asinann said:
SelectivelyEvil13 said:
Postal 2 is popular? Maybe in her sick, depraved household, but everywhere else it's never heard of. These sanctimonious asshats need to go solve some real problems. Economy in the toilet? Stop talking about some bloody software and get cracking on employment, public works, and otherwise non-head-in-ass policies.
Why would they want to fix the economy when they can tear apart an entire industry and cost a few hundred thousand more people their jobs.
And these so-called "leaders" and "representatives" of the people
never seem to bring that drawback into the argument.
*gripe gripe gripe* For the Children! *gripe gripe gripe*
By the way, this will result in job losses, hurt general retailers who supply games, who will likely take the losses out on paying customers somehow. Let's not even
mention how this measure will require more tax dollars that could have repaired your roads and improved your child's education so that they do not become drug dealers and addicts living off on the streets or play Grand Theft Auto: Reality.
Further attention towards educating children (and let's face it, parents) would be more efficacious in raising a productive generation rather than create a "forbidden fruit" out of video games. Given the choice, I would
hope that any decent enough parent would choose the former emphasis on education over what is an issue primarily to the loudest, most obnoxious, and benighted fear-mongerers.
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Deathfish15 said:
I read the whole transcript (all 72 pages) and those Justices were all over the place. One moment they're going against the guy trying to push the law saying that video games are no different than violent movies or cartoons, the next minute they're going against the guy pushing for the law to be hammered down by stating that the Founding Fathers could never have foreseen video games when forging the 1st Amendment 200 years ago.
I have some good news on this count. While I am not a lawyer, I am a Political Science minor, so this isn't the first time I've read a supreme court case. Basically, that kind of questioning of both sides is just what the Supreme Court does, it's how they get both sides of the story. If anything, the transcript read like they were being hostile to California, and several of the justices seemed to be practically on our side. We aren't out of the woods yet, but the transcript isn't as bad as it may seem. My worry is that the thing was so short; it may have been 72 pages long, but it certainly felt shorter, and like more needed to be said on both sides.
I have not had the chance to read the transcripts myself, but that is what I assumed. It is the duty of the court to investigate the matter thoroughly and examine both sides to the case. This and the transcript's relative brevity could turn out in our[footnote]I daresay anyone concerned over their free right of speech in the United States.[/footnote] favor because this could prove how shallow of an argument the California law is based off of with no basis in facts over petty, misguided correlation and ignorance.
