MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
I don't think you need to subscribe to a Living Document interpretation to get to the conclusion that the concepts behind the original language leads to broader results than were originally conceived by the people who wrote the language
for instance, I would argue the people who penned and ratified the Fourth obviously didn't have telephone calls in mind but, were you to explain the telephone to them they would probably say you need a warrant to tap someone's home phone
The transcript of the argument was an amazing read, and I found the arguments that the supreme court posed were extremely interesting to the outcome of the case.
But I kept getting pissed when they brought up that games weren't considered with worth artistically wise even though movies are. I don't understand that point of view much.
During certain bits they directly compared movies with this sort of content to games, though
Straight up going "hey so if this goes through, you gonna ban movies too"
I've done a lot of thinking about this and I have to disagree
To be fair, I subscribe to the Constitution is a living document viewpoint
and also am usually in favor in the greatest freedom for the greatest number of people
edit: I'm not trying to say "you hate freedom!!" or anything
also I'm not sure if you're stating an opinion or just the current state of the law
Current state of law
Also you didn't state "state bans" or "religious bans"
And textualists still go "what did the framers think of X" because even the most strictual textualist isn't going to hurp durp the language of a century old document says X soooooo
They do not go very far past that (or say they don't)
(except in limited cases like broadcasts where you can't stop invisible waves from getting into your house; or the government can require parental controls on things but shouldn't be making content decisions)
Precisely, except on the government mandating parental controls. Parents have a responsibility to care for their own kids. The government isn't there to be a parent.
Lord knows the government is involved in too much stuff as it is.
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
Posts
for instance, I would argue the people who penned and ratified the Fourth obviously didn't have telephone calls in mind but, were you to explain the telephone to them they would probably say you need a warrant to tap someone's home phone
During certain bits they directly compared movies with this sort of content to games, though
Straight up going "hey so if this goes through, you gonna ban movies too"
I thought that was nice
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Current state of law
Also you didn't state "state bans" or "religious bans"
And textualists still go "what did the framers think of X" because even the most strictual textualist isn't going to hurp durp the language of a century old document says X soooooo
They do not go very far past that (or say they don't)
Lord knows the government is involved in too much stuff as it is.
PM me with yours if you add me
Heh.