American Amusement Machine Association, et al., v. Teri Kendrick, et al., 244 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2001); cert.denied, 534 U.S. 994; 122 S. Ct. 462; 151 L. Ed. 2d 379 (2001) Enacted in July 2001, an Indianapolis, Ind., city ordinance required video game arcade owners to limit access to games that depicted certain activities, including amputation, decapitation, dismemberment, bloodshed, or sexual intercourse. Only with the permission of an accompanying parent or guardian could children seventeen years old and younger play these types of video games. On March 23, 2001, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court's decision stating that "children have First Amendment rights." On Monday, October 29, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Interactive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., 329 F.3d 954(8th Cir. 2003) St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."
I've Forgotten More about the First Amendment than you'll ever know, obviouslyjackrightagainMarch 29 2006, 11:25:50 UTC
Dear Goofball:
I won the hearing and you did not. Blank Rome cited all of their little video game cases, and lost. Can you read, or have the games completely fried your frontal lobes? Apparently they have.
We're winning, and Rockstar is not. Bye-bye Rockstar. Jack Thompson
Re: I've Forgotten More about the First Amendment than you'll ever know, obviouslyyukimurasanadaMarch 29 2006, 11:44:29 UTC
Again jack, you fail. No proof, where I provided multiple cases. NO evidance, where I had multiple stories disproving your theroy.
If your not smart enough to read, I suggest you go back to 1st grade, since your behavior is about that of a child.
I don't pretend to know all there is to know about law, but I'm more then smart enough to do research and back up my claims.
Till you provide proof, or can show me a verifiable third party proving your claim, you have nothing. Even if your right, it's 1 case VS 8. Lets get to the supreme court and see how your actions fair then.
Re: I've Forgotten More about the First Amendment than you'll ever know, obviouslysilver_derstinMarch 29 2006, 12:26:00 UTC
I win, said the deluded knight to the surrounding army. Says goobye to your castles! And the deluded knight was hacked into pieces seconds later and the army castle was protected.
Re: I've Forgotten More about the First Amendment than you'll ever know, obviouslytollwutigMarch 29 2006, 13:31:25 UTC
a) There has been no public ruling in the Strickland v Sony Case. So either it hasn't happened or the media chose not to follow. Since one Alabama newspaper has been following the story it's most likely the former
b) you lost Pro Hac Vice status, which means you have not argued the case, another attorney has.
so with both a+b= YOU have NOT successfully argued the case. You may have argued a point, but that does not mean Rockstar loses.
You must have forgotten a lot...thejccalhounMarch 29 2006, 14:03:55 UTC
It is odd that you constantly write about homw much you know about the first amendment and yet you keep accusing this site of censoring your posts. Since only the government can censor it seems odd that you would accuse a private individual of censorship. If it were true censorship you owuld be prevented from speaking or writing anywhere and you are not. Unless you are claiming the government is the reason why jackandgoliath.com still isn't up...
Re: I've Forgotten More about the First Amendment than you'll ever know, obviouslywxdivaMarch 29 2006, 15:20:34 UTC
I can read...looks like the courts agree that the responsibility of parenting resides solely with the parents, not the government. At least someone in the system has common sense.
Do they require potential lawyers to pass a literacy test before passing the bar exam in Florida?
Re: I've Forgotten More about the First Amendment than you'll ever know, obviouslybeacon80March 29 2006, 17:57:15 UTC
I won the hearing and you did not. Wow, so mature of you, Jack. Of course Yukimurasanada didn't win the case. He wasn't on it. If memory serves, you're not on it, either. And, as usual, you completely overlook the actual purpose of the post. Yuki cited two cases where the video game industry won, to counter your case where the video game industry allegedly (Sorry, Jack, but I just can't take your word on anything anymore) has merely lost its attempt to throw the case away initially. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm reading this correctly, the actual trial hasn't even started, so you haven't won anything yet.
Ignoring a point is an admittance that you don't have a counterpoint. In the end, every time you ignore the real topic of a post, you're saying we're right.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/03/technology/games_firstamendment/index.htm
American Amusement Machine Association, et al., v. Teri Kendrick, et al., 244 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2001); cert.denied, 534 U.S. 994; 122 S. Ct. 462; 151 L. Ed. 2d 379 (2001)
Enacted in July 2001, an Indianapolis, Ind., city ordinance required video game arcade owners to limit access to games that depicted certain activities, including amputation, decapitation, dismemberment, bloodshed, or sexual intercourse. Only with the permission of an accompanying parent or guardian could children seventeen years old and younger play these types of video games. On March 23, 2001, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court's decision stating that "children have First Amendment rights." On Monday, October 29, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Interactive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., 329 F.3d 954(8th Cir. 2003)
St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=14844
Thats Just a warm up JACK! Want more or has your minimal mental capacity been overloaded already.
Reply
I won the hearing and you did not. Blank Rome cited all of their little video game cases, and lost. Can you read, or have the games completely fried your frontal lobes? Apparently they have.
We're winning, and Rockstar is not. Bye-bye Rockstar. Jack Thompson
Reply
Yes i used a long word Jack, really proves that games have damaged my mind, huh?
Reply
If your not smart enough to read, I suggest you go back to 1st grade, since your behavior is about that of a child.
I don't pretend to know all there is to know about law, but I'm more then smart enough to do research and back up my claims.
Till you provide proof, or can show me a verifiable third party proving your claim, you have nothing. Even if your right, it's 1 case VS 8. Lets get to the supreme court and see how your actions fair then.
Reply
You were thrown off the case BEFORE the judge made the decision to let this bullshit case go to trial, so technically, you lost.
His frontal lobes are actually improved by games, so your insults are weak.
You're losing, and Rockstar will win this, no matter how much bullshit you befuddle those hillbillies in Alabama with.
Reply
A parabole from me. Try to interpret that Jack.
Reply
Well, proud guy, I am going to show you this.
"Pride goes before destruction,
a haughty spirit before a fall."-Proverbs 16:18 (New International Version)
Reply
Reply
Once again, I'll say... bickering over religion doesn't belong here.
Reply
b) you lost Pro Hac Vice status, which means you have not argued the case, another attorney has.
so with both a+b= YOU have NOT successfully argued the case. You may have argued a point, but that does not mean Rockstar loses.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Do they require potential lawyers to pass a literacy test before passing the bar exam in Florida?
Reply
Wow, so mature of you, Jack. Of course Yukimurasanada didn't win the case. He wasn't on it. If memory serves, you're not on it, either.
And, as usual, you completely overlook the actual purpose of the post. Yuki cited two cases where the video game industry won, to counter your case where the video game industry allegedly (Sorry, Jack, but I just can't take your word on anything anymore) has merely lost its attempt to throw the case away initially. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm reading this correctly, the actual trial hasn't even started, so you haven't won anything yet.
Similarly, when I brought up questions about why games didn't count as speech (http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/235573.html?thread=17170229#t17170229), you response ultimately came down to "They don't" without addressing any of the issues I brought up.
Ignoring a point is an admittance that you don't have a counterpoint. In the end, every time you ignore the real topic of a post, you're saying we're right.
Reply
When it fails anyway later, you'll have nothing.
Someone fried his lobes, and it isn't us.
Reply
Leave a comment