- Status
[citation][nom]sublifer[/nom]Do children even have constitutional rights? The right to bear arms for example? This is irrelevant.[/citation]
Of course they do, why would you think otherwise?
Of course they do, why would you think otherwise?
njalterio
Distinguished
- Jan 14, 2008
- 153
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]grillz9909[/nom]As a gamer, I personally think this law is really gay. Luckily I'm old enough to buy any game I want.[/citation]
Unfortunately....
[citation][nom]restatement3dofted[/nom]Are you serious? Of course children have constitutional rights. Just because various rights obtain only at the age of majority doesn't mean that they have no constitutional rights at all.[/citation]
Not really. Go learn about "Parens Patriae".
I do not see any issue with this bill. Parents are not supposed to be letting minors play these games, correct? So if they are not supposed to play the games in the first place then what is wrong with tighter retail restrictions of sale? This bill simply helps parents.
Unfortunately....
[citation][nom]restatement3dofted[/nom]Are you serious? Of course children have constitutional rights. Just because various rights obtain only at the age of majority doesn't mean that they have no constitutional rights at all.[/citation]
Not really. Go learn about "Parens Patriae".
I do not see any issue with this bill. Parents are not supposed to be letting minors play these games, correct? So if they are not supposed to play the games in the first place then what is wrong with tighter retail restrictions of sale? This bill simply helps parents.
maestintaolius
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 446
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]pharge[/nom]I guess people (law makers or...) believe that having sex is more evil than killing people.....>_<.....[/citation]
Yet, if you're in Europe, the situation is more or less reversed.
I just wish the government would step in and tell us what we can and can't watch so I didn't have to put some much work into deciding what is appropriate for me and what isn't.
Yet, if you're in Europe, the situation is more or less reversed.
I just wish the government would step in and tell us what we can and can't watch so I didn't have to put some much work into deciding what is appropriate for me and what isn't.
restatement3dofted
Distinguished
- Jan 5, 2010
- 165
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]Not really. Go learn about "Parens Patriae".[/citation]
That is not a response to my claim that generally, children are "people" to whom the U.S. Constitution, and the Amendments thereto, apply. Parens patriae generally allows the government to take action on behalf of a child - it permits legal proceedings to be instituted on behalf of children when necessary (i.e., in the case of abandonment/neglect, incapacity, etc.), and is constrained by a number of other laws. It is hardly broad-sweeping authority for a state to take any and all actions on behalf of children that it wants.
Your reference to this doctrine as evidence of how children don't have constitutional rights is completely misplaced. Just because the government, or a parent, or a school, can in some cases curb what a minor is or is not allowed to do, does not mean that the Constitution doesn't apply to them at all.
None of this changes my point from earlier, which is that the case being made on appeal to the Supreme Court isn't about the rights of children or parents. It is a 1st Amendment claim by the video game and retail industries.
That is not a response to my claim that generally, children are "people" to whom the U.S. Constitution, and the Amendments thereto, apply. Parens patriae generally allows the government to take action on behalf of a child - it permits legal proceedings to be instituted on behalf of children when necessary (i.e., in the case of abandonment/neglect, incapacity, etc.), and is constrained by a number of other laws. It is hardly broad-sweeping authority for a state to take any and all actions on behalf of children that it wants.
Your reference to this doctrine as evidence of how children don't have constitutional rights is completely misplaced. Just because the government, or a parent, or a school, can in some cases curb what a minor is or is not allowed to do, does not mean that the Constitution doesn't apply to them at all.
None of this changes my point from earlier, which is that the case being made on appeal to the Supreme Court isn't about the rights of children or parents. It is a 1st Amendment claim by the video game and retail industries.
[citation][nom]pharge[/nom]I fully agree with you (well... at least most of them). My only problem is... it appeasrs to me that there are more and more parents are not actually parenting their kids responsibly these days?... that does not really rationalize this case. However it does look worrisome to me.[/citation]
Doesn't matter how dumb they are. Not our place to tell them how to raise their children. I agree that there are way too many morons procreating and our country is getting dumber and dumber but we let these people vote so let's let them raise their kids.
Doesn't matter how dumb they are. Not our place to tell them how to raise their children. I agree that there are way too many morons procreating and our country is getting dumber and dumber but we let these people vote so let's let them raise their kids.
the_krasno
Distinguished
- Sep 29, 2009
- 300
- 0
- 18,930
So? It's not like minors don't rent/buy adult films and magazines. They just ask a friend or relative to do it for them.
I don't have a problem with this law although it makes relatively no sense at all to have this law in place in the USA, let alone California of all states in the union. I don't have a problem with it primarily because there's better things to spend money on than stupid video games. And also the kids could be doing better things with their time than sitting in front of a tv set. These days, kids spend dramatically more time playing these things than I did when I was in school. Sure I had a nintendo and whatnot but I wasn't vegetating in front of it. I was studying up until I went to bed a lot of the time and I was just barely on the honor roll. But at least I learned more than these kids do these days.
Shadow703793
Distinguished
- Feb 3, 2007
- 696
- 0
- 18,940
This is parents responsibility! Not the gov'ts! The problem is, we have a rating system, yet people still buy rated M games for kids? WTF!?!? I know more tan one parent who'd bought Halo 3 for their 12 year old kids. Again, PARENTS should be the one's responsible! Not the gov't OR the stores,game devs,etc!
njalterio
Distinguished
- Jan 14, 2008
- 153
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]restatement3dofted[/nom]That is not a response to my claim that generally, children are "people" to whom the U.S. Constitution, and the Amendments thereto, apply. Parens patriae generally allows the government to take action on behalf of a child - it permits legal proceedings to be instituted on behalf of children when necessary (i.e., in the case of abandonment/neglect, incapacity, etc.), and is constrained by a number of other laws. It is hardly broad-sweeping authority for a state to take any and all actions on behalf of children that it wants. Your reference to this doctrine as evidence of how children don't have constitutional rights is completely misplaced. Just because the government, or a parent, or a school, can in some cases curb what a minor is or is not allowed to do, does not mean that the Constitution doesn't apply to them at all.None of this changes my point from earlier, which is that the case being made on appeal to the Supreme Court isn't about the rights of children or parents. It is a 1st Amendment claim by the video game and retail industries.[/citation]
You completely missed the point, and you made yourself look even more foolish by trying to educate me on something you just learned about five minutes ago.
The point is that the U.S. government has the power to act in a child's best interest as needed (Constitutional rights is non sequitur).
You completely missed the point, and you made yourself look even more foolish by trying to educate me on something you just learned about five minutes ago.
The point is that the U.S. government has the power to act in a child's best interest as needed (Constitutional rights is non sequitur).
People are largely missing the point here
Saying that what games a kid should or shouldn't be allowed to play, based on their age, seems inconclusive to me. Sure, it's a concrete way to enforce such ideas, but in reality, it's more based on the maturity of a child/teen. Sure, I'd NEVER give an M-rated game to someone under the age of 12 (Well, Halo being an exception, and even then, I'd still put a lot of thought into it) but I started playing M-rated games when I was 13. Did I turn out wrong? No.
It's down to how parents raise their kids. You teach them right from wrong correctly, enforce positive values, and you make them understand that there is a very distinct difference between a game and reality, and as long as they truly understand all these things, they should be mature enough to play. And yes, balance of work with play is very important. (Hell, it's one of the main reasons I fear for those of the new generation) but in the end, placing the blame on one factor is in no way an accurate way of solving the problem. If it is true, and Video games are the cause of child violence, then okay, can I blame that bad mark on my math quiz on my pencil? Because it is essentially the same thing. The problems of the coming generation originate from far too many factors to just blame it on one and put it to rest. If politicians are so concerned about issues like child violence and falling grades, they have a lot more to look at than what games they play.
Saying that what games a kid should or shouldn't be allowed to play, based on their age, seems inconclusive to me. Sure, it's a concrete way to enforce such ideas, but in reality, it's more based on the maturity of a child/teen. Sure, I'd NEVER give an M-rated game to someone under the age of 12 (Well, Halo being an exception, and even then, I'd still put a lot of thought into it) but I started playing M-rated games when I was 13. Did I turn out wrong? No.
It's down to how parents raise their kids. You teach them right from wrong correctly, enforce positive values, and you make them understand that there is a very distinct difference between a game and reality, and as long as they truly understand all these things, they should be mature enough to play. And yes, balance of work with play is very important. (Hell, it's one of the main reasons I fear for those of the new generation) but in the end, placing the blame on one factor is in no way an accurate way of solving the problem. If it is true, and Video games are the cause of child violence, then okay, can I blame that bad mark on my math quiz on my pencil? Because it is essentially the same thing. The problems of the coming generation originate from far too many factors to just blame it on one and put it to rest. If politicians are so concerned about issues like child violence and falling grades, they have a lot more to look at than what games they play.
You all are missing the point of this law. If the supreme court rules against California kids will be able buy what ever they want i.e. violent games or porn. The suit is weather it is unconstitutional to tell a child he or she can't buy something because they are not old enough. Parental responsibility will be thrown out the door if this law isn't passed...
builderbobftw
Distinguished
- Feb 6, 2010
- 97
- 0
- 18,580
restatement3dofted
Distinguished
- Jan 5, 2010
- 165
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]You completely missed the point, and you made yourself look even more foolish by trying to educate me on something you just learned about five minutes ago.The point is that the U.S. government has the power to act in a child's best interest as needed (Constitutional rights is non sequitur).[/citation]
Oh lord and master of all latin legalisms, please forgive me for my inadequacies! How foolish of me, so clearly ignorant of U.S. legal doctrines, to assert that simply because a doctrine exists that gives the state the power to help those that cannot help themselves, that children have no constitutional rights. How silly of me not to believe that rights fail to exist, simply because they can be stripped away. Perhaps if I close my eyes tightly enough, the body of common law upholding the First Amendment rights of minors in this country - for example, the right to refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or the right to express one's opposition to an unpopular war by wearing a black armband - will disappear. Whoops, guess not - it's all still there!
The original post to which I responded asserted that children have no constitutional rights - nothing more, and nothing less. I replied that children do, in fact, have constitutional rights. Your response to my claim consisted of nothing more than reference to a particular legal doctrine which, very generally, stands for the position that the state has authority to care for those that cannot care for themselves. That may be true, but the fact remains that there is nothing special about parens patriae, especially as it has evolved in U.S. law, that allows it to be cited in support of the position that children have no rights. The federal government, or a state government, can deprive citizens of any constitutional right, to the extent that doing so is necessary to achieve legitimate public policies or agendas (you'll have to forgive me for assuming, since you're apparently so well-versed in U.S. law, that a full explanation of the levels of judicial review is unnecessary here).
Childrens' rights may be more easily diminished than those of adults, but anyone's constitutional rights can be suppressed under the right circumstances. That does not mean that they don't exist. Until a right is actually, truly stripped away, it is still a right - it does not cease to exist simply because it could cease to exist.
Oh lord and master of all latin legalisms, please forgive me for my inadequacies! How foolish of me, so clearly ignorant of U.S. legal doctrines, to assert that simply because a doctrine exists that gives the state the power to help those that cannot help themselves, that children have no constitutional rights. How silly of me not to believe that rights fail to exist, simply because they can be stripped away. Perhaps if I close my eyes tightly enough, the body of common law upholding the First Amendment rights of minors in this country - for example, the right to refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or the right to express one's opposition to an unpopular war by wearing a black armband - will disappear. Whoops, guess not - it's all still there!
The original post to which I responded asserted that children have no constitutional rights - nothing more, and nothing less. I replied that children do, in fact, have constitutional rights. Your response to my claim consisted of nothing more than reference to a particular legal doctrine which, very generally, stands for the position that the state has authority to care for those that cannot care for themselves. That may be true, but the fact remains that there is nothing special about parens patriae, especially as it has evolved in U.S. law, that allows it to be cited in support of the position that children have no rights. The federal government, or a state government, can deprive citizens of any constitutional right, to the extent that doing so is necessary to achieve legitimate public policies or agendas (you'll have to forgive me for assuming, since you're apparently so well-versed in U.S. law, that a full explanation of the levels of judicial review is unnecessary here).
Childrens' rights may be more easily diminished than those of adults, but anyone's constitutional rights can be suppressed under the right circumstances. That does not mean that they don't exist. Until a right is actually, truly stripped away, it is still a right - it does not cease to exist simply because it could cease to exist.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question Old text messages not showing up on new android phone
- Started by Weathered95
- Replies: 48
-
-
-
Question Asus Tuff Fx507 not recognizing new WD_Black 4tb ssd in secondary m2 slot- Started by BelgradianSalsa
- Replies: 10
Facebook
Twitter