My reaction to the Supreme Court Ruling
By urban_ryoga 1 Comments
At first I was really excited about the ruling. However when I found out it wasn't a unanimous ruling, I set out to find out why, the counterarguement was one that freaked me out and I realized that this fight is far from over. Maybe it is over to specifically direct these laws against video games, but this has been an ongoing struggle for all forms of media for decades, centuries even...
What urked me was the following:
I read another article where another supporter of the california bill (not a judge) had the same opinion and hinted that taking that approach as the next step to essentially get this bill passed. I don't like that idea in the slightest bit.Justice Clarence Thomas focused on his researched understanding that the frames of the United States Constitution did not believe children enjoyed the same access to Free Speech as adults. "The history clearly shows a founding generation that believed parents to have complete authority over their minor children and expected parents to direct the development of those children." As a result, he said, the California law restricting the sale of gams to minors was within Constitutional bounds.
So what does that mean exactly? I'm not a government major, but oddly enough I've seen bylaws in an org I'm in get distorted around a similar concept. In my org, we have the ability to give those that can't meet our guidelines for membership the title of honorary membership. This is either given to those who exemplify the principles of our organization, but can't meet the requirements for any of our types of membership for whatever reason. This got brought into question because it has been customary for this honor be given to the children of those whose parents were members and died, but are following the same path. Because of that usage of that type of membership, there was an attempt to set an age limit for all types of membership. This was eventually shot down, because there is no set age when a person matures and the body who votes on granting that membership should determine in their own opinion if that person is worthy regardless of age.
I guess I am going off course a bit, but I feel like they will be attacking the definition of a citizen by what is stated in the U.S. Constitution. According to our constitution, a person born here is a citizen and is therefore entitled to inalienable rights. This judge thinks that is invalid and there is some sort of age gate between being born and being a U.S. citizen.
This brings to me two issues... First, if they aren't a U.S. citizen when they are born, what are they? An alien, object, pet? Secondly, this still doesn't establish the need for this rule. Say the statement is true that parents are mandated to possess children for X amount of years... What would give the government the permission to establish restrictive sales to these people? I would say that were only possible if that person was declared Ward of the Court...
I really hope it never goes that far, but if it does, I'll be laughing my way to the airport buying a ticket to Japan...