PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS will review videogame bill




Kregisen
06-30-2010, 09:47 PM
http://gamepolitics.com/2010/04/26/breaking-scotus-will-review-schwarzenegger-v-ema-update-3


Via Orders of the Court (PDF) just issued at 10:00 AM ET this morning, The Supreme Court of the United States has granted the petition for a writ of certiorari to the California side of Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) v. Schwarzenegger.

This means that the nation’s top court will indeed review a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of California in February of 2009, which struck down a California law that would make it illegal to rent or sell violent videogames to consumers under the age of 18. Retailers who violated the law would be subject to fines of up to $1,000.


Awesome....get rid of more rights. I would love to be fined $1,000 for selling a video game to a 17-year old on craigslist.

driege
06-30-2010, 10:26 PM
This is a stupid fucking law, but from a constitutional standpoint the Supreme Court shouldn't overturn it. It is a state law, and I don't think it violates anything in the Bill of Rights. To be honest I am surprised they are hearing the case since this seems like the laws that exist about R-rated movies.

BenIsForRon
06-30-2010, 10:31 PM
As I understand it, it is a regulation of speech, violating the first amendment. So it should be struck down.

payme_rick
06-30-2010, 10:33 PM
As I understand it, it is a regulation of speech, violating the first amendment. So it should be struck down.

1st amendment:

"Congress shall make no law....."

not a federal matter in my opinion...

.Tom
06-30-2010, 10:36 PM
This is another collectivist law that tells someone what they can and cannot buy based on an arbitrary number. Overturn it!

BenIsForRon
06-30-2010, 11:46 PM
1st amendment:

"Congress shall make no law....."

not a federal matter in my opinion...

14th amendment forces states to comply with the bill of rights.

MR2Fast2Catch
06-30-2010, 11:55 PM
1st amendment:

"Congress shall make no law....."

not a federal matter in my opinion...

I don't understand that logic though. Some people are perfectly fine with gun bans at the state level, and regulating speech at the state level because they support states rights over the federal government. I am all for states rights, but when the states are just as much of a threat to our liberty we should take every precaution to stop them!


And technically, I think:

14th amendment forces states to comply with the bill of rights.

ClayTrainor
06-30-2010, 11:58 PM
I am all for states rights, but when the states are just as much of a threat to our liberty we should take every precaution to stop them!


It sounds like you're more for individual rights, than states rights :)

.Tom
07-01-2010, 12:18 AM
It sounds like you're more for individual rights, than states rights :)

Which is the logical position.

Vessol
07-01-2010, 12:28 AM
The order of importance of rights to me.

Individuals > Local Communities > States > Cats > Dogs > Weird looking piece of lint > The peanut butter sandwich I am currently eating > Federal Government

libertybrewcity
07-01-2010, 01:10 AM
this is retarded. why don't they leave it up to parents?

BenIsForRon
07-01-2010, 01:27 AM
this is retarded. why don't they leave it up to parents?

Because many parents are dumb and buy whatever new thing their kid asks them to...

But that is still no reason to shit on the first amendment.

ClayTrainor
07-01-2010, 01:28 AM
Weird looking piece of lint > The peanut butter sandwich I am currently eating

Dang... that must be nasty Sandwich.

Andrew-Austin
07-01-2010, 01:59 AM
The order of importance of rights to me.

Individuals > Local Communities > States > Cats > Dogs > Weird looking piece of lint > The peanut butter sandwich I am currently eating > Federal Government

lol

Soca Taliban
07-01-2010, 06:35 AM
I always here people talking about State rights and it kinda bothers me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no government has any rights, only privileges granted them by the people.

Xenophage
07-01-2010, 07:39 AM
The order of importance of rights to me.

Individuals > Local Communities > States > Cats > Dogs > Weird looking piece of lint > The peanut butter sandwich I am currently eating > Federal Government

lol!

I endorse this view <3

Xenophage
07-01-2010, 07:46 AM
I always here people talking about State rights and it kinda bothers me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no government has any rights, only privileges granted them by the people.

Yes, that's right. I've said it before around here. "States Rights" is a misnomer around these boards, but in many circles people believe that States and other governments (or, more likely, societies in general) really have "RIGHTS!"

According to Ayn Rand: There's no such thing as a societal right, or a collective right. Rights only apply to volitional entities, e.g. entities capable of making moral choices for themselves. Societies don't make choices. The individuals within them make choices.

Note how different that sounds from some OTHER theories of rights.

Krugerrand
07-01-2010, 07:52 AM
The order of importance of rights to me.

Individuals > Local Communities > States > Cats > Dogs > Weird looking piece of lint > The peanut butter sandwich I am currently eating > Federal Government

That's messed up. Dogs are better than cats without question.

Vessol
07-01-2010, 03:04 PM
That's messed up. Dogs are better than cats without question.

Cats are more libertarian minded ;)


Dang... that must be nasty Sandwich.

I'm broke so peanut butter sandwiches are getting mighty old :\

malkusm
07-01-2010, 03:10 PM
Well, those of you who are saying "The Supreme Court should strike down this law!" and those who are saying "Let the states decide, it isn't a federal issue!" are saying the same thing.


This means that the nation’s top court will indeed review a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of California in February of 2009, which struck down a California law that would make it illegal to rent or sell violent videogames to consumers under the age of 18.

So in either case (defaulting to the decision by the 9th Circuit Court of California, or nullifying the law as unconstitutional), the same effect will be had. Of course, the difference is that the Supreme Court's striking down the law this case implies that they consider it not to be a 10th Amendment issue, but rather contained under some perversion of the Commerce Clause.

.Tom
07-01-2010, 07:58 PM
Because many parents are dumb and buy whatever new thing their kid asks them to...

But that is still no reason to shit on the first amendment.

I don't see what's the big deal about kids doing things like playing violent video games or watching porn.

I've been doing these things since I was like 10 and I enjoyed it and it didn't harm me whatsoever.

Humanae Libertas
07-01-2010, 08:29 PM
Because many parents are dumb and buy whatever new thing their kid asks them to...

But that is still no reason to shit on the first amendment.


They just don't know how to parent, so they want "tha Gubbamint" to step in and take care of their kids. Their argument is always "its for the children".