Interesting First Amendment Case
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Interesting First Amendment Case

  1. #1

    Post Interesting First Amendment Case

    Well it looks like we have another 5-4 decision from the court like all of the major case these days.

    California ban on sale of 'violent' video games to children rejected - CNN.com

    Actually this is a 7-2 decision with Antonin Scalia writing the majority opinion supported by Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, Sam Alito, John Roberts and Elena Kagen. Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer dissented. This decision disproves two commanly spouted untruths about the court that seem to get sprewed around the internet,
    1- All of the major decisions are 5-4. This is clearly wrong, especially when first amendment issues are in play. Typically if you want to see a unamimous decision, look at a first amendment case. However, as of late Sam Alito will typically token dissent and write a "devil's advocate" opinion in a lot of cases.
    2- Scalia and Thomas always (sic) "vote" the same way. Two issues with this myth, first being that on this case they were on opposite ideological sides, second justices do not "vote" on cases. They supply their legal opinions.

    I feel that the SCOTUS made the right decision in this case, just as they did in the "Crush Video" case. The Crush Video case was a 8-1 decision with a token disent by Sam Alito.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    I like how some of the scj's say they should "help" the parents make the decision lol lol lol good thing we have the government otherwise I would have NO IDEA WHAT TO DO!!!....

    They also say how far the first amendment rights can be applied to kids....aren't these rights fully given to everyone? And its a restriction on what the government can't take away...not on what can be applied to the people?

    I know the case was in favor of the gaming business...but what happens when they do decide their help is better than the peoples rights?

    I need to go find a new uninhabited continent....

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    In the end it depends on what is,is.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen:209192
    I like how some of the scj's say they should "help" the parents make the decision lol lol lol good thing we have the government otherwise I would have NO IDEA WHAT TO DO!!!....

    They also say how far the first amendment rights can be applied to kids....aren't these rights fully given to everyone? And its a restriction on what the government can't take away...not on what can be applied to the people?

    I know the case was in favor of the gaming business...but what happens when they do decide their help is better than the peoples rights?

    I need to go find a new uninhabited continent....
    No children do not have use of the Bill of Rights, they acquire that upon reaching adulthood (18). Go down the list and think how rediculous it would be if they did. Civil rights? Yes. Constitutional rights? No.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    An Alternate Reality, I Assure You...
    Posts
    5,115
    There is a fine line here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    [*]Don't be afraid to use sarcasm, mockery and humiliation. They don't respect you. There's no need to pretend you respect them.
    Operation Veterans Relief: http://www.opvr.org/home.html

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfettered Might:209234
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen:209192
    I like how some of the scj's say they should "help" the parents make the decision lol lol lol good thing we have the government otherwise I would have NO IDEA WHAT TO DO!!!....

    They also say how far the first amendment rights can be applied to kids....aren't these rights fully given to everyone? And its a restriction on what the government can't take away...not on what can be applied to the people?

    I know the case was in favor of the gaming business...but what happens when they do decide their help is better than the peoples rights?

    I need to go find a new uninhabited continent....
    No children do not have use of the Bill of Rights, they acquire that upon reaching adulthood (18). Go down the list and think how rediculous it would be if they did. Civil rights? Yes. Constitutional rights? No.
    I gotta disagree. You are saying kids don't have the right to free speech? Freedom to assemble for a cause? The police have the right to search a 15 year old girls purse without reasonable cause?

    My kids will have every right they deserve. I
    will introduce them to firearms at a young age, teach them to be respectful with their words, allow them to find peace through whatever religion brings them there. All rights protected by the bill of rights...

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    St. Louis County, MO
    Posts
    3,445
    My kids knows I am their mother and still respect that no matter if my decision is not to their liking. They have limited rights until they leave my care under MY own house. It doesn't matter how old they are, stay with me and live with my rule. If they want full rights, then they can live in their own house. Unspoken rule in MY house: dinner at 7pm; kitchen close at 8pm; all doors lock at 9pm; unless it is a matter of life and death -- I am not to be waken when I am asleep. How about that? Does this say my kids have constitutional rights under my care? Different situation, same banana.
    "Don't let the door hit ya where the dawg shudda bit ya!"
    G'day and Glock
    GATEWAY SWIFT WING ST. LOUIS

  9. Your kids rights are given up once they are in the "Government Schools".
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."Frederic Bastia

  10. #9
    I am currently acquiring my BSCJ (Criminal Justice degree). And as far as what I've discerned, children ARE guaranteed the rights of the constitution. The only thing different is that their parents/guardians have a say in what they do until they are 18. They obviously can't go and buy these games without an adult anyway so why is this not a matter of parental guidance? Tuckersmom said it... The parents house the parents rules. They can't ban violent games because people like me would have no Call of Duty etc. Little kids shouldn't get it anyway because they aren't old enough. But in court, children have their rights just as we do, they are just guided differently. A cop can't search a kid without reasonable suspicion and the parents consent if they are not above the age of consent. There are too many loopholes in childrens rights but in this case the parents should be the responsible ones.

  11. #10
    IMHO The SCOTUS Opinion in the California case that is the subject of this thread was correct; basically the state cannot & should not prevent access of minors to the applicable gaming content; that is up to the due diligence or lack thereof the parents. So while they can purchase it mom or dad might burn it if they do not feel it is acceptable in their household.

    Here are a few interesting pieces on the current interpretations of minors constitutional rights vs. adult constitutional rights, various courts etc., have made...

    Generally speaking, the Constitution applies equally to everyone, regardless of age, color, race, religion, or any other factor. However, minors are a special category of person, and in many cases, the rights of minors can be suppressed in ways that the rights of adults simply may not be.

    The most obvious reason for this is simply age. Or perhaps better stated, maturity. A four-year-old, or even a ten-year-old, cannot make, nor be expected to make, the same sorts of decisions that an adult can make. Where an adult might be perfectly free to wander the streets at night, a child seen wandering the streets at night would be taken into some sort of protective custody, even if against his will.

    There are other violations of a minor's rights that on their face seem quite onerous, but for which there are many legal precedents. The most common such violations are of the rights of students. That is, of children attending school. The rights of free speech, free press, free association, and freedom from unwarranted search and seizure are points of contention between school administrators and students, and have been for decades.

    In loco parentis
    There are several reasons why violations of student rights are upheld by the courts. One of the most basic reasons is known as in loco parentis. This Latin phrase basically means that while a student is in the custody of a school, the school can and often should act as a parent. In this duty of the school, many decisions can be made that are outside the normal governmental purview. The other basic reason for violation of student rights has to do with the goal of school — to educate. If an act of a student can interfere with the educational process, that act may, in many cases, be suppressed.
    Read More At...
    Constitutional Topic: Student Rights - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    Constitutional Issues

    Legal commentators have noted that the courts were seemingly willing to recognize the constitutional rights of children during the 1960s and 1970s. A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions recognized minors' rights to counsel in criminal proceedings, to protection from Self-Incrimination, as well as other procedural rights and general privacy rights. However, according to some commentators, the 1988 case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 108 S. Ct. 562, 98 L. Ed. 2d 592 (1988) marked a turning point in the Court's recognition of children's constitutional rights. In that case, the Court limited the right of children to exercise free speech and free expression. According to the decision, children's rights "are not coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings."
    One 1993 study of constitutional decisions concluded that from the 1960s to the early 1990s, the U.S. Supreme Court was increasingly less supportive of expanding children's claims to constitutional rights. The study showed that under the liberal Warren Court, 100 percent of decisions about constitutional cases upheld children's claims. The Burger Court, which followed, upheld children's claims in 59 percent of such decisions, and the Rehnquist Court in 22 percent of such cases to 1993. The cases in the survey concerned issues of Equal Protection, due process, privacy, free expression, and free exercise of religion.
    Statistics such as these prompted concern among experts as to the denial of basic legal rights given to children. During the mid- to late-1990s, a number of scholarly article were published advocating expanded rights for children. However, the trend toward restricting children's rights continued into the early 2000s. Courts, with some frequency, find that children are not capable of managing full legal rights and of making decisions on their own behalf. The question of how far society should go in allowing children to participate in determining their destiny remains a difficult challenge.
    Read More At...
    Children's Rights legal definition of Children's Rights. Children's Rights synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast