addressed him as "girlyman". However, gfrrman had initiated the name-calling in the previous post, so you were under no obligation to play nice at that point. His accusation above that you started it was a complete fabrication on his part.
Jer
WAAAAAAAh
Submitted by gfrrman on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:09am.
thinned skinned libs are complaining in a circle-jerk as like minded(loosely) peeps on MSM 3 libs decide that so-and so is mean and hateful against 1....MSNBC, NBC , ABC, CBS....you are so EASY
and pathetic...man(Maddow UP!!!!)oooooooh disco girl, idiot....damn that is painful to the lib. I am BALD YOU want MEAN..Could give a rats as$$ about your FEEEEEEEEELINGS thats all you got???
ROTFLMAO.......pathetic
Bring something....ladies(oooooooopppps...that offensive too????)
MADDOW UP
G
Thin-skinned? Negative,
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:15am.
Thin-skinned? Negative, sir. Just calling you out on a lie you're not man enough to own up to, retract, or apologize for.
Jer
Wow this is a real Ed Shultz moment for Gfrrrman
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:19am.
I wonder if he will break down and cry like Special Ed too.
Ummm
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:17am.
we are simply debunking the fact that you said you used "no disparenging comments" which was false. You are busted no many how much you try to change the subject. You mentioned earlier you had clients. What do you do? Teach or receive special ed?
Actually, gfrrman, That Was My Line, And I Sure Ain't No shawn!
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 3:36pm.
Rather irritating, isn't it, that I have to define my own self so as to not to be confused with someone else. Of course, that is the price you pay for only making one long comment to the editor and not paying attention until you look it up a few days later and discover you are being confused with another commenter. For I only have so much time to waste at this joint when I could be watching Conan O'Brien. Toodle-Ooh.
-"If it's a row you want, then I shall cleave you in twixt!"
-From Family Guy
So far off base Brent, this
Submitted by Bull Moose Prog... on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:47pm.
So far off base Brent, this is about the first amendment. The government doesn't get to decide what papers, books, movies, and games our children should have access to. That should be up to the parents or guardians of a child. The games industry also already has an excellent rating system in the ESRB and doesn't need each state interfering in an international industry to reinvent a system already working well.
By the way there were some more excellent questions by the justices that you missed:
"JUSTICE SCALIA: What's a deviant -- a deviant, violent video game? As opposed to what? A normal violent video game?
MR. MORAZZINI: Yes, Your Honor. Deviant would be departing from established norms.
JUSTICE SCALIA: There are established norms of violence?
MR. MORAZZINI: Well, I think if we look back -
JUSTICE SCALIA: Some of the Grimm's fairy tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth.
MR. MORAZZINI: Agreed, Your Honor. But the level of violence -
JUSTICE SCALIA: Are they okay? Are you going to ban them, too?
MR. MORAZZINI: Not at all, Your Honor.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: What's the difference? mean, if you are supposing a category of violent materials dangerous to children, then how do you cut it off at video games? What about films? What about comic books? Grimm's fairy tales?
Why are video games special? Or does your principle extend to all deviant, violent material in whatever form?"
Read the official pdf for yourself:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1448.pdf
and support net neutrality so that the liberal media doesn't block you from being able to have this access to the internet!
Point well made
Submitted by dirtydan64 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:37am.
I have not read the entire transcript, however your posting of this bit is an should have been apart of the original article to point out the opposition to Mr. Morazzini arguement whose very vague on his argument and what material he wishes to ban. Great posting !!!
The government doesn't get to
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:30am.
The government doesn't get to decide what papers, books, movies, and games our children should have access toThe local governments can and do limit what a minor may or may not do or buy or read. The local govenments have this ability under the Constitution and it is right as the locals decide this. If the people of California dont like the law then they should get it repealed or move.
Once they achive the legal age in the local they are in then some of the restrictions are removed.
Actually you're wrong. You're
Submitted by Bull Moose Prog... on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:41am.
Actually you're wrong. You're dealing with obscenity, but the government even through the schools can't ban kids from reading the odyssey, edgar allan poe, or the bible because it has violent and sometimes gory parts in it.
The government gets to ban obscene material with broad parental approval, it does not get to pick ANYTHING else. In fact remembering back to my school days I had to read books far worse (Catcher in the Rye, most Edgar Allan Poe poems) far worse than most video games today.
You might want to read the court case, the justices go over it quite a lot.
No one wants to take this away from adults
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:39pm.
Just not purchased by minorsWhen they say it is about the kids, you know it isn't...
Submitted by Bull Moose Prog... on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:02am.
I don't want my kids to have or play most of these games either. But that is the important difference, I am a parent and I decide what is okay for my kids and what isn't... not the nanny state.
It isn't that I approve of violent video games, I don't even own a TV or allow my kids to watch even basic TV (the commercials are bad enough these days) but rather I disapprove of the government deciding for me what is wrong and what is right.
This isn't about protecting kids, this is about government overstepping its bounds and encouraging parents to be less involved. Rather than trying to monitor and regulate a huge international entertainment industry the state of California would be much better off educating parents to actually... you know responsibly parent. But California isn't exactly known for being pro-family either....
it is giving you the choice
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:20am.
Nobody is saying that Children are not allowed to play this game, they are just saying parents have be present when they buy this game. It gives more power to the parents.
bull it IS about helpiing parents protect their kids....
Submitted by porpoiseboy on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:32am.
you think ANY kid should be able to walk into a store and purchase an "adult game"? hmmm. and why is up to the govt of the admittedly idiot state cali to "educate parents" about anything? that sounds like a lib argument. if you are indeed someone who does not have a television...maybe you just don't understand what you are talking about. i am glad there are restritions put on what minor can and cannot purchase and watch in the public arena.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
The best social program is a JOB...ronald reagan
Sorry Bull Moose, but this
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:55pm.
Sorry Bull Moose, but this isn't accurate,
The government doesn't get to decide what papers, books, movies, and games our children should have access to. Children, by law are not allowed in an x-rated movie. There are magazines that children are not allowed to buy. Sorry about the underlining, not quite sure where that came from.Radical when was....
Submitted by dirtydan64 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:47am.
The last time you were to the movies ? When teens go to the movies they purchase there tickets and then are free to choose which movies they want to see. If they purchase a ticket to watch Bambi, then decide they want to check out Terminator 3 cause Mom & Dad won't let them watch it otherwise whose to stop the kids form going into that watch that movie ? As much as we want to have all the right checks & Balances in place for every day commerce of all age groups it's never going to happen and by doing in a piece meal sort of way it will only make matters worse for everyone, and society is going to pay a heavy price for wanting our Gov't both at the state & Federal levels to over see what we as parents, guardians should be doing form the time our children are born.
We shouldn't depend on Judges from any court to say who can or can't buy a video game let alone a can of soda/Pop form the gas station, we already have given broad authority to Librarians to ban books they feel are not right for children or adults to read where by the Librarian can assert his or her's own agenda in a given community, therefore we must not allow our SCOTUS to rule base on what some in society want to have banned it's the wrong approach and it's a matter of doing our jobs being a parent !!
dirty dan the laws about
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:11am.
dirty dan the laws about movies are not perfect, however, I would argue it is difficult for any child to get into an X or RC17 movie, and although teens might get into R movies, if a movie employee saw several 10 year olds going into an R movie they would check it out.
By not allowing children of a certain age to buy video game the law supports the role of parents. If parents have no objection to their child playing a violent game, they can purchase it for the child. This does not infringe at all upon the right of parents to make the decision.
shawn of the
Submitted by gfrrman on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:56am.
Is your name Roe v Wade Girlyman?"Because that comeback was an abortion"
Did I call YOU an abortion?...NO
"...obviously have a case of look at me disease. I think Ed Shultz and Keith Olbermann have it too. Your in good company ;-0"
'nuff said. 2 insults
are you so thin skinned that after you disparaged me several times that I called you an idiot? Tit for tat and only ONCE on my end? I loved the 70's as much anyone but I don't continue to live in them as your profile shows about YOU..Says A LOT since I have education in that department(PSYCH/PHYS). Your displacement about ANYTHING is a text-book case and I would LOVE to have you as one of my clients. Unfortunately I have too many clients that "pay the bills" whereas I can observe you from afar and pinpoint and actually show others a "poster child" associates the same symptoms. I would thoroughly like to thank you for the free challenges. As for the Hypocrisy challenge...do I really need to show you this....???...since you CAN'T "c o m p r e n d" you need, once AGAIN, to reread your posts. It's really easy to the common person...but I digress. AGAIN say it with me"....c o m p r e n d"(Eveyln Woodhead Sped Redding School)...and still in the school....geeeeeez
"Socialism is a philosophy of FAILURE, the creed of IGNORANCE and the gospel of ENVY"...Winston Churchill
g
Ummm gfrrrman?
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:06am.
Actually are you forgetting you said you used "no"dispareging comments" Now your saying after you called me an idiot, the the comment I used was worse than the one you used on me? Talk about moving the goal posts dude.
Also you can't seem to answer the question, because you know you did not bust me on anything, I explained my comments in detail and backed it up. You just copied and pasted a few of my sentences and asked me to read it myself. Lol, and now your picking on my love of 80s and 70s music. Lol. Since you try but fail to use my words against me. I will use your words against you and succeed.
Grow up and c o m p r e h e n d! You are soooo easy to bust! Great entertainment...THANKS!!shawn
Submitted by gfrrman on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:28am.
you are a perfect subject.....P R O J E C T I O N. Keep trying the same lines in your posts. Do you really like repeating yourself? You need some "SUPER serious" help that OBAMACARE would pay for without a cent out of your pocket. You obviously cannot read your own posts and put them into a train of thought....that bong must be hittin' hard tonight/today. YOUR 2 insults to my 1 you can't add either. Can definitely tell you are a friend of Jers' cause he knows what his definition is and it can't be fixed like yours. Copied?pasted so you MIGHT be able to C O M P R E H E H E N D you own writing...guess not...hit that thing again....INHALE!!! kill MORE brain cells...it shows(OOOOPPS did OFFEND YOU?)
READ your post and c o m p r e h e n d shawn s l o w l y!!!!!!!
G
Still cannot answer the question
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:42am.
and falsley accusing me of something I gave up many years ago. Okay lets be serious here, I will stop the sarcasm fest and have a real discussion if you are man enough.
Please show me specifically where you busted me, just accusing somebody of something and not backing it up is something liberals do. You are not a secret lib are you?
edit
"YOUR 2 insults to my 1 you can't add either." Again, is it so hard to understand that you did not keep a tally of insults. You said you used "no" disparenging comments.shawn
Submitted by gfrrman on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:02am.
I've been the MAN since we started. If there's ANYTHING THAT I AM IS OPEN AND HONEST. IF YOU'RE FAT OR UGLY and you ask me about it, I'll say, like the "Geico"commercial, Abe Lincoln commercial ...yeah. People that I am around know and expect that of me. I've ALWAYS been that way. And believe it or not I have LOTS of friends...and I think they admire that fact. Do I go out of the way to offend?.....no...you ask me a question....I give you the honest answer...no matter what. You don't want to hear it then don't ask...therefore I would be a TERRIBLE politician...although I've had many ask me to run for office.....never could win. People don't want to hear truth...truth hurts when you want to hear it. I could NEVER , therefore be a lib, ...they only tell you what you want to hear and then do something else....silly as it sounds, "be true to your school" way..It's called CONVICTION!! Something I'd say MOST politicians will NOT do, ESPECIALLY LIBS. I'm NOT going to rehash your posts. YOU need to reread them. PLEASE don't get stupid on me(didn't call you stupid). BTW I'm going to quote a surprise, out of nowhere, cartoon that came on while we posting(had to watch,silly as it may sound therefore the delay in posts plus college football-HUGE BAMA fan-we lost by 3 today. :-( and texting too)...."I ams what I ams"...Popeye...UGH UGH UGH UGH. That's just me..open and HONEST!! Don't EVER BS or LIE to me you'll get busted by the "G" police..LOL Just sayin'
Grrr
????
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:22am.
Umm, okay.
Restless
Submitted by gfrrman on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:38am.
Sorry for the honesty. Got tired of bs with shawn. that's who I will always be. too bad more people aren't like that...at least that's the way I am. NO BS
G
Restless Buddy
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:27pm.
What the hell hapenned to the Cowboys this year? :-(This is getting really weird
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:37am.
I read back and counted name calling and it's even at 3-3. And gfrrman started it. The insults are pretty funny too, but shawn only threw insults in response to Grrr baiting, insulting, and namecalling posts.
Sorry, just being brutally honest here.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Denny
Submitted by gfrrman on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:39am.
Facts is facts
G
Good morning Denny
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:33pm.
That post about Popeye was of the strangest reponses I have ever seen. He says he won't back up his points at the same time telling us how brutally honest he is?Oh well, if it makes him happy and he has his daily dose of getting attention and it gets him through the day, then I did my pity good deed for the day ;-)I would say more like Wimpy
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:23pm.
Or certainly about as masculine as Olive Oil. You opened up a can alright, but it was not spinich. It was a can of laziness. I explained my position clearly and if you asked, I would give you an answer in detail. You are not honest like u say because I have been conistent this whole thread, you can't back up your points without deflecting and it is pretty sad to watch. Anyways unless you want a real discussion, I regret all the time I spent on you. Have a nice day.If I write down and rearrange
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:20pm.
If I write down and rearrange all of the words gfrrman typed in all caps, will I find a secret code?
Here's what I have so far: I AM A HUGE O-BAMA FAN...
;) (I'm just kidding, not trying to stir up trouble)
Dept of Morality
Submitted by ZuccoZoid on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 7:21am.
Gov't legislated morality - the ultimate oxymoron; their job is to protect society at large from criminal, not "immoral" behavior - especially while they're stuffing their pockets with money at taxpayer expense.
I grew up watching the Warner Bros cartoons (before they were censored) and many of them were outrageously violent. But we didn't go out running amok like Yosemite Sams.
I would say none
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:36pm.
Were as bad as South Park or Grand Theft AutoAh, the depth of a Wise
Submitted by WarEagle66 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 5:42pm.
Ah, the depth of a Wise Latina.....