Vilolent Video Game Ban Fails again!!

So here we go again - This is NOT an issue about the content in the Video Game itself. It is a CLEAR issue of the parent not having control over the content that is being consumed in the household. In addition to not controlling the content, they have done a very POOR job with bringing up their children in understanding Right from Wrong and Real from Imaginary. It is a sad day that we continue to have to create laws for those that do not know how to bring up their children with basic skills in life to live a productive life. Stop blaming the media and entertainment industries for the lack of parenting skills that allow you to bring up a child that will be productive in society and not destructive! Take a hard look in the mirror and determine if you are doing everything you can in your house before blaming others for all your troubles in the world. Get off your ASS and do something about it, quit bitching and hope that someone else will control it for you. This is a good statement for life in general, but MOST important when it comes to taking on the responsibility of being a parent. You made the decision to bring this child into the world. It is YOUR JOB to give this child all the opportunity to be the best they can be, and better. Break the cycle, allow your child to do more, grow more, contribute more than you may have been able to. It is an incredible joy to mentor an individual and see them succeed, and it is a testament to you that they can achieve a higher level in life than what you may have had. STOP BEING SELFISH! Don't hold them back, let them grow, and do it in a way that allows them to be a positive influence on others as well.

Supremes Rule Against Ban on Sale of Violent Video Games to Minors

TV, film producers and distributors had been concerned about possible repercussions on them if ban were reinstated

John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 6/27/2011 10:31:54 AM

The Supreme Court has upheld a Ninth Circuit Appeals Court ruling that California's ban on violent video games was an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech.
The Ninth Circuit had held that the state of California "has not demonstrated a compelling interest, has not tailored the restriction to its alleged compelling interest, and there exist less-restrictive means that would further the State's expressed interests."
In a 7-2 deision, the Supreme Court agreed the ban was a violation of the First Amendment.
"The Act does not comport with the First Amendment. Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like pro-tected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through fa-miliar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And 'the basic principles of freedom of speech . . . do not vary' with a new and different communication medium, wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in the opinion, which was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
In what would be a blow to effort to crack down on violence in other media,the court found that the ban "abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents (and aunts and uncles) think violent video games are a harm-less pastime."
Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts concurred in the opinion, but left room for states to come up with media violence restrictions that would pass muster. "I would hold only that the particular law at issue here fails to provide the clear notice that the Constitution requires," wrote Alito in an opinion joined by Roberts. " I would not squelch legislative efforts to deal with what is perceived by some to be a significant and developing social problem. If differently framed statutes are enacted by the States or by the Fed-eral Government, we can consider the constitutionality ofthose laws when cases challenging them are presented to us.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer dissented.
Cable operators, in arguing that the Supreme Court should not reinstate the ban, were concerned that if California won and the court ruled that content-based violence restrictions can be justified for the sake of the children, as it were, much of its own industry's established First Amendment protections would be lost. "Courts would have little ability to undertake the critical task of distinguishing regulation of truly harmful speech from regulation of merely objectionable speech," the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) told the court in arguing against the ban.
NCTA didn't see the ban stopping at video games: "Petitioners invoke concerns about ‘violent scenes in television and movies' as well as ‘violent music lyrics.' If [they] were to have their way, therefore, it appears that States would be free to regulate any form of speech they deemed potentially harmful to minors' emotional development."
Studios were also concerned that TV fare could be a target of a government violence ban. If the Court ruled in favor of the ban, "the government would presumably be empowered to proscribe the distribution of depictions of violence in motion pictures, television and books," said the Motion Picture Association of America and various unions and guilds in a joint brief on the case.