Merged SCOTUS strikes down video game law

AvalonXQ said:
Careful of the "fallacy of the middle ground", here. The existence of two strongly-held opposing views does not imply that something in the middle is correct.
Click to expand...

Exactly. While I like the outcome, I still don't think they got it right.
 
Dunstan said:
(2) violates contemporary community standards;
Click to expand...

This one has always bugged the heck out of me. If something violated the community's standards, it wouldn't be an significant issue (because most of the individuals forming the community standards simply would reject it of their own free will).

It's like a Catch-22: if there were significant different points of view, then you couldn't claim there is a community convention. If there is a general consensus, then there would be no issue.

The example I always like to point to are the nudity in bars rules here in St. Louis and just across the river in Illinois. Supposedly nudity violates St. Louis' community standards, though it's plain that the businesses across the river wouldn't exist but for the clientele from this side of the river.

Look at me, in favor of letting the invisible hand of the market make the determination!
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
This one has always bugged the heck out of me. If something violated the community's standards, it wouldn't be an significant issue (because most of the individuals forming the community standards simply would reject it of their own free will).

It's like a Catch-22: if there were significant different points of view, then you couldn't claim there is a community convention. If there is a general consensus, then there would be no issue.

The example I always like to point to are the nudity in bars rules here in St. Louis and just across the river in Illinois. Supposedly nudity violates St. Louis' community standards, though it's plain that the businesses across the river wouldn't exist but for the clientele from this side of the river.

Look at me, in favor of letting the invisible hand of the market make the determination!
Click to expand...

Just don't let your invisible hand get to grabby when you go across the river.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Here's the opinion. I gave it a skim because I'm a legal dork.

Thomas's dissent - Is OK with law because he believes parents have an near absolute right to filter communication to their children. Talks a lot about Puritan history preceding the Constitution and the zeitgeist of the "founding generation". This man continues embarrass himself.
Click to expand...

I was reading through Thomas's opinion and though I agree, 100% with what he is saying, I equally disagree with where he sets his boundaries. Yes, I have the right, as a parent, to screen what video games my child will play. There is this wonderful little technique that I've learned to help with the screening process; it's called telling my child what they can and cannot play.
 
sgtbaker said:
I was reading through Thomas's opinion and though I agree, 100% with what he is saying, I equally disagree with where he sets his boundaries. Yes, I have the right, as a parent, to screen what video games my child will play. There is this wonderful little technique that I've learned to help with the screening process; it's called telling my child what they can and cannot play.
Click to expand...

So I tell my children the dangers of cigarettes and alcohol does that mean they should be allowed to walk into the 7/11 when they are 14 and buy them.
Maybe in your case it is different but children have a habit of sometimes not doing what you tell them they can and cannot do. Unless you think you can watch them all of the time.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I'm not sure that distinction will. The airwaves are owned by the public, not so transmission lines and other media conduits (DVDs, or whatever).

I'm not saying there isn't regulatory authority for non-broadcast media, but the distinction will always exist.
Click to expand...

A distinction, sure, but one that (the Court will find) justifies content-based regulations? I doubt it.
 
KingMerv00 said:
The law restricts the speech of the manufacturer and the children (yes children have free speech rights). To quote the majority:
Click to expand...

As a means of protecting children from portrayals of violence, the legislation is seriously underinclusive, not only because it excludes portrayals other than video games, but also because it permits a parental or avuncular veto. And as a means of assisting concerned parents it isseriously overinclusive because it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents (and aunts and uncles) think violent video games are a harmless pastime. And the overbreadth in achieving one goal isnot cured by the underbreadth in achieving the other.Legislation such as this, which is neither fish nor fowl, cannot survive strict scrutiny
Click to expand...

Would the decision have been different if it was not seriously underinclusive.

Children have free speech rights but I don't agree that a child has a first amendment right to purchase a violent video game without his/her parents being with him/her.

Hey I learned a new word today at 56 (avuncular).


I think this is an example of why people like to make lawyer jokes.
And the overbreadth in achieving one goal is not cured by the underbreadth in achieving the other
Click to expand...
although they should have thrown in a party of the first part in there somewhere.
 
Does anyone remember the good old days... when Tipper Gore looked after our children with the Parents Music Resource Center ... and her husband protected us with his V-Chip and internet filters?

I'm not sure what the world is coming to. These days you have to go all the way to China to find a really good internet filter...
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
This one has always bugged the heck out of me. If something violated the community's standards, it wouldn't be an significant issue (because most of the individuals forming the community standards simply would reject it of their own free will).

It's like a Catch-22: if there were significant different points of view, then you couldn't claim there is a community convention. If there is a general consensus, then there would be no issue.

The example I always like to point to are the nudity in bars rules here in St. Louis and just across the river in Illinois. Supposedly nudity violates St. Louis' community standards, though it's plain that the businesses across the river wouldn't exist but for the clientele from this side of the river.

Look at me, in favor of letting the invisible hand of the market make the determination!
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of the obscenity exception, but I see no inconsistency between acknowledging the existence of a community standard and the fact that some individuals reject that standard.
 
jnelso99 said:
Unless it's during the halftime show of the Super Bowl...
Click to expand...

But that wasn't prosecuted as obscenity. The FCC took action against it as "indecent," which is a much lesser standard. (But not any better-defined, sadly.) It was able to do so because the Super Bowl was on a broadcast network rather than cable, and under existing precedent (but perhaps not existing for much longer) the government has broader rein to regulate content of broadcast media.
 
Dunstan said:
A distinction, sure, but one that (the Court will find) justifies content-based regulations? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I thought we were really close to nudity on the air back in the '70s, but now the trend is the other direction.

The distinction between the regulation of over-the-air content and content via other transmission is pretty stark, and the decision this thread discusses only made it more stark, if anything.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I dunno. I thought we were really close to nudity on the air back in the '70s, but now the trend is the other direction.

The distinction between the regulation of over-the-air content and content via other transmission is pretty stark, and the decision this thread discusses only made it more stark, if anything.
Click to expand...

The difference in regulation is stark, but the differences to people's lives is becoming less significant. Which makes the difference in regulation harder to justify in my opinion.

Thirty years ago, parents who wanted their kids shielded from "indecent" material had a pretty easy time of it, relatively speaking. Practically all television was broadcast, and the internet was barely a gleam in Al Gore's eye.* The FCC's indecency rules were, at least in theory, the difference between kids being able to access indecent material easily and not.

Today, radio is dying, and most** homes have internet access and/or at least some cable channels. Parents who want to shield their kids from indecency can't really rely on the FCC, because while the FCC can punish CBS for showing Janet Jackson's breast, it can't and doesn't do squat about HBO showing Anna Paquin's (or Emilia Clarke's, or....), and it can't do anything about the multitude of internet sites offering such material.

Even if Red Lion and the FCC indecency regs were overturned, my guess is that CBS, NBC, etc. would continue to abide by mostly the same standards, because they want the reputation of being a "family-friendly" or "safe" station. Just as the Disney Channel does -- it's on cable and thus is not subject to those regs today.

Basically, the whole "broadcast is inherently different" argument is becoming untenable. A lot of "broadcast" stations aren't even actually received by "broadcast" any more by a lot of people: we get those "broadcast" stations via our cable provider. There are so many communications media available today that the claim that the government needs to parcel out the "scarce" broadcast spectrum in a way that ensures certain content will or won't be provided is pretty dubious.

*I'm joking. I know that the net has been around in one form or another for a long time, and that Gore didn't actually claim to invent the thing.

**too lazy to check the data, so it might not be a majority of the population yet, but it's certainly a majority of the type of middle-class homes who write angry letters to the FCC.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I dunno. I thought we were really close to nudity on the air back in the '70s, but now the trend is the other direction.

The distinction between the regulation of over-the-air content and content via other transmission is pretty stark, and the decision this thread discusses only made it more stark, if anything.
Click to expand...

Newspapers are not regulated and yet I never see any swearing or nudity in them. What makes you think broadcast media will suddenly fill with porno and "****"?
 
And if IIRC the FCC rules only apply unti 9 or 10 at night, at which time they can broadcast anything they wisah, but of course they don't jiggly nekkid breasts then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom