What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
Hey, I like Clarence Thomas, I think he's excellent. Maybe "crazy" was the wrong word to use. However, even if you think Anita Hill was lying, it's still pretty odd for Ginny Thomas to think that Hill is going to apologize- and thus renounce her meal ticket for the past 20 years.

Plus, if you like a good conspiracy theory, there's a lot of stuff to work with here. Is she asking for an apology because Thomas is ready to step down, and wants vindication? Or maybe Ginny Thomas has some evidence proving Hill was lying, and wanted to give her a chance to apologize before she went public?
Click to expand...
If it were me, I would have left sleeping dogs lie. But, it's not that strange for someone to still desire justice in a situation they feel they have been wronged in, even if it is 20 years later. I know lots of folks who hold onto situations where they feel they have been wronged much longer than that. If Ginny Thomas were just looking for headlines, I'd think she'd hold a news conference, rather than leaving a pretty bland message for Anita Hill. We probably wouldn't have ever heard about this if it wasn't for Hill making a big deal about it.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Bob Gray said:
If it were me, I would have left sleeping dogs lie. But, it's not that strange for someone to still desire justice in a situation they feel they have been wronged in, even if it is 20 years later. I know lots of folks who hold onto situations where they feel they have been wronged much longer than that. If Ginny Thomas were just looking for headlines, I'd think she'd hold a news conference, rather than leaving a pretty bland message for Anita Hill. We probably wouldn't have ever heard about this if it wasn't for Hill making a big deal about it.
Click to expand...

Again, don't get the impression I'm taking Hill's side here.

However, I really don't think she made the wrong decision or overreacted in going to the police. It had to be pretty weird to get a voicemail like that, and I think her thinking it might have been a prank is totally justfied.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Transcript is available here.

Somewhat interesting which sides the justices appear to be aligning with early on. Scalia (and implictly Thomas by extension) and Ginsberg clearly on the side of the video game makers while Roberts and Breyer seemed more likely to try to find someway to at least leave the door open for future laws, if not this one. Sotomeyer, Kagan, and Kennedy all seemed to be leaning towards the 1st amendment side as well, though not as forcefully as Scalia or Ginsberg. Strange bedfellows indeed.

Best early guess is that this law gets shot down for any number of reasons. Whether SCOTUS leaves the door cracked open slightly for a future, more narrowly defined, law (as they did in the animal torture video case) remains to be seen.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
Transcript is available here.

Somewhat interesting which sides the justices appear to be aligning with early on. Scalia (and implictly Thomas by extension) and Ginsberg clearly on the side of the video game makers while Roberts and Breyer seemed more likely to try to find someway to at least leave the door open for future laws, if not this one. Sotomeyer, Kagan, and Kennedy all seemed to be leaning towards the 1st amendment side as well, though not as forcefully as Scalia or Ginsberg. Strange bedfellows indeed.

Best early guess is that this law gets shot down for any number of reasons. Whether SCOTUS leaves the door cracked open slightly for a future, more narrowly defined, law (as they did in the animal torture video case) remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

I'm not too sure how I feel about this case. While I don't believe putting age restrictions on the purchase of violant games infringes on first amendment rights, I am also not a big fan of the government being my nanny. What I find most interesting, or rather disturbing, is in interviews some of the parents who first brought this law about say it is incumbant upon parents to teach their childran and instill good morals and yet they want the government to do their dirty work.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

moe24 said:
I'm not too sure how I feel about this case. While I don't believe putting age restrictions on the purchase of violant games infringes on first amendment rights, I am also not a big fan of the government being my nanny. What I find most interesting, or rather disturbing, is in interviews some of the parents who first brought this law about say it is incumbant upon parents to teach their childran and instill good morals and yet they want the government to do their dirty work.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of slippery slope arguments that are somewhat interlinked:
1) faced with fines if a clerk screws up and sells a violent game to a kid, the stores will opt not to carry such games. Since the stores wont carry such games, video game companies stop making them. Adults who would otherwise seek out such games can no longer do so, thus the expression have been chilled. (This already happens to an extent with AO rated video games and NC-17 movies - the difference being the gov't is not involved).
2) the law as written is so broad that who knows what constitutes "offensively violent" - the only way to tell is to categorically ban M-rated and AO-rated games (effectively turning the ESRB into a gov't censorship board) or decide on a case by case basis in front of juries - in which case the same thing as above will tend to happen: video game makers get squemish about legal costs, and tone down the violence accordingly. And again, adults who woudl otherwise partake in such games find them completely unavailable.

The issue isn't whether violent video games should be played by kids; it's whether the gov't shouldn't be the one deciding what is and is not "offensively violent;" they have enough trouble defining obscenity, now we're trying to have them define levels of violence as well?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

What is the actual legal status of film ratings?

With today's computing power, the line between films and video games is starting to vanish. So why *not* have a film style rating system?

And this from someone who doesn't believe for a moment that video games are the downfall of today's youth. It just seems like a reasonable solution. (Maybe Stewart's rally is too fresh in memory).
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

amherstblackbear said:
What is the actual legal status of film ratings?

With today's computing power, the line between films and video games is starting to vanish. So why *not* have a film style rating system?

And this from someone who doesn't believe for a moment that video games are the downfall of today's youth. It just seems like a reasonable solution. (Maybe Stewart's rally is too fresh in memory).
Click to expand...

The MPAA's ratings system has no real legal effect and it's generally what the major studios subscribe to on a voluntary basis. They were designed to forestall more aggressive measures by Congress. The self-policing mode, based on a scale of ratings, is probably easier to swallow, and pass First Amendment scrutiny than some abritrary state-based authority. The Supremes have generally been very suspicious of censoring even sexual content, unless it involves minors, and I am not sure they will be amenable to doing so for "violent content".
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

amherstblackbear said:
What is the actual legal status of film ratings?
Click to expand...

The MPAA's system and the ESRB's system are essentially identical - both are voluntary ratings systems set up by the industries themselves. Same with the RIAA's "explicit lyrics" warnings.

So despite popular misconception, it is not illegal for a child to buy a ticket to an R-rated movie. No government entity will fine or arrest anyone for doing so - the MPAA might impose sanctions on its membership for violating the guidelines, however.

Basically, video game makers are simply asking to be treated like filmmakers, which is the status quo. And there's the inherent irony that the Governator's name is on this lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

A rating in and of itself is just an assist to the parent, as long as it doesn't come with any restrictions on the parent. It's like an ingredients list.

I don't mind ratings or age restrictions on the store, I completely object to restrictions on the parent -- they know their kid and its their responsibility, not some blue nose in the state leg.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
A rating in and of itself is just an assist to the parent, as long as it doesn't come with any restrictions on the parent. It's like an ingredients list.

I don't mind ratings or age restrictions on the store, I completely object to restrictions on the parent -- they know their kid and its their responsibility, not some blue nose in the state leg.
Click to expand...

Personal responsibility?!? PFFFFFFFF!!!!! We just banned HAPPY MEALS (!) in an entire city because *gasp* they could make us fat if we eat them every day and park ourselves in front of a tv for 10 hours a day. Jeebus...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

dxmnkd316 said:
Personal responsibility?!? PFFFFFFFF!!!!! We just banned HAPPY MEALS (!) in an entire city because *gasp* they could make us fat if we eat them every day and park ourselves in front of a tv for 10 hours a day. Jeebus...
Click to expand...

In country where people try to make the "public good" argument that gays can't get married because it threatens straight marriages, nothing surprises me.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

dxmnkd316 said:
Personal responsibility?!? PFFFFFFFF!!!!! We just banned HAPPY MEALS (!) in an entire city because *gasp* they could make us fat if we eat them every day and park ourselves in front of a tv for 10 hours a day. Jeebus...
Click to expand...

This kind of idiocy shouldn't be a surprise in a city like San Fran. They also just banned sitting in sidewalks because a city famous for it's homeless panhandlers wants to hide the problem.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

moe24 said:
This kind of idiocy shouldn't be a surprise in a city like San Fran. They also just banned sitting in sidewalks because a city famous for it's homeless panhandlers wants to hide the problem.
Click to expand...

At least they're taking care of problems that are really hurting America like free parking.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
In country where people try to make the "public good" argument that gays can't get married because it threatens straight marriages, nothing surprises me.
Click to expand...

Here's what I don't get. 92% of Iowans in a poll said that gay marriage had no impact on them personally whatsoever.

Yet 55% of them voted out the 3 supreme court justices up for retention solely because of the gay marriage ruling. (ok, take out the 10% nutjobs who vote no on judges every year just for the hell of it, and the 2% who might have had some legitimate grievances, and that's still 40-45% who said gay marriage doesn't affect them, but still voted to oust the judges because of that ruling).

What the F?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
Here's what I don't get. 92% of Iowans in a poll said that gay marriage had no impact on them personally whatsoever.

Yet 55% of them voted out the 3 supreme court justices up for retention solely because of the gay marriage ruling. (ok, take out the 10% nutjobs who vote no on judges every year just for the hell of it, and the 2% who might have had some legitimate grievances, and that's still 40-45% who said gay marriage doesn't affect them, but still voted to oust the judges because of that ruling).

What the F?
Click to expand...

Is not affecting them the same as thing as not caring about it though? I can think of a few judges rulings that didn't affect me one bit, but I still didn't like the ruling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top