Schwarzenegger and Yee Unapologetic for Failed Supreme Court Battle

[Tipsy Giant]

It's not all citizens though, it's minors. And people are pretty much in universal agreement that children shouldn't see things that are rated as unsuitable for kids. That's why the rating exists. And you said yourself that a lot of people think those things are legally enforced, would it really make that much difference if they were?

It's the principle of the thing. This really comes down to a fundamental question of the proper role of government, and I just don't think it has any place in people's personal lives.

This law wouldn't make much difference, but I don't like where the mindset behind it would lead.

But they couldn't sell porn to kids right?

so what's the difference? Adult images of any kind should be censored from children, which is why no swearing is allowed before a certain time, when kids have usually gone to bed.

Why is everything so absolutist in America, they are so paranoid of their government becoming Maoist, it won't happen!

 

[Aidinthel]

But they couldn't sell porn to kids right?

so what's the difference? Adult images of any kind should be censored from children, which is why no swearing is allowed before a certain time, when kids have usually gone to bed.

Why is everything so absolutist in America, they are so paranoid of their government becoming Maoist, it won't happen!

The difference is that porn is not speech. And I don't agree with the censorship of television, either.

And wow, being accused of anti-communist paranoia by people who don't make an effort to understand my viewpoint gets old really quickly.

 

[Lunar Templar]

well of course they don't care they got slapped with a 1.8 mill bill

-.- they aren't the ones that are going to have to PAY the fine, it'll be the tax payers, like always, that have to foot the bill for the giant waste of time that was they're bill.

 

[Stooo]

Anyway, if the government don't regulate what kids see, who should? You said the cinema's self regulate, but why wouldn't they let children watch whatever they want? Wouldn't that lead to more money for them, which is what a business is all about?

Ultimately, it's the parents' responsibility. Theaters have incentive to regulate because their customers want the ratings to be enforced, and anyone ignoring the ratings would lose business very quickly.

And wouldn't it be significantly easier for the parent to regulate if little billy couldn't go out and purchase grand theft auto of his own free accord?

Too bad if it's easier. It's the responsibility of a parent to occasionally glance through the child's entertainment library if they feel the need to.

If that sounds too hard, please don't become a parent, you'll never survive.

I always found this argument very odd and it's pretty much an American only thing.
So, no legal come backs for selling games to minors because the parents need to sort that?
So why can't they buy guns? Buy booze? Buy smokes? Isn't that also the parents problem following the above lines? Why can't you let your 11 year old bugger a goat in the middle of Walmart if you as a parent think it's OK?

Because these controls are to help the kids who are the exceptions. The kids of parents who don't care. The stupid parents. The lazy parents. The parents who don't deserve the wonder of having a child.

I think many people without kids lose sight of why most countries have these government controlled law's and why the "kids" get dragged into it all the time.

The idea behind the law is a good thing, maybe their execution has been lacked but the idea isn't bad.

Things like this are not the "slippery slope" of rights erosion that you fear. That's already been and gone with the "war on terror" and the thin edge of that wedge went right up your arse.

 

[RJ Dalton]

So, US lawmakers are more out of touch with reality than I, a schizophrenic, am. Why does this not come as more of a shock to me?

 

[lacktheknack]

Anyway, if the government don't regulate what kids see, who should? You said the cinema's self regulate, but why wouldn't they let children watch whatever they want? Wouldn't that lead to more money for them, which is what a business is all about?

Ultimately, it's the parents' responsibility. Theaters have incentive to regulate because their customers want the ratings to be enforced, and anyone ignoring the ratings would lose business very quickly.

And wouldn't it be significantly easier for the parent to regulate if little billy couldn't go out and purchase grand theft auto of his own free accord?

Too bad if it's easier. It's the responsibility of a parent to occasionally glance through the child's entertainment library if they feel the need to.

If that sounds too hard, please don't become a parent, you'll never survive.

I always found this argument very odd and it's pretty much an American only thing.
So, no legal come backs for selling games to minors because the parents need to sort that?
So why can't they buy guns? Buy booze? Buy smokes? Isn't that also the parents problem following the above lines? Why can't you let your 11 year old bugger a goat in the middle of Walmart if you as a parent think it's OK?

Because these controls are to help the kids who are the exceptions. The kids of parents who don't care. The stupid parents. The lazy parents. The parents who don't deserve the wonder of having a child.

I think many people without kids lose sight of why most countries have these government controlled law's and why the "kids" get dragged into it all the time.

The idea behind the law is a good thing, maybe their execution has been lacked but the idea isn't bad.

Things like this are not the "slippery slope" of rights erosion that you fear. That's already been and gone with the "war on terror" and the thin edge of that wedge went right up your arse.

I'm not even American. I just begrudge constant meddling in a place that doesn't need it. You DO realize that game retailers already refuse to sell M-Rated games to kids anyways, right?

What gets my goat is the total waste of time, money and focus this entire thing was.

 

[luckshot]

"I felt it was important that the state take an active role in protecting kids, because that's our responsibility,"

no your job is to run the government, if you want to protect children become a parent or a social worker. in fact dont, become a janitor at the sewage treatment center, keeping that place clean for the actual workers would do more to protect the children than the basic theft of almost 2 million that could have gone to...any kind of thing that would actually assist children in growing and developing...open a book store, keep teachers in schools, repair schools/buses/roads to schools/child treatment centers.


i know that was an annoying read, my point is they could have done practically anything with the money that would have actually made life better for children

 

[Tipsy Giant]

But they couldn't sell porn to kids right?

so what's the difference? Adult images of any kind should be censored from children, which is why no swearing is allowed before a certain time, when kids have usually gone to bed.

Why is everything so absolutist in America, they are so paranoid of their government becoming Maoist, it won't happen!

The difference is that porn is not speech. And I don't agree with the censorship of television, either.

And wow, being accused of anti-communist paranoia by people who don't make an effort to understand my viewpoint gets old really quickly.

Porn is not speech? How come?

I'm constantly told that people don't want to give the government control over this and that as it is a slippery slope... Which is ridiculous, it's clearly corruption that was a slippery slope.

Wasn't calling you out in particular, just explaining how the country seems from an outside perspective.
People are lovely, clever, considerate & caring. Groups of people tend to fall into a Rabble Rabble Trap