Bozell Column: Games Judges Don't Play
The video-game industry has won again in court, insisting on their right to make the most debased gaming experience imaginable and market it to children with little commercial restraint. On June 27, the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 against California’s law mandating that children are not allowed to purchase “Mature” video games without a parent.
The political elites are celebrating the Court ruling as a victory for a vibrant First Amendment, rejectinthe very notion of social responsibility on the part of the video-game makers and their often-twisted conceptualization of what constitutes “fun” for children.
Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent asked what should be the definitive question at issue. "What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman,” Breyer asked, “while protecting the sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?"
In an opinion concurring with the “free expression” majority, Justice Samuel Alito at least seemed trouble regarding the content of some of the “M” games in question, that “victims are dismembered, decapitated, disemboweled, set on fire, and chopped into little pieces.”
Alito also could have considered the promotional videos for “God of War 3,” for the PlayStation 3, where the protagonist Kratos (the main interactive character manipulated by gamers) graphically, slowly, realistically tears the head off Helios, the sun god. And still he’d suggest the “right” to sell this to children? Which sick CEO sits in a boardroom and says “Yes” to ultraviolent scenes like this, knowing children will play these games?
Justice Scalia thought it irrelevant. He replied that Alito “recounts all these disgusting video games to disgust us – but disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression.” Yes, freedom of speech means allowing the freedom of repulsive ideas. But that doesn’t have to extend to shopping your repulsive ideas to grade schoolers. Why is freedom grievously curtailed when parents have the right to “restrict expression” to their children by having the video-game retailers only sell the “adult” games with parental approval?
If that’s an untenable violation of the First Amendment, would Scalia rule that it’s unconstitutional for movie theatre owners to prevent minors from walking into movies rated R? “R” requires that an adult accompany the child – the very principle behind California’s law, just a small parental hurdle in children’s access to disturbing content.
If it’s okay to allow them into R-rated movies, why not NC-17? Why not X?
In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas rightly argued “The freedom of speech as originally understood does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right to minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents or guardians.” When the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, they were not advocating that parents shouldn’t have authority in the upbringing of their children. That parental-discretion principle ought to be more revered by judges and politicians alike.
In other cases, where the First Amendment isn’t being extended to grant children’s rights, parents are still in control. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law in 2004 making it illegal for anyone under 14 years old to tan indoors under any circumstances. No one sued to stop him. (Children from 14 to 18 can tan – with parental consent.) Some 32 states are inhibiting the freedom of minors to tan, and no one objects. In his dissent, Thomas mentioned that minors cannot unilaterally consent to most medical procedures. “Free speech” – or the freedom of entertainment conglomerates – isn’t the principle, so there is no court case.
Conservatives and libertarians who would easily line up with Justice Scalia on this decision should at least want to ponder if they want the federal government to decide how and when individual states have the Tenth Amendment power to make their own decisions about how to protect minors from harm.
Advocates for parents in this case certainly don’t expect that every parent is a vigilant watchdog over video-game content. In fact, some are enthusiastic purchasers of whatever the hot game of the moment is. Parent advocates aren’t arguing that little Johnny will be inevitably turned into a vicious assassin by playing violent video games. Most twentysomething and thirtysomething gamers, introduced to this gaming genre in their teens, are nonviolent, responsible adults.
But to think the idea that merchants ought to respect parents in restricting access to M-rated games is rejected because of some lofty First Amendment principle is absurd. All that matters is sales and profits and free speech is a most convenient argument for them. This country needs more social pressure on the entertainment merchants to have decency in their boardroom decisions rather than falling back on courtroom decisions.
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
laws
Submitted by kinijane on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 8:23am.
Where is the responsibility of the parents here? Everyone wants a law passed
to protect the kids, well the kids don't drive themselves to the stores, usually
don't have the money to buy the products. When will parents learn to say NO.
My sons certainly knew the word.
Bingo!
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 11:30am.
Parents responsibility, period.
Exactly!
Submitted by ArcherB on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 12:09pm.
And this law would have forced parents to take that responsibility. As it stands with this ruling, a kid can take money he got from grandma, mowing lawns, stealing or dealing drugs and use it to purchase whatever game they want, WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS PERMISSION OR EVEN KNOWLEDGE.
If a parent is too lazy to get off the recliner to buy their kids a game, they are certainly not going to monitor their kids' X-box activity. These are the kids that should NOT be owning these games.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
The kids who get money from
Submitted by red_dragon311 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 1:07pm.
The kids who get money from grandma or earn money mowing lawns will not be the same kids that sell drugs.
and those same kids WILL go with theri parents to buy the game, and if the parents feels it's ok then stay out of their life.
I am a parent of a 12-year-old and we both play Call of Duty, Mortal Kombat, and such other "M" rated games, I am not afeered ( yes...afeered) that my son is going to go on some type of Columbine-esque shooting spree.
I am of the first generation that played those violent games, Doom and Wolfienstine (sp?) for example, they are fun.
The only different between kids playing vidoe games and kids playing "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and indiands" or ":war" is that they are in front of a TV killing the "emeny" not on a playground killing the "enemy"
Even the Bible argees Psalm 109:8 "Let his days be few; and let another take office."
Awesome
Submitted by ArcherB on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 6:31pm.
I plan on playing these games with my kids too as soon as they are old enough. I think it's great that you play these games with your kids. I have no problems with kids playing these games. I do have a problem with kids playing these games without their parents permission or knowledge.
So, please, put your strawman away. I never argued that these kids shouldn't play these games. I said that these kids should not be able to purchase these games without their parents.
Now, if you think it's OK for your kids to do whatever they want without your knowledge or permission, then you've got issues.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
You Lying Hypocrite...
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 8:35am.
You know, I would expect something like this coming from some leftist wanting to get the government involved in adding regulatory burdens on private businesses when they try to sell a product, all because the leftist has some Marxist view on protecting children. And isn't it rather convenient of you, like a leftist, to side-step the facts about the effectiveness of the ESRB's ratings system. Reports by the Federal Trade Commission, as well as some of these parental groups that try to spin their "secret shopper" statistics into a false notion that retailers are not doing enough to keep adult-rated games out of the hands of minors, show that as little as 19-to-20 % of minors get their hands on those type of games:
Electronic games. Thirteen percent of underage teenage shoppers were able to buy M-rated video games, a statistically significant improvement from the 20 percent purchase rate in 2009.
Now, let's compare that to:
"Music CDs. Retailers of explicit-content music demonstrated slight improvement
since 2009 in enforcing the Parental Advisory Label – but still generally failed to
prevent sales to minors. Nearly two-thirds of underage shoppers (64 percent) were able to purchase CDs with this label, down from 72 percent in 2009.;
"Movie tickets. There was no statistically significant change in ratings enforcement at the movie box office. One-third of underage shoppers bought a ticket to an R-rated movie, up slightly from 28 percent in 2009.;
"Movie DVDs. Retailers of R-rated and unrated DVDs demonstrated meaningful
improvement in ratings enforcement, but there is room for more. Thirty-eight percent of shoppers purchased R-rated DVDs, compared to 54 percent in 2009. Forty-seven percent purchased unrated DVDs, down from 58 percent in 2009."
[http://www.lazytechguys.com/news/business/violent-video-games-are-the-hardest-media-for-minors-to-acquire-according-to-a-study-from-the-ftc/]
And here's some food for thought: The main sponsor of that violent video game ban is someone you might be all too familiar with: Liberal Democrat Leland Yee:
http://www.mrc.org/press/releases/2011/20110127124552.aspx (Bozell Challenges News Media to Investigate Attacks on Rush Limbaugh by Senator Yee) In fact, I believe this is what you said about your Video Game-vanquishing hero at the time:
""...Before Yee attacked him, Limbaugh had never spoken about him. Limbaugh
has no reason to want to attack him. Limbaugh has nothing to do with this. But the
Yee camp sure has a lot to gain – especially from all the free publicity this gimmick is giving them and his political ambitions running for Mayor this year."
So, are you planning on voting for him now that you share something in common with, which is leftist regulatory control, ya' lying hypocite?
Hell hath no fury like a gamer scorned!
Overreacting?
Submitted by Tim Graham on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 8:42am.
Um, Bozell wasn't saying gamers are mortal sinners who are damned to Hell. And he certainly isn't a "leftist." He's saying it's hardly the End of Liberty to require parents to buy M games (as California suggested).
I'm glad at the FTC numbers, even if they're probably skewed a bit by the stern salesmen at GameStop (my son is one).
Tim
Submitted by well99 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 8:51am.
So I been saving all that ice for nothing?Actually I thought that was the purpose of the ESRB.I don't understand why the video game industry would push it in court?
I agree with Bozell on this one
Submitted by Dave81 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 12:24pm.
I'm all about the government staying out of our lives and letting us make decisions for ourselves, but that applies to adults who are old enough to be responsible for their own actions. Children should not be given the same rights and liberties as adults (otherwise, why can't 12 year olds vote?). I think it's completely reasonable to require an adult to purchase certain video games and movies if they want to allow their children to play them, because then it's the parent making the decision, not the child.
This is also different from cases like in Chicago where students aren't allowed to bring bagged lunches to school, because that's the complete opposite. It's taking the decision AWAY from the parent and letting the government make the decision for the child instead. But requiring the parent to be involved is kind of the right way to do things.
Merchants
Submitted by Tim Graham on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 9:20am.
They jumped on it like their house was on fire. Perhaps they're fiery libertarians....or they don't want anyone messing with their sales numbers.
Tim
Submitted by well99 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 9:31am.
First parents should set the guidelines.If juror gets caught with the game when told not to buy it.Simple take away juniors credit card if he has one.Allowance their will be none.Can you say grounded for a month.Unhook the computer or console.Let the kid be the one to put them in storage.There are always chores to be done at the place.Then make sure they are done and done right.
Those are good parents
Submitted by ArcherB on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 12:38pm.
What about the bad parents who don't care enough to see what games the kids are playing, much less willing to sober up enough to drive them to the store to buy them?
If all parents monitored what their kids did, there would be no need for this law. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
What about the bad parents?
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 1:38pm.
What about them? "Bad parents" will just buy the game for their kid anyway, making the law meaningless. Therefore, if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, the only real solution is to ban these games altogether. Otherwise, there will always be the possibility that a kid somewhere will be exposed to one of these games.
By the way, if the parents are too drunk to drive their kid to the store, there you go....problem solved. No new law necessary. ;)
ckc
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 1:44pm.
I don't think anyone thinks we can protect kids from all the bad things in the world. The idea is to make it a little more difficult for them to get those bad things. We do it with alcohol and tobacco, why not with this stuff?
I had a bike
Submitted by ArcherB on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 8:44pm.
I used to ride my bike to the store. For that matter, my parents rarely took me anywhere. A 10 mile ride on my BMX just to find a good set of bike trails was not at all unusual. It got worse when I discovered girls.
I don't have a problem with kids playing these games as long as their parents know about it. This law was intended to make sure the parents were aware of what their kids were doing.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
I had a Bike also
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 9:24pm.
I came of age in MD, between the age of 14 to 17 I rode my bike from the far side of Owen Brown rd, to Rt 108, everyday. Trust me if you knew it, you would be impressed. I raced in local races, and often did well.
ArcherB
Submitted by well99 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 3:25pm.
That has always been a problem but you cant legislative it.Parents wanting to be friends,don't want to put the work in it takes to be one,or more interested in living their own lives which doesn't always include their kids.
Let the 'rents decide
Submitted by ArcherB on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 8:47pm.
If parents want to be their kid's pals, then that's the parent's right. If the parents are aware of the game and are OK letting their kids play it, then the kids should be allowed to play it. This law forced parents to know what games their kids were playing. By allowing kids to buy these games without their parents, you are taking the decision away from the parents and giving to a 12 year old. You really think that's a good idea?
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Apathy
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 10:24pm.
"This law forced parents to know what games their kids were playing."
And back when my parents bought video games for me...well, they wouldn't have cared. They had, and still have, a VERY "HO-HUM" attitude towards such things. The ONLY thing that would have mattered to them was "Does Unsane like it?"
I doubt my parents were alone. I think this law was pretty well worthless.
(Oddly, my old man tried very hard to ban heavy metal from the home. Yeah, that worked out very well. When I was working and making my own money, there was no way he could prevent the entire Slayer collection, among others, from coming home with me...)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
ArcherB
Submitted by well99 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:20am.
I not saying take away parents rights.I saying you can't legislate it.Which you shouldn't be able to unless they are abusive and such.The bottom line is parents should be keeping an eye on what their kids do.
Just asking
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 9:20am.
What if the person being bound, gagged, tortured and killed is not a woman, but is Obama? Would that game be allowed to be sold to kids?
Or anyone?
You might want to
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 9:45am.
........be careful of what you say on a public board with the tactics of our commander in chief
Apologies, Mr. Bozell
Submitted by LinTaylor on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 11:34am.
Please don't get me wrong, Mr. Bozell. I have a great deal of respect for you...about half the time. The problem is, the other half you seem to spend wringing your hands and worrying about what these terrible new media are doing to our precious little children. While I certainly don't condone the childish antics of Hollywood stars who think they're better than the rest of us, it's other forms of entertainment that concern me.
The big issue here is, despite what some may say, violent video games AREN'T marketed towards children; they're just plain marketed. It isn't like ads for Mortal Kombat use bright sunny mascots to lure kids in before hitting them with images of Sub-Zero ripping a man in half with his bare hands. You know exactly what you're getting when you buy the game, or at least you should. And even if you don't, game boxes clearly display its rating and the reasons for that rating (like "cartoon violence", "blood and gore", "sexual situations", etc).
I think what really bothers me is the giant double standard. If a child sneaks into an R-rated movie, people blame the theater for selling him the ticket; they don't march on Hollywood demanding that only PG movies be made from now on. Why are video games the special exception? How is that right? If a vendor sells a child an inappropriate game, isn't it the one who made the sale the one at fault?
I can understand the concern about exposing minors to questionable media, but...isn't that for the parents to decide? I thought individual responsibility was a central tenet of Libertarian thought. So why are video games the special case that requires us to violate our principles?
I myself was raised from an early age to know the difference between fiction and reality. While my friends were getting into trouble for kicking their mothers in imitation of the Ninja Turtles, I was able to partake of violent movies, TV shows, and video games because my parents felt that I could handle it. And thus far, going on age 27, I have yet to commit any acts of wanton violence (except against my older brother, but you know how it is with siblings).
A few months ago, I bought the zombie shooter game Left 4 Dead 2 at Wal-Mart and the woman at the check-out carded me. As I handed her my driver's license, I thought to myself, "This is exactly how it should happen". We don't need a special level of government interference to protect kids from violent media. What we do need are parents who actually give a damn about raising their children, and vendors who do their job properly.
Lin
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 11:38am.
I think that Mr. Bozell is talking about exactly what your experience was, children should not be allowed to buy the game. He doesn't seem to be saying parents shouldn't be allowed to buy it, just children.
Radical
Submitted by LinTaylor on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 12:10pm.
I certainly agree that only responsible children should be allowed to play these games; I'm an avid fan of God of War myself, and while as a mythology buff I enjoy it, I certainly wouldn't show it to a child unless they were extremely well-adjusted. But what really bothers me is the last paragraph, where Mr. Bozell advocates putting social pressure on vendors, who he seems to think only care about making money. How is this any different from Michelle Obama's crusade to force healthy meals on children whether they or their parents like it or not, or her husband referring to the corporate sector as "the enemy" as he enacts extreme taxes to punish the rich?
How is the storyline in Left 4 dead 2?
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 11:43am.
Is it similar to resident evil? I only bought a x box 360 not too long ago just for the kinect.
I like RPG video games when the plot and CGI are very good.
Shawn
Submitted by LinTaylor on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 12:17pm.
Admittedly, the plot on L4D2 is somewhat sparse. There's not a huge overarching storyline about the zombie plague like there is with RE. Instead the narrative focuses on four survivors, all of whom come from different backgrounds (a Pennsylvania reporter, a Mafia-esque tough-guy, a Georgian mechanic and a Georgian high school football coach) trying to get along and escape to safety. The biggest draw for this game is the teamwork aspect: if you don't work with the other survivors, you're not going to live very long. It's a lot of fun, but only if you have friends with whom you can play the game. As a solo game it's a little thin, but its co-op is the entire point. I still recommend it though, especially if you can snag it for the PC, since it tends to retail for about $20 with occasional sales which can knock the price in half.
Lin
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 12:22pm.
I saw that you are a god of war fan too. I loved the first two, but I have not finished then third. Final Fantasy 7 was the best RPG I ever played but way too time consuming.
Shawn
Submitted by LinTaylor on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 1:21pm.
I'll be honest, I was never too fond of FF7. I played it back when it came out, but it never hit me with the emotional impact that apparently affected everybody else of my generation. Maybe I'm just weird, I dunno. I'm also a huge fan of Assassin's Creed, but much to my consternation I haven't worked up the enthusiasm to finish Brotherhood despite receiving it for Christmas.
Heh, I might as well come
Submitted by Rowane on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 9:26pm.
Heh, I might as well come out of the video game closet too. I've been a World of WARCRAFT player since it first came out on beta.
I don't really think video games can do any harm to anyone and that attempts to regulate them like this are nothing more than another case of big government taking over every aspect of our lives.
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. (Aaron Tippin)
Bozell, you don't get it
Submitted by ironchefofmunchies on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 11:56am.
Bozell-you're quickly reaching a point of self-parody with me with these ongoing articles bemoaning the government NOT regulating people's behavior. Well-behavior that YOU disagree with that is.
Do yourself a favor and go back to stories about media bias. At least there you raise valid concerns and serve a useful purpose to conservatism.
Here? You look like a "we want to regulate what you see and do" cartoon parody of conservatism. It's old and tired and utterly ineffective.
Focus your energy on where kids are coming up with $50 to buy these games. Or why parents let their kids play these games for hours and hours straight without ever stepping in to suggest the kid do something else.
Parents buying their kids stuff and "being their friends" are NOT being parents. They are being ENABLERS. And the parents are the ones who are going to have to be mature enough to do something about this issue-not the government.
Quit asking the government to do the job parents are too lazy or scared to do themselves. It's called being a conservative.
Observation
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 10:26pm.
I don't think you read very many of Bozell's columns.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So let me get this straight...
Submitted by Dave81 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 12:25pm.
Kids have the right to rip people's heads off and sexually molest people in a video game...but not to say a prayer before a football game? Got it...
Just one problem, Dave...
Submitted by LinTaylor on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 1:33pm.
Nobody ever said anything remotely like what you're talking about. This isn't about giving the "right" to play violent games, it's about NOT restricting the right to sell such things. In fact, the point Mr. Bozell and several of us made here is that kids SHOULDN'T play such games, but it's up to their parents to make the judgement call rather than the government. If anything, it lines up with your apparent disagreement with separation of church and state, both being cases where the state tries to legislate morality and behavior.
Missed the point?
Submitted by Dave81 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 3:31pm.
I wasn't disagreeing with Mr. Bozell, I was pointing out the irony in the Supreme Court's ruling. They seem okay with allowing children to be exposed to (and in a way partake in) horrible scenes of violence without parental consent, but heaven forbid they try to organize some faith based even at a school related function. I completely agree that it should be the parents who make the decision, but the way I understood the court's ruling is that the parents don't get to make the decision, the kids do.
"Restrictions" just another
Submitted by Rowane on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 9:37pm.
"Restrictions" just another word for government intrusion into every facet of our lives.
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. (Aaron Tippin)
The bigger issue here is the
Submitted by RDD on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 12:48pm.
The bigger issue here is the supreme court stated that video games are protected by the first amendment. The fact that under the law kids can buy whatever is small potatoes here (most stores won't sell/rent M rated games to children because of the possible bad PR that can come from it.) Never mind the fact that all three gaming consoles have parental controls to not allow certain ratings.
The big problem was the passing of this law could of easily opened the door for future laws to restrict video games.
That and the wording was too vague. Based on the terms it used, a game like Civilization 5 could of been restricted and anyone with a brain in their head who's played it would see that's a bunch of crap.
RDD
Submitted by LinTaylor on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 1:43pm.
My thought as a gamer is this: all too often people will talk about what one CAN do in a game as if it's what you MUST do. Everyone decries Grand Theft Auto as a terrible game where you mow down pedestrians and murder prostitutes, but the fact is those actions are entirely up to the player. Quite a few games, like the popular Fallout series and the recent hit Red Dead Redemption, operate off such a "karma system" where the choice to be saint or devil is completely up to the individual, and each decision comes with its own benefits and disadvantages. The problem with legislating such games is that it starts getting into what Orwell called "thoughtcrime": is it fair to ban a game based off of the fact that you can do terrible things whether or not it's required?
Bozell's logic flawed again
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 1:52pm.
"If that’s an untenable violation of the First Amendment, would Scalia rule that it’s unconstitutional for movie theatre owners to prevent minors from walking into movies rated R? “R” requires that an adult accompany the child – the very principle behind California’s law, just a small parental hurdle in children’s access to disturbing content."
Last I checked, movie theaters aren't the government, and the movie ratings system isn't law, so no, Scalia wouldn't find such a thing unconstitutional. If Walmart wants to have a rule forbidding sales of these games to minors, more power to them. Overturning this law does nothing to prevent that.
Once again the rule is proven
Submitted by ajkrik on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 2:53pm.
There's two mind-sets in this country - people who want to tell you how to act/parent whatever, and those who believe in personal control of their/kid's lives.
Mr. Bozell demonstrates the "conservative" variant, and Mr. Obama the socialist variant of "I know what you should/shouldn't do."
Just asking
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 3:31pm.
Is there any direct emperical link between exposure to violent entertaiment and the development of psycopathic/sociopathy personalities? I ask because I was exposed to lots of violent stuff when I was growing up in the 50's. And my children were exposed to things like, "The Exorcist, Jaws, Silence of the Lambs..etc". All seem to be well adjusted..myself included (Well, at least I'm not a serial killer like Dexter)
bozell sides with liberals
Submitted by Bull Moose Prog... on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 10:27pm.
Bozell sides with liberal California attorney and two furthest left justices. Even this decision was 7 to 2 in the end. Though a couple judges who sided against California had sympathies towards nanny state regulation in the end even they agreed this law overreached.
This is freedom of speech and is allowed in books, magazines, comics, music, etc. As the justices noted only "obscenity" which includes porn is allowed to be blocked to minors and this law was not about that. This was was about nanny state Cali being everyone,s parent and deciding for themselves what was too violent for your children and making $1000 off every fine on game sellers as a backdoor tax. What next will the same people tell us we can not circumsize our children in free exercise of religion?
Bozell you raise your kids and stay the hell away from getting the government involved in raising mine. That is my job.
Time to chill
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 10:33pm.
It is amusing to see people turn so very angry at the idea that Mr. Bozell is exercising his First Amendment rights...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Confused
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 9:35am.
First it appears Bozell is blaming the video game industry rather than the court's decision to uphold our first amendment rights.
Then, as I understand it, he is accusing the court of ruling on a case they have little knowledge of. By this logic the judges will have to try gay sex before they rule on the constitutionality of same sex marriage.
I used to play Caveman Games, olympic style events based in the days of the caveman. One event included grabbing the woman by the hair and launching her as far as possible. I'm still wondering how that hasn't translated into me attempting to toss my own wife 80 feet across the desert, so if someone can explain this phenomenon of kids NOT reenacting scenes from video games in real life situations.
Otherwise I'm calling this a load of horse poo.
Oh man, I remember Caveman
Submitted by LinTaylor on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:14pm.
Oh man, I remember Caveman Games. What an odd but fun little game. I always had trouble with that event where you dueled with clubs on top of a platform, kind of like the American Gladiators event Joust.
And of course, all this just reminds me of a quote from Mark LoPresti: "With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?"
I was fine with the disappearance of "Acme TNT"
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 8:33am.
Now if only someone could ban drawings of tunnels on mountainsides. They fool me every time.