”
Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision that strikes down
California’s ban on selling violent video games?
”
THIS WEEK’S QUESTION:
“Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision that strikes down California’s ban on selling violent video games?” Yes: 5 No: 5
-
Karen Anderson: “No. I do not think our founding fathers had any intention of providing ‘free speech’ to minor children, especially in the context of pornography and violence. This was the generation whose motto was that children should be seen and not heard. Violent games are much more graphic than fairy tales in books.”
-
Dave Appling: “No. It’s a bizarre intrusion into powers ‘reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.’ The First Amendment was intended to protect expression of ideas, not product development. And to protect people, not artificial corporate ‘persons.’ Sadly, the Roberts Court’s thumb presses on the scale pro business, not pro people.”
-
Chris Bryant: “Yes, It’s the parent’s responsibility to control minor access to this sort of thing.”
-
Bob Chidester: “Yes. But this is a tough one. Free speech should be protected at all costs including offensive free speech. Protecting ‘happy talk’ and only politically correct speech is hardly the intent of the First Amendment. On the other hand, our youth are exposed to far too much violence including the ubiquitous video games. Perhaps rather than banning these items, we’re better off focusing on good parenting to rear children who have no desire to play video games like the ones which depict the bad guys shooting at police, etc. If nobody buys this crap, they will stop making it. Adults must set a good example. Lets de-vote those like ex-Congressman Weiner and people of his ilk who should be held to the highest standards. We can also begin by cleaning up our neighborhoods and ridding them of gang graffiti, etc. Let’s get back to some old-time morals and values.”
-
David Cohen: “Yes. While the games may be objectionable, it is still free speech. Our parents and grandparents disliked comic books and rock ‘n’ roll, and tried to ban them. They were wrong then and we are wrong now.” n Dennis Kennedy: “No! There are and should be some legitimate limitations on promulgating violent behavior among the very young. And this is one of them.”
-
Julian Mancias: “Yes. But I don’t like it. However, the Constitution needs to be the final word, even if we do not agree with the decision.”
-
Henry Miller: “I strongly disagree. Proper interpretations of the First Amendment prohibit threats to public officials, child pornography, etc. Why not violence ‘pornography'”?
-
Jeff Smith: “No way! What a terrible ruling by the Supreme Court. Hour after hour of interactive exposure to graphically violent video games can’t help but negatively affect a child’s brain, psyche, mental health and soul. I think they’re addicting, desensitizing, demoralizing, dark and overall deleterious. I think they make kids more likely to be violent which is not good for them or for society as a whole. I think our founders would be appalled seeing our highest court ‘protecting’ kid’s rights to view graphically violent trash and blaming it on the First Amendment.”
-
Steve Staloch: “Yes. We have no precedence for banning depictions of violence in any form of media, as proven by the movie and book publishing industries, where regulation of violent video rentals or book purchases to minors is nonexistent. Aside from the free speech issues and debate about whether violent interactive games pose a greater risk to society, this is an issue of parental responsibility – and that unfortunately, cannot be regulated.”” Vote in
