Submitted by BmK - January 10, 2008 at 6:23 pm -050067.193.71.205
I don't think that anyone would be against keeping young children from extremely violent media as young children do not have have the full capacity to understand the difference between reality and fantasy, right and wrong, and what is or is not acceptable behavior in real life situations.
On the other hand I strongly believe that older kids and teenagers (especially those in high school) should have full First Amendment rights and the ability to form their own viewpoints based on unrestricted and uncensored access to ideas, information, messages and opinions presented in Free Speech materials.
Shielding young people right up to enter magical arbitrary age limit for adulthood here could very well be damaging as by the time they reach that magical arbitrary age their minds will be a blank (except for what the nanny state allows them to hear, read or view) and they would be unable to deal with the real world as we know it.
Also, if we are going to ban Free Speech materials to minors based solely on the fact that some parents find it unsuitable or inappropriate, we can't just ban violent video games or speech containing depictions of violence. We'd also have to ban the Holy Bible (as atheist, jewish and muslim parents don't want their children to get ahold of it), Harry Potter books and Charles Darwin's Origins of the Species (as religious fanatic parents don't want their children getting ahold of it), liberal based literature (as conservative parents don't want their children to get ahold of it), and vise versa for conservative literature and liberal parents.
In the end it should be the sole responsibility of the parents to keep their children away from Free Speech materials they don't want them to have.
Posted 07/09/08 at 08:48am Krono: @AM: if she did wave her arms around, it was probably to get Jack's attention while he was on a rant and ignoring the gavel
Posted 07/09/08 at 08:34am AM: Oh, it certainly doesn't make her crazy. Lots of people are hard pressed not to yell at JT.
Posted 07/09/08 at 08:28am gamepolitics: It's entirely possible that she raised her voice, it was a 9-day trial and tempers can flare. Doesn't make her crazy.
Posted 07/09/08 at 08:24am AM: That's why it was interesting to me--I'd like to know the veracity of that claim.
Posted 07/09/08 at 08:23am AM: The last attack claimed Tunis was standing behind the bench, waving her arms, etc. I don't remember that from excerpts;.
Posted 07/09/08 at 07:53am gamepolitics: we will have some news from Miami later today, however
Posted 07/09/08 at 07:46am gamepolitics: he has sent out many e-mails attacking Judge Tunis; this one is nothing special, in my mind
Posted 07/09/08 at 07:10am Aliasalpha: You and your fax machine are changing your lifestyle? That means the fax-terrorists have won!
Posted 07/09/08 at 05:30am gamepolitics: tetsuya, he doesn't have my fax # (or any of my #'s) since I moved last year.
Posted 07/09/08 at 12:40am Jack Wessels: @PHOENIXZERO: Do you really think that would stop him?
Posted 07/09/08 at 12:29am PHOENIXZERO: Wonder if Jack ever got the memo that attacking a judge, especially the one who presided over your own hearing will only make him look worse.
Posted 07/08/08 at 11:10pm Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of : Dennis you should post that story about JT insulting Judge Tunis. There might be more you could find that Kotaku missed.
Posted 07/08/08 at 08:32pm lordlundar: Jack should realize that when you call everyone crazy, then the only crazy one is the you.
Posted 07/08/08 at 06:06pm DarkTetsuya: @GP I just fear for the safety of your fax machine cause you didn't post it :P
Posted 07/08/08 at 06:02pm PHOENIXZERO: @Krono Yeah, that's probably where it came from. Don't remember if a source was mentioned. Other than it being called a "story" or "study".
Posted 07/08/08 at 06:02pm PHOENIXZERO: Because I was bored and channel surfing. =(
Posted 07/08/08 at 05:59pm GRIZZAM PRIME: PHEONIXZERO, Why the hell are you watching CNN's sodomy butt baby(HLN)?
Posted 07/08/08 at 05:53pm Krono: @PHOENIXZERO: Would that be the AP story about how schools should teach 11+ year old how to avoid abusive datings relationships?
Posted 07/08/08 at 05:34pm PHOENIXZERO: Oh joy, new subject and they bring out Cooper Lawrence who takes a mention about videogames. It's a segment called "Sex Normal for 11-Year-Olds" having to do more so with mental and physical abuse in "relationships" of 11-14 year olds and not sex. >_<
Posted 07/08/08 at 05:28pm PHOENIXZERO: Certainly a stupid segment with their "adolescent psychologist" and a game is different than a movie. Two callers, underwhelming. >_>
On the other hand I strongly believe that older kids and teenagers (especially those in high school) should have full First Amendment rights and the ability to form their own viewpoints based on unrestricted and uncensored access to ideas, information, messages and opinions presented in Free Speech materials.
Shielding young people right up to enter magical arbitrary age limit for adulthood here could very well be damaging as by the time they reach that magical arbitrary age their minds will be a blank (except for what the nanny state allows them to hear, read or view) and they would be unable to deal with the real world as we know it.
Also, if we are going to ban Free Speech materials to minors based solely on the fact that some parents find it unsuitable or inappropriate, we can't just ban violent video games or speech containing depictions of violence. We'd also have to ban the Holy Bible (as atheist, jewish and muslim parents don't want their children to get ahold of it), Harry Potter books and Charles Darwin's Origins of the Species (as religious fanatic parents don't want their children getting ahold of it), liberal based literature (as conservative parents don't want their children to get ahold of it), and vise versa for conservative literature and liberal parents.
In the end it should be the sole responsibility of the parents to keep their children away from Free Speech materials they don't want them to have.