The USA Government: "We're Not Your Babysitter"

In a vote of 7-2, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a merchant cannot be punished for selling a video game with a Mature rating to a minor.  Such previous laws regarding this matter were considered "nanny laws" and listed as vague and confusing.  Imposed fines, in certain states, could have reached a maximum of $1000 if a merchant were caught selling a prohibited game to a minor.

Well then what's the point of rating the games?  Justice Antonin Scalia alluded to violent fairy tales such as Hanzel and Gretel.  I hardly see the comparison.  To be fair, I must point out that Justice Stephen Breyer was quoted, "It makes no sense to legally block children's access to pornography yet allow them to buy or rent brutally violent video games....What sense does it make to forbid a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting the sale to that 13-year-old boy of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?"

Here, here!  Justice Breyer and Justice Clarence Thomas were the only two to vote against the decision.  And this may be a good place to quote an AP article:  "This decision follows the court's recent movement on First Amendment  cases, with the justices throwing out attempts to ban animal cruelty videos, protests at military funerals, and political speech by businesses."  The key here is that they threw out attempts to ban heinous things.  When is it ever OK to be cruel to another living thing?  What about the right to bury a loved one without being harassed?  What about the freedom to live peacefully?  We're so adept to protect a child's "freedom of speech" but it's seems quite alright to exploit the torture of a living creature. We're not even talking about "virtual" situation here!

Shawn & I have both played games with fair amounts of gory violence and pixelated sexual situations.  However, we are adults, buying items intended for adults.  Children are desensitized to violence.  One small measure was taken to prevent them from buying one form of it and everyone cried that the First Amendment of free speech was being violated.

Years ago, Tipper Gore tackled the music industry and their general distaste for nice language.  Granted, she went a little extreme attacked John Denver, but the end result was a warning label on records that parents could use as a guide.  It was not unlawful for a parent to purchase the music for their own child.  A parent can still legally buy many things not suitable for minors and give those items to their own minor children.  But apparently, this violates the right of free expression.

Local and state governments awarded various software companies $2.1 million in legal fees.  This is your money as well as mine.  This money for education.  This is money for filling pot holes on our streets.  I don't really think it's needed that I say anymore about this ridiculous move.

The First Amendment was created so that the common man would not be stifled.  It was written so that every citizen should have a voice.  It was born out of the idea that a nation's people should be able to speak out against its government when they were wronged.  It has nothing to do with allowing minors to buy certain materials.

The last article I read on the matter was an editorial in a local newspaper.  "While we do not advocate games such as Grand Theft Auto and Postal...." the writer went on to explain what a victory this was and quite frankly, I'm so disgusted I don't even know what else to say.  So I wrote a short note to the editor and clicked "send".

Funny, I don't remember the record companies or the porn magazine publishers crying that they lost money on prohibited sales to minors.  Funny, I don't remember the government paying Big Tobacco $2.1 million for any reason whatsoever.  Is it considered "nannying" to keep a minor from purchasing liquor? Here's a suggestion: Let items that are marketed toward adults be for adults.