Games law chucked out
Nibble
Hadn't got the constitution
Monday, 23 February 2009, 10:21
ANOTHER ATTEMPT to 'protect children' by monkeying with the US Constitution has been thrown out by the courts.
A federal appeals court on Friday struck down a California law that sought to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the 2005 law violates kids' rights under the Constitution's First and 14th amendments.
Robed but not wigged one Judge Consuelo Callahan said there were less restrictive ways to protect children from "unquestionably violent" video games. µ
L'Inq
News.com
Share this:
Share
Advertisement
Subscribe to the INQ Newsletter
Sign-up for the INQBot weekly newsletter
INQ Whitepapers
Business Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
Jobs
Advertisement
INQ Poll
All I need to know is when those same kids can buy and rent some serious porn! I mean, these poor oppressed children are clearly having their 'constitutional' rights being violated by the restrictions on access to porn. Surely there is a better way to police this then to be violating the kids' rights in the 1st and 14th amendments! And why can't they vote for cryin' out loud!?!? Ain't that disenfranchisement?!?
And in other news Democrats are arguing that freedom of speech also means that we should implement the fairness doctrine; where programming content on radio should be regulated by the gov't to ensure balance political points of view (read: get more democratic and/or liberal radio programming on air). Of course this doctrine should ONLY be applied to radio and no other forms of media....ain't (selective) free speech great?
@ wats next
Judicial interpretation of the 1st amendment has denied obscenity (e.g. porn) full 1st amendment protection, just as it has denied fighting words and lies (defamation) full protection.
Isn't the 9th circuit court the one that routinely gets its' decisions overturned by higher courts? It's the one staffed by drooling imbicilic marxo-bolshevo-stalinst stanks from San Francisco, right?
Here's a crazy idea, perhaps the parents should take responsibility for their children and try parenting.
The state is not and should not perform a function of a nanny.
That would be correct.