Judges can be real idiots
I'm thinking that we (Americans) should mandate all judges to attend a two-week "judge school," at which they can go ahead and straighten out things like reason and logic.
I'm reading this article about how a California judge struck down a law that would ban movie rental stores from renting violent video games to children under 18. His reasoning was, sure, shooting a schoolgirl in the knee, setting her on fire while she limps around, and then urinating on her as she writhes in pain can certainly be labeled deviant, but there is no data from the psychological sciences to show that what children see on TV or games will influence their behavior.
WTF!?
For starters, there IS data to show kids LOVE TO MIMIC WHAT THEY SEE ON TV! When I took freshman psych we watched the infamous "Bobo the clown" video. A bunch of kids were shown a video of other kids playing in a room full of toys and games, and then were turned loose on the same room. Right in the middle of the room is Bobo the Clown, an inflatible cylinder painted like a clown with a weight at the bottom, so when you cock-knock him he pops back up. When the video showed the kids playing with the plastic stove or little scooter, the viewers ran into the room and started doing the same thing. But when the video showed other kids kicking the piss out of Bobo, man, those little video watching rugrats tore Bobo a new asshole. And we don't think what they see has any effect on their behavior.
But that's not the half of it. Why do we restrict minors from renting rated R movies? Similar reasons, right? Inappropriate material. So why the double standard with video games? I say let the fifteen-year-olds rent all the porn they want. Hell, give them first rights to the adult video closet.
The last thing that really grinds my gears is how freakin' judges play this card when it's convenient. Last week a read an article about Supreme Court nominee Alito, and his abstention from the (New Hampsire?) case that has everyone 'examining his pro-life stance.' That case struck down a state law that said women would have to notify their husbands before getting an abortion. Their reason was it placed an "undue burden" on the women, i.e., the justices dreamed up a million ideas where a pissed off husband may do bad things to his wife because of her getting an abortion. I'm sorry - can't we dream up a million little kids pissing on flaming school girls? Isn't it the same damn thing?
We're not talking about the realm of reality here, we're talking about possibility. Any judge can say, "oh, I forsee this law making bad stuff happen" and strike it down. They can likewise say, "possibility or not, there is no hard evidence to support these claims."
Evidence or not, we're all at the whim of the Man.
Comments