This Just In--Of Drained Resevoirs

Man in Oregon urinates in reservoir; as a result, operators determine to drain 8 MILLION gallons of water as a health precaution. Man just think what would happen if the Utes' FB team had been there....



Supreme Court says First Amendment protects extremely violent video games, protesters who want to assert that US soldiers died because God is punishing them as a result of there being homosexuals in this country, and corporations who want to spend millions to defeat a candidate that threatens their special interests. When did the First Amendment turn into the permission key to corrode, corrupt and denigrate our communities?



Dodgers file for bankruptcy. They hope to join the SEC



Jimmer goes to Sacramento Kings. California will first ask Jimmer to balance the State budget.

I realize what you are saying about first amendment, but once again this goes back to what our LDS leaders have been preaching for decades; that the family is eroding before our eyes. If kids had strong families, parents would be teaching their kids that such behavior is inappropriate and extreme violence wouldn't be accepted. I don't think the government exists to babysit today's children and adolescents.



First family, and then church should be teaching morals to our youth.

declocoug wrote:
I realize what you are saying about first amendment, but once again this goes back to what our LDS leaders have been preaching for decades; that the family is eroding before our eyes. If kids had strong families, parents would be teaching their kids that such behavior is inappropriate and extreme violence wouldn't be accepted. I don't think the government exists to babysit today's children and adolescents.



First family, and then church should be teaching morals to our youth.

You make good points, as always. If all families were like, perhaps, yours, there would not be a need for the State to set some standards. But I can most assuredly say that many families are not like that. Does that mean the govt should be the nanny? No. But I do think it appropriate for the govt. to rule out allowing the selling of certain levels of sex and violence to all kids, regardless of how well or not well their family has taught them. It comes back to where we draw lines and where we do that--under the Court's reading of the 1st A , the line is different from where I'd like it...Perhaps the Court's decision is a reflection of the culture we find ourselves in today where we have evil people wanting to sell evil products. I am not certain other generations have had to deal with that like we do today....

I think the Supreme Court really muffed it here. This was their chance to go all-in or to cash-out. Now we are left with the Supreme Court saying the 1st Amendment protects children's access to gratuitous violence in 1st Person RPGs, but that same Amendment doesn't protect children's access to obscenity/hard-core pornography. I don't see how they can read that one sentence of the Constitution and hold straight-faced to two diametrically opposite interpretations.



This was a chance for the Court to either expand Ginsberg v. New York and Miller v. California to cover gore games or to admit that they stretched the credibility of the First Amendment in those cases and to scale those decisions back in accord with this decision.

snoscythe wrote:
I think the Supreme Court really muffed it here. This was their chance to go all-in or to cash-out. Now we are left with the Supreme Court saying the 1st Amendment protects children's access to gratuitous violence in 1st Person RPGs, but that same Amendment doesn't protect children's access to obscenity/hard-core pornography. I don't see how they can read that one sentence of the Constitution and hold straight-faced to two diametrically opposite interpretations.



This was a chance for the Court to either expand Ginsberg v. New York and Miller v. California to cover gore games or to admit that they stretched the credibility of the First Amendment in those cases and to scale those decisions back in accord with this decision.

I do not know much about this stuff like you, but it is utterly naive/ignorant to equate the Grimms' Brothers fairy tales, which I understand is what Judge Scalia did, with the live action realistic mayhem the peddlers sell to very young persons. The effect between the two is not the same. They can and should be treated differently. The First Amendment has never been absolute, but we are getting there more and more...

Your argument is individuals are harmed by playing these games. I don't disagree, but the person producing or selling the game is not harming anyone. The person purchasing and playing the game is injuring their own person. Anyone arguing force should be used to prevent agency that results in injury to no one else is barking up the wrong tree.



I would have preferred a discussion about how governments prohibit the free exercise of religion through zoning laws. The Supreme Court has been a pansie on that idea.

Yes, but when the individual is a minor, the parents should be the ones to decide if the game is appropriate or not and whether they want their child harming himself by playing it or not. Hence, the game should need to be purchased by the parent, not the child.

The parent should not allow the child to purchase the game and decide how to prevent access to the game. If the child purchases the game it is the parents fault.

Schmoe wrote:
Yes, but when the individual is a minor, the parents should be the ones to decide if the game is appropriate or not and whether they want their child harming himself by playing it or not. Hence, the game should need to be purchased by the parent, not the child.

This is already the case for most, if not all retailers. The complaint that Yee made about Walmart and others corporations making millions by selling games to kids is silly. These stores already have policies in place to prevent clerks from selling M-rated games to minors unless they are attended by a parent (parents can also buy an R-rated movie for their kids). And of course these corporations do their best to enforce these policies, because they are goldmines for people seeking lawsuits. The only retailers this law would affect are small operations that have a low risk of public backlash.



I'm not a proponent of selling games to kids, but it should ultimately be up to the parents; and for the most part, it already is. Making a federal law is a big deal and often has lots of unintended consequences. I don't believe that exercising that power is necessarily the ideal solution in this case.

jvquarterback wrote:
Your argument is individuals are harmed by playing these games. I don't disagree, but the person producing or selling the game is not harming anyone. The person purchasing and playing the game is injuring their own person. Anyone arguing force should be used to prevent agency that results in injury to no one else is barking up the wrong tree.

Wrong. When the individual is harmed, society is harmed. As a society, we all enter into a compact, and when we allow people to do harmful things to themselves, you think it has no reaching effects on society in terms of actual cost? That is stupid. If you need further proof, look at the obesity epidemic. You telling me that we need to allow everyone to eat themselves into oblivion "because it harms no one else" and then just sit back and bask in their individual freedom as our medical and health related costs continue to rise as a result of this "freedom"? Sorry--not buying it.



People have duties to society and if they decide to ignore those, then society has a right to basically compel them to act responsibly.

jvquarterback wrote:
The parent should not allow the child to purchase the game and decide how to prevent access to the game. If the child purchases the game it is the parents fault.

I'm guessing that you're not a parent, or at least not a parent of teenagers.

JV--I do not think this is a "victimless" crime. Some advocate that the State ought not to ban pornography because there is no victim. Yet there is academic literature that exposure of such does have effects on the viewer that causes them to view sexual assault less seriously. Those views can result in harm to society. Similarly having children participate in grossly violent videogames can have a like negative impact that will have negative repercussions on society and in fact harm us. So parents ought to be doing the right thing, but there are a boatload of parents who are not doing right. That means we can either sit on our hands and pontificate that parents should do better while more and more children are being desensitized to violence and sexual assault by playing these games with the attendant harm that will flow to society. Or we can as a society lay down the marker that there are some things that a child should not participate in

Lawboy wrote:

Your argument is individuals are harmed by playing these games. I don't disagree, but the person producing or selling the game is not harming anyone. The person purchasing and playing the game is injuring their own person. Anyone arguing force should be used to prevent agency that results in injury to no one else is barking up the wrong tree.

Wrong. When the individual is harmed, society is harmed. As a society, we all enter into a compact, and when we allow people to do harmful things to themselves, you think it has no reaching effects on society in terms of actual cost? That is stupid. If you need further proof, look at the obesity epidemic. You telling me that we need to allow everyone to eat themselves into oblivion "because it harms no one else" and then just sit back and bask in their individual freedom as our medical and health related costs continue to rise as a result of this "freedom"? Sorry--not buying it.



People have duties to society and if they decide to ignore those, then society has a right to basically compel them to act responsibly.

I'll let boisebyu tell me himself if I've summarized his argument correctly. But you can take your harming or duty to society bunk and compel someone else.



How is this possible? I owe God everything and have every duty to obey, yet he has never nor will ever compel me in any way. But I have absolutely no duty to you yet you have dreamed up some right to compel me in all things.



No you sure aren't buying anything, you'd rather force me to buy your load of tripe.



Quit trying to pawn off your or anyone else's shortcomings on society. There is a reason it is called personal responsibility and not societal responsibility. My kids aren't fat or skinny or disillusioned about killing others in LA or Iraq because of anyone but me and their own self once they are accountable.

BoiseBYU wrote:
JV--I do not think this is a "victimless" crime. Some advocate that the State ought not to ban pornography because there is no victim. Yet there is academic literature that exposure of such does have effects on the viewer that causes them to view sexual assault less seriously. Those views can result in harm to society. Similarly having children participate in grossly violent videogames can have a like negative impact that will have negative repercussions on society and in fact harm us. So parents ought to be doing the right thing, but there are a boatload of parents who are not doing right. That means we can either sit on our hands and pontificate that parents should do better while more and more children are being desensitized to violence and sexual assault by playing these games with the attendant harm that will flow to society. Or we can as a society lay down the marker that there are some things that a child should not participate in

Well then stand by your guns and advocate the children should be taken from their parents and raised by this society you speak of.



I would be more compelled by saying the children playing the vids are harmed, but you and Lawboy have created some abstraction called society and state that it is harmed. Point to individuals who have been harmed and use the law to restore those injured as best you can.

So, the government has no interest in making laws and administering them for the good and safety of society?

The Lord compels people all the time. Go read Alma 32 where the people were compelled to be humble.

snoscythe wrote:
So, the government has no interest in making laws and administering them for the good and safety of society?

Government exists to secure the rights of individuals. Not some nebulous society that Lawboy dreams up. Individuals cannot give to government powers they do not have as individuals.



So do you have the right as an individual to use force to prohibit a child from playing a video game? If not you have no right to delegate such a right to any level of government.



I know you guys get upset when I refer to religious leaders in these matters but you might want to check this out from Ezra Taft Benson (BTW I only found it after Lawboy asked me if I was a member of the John Birch Society so thanks for that.)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7om41xTGG2A

jvquarterback wrote:

So, the government has no interest in making laws and administering them for the good and safety of society?

Government exists to secure the rights of individuals. Not some nebulous society that Lawboy dreams up. Individuals cannot give to government powers they do not have as individuals.



So do you have the right as an individual to use force to prohibit a child from playing a video game? If not you have no right to delegate such a right to any level of government.



I know you guys get upset when I refer to religious leaders in these matters but you might want to check this out from Ezra Taft Benson (BTW I only found it after Lawboy asked me if I was a member of the John Birch Society so thanks for that.)

Maybe you should reread D&C 143, especially verse 1: "We believe governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."

jvquarterback wrote:

So, the government has no interest in making laws and administering them for the good and safety of society?

Government exists to secure the rights of individuals. Not some nebulous society that Lawboy dreams up. Individuals cannot give to government powers they do not have as individuals.



So do you have the right as an individual to use force to prohibit a child from playing a video game? If not you have no right to delegate such a right to any level of government.



I know you guys get upset when I refer to religious leaders in these matters but you might want to check this out from Ezra Taft Benson (BTW I only found it after Lawboy asked me if I was a member of the John Birch Society so thanks for that.)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7om41xTGG2A

I'm no expert, but I don't think I personally have a legal "right" to stop someone from getting drunk and getting into his car and driving off. I am sure glad there are laws that allow the govt to stop and arrest such a person. I may not have a legal "right" to stop someone from downloading and observing violent child pornography. I am sure glad there are laws to allow the govt to stop and arrest such persons. In both instances, in my judgment, such laws protect society and its members.