See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Supreme Court lifts limits on sale of violent video games to minors
Source:
latimes
URL Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw ... ideos-20110627,0,4428733.story
Published: Jun 27, 2011
Author: David G. Savage
Post Date: 2011-06-27 12:12:03 by Ferret
Keywords: None
Views: 136
Comments: 6
California’s restrictions on the sale of violent video games to minors violate the 1st Amendment, the Supreme Court says in a 7-2 ruling. Five justices rule that under no circumstances can the government be allowed to protect children by limiting violence in the media. WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a California law that limited the sale of violent video games to minors, ruling the restriction violated the free-speech principles in the 1st Amendment. "Like books, plays and movies, video games communicate ideas," said Justice Antonin Scalia. "The most basic principle of 1st Amendment law is that government has no power to restrict expression because of its content." The ruling came on a 7-2 vote. Scalia spoke for five members of the court who ruled that under no circumstances could the government be allowed to protect children by limiting violence in the media. "There is no tradition in this country of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence," Scalia said in the courtroom. "Certainly, the books we give children to read -- or read to them when they are younger -- have no shortage of gore. Grimm's Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed." Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined his opinion. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., applauded California's effort to deal with a "serious social problem: the effect of exceptionally violent video games on impressionable minors." But they too voted to strike down the state's law because it did not spell out clearly enough the limits that the gaming industry must follow. Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer filed separate dissents. Thomas said minors had no free-speech rights. Breyer said he thought the law was constitutional as is. The decision comes as a relief to the entertainment industry, which worried a decision upholding the California law could trigger similar measures across the country. david.savage@latimes.com Copyright © 2011, Tribune Interactive
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: , *libertarians* (#0)
ping
free and legal online poker site click here
The Robert's court is a disgrace to the founders and the citizens of this country.
You are a disgrace. You used to sport a pic of your hero the unabomber until christine scolded you over it. People like you would probably want to ban the cartoon the road runner. It was so violent. What about the three stooges, should they be banned too. Also I like Clarence Thomas. But his assertion that minors have no free speech rights is absurd.
It is outragiously criminal in it's conduct. The gutting of campaign donations law was bad law that looked like it was bought and paid for with bribes. Not to mention that Clarence Thomas should be impeached for his conflict of interest regarding the future health care system ruling they will eventually rule on.
what is Thomas' conflict of interest?
A “conspiracy theory” no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government’s explanation and that of its media pimps. ~Paul Craig Roberts
You would. A useful fool.
#2. To: Ferret (#0)
"Satan / Cheney in "08" 
#3. To: tom007 (#2)
The Robert's court is a disgrace to the founders and the citizens of this country.
#4. To: tom007 (#2)
#5. To: Ferret (#4)
Not to mention that Clarence Thomas should be impeached for his conflict of interest regarding the future health care system
#6. To: A K A Stone (#3)
Also I like Clarence Thomas.
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest