Supreme court rules that video games are protected speech

All in all, I'm not against "censorship" towards minors in any medium, at least at the behest of parents. To me, it's only Censorship when it restricts access from adults.

However, it may be time to debate on the definition of "minor", because arbitrary criteria like age have obvious limitations.

I am against parental rights anyway. Nobody has a business telling anybody else what they can or can't think, or what they can or can't read/watch/hear, ever.

edited 29th Jun '11 6:07:04 AM by SavageHeathen

Meh. Parents have a right to tell their kids what they can and can't do under the "You're livin' here not payin' rent gettin' three square meals a day for free so you're damn right I can choose what you're gonna watch, when you go to sleep, and who you hang out with" clause.

Cm'on, screw that bullshit. If parents want to threaten their kids, they can do it themselves. The government shouldn't make sure they can.

Parents can withold funds from their children. That's plenty enough power, why should the government give'em more?

edited 29th Jun '11 6:43:42 AM by SavageHeathen

Man, that Justice Scalia. Sometimes I want to slap him, sometimes I want to hug him. This time I want to hug him:

"Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection. Under our Constitution, "esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature . . . are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority.”"

Scalia's opinion in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, June 27, 2011.

edited 29th Jun '11 7:54:37 AM by Lawyerdude