Another Federal Judge Rules Against Democracy And The General Welfare
Someone needs to explain the republic system of government to federal judges because they certainly seem completely ignorant of it. In the United states the people get together and make a decision about who they will elect to represent them. The majority rules. The majority have a set of beliefs which determines what they believe is best for the local community, state, and/or country. These beliefs are probably based on their individual ethical code. Their representatives then get together and make laws to further their constituents goals on obtaining a better world. They have the right to be wrong, but not the right to be oppressive.
According to an UPI news article in California the government has made a law that makes it illegal to sell violent video games to minors. Minors in our society, are considered individuals to be protected even from potential dangers. The best protector of minors is their parents. Now in practicality all this law does is prevent minors from obtaining violent video games without their parents permission as it does not prevent parents from purchasing the game and giving it to their child. In fact anyone that has reached their majority can purchase the game and give it to a minor. So if this is a restriction on free speech then I question if it is a significant restriction.
Now the Court in a preliminary decision has decided that the law is overly restrictive of free speech. but that the lack of a law is not oppressive to parents and others. Obviously he disagrees with a number of constitutes who believe that violent video games are oppressive in that they teach children violence. He is not elected, and so not subject to the will of the people. This make him a dictator. On the other hand the legislative members are elected and the people can petition them to change the law if they find it is oppressive.
I will write my Senators and tell them they need to do something about the bad behavior of these federal judges whom feel they have the right to rule from the bench. Whether you agree that violent video games are dangerous or not, if you value your freedom, you should do the same.
According to an UPI news article in California the government has made a law that makes it illegal to sell violent video games to minors. Minors in our society, are considered individuals to be protected even from potential dangers. The best protector of minors is their parents. Now in practicality all this law does is prevent minors from obtaining violent video games without their parents permission as it does not prevent parents from purchasing the game and giving it to their child. In fact anyone that has reached their majority can purchase the game and give it to a minor. So if this is a restriction on free speech then I question if it is a significant restriction.
Now the Court in a preliminary decision has decided that the law is overly restrictive of free speech. but that the lack of a law is not oppressive to parents and others. Obviously he disagrees with a number of constitutes who believe that violent video games are oppressive in that they teach children violence. He is not elected, and so not subject to the will of the people. This make him a dictator. On the other hand the legislative members are elected and the people can petition them to change the law if they find it is oppressive.
I will write my Senators and tell them they need to do something about the bad behavior of these federal judges whom feel they have the right to rule from the bench. Whether you agree that violent video games are dangerous or not, if you value your freedom, you should do the same.
posted by Kerwin | 6:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home