Okay, true enough.
Still, Breyer’s comment sounds to me like typical silly anti-gaming hysteria. I’m not aware of any game existing like what he describes.
I don’t think he was describing an actual specific game, AT, just a hypothetical content to illustrate his question about why a violent video game is ok, but porn is not.
Maybe, but really, would a game like what he described ever be available in stores?
People still get computer games from stores?
Hey, Bo, if you think that there is a constitutional right to commit treason and side with our enemies, I don’t see why you’d have a problem with corrupting minors.
The Supreme Court are out of their minds here. This is an AWFUL decision.
Amnesia the Dark Descent is a popular game and is filled with torture imagery, although none of it is shown directly. There’s a flashback of the main character performing a vivisection, but iirc it cuts to black and there’s lots of screaming. And in the expansion pack, Justine, you can solve puzzles to save 3 men who are strapped into torture devices. Or you can just use the devices to kill them to proceed. Two of them aren’t shown very well and it’s more implied + sound effects, but one is clearly seen strapped to a bench in a prison cell with a swinging blade above him you can lower by hitting a switch.
Yes, if you want the really good stuff, or for particular fetishes, or to follow the work of a couple of people are who are good at what they do (ignoring the whole pass collection sites/torrent phenomenon). Not that I’ve ever done this, of course. 
In Red Dead Redemption, a GTA-esque game set in the old west, you can lasso people (which involves tying them up and gagging them), and then drag them around and drop them off. There’s a rather controversial achievement you can get for tying up a woman and leaving her on railroad tracks to get hit by a train. Possibly, this is what was being referred to.
The friggin’ title of the thread is "Should the ban on sales of pornography to minors be lifted? "
But I’m not sure there are any bans on the sales of pornography to minors. There are bans on the sale of obscene material to anyone, and there are bans on the entry of minors to adult bookshops. But a rule barring sale of sexually oriented (but not legally obscene) material to minors would probably be unconstitutional as well.
Show me where the First Amendment makes an exception for material deemed obscene. The fact is, the First Amendment forbids censorship, period. One of the very few points on which I and the Supreme Court agree. The law is simple, direct and clear. If you don’t understand, it’s because you don’t WANT to understand.
Since the two of you are already having this discussion in another thread, please stay on topic while you are posting in this thread.
This is one of those questions that really has very little relevance going forward. Pornography is so easily accessible now that i can’t imagine anyone even wanting to buy it outside of online purchases soon.
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo]
Why isn’t it a 1st Amendment issue? What, in your opinion, separates images of naked people from images of people being killed or maimed that makes it not “entertainment” and into something different, such that it should not enjoy 1st Amendment protection?
[/QUOTE]
Because protecting speech has nothing to do with restricting material to minors. They aren’t talking about banning all pornography, simply restricting sales to minors. As I said earlier, society does this with a number of other things that are considered to be harmful to minors, so the various Amendments don’t really come into it.
Again, I don’t have an issue with pornography to minors, per se…I think that’s a matter for the legal guardians of said children and shouldn’t be regulated or whatever by the state. But I acknowledge societies ability to restrict certain materials that my fellow citizens THINK is harmful not only to my children but to me as well.
And I agree with DigitalC…it’s a moot point considering how widely available such material is on the internet today. Kids don’t need to be able to pick up a copy of Playboy or Hustler at the news stand anymore to see porn…they just have to type ‘porn’ into a Google search and they can view all the free porn they like while downloading any number of computer viruses to their folks systems and driving them nuts. 
-XT
I assume the wide availability of Internet porn will cause such a shifting of mainstream attitudes that, in the future, as the older generation dies off, the idea of pornography as obscene will be seen as laughable, and there will eventually be a significant dismantling of the idea of sexually-based obscenity exceptions to First Amendment protection (the moment a case on the matter hits a Supreme Court composed of kids who went through puberty with Internet access).
I recall an episode of “Dragnet,” which must have aired sometime in the 1968-1972 time period. Sgt. Friday and Officer Gannon investigate a young married couple after the woman’s father reports that he’s worried about his daughter because of her marijuana use. While not admitting openly to using marijuana, the young man tells the detectives something like, “When the people of my generation are making the laws, and serving as judges, the laws against marijuana will vanish. It’s harmless, after all, and when we’re in charge, we’ll change the law to recognize this.”
His reasoning seems similar to yours.
Yes, there is the significant possibility that I am wrong. However, one difference is that I suspect the percentage of the country which has sought out Internet pornography is far larger than the percentage which ever used marijuana. This isn’t necessarily enough to swamp the hypocrisy barrier, but it gives me some greater confidence.
Could he have been talking about Manhunt?
Because if little boys are allowed to see titties, civilization as we know it will end. Or so I’ve heard…
T&A doesn’t hurt little boys too badly, they can just walk it off. But if a little girl sees a weiner she’ll be scarred for life. Or laugh hysterically. One of those.
While we are on this subject (hopefully not a hijack), can someone explain to me how the Miller Test works in practice? Reading the wiki, it seems like one of the most arbitrary things I’ve seen enshrined in law, and could be applied to anything that enough people feel like applying it to. Like they could replace the test with “If enough people think it is icky worthless porn, its obscene.” As mentioned in the article, doesn’t the vagueness doctrine apply here?
Sure. Texas Penal Code section 43.24, Sale, Distribution, or Display of Harmful Material to Minor:
(a) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Minor" means an individual younger than 18 years.
(2) "Harmful material" means material whose dominant theme taken as a whole:
(A) appeals to the prurient interest of a minor, in sex, nudity, or excretion;
(B) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors; and
(C) is utterly without redeeming social value for minors.
(b) A person commits an offense if, knowing that the material is harmful:
(1) and knowing the person is a minor, he sells, distributes, exhibits, or possesses for sale, distribution, or exhibition to a minor harmful material;
(2) he displays harmful material and is reckless about whether a minor is present who will be offended or alarmed by the display; or
(3) he hires, employs, or uses a minor to do or accomplish or assist in doing or accomplishing any of the acts prohibited in Subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2).
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the sale, distribution, or exhibition was by a person having scientific, educational, governmental, or other similar justification; or
(2) the sale, distribution, or exhibition was to a minor who was accompanied by a consenting parent, guardian, or spouse.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless it is committed under Subsection (b)(3) in which event it is a felony of the third degree.
Note that there’s an exception in (c)(2) that makes it okay if a parent or guardian approves.