 |
| 10. |
Re: Op Ed |
Dec 21, 2010, 16:30 |
HumanTarget |
|
|
Last reply, as I believe we're talking past each other at this point.
You cannot compare law's structure without considering the basis of whether said law is constitutional. Limits on alcohol possession/consumption would be a comparable if games had been construed as having a deleterious affect on minor development.
In regards to alcohol, this is a role the citizens (both individual & corporate) have abdicated (not meant to be derogatory) to the state for enforcement which is what gives us our various liquor laws throughout the lands (limits on availability for sale/purchase, limits on possession, limits on consumption...)
Alcohol boils down to a public health issue.
Regarding the "consumption of media" (to follow as closely as possible to alcohol) however, there has not been any abdication of enforcement by the citizens and attempts to position a group of citizens towards any abdication have been derided and/or seen as ineffective (Comics Code Authority, MPAA...) This is primarily due to concerns of first amendment abridgment at the hands of the state.
And I'd challenge you to find a lawful statue that abridges a citizens first amendment that specifically targets a minor. Schools & school boards have been given wide discretion (case law) when it comes to "school & student safety" and though there are limits on free speech in schools, students (and hence minors) do not forfeit their first amendment rights when they walk through the door. There are merely limitations on such rights.
Keep in mind what we're talking about here are two parties' rights: the consumer (minor/adult/citizen) & the purveyor (retailer/distributor/creator/citizen). Abridging the consumer's right with undue restrictions of consumption isn't legal. Neither is abridging the purveyor's rights with undue restrictions of sale/distribution/creation.
I'm trying to find an analogous scenario and consumption of pornography is about the only one that really fits well but it even has issues (mainly with what is construed as "pornography" - as it is in they eye of the beholder). But isn't that nearly an exact situation as to what we're debating here?
What you (not calling you out specifically) would construe as violent I may not. Similarly what could be construed as pornographic might be different between us as well.
So how do you legislate that?
The question is couched to include the vagaries of burdens on retailers (ensuring 100% compliance with any potential law else face punishment for violations), impacts on first amendment grounds (both consumer & purveyor), and the shielding of minors from harmful materials (public health concerns).
A majority of municipalities already have laws on the books regarding "pandering obscenity". (Check the here [url=]http://cbldf.org/[/url]for those...) The problem is those laws require a high burden of proof to be applicable and video games currently are not considered adequate to warrant enforcement using those methods. Couple this with a combination of unwilling attorneys general (not even attempting to use existing law) & legislators needing to "do something" to gain political capital ("Protect the Children (r)") and you have Sen. Yee attempting to bolster a fail(ing) law.
Which, if SCOTUS follows precedent, will be struck down as unconstitutional.
HT |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
|
| |
| |
|
Date |
Subject |
Author |
| |
1. |
Dec 21, 11:14 |
Re: Op Ed |
StingingVelvet |
| |
2. |
Dec 21, 11:38 |
Re: Op Ed |
Cutter |
| |
3. |
Dec 21, 11:44 |
Re: Op Ed |
ldonyo |
| |
4. |
Dec 21, 12:47 |
Re: Op Ed |
Silicon Avatar |
| |
6. |
Dec 21, 13:45 |
Re: Op Ed |
ViRGE |
| |
7. |
Dec 21, 14:12 |
Re: Op Ed |
HumanTarget |
| |
9. |
Dec 21, 15:29 |
Re: Op Ed |
ViRGE |
| |
8. |
Dec 21, 14:14 |
Re: Op Ed |
briktal |
| |
12. |
Dec 21, 16:54 |
Re: Op Ed |
Silicon Avatar |
| |
5. |
Dec 21, 13:23 |
Re: Op Ed |
HumanTarget |
| >> |
10. |
Dec 21, 16:30 |
Re: Op Ed |
HumanTarget |
| |
11. |
Dec 21, 16:47 |
Re: Op Ed |
ViRGE |
| |
13. |
Dec 22, 09:24 |
Re: Op Ed |
briktal |
|
|
Twitter 
