Let Freedom Ring
More columns
written by Laramie:
Your comments about this column are welcome ~ e-mail Laramie at
Has the Tiger been caged
A Virtual Leap of Faith
The "Birther" Bill
Wish Upon a Star
Sweet Land of Liberty
Laramie Boyd the_spectator056001.gif
Walking Lily
Can't we all just get along?
      "The law can protect children from sex and pornography in the media, but it cannot protect them from violence." This was the majority opinion made by a justice of the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling allowing children to have access to the sale of violent video games. The same justice said, "Like books and plays, video games communicate ideas." Oh brother, what kind of ideas must he have in mind? And apparently that access cannot be denied, using, once again, the Freedom of Speech catch all amendment. On the same case, another justice, in dissent, said "Juveniles have no right to free speech." Talk about opposing arguments! And I wonder which is worse. One of the mothers of the children in the case said she didn't care if her son played the violent video games in question, but she couldn't watch them as it made her want to throw up. Parental supervision in action!
      What I can't figure out is why it is acceptable to allow children to view the most heinous, beastly, "killing and maiming" of people, showing the lowest side of humanity, and yet they don't allow kids access to scenes of love making. Does that view hold that the most natural act of man since the world began, sex, is a bad influence on young minds, but viewing wholesale slaughter of humans, by any means, is time well spent, or uplifting, or some other "desirable" end? That is not to say that children viewing explicit sex scenes should be encouraged, but to say that viewing torture is legal and viewing sex acts is not, that doesn't make any sense. Shouldn't they both be curtailed? And only last year, the Court ruled that videos showing how animals are tortured are legal. What's happening to good judgment in America, when Freedom of Speech is being used as an excuse for making these kinds of statements and decisions?
      But wait, the Court is not through yet. During the next term of The Supreme Court, they will mull over a case asking that TV stations airing nudity and 4-letter words during prime time be subject to legal action. I just wonder how that will be handled. Will children, who are commonly awake at that time of day, and have access to viewing those stations, be told that 4-letter words are educational, merely "communicating ideas?" Or maybe they will ask parents to monitor their kids, and "just say no", removing the court's obligation to do what is in the best interests of the children. In many cases recently, the liberalization and redefining of common sense and plain old decency is getting frightening and is not in the best interests of our country. But it seems to me that sometimes in the hustle and bustle of life, many lose sight of what's right and what's wrong. Freedom of Speech does not allow anyone the right to say anything they want, wherever they want, when they want, to whom they want. And this argument is not used nearly enough in deciding cases where what's right can also be what's legal.
A Ton of Bricks
The Spectator
founded 2004 by ron cruger
A place for intelligent writers
A place for intelligent readers