Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Based r/IncelTear gets it wrong again: Why killing and torturing women in video games is free speech

PPEcel

PPEcel

Modcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
27,876
Online
263d 19h 55m
So last week, the following screenshot showed up on r/gamingcirclejerk:

Mum5dk6eanj91

It’s pretty self-explanatory. Some rando possesses a YouTube channel where he presumably kills and tortures female non-player characters. Predictably, r/IncelTear is extremely upset. There’s the usual wailing of “muh misogyny!” But some of them also question the premise that killing and torturing women in video games is free speech.

Screenshot 2022 08 29 114614

Full disclosure: I’ve never played Red Dead Redemption 2, so I don’t understand RDR 2’s specific game mechanics. But the law is clear: The United States Constitution protects the production, sale, purchase, and consumption of violent video games.

Here’s a brief American legal history of...video gaming.

America’s Best Family Showplace v. City of New York (E.D.N.Y. 1982)

R 0000157
Judge McLaughin

Forty years ago, these Redditors would actually have been correct.

In the 1980s, American law did not categorize video games as free speech. “Before entertainment is accorded First Amendment protection there must be some element of information or some idea being communicated,” held Judge Joseph M. McLaughlin in America’s Best, 536 F. Supp. 170, 173 (E.D.N.Y. 1982). “In no sense can it be said that video games are meant to inform. Rather, a video game, like a pinball game, a game of chess, or a game of baseball, is pure entertainment with no informational element.” Id. at 174.

But between the 1980s and the 2000s, American society changed:
  1. Graphics cards, CPUs, hard drives, etc. improved exponentially in terms of performance.
  2. The video game industry was consequently able to produce and publish increasingly sophisticated video games, providing a far more detailed and immersive experience to gamers.
  3. As a result, the federal judiciary no longer viewed video games as “pure entertainment”, and was receptive to arguments that video games contained symbolic expression.
At the same time, the increasing realism of video games culminated in a moral panic amongst parents concerned that video games would contribute to juvenile delinquency and real-world violence. After the Columbine High School shooting of 1999, these “concerned parent” groups successfully lobbied many state legislatures to regulate the sale of video games to minors, spawning a wave of litigation in the 2000s.

The result was a series of resounding legal victories for video game developers and the First Amendment.

American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick (7th Cir. 2001)

Download 17
Judge Posner

In 2000, Indianapolis enacted an ordinance banning minors from using an “amusement machine” that contains “graphic violence” or “strong sexual content” unless they were accompanied by a parent. Arcade operators immediately challenged the law in federal court, and the following year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit permanently enjoined it. American Amusement, 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001).

Judge Richard A. Posner (who is coincidentally the most cited legal scholar in U.S. history) concluded that video games were speech. And needless to say, freedom of speech contains no general exception for depictions of violence. Indeed, “violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low,” Posner wrote, comparing violent video games to Homer’s Odyssey, Tolstoy’s War and Peace, and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Id. at 577.

Interactive Digital Software v. St. Louis County (8th Cir. 2003)

Arnoldmorris portrait
Judge Arnold

Two years after the Seventh Circuit’s decision in American Amusement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit struck down a similar city ordinance, this time in St. Louis, Missouri. In Interactive Digital, 329 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2003), Judge Morris S. Arnold agreed that video games constituted speech, noting that depictions of violence cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity. Id. at 957-958 (internal quotations omitted). Moreover, because lawyers for St. Louis failed to show empirical evidence that violent video games harmed minors, the ordinance failed strict scrutiny and was thus unconstitutional.

Entertainment Software Association v. Blagojevich (N.D. Ill. 2005)

In 2002, the Illinois General Assembly passed a statute banning the sale of video games which depict or simulate “death, dismemberment, amputation, decapitation, maiming, disfigurement, mutilation of body parts, or rape” to minors. Blagojevich, 404 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1057 (N.D. Ill. 2005). After a bench trial, the law was struck down by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for violating the First Amendment, citing American Amusement.

Entertainment Software Association v. Granholm (E.D. Mich. 2006)

In 2005, Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed into law a bill that banned retailers from selling “ultra violent explicit video games” to minors under 17. The bill defined “ultra violent explicit” as depictions of “actions causing death, inflicting cruelty, dismemberment, decapitation, maiming, disfigurement, or other mutilation of body parts, murder, criminal sexual conduct, or torture”. Granholm, 426 F. Supp. 2d 646, 648-649 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (paraphrased).

The following year, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan invalidated the law for not only violating the First Amendment of minors, but also the Fourteenth Amendment for being unconstitutionally vague. Id.

Entertainment Software Association. v. Hatch (D. Minn. 2006)

In 2006, Republican Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed into law a bill that would impose a $25 fine on any minor under 17 who rented or purchased a video game rated “AO” or “M” by the ESRB. Lawyers for Minnesota state argued that the “worthless, disgusting nature” of certain video games made them less deserving of constitutional protection.

The law was permanently enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota the same year, holding that “the First Amendment…was certainly established to keep the state from becoming the arbiter of what constitutes ‘worthless’ and ‘disgusting’ speech”. Hatch, 443 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1072-1073 (D. Minn. 2006).

Entertainment Software Association v. Foti (M.D. La. 2006)

That year, Democratic Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed into law a bill banning the sale of any video games that “appeal to a minor’s morbid interest in violence”. In just weeks, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana invalidated the law. Foti, 451 F. Supp. 2d 823 (M.D. La. 2006).

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)

Scotus supreme court 15461x

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court finally weighed in on video games and the First Amendment. The case centered around a California law which would have fined retailers $1,000 for each instance of selling a “violent video game” to a minor under 17; it was initially signed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005.

During oral argument, the Justices hotly debated whether the First Amendment protected even a ten-year-old’s right to buy a video game in which schoolgirls are “hit with shovels,” “set on fire,” and “decapitated”:

Audio excerpt of oral argument (08-1448 Tr. p. 32-34)

View: https://voca.ro/172886LZKYEI


Download 18
Justice Scalia

In a 7-2 decision, the Court concluded that it did. Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan authored the majority opinion nullifying the California law. (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion.)

“Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.Brown, 564 U.S. 786, 790 (2011). The majority continued: "Victims are dismembered, decapitated, disemboweled, set on fire, and chopped into little pieces...Blood gushes, splatters, and pools...but disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression.” Id. at 798-799 (internal quotations omitted).

Conclusion

States have repeatedly tried to restrict the availability of violent video games. In every single instance, these laws failed to survive federal judicial review, thanks to the First Amendment.

There are video games that portray women as assertive and strong, capable of beating larger men in hand-to-hand combat. Then there are games that portray women as submissive objects—either as rewards of conquest or targets of violence. And some video games have educational value. For example, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has praised Plague Inc. for introducing young people to epidemiology. Other games are less educational: In Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, the campaign level “No Russian” allows the player to mindlessly gun down dozens of civilians in an airport terminal.


As far as the law is concerned, there exists a constitutional right to make, buy, sell, and play all of these video games. The social value of the speech these games impart is irrelevant. And it is completely antithetical to the American way of government for the state to screen and censor art, literature, film, and video games for disagreeable messages. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).

Screenshot 2022 08 29 114636

So is it free speech to kill and torture women (and men) in a video game? The answer is unambiguously yes. :feelsaww::feelsaww::feelsaww: This applies even to gameplay that is “hateful” and “influences others”. There is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. And in fact, the very purpose of free speech is to allow citizens to influence each other—and therefore influence government and policy. That’s why freedom of speech is considered a fundamental right.

Just one last thing to add: No one’s going to become a serial killer after killing and torturing femoids in some random game any more than they’re going to sign up for the Navy SEALs after a session of CS:GO, or rob a bank after a round of Payday 2. That is just plainly absurd.
 
Last edited:
PLA1092

PLA1092

I.N.C.E.L. Special Agent
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Posts
7,735
Online
26d 36m
I fully digested every word in this post. :feelshehe:
 
Man

Man

Verified Rapist
★★
Joined
Jul 11, 2022
Posts
1,187
Online
15d 2h 6m
Legal precedent supersedes your moral sensibilities.

If you can't differentiate a serious and believable threat of violence against your personage from an innocuous message about or within video games, then you need to spend less time on the internet, and it's obvious you have never received a real threat of violence.


On my way to slaughter villagers (in minecraft). :feelsmusic: -Nobody cares

On my way to slaughter foids (in minecraft). :feelsbaton: "Yes officer, this post right here"

vs.

On [Date and Time] I am going to [Violent action] you and your family at [Home Address]. :feelsLSD:

I am going to [Violent action] you if I ever see you on the streets of [City]. :feelsdevil:
 
Last edited:
Hoodedn1inja20

Hoodedn1inja20

(The Black Pill Reigns Supreme)
★★★★★
Joined
Mar 12, 2022
Posts
15,988
Online
70d 12h 34m
Killing men in video games (Cucktears don't care)

Killing women in video games (Cucktears chimp out)
 
Lonesome Bright

Lonesome Bright

Recruit
★★★★
Joined
May 24, 2022
Posts
367
Online
3d 9h 24m
On my way to slaughter villagers (in minecraft). :feelsmusic: -Nobody cares

On my way to slaughter foids (in minecraft). :feelsbaton: "Yes officer, this post right here"
LOL XD its only a game there is a difference in reality and games
 
Mecoja

Mecoja

stompin on a dream
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
Posts
21,440
Online
247d 11h 48m
hE iS sPeCiAlly TaRgEtINg WaHmEn :feels::soy::foidSoy:
 
Mecoja

Mecoja

stompin on a dream
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
Posts
21,440
Online
247d 11h 48m
How about no one talks about killing Russians, Arabs, Asians in video games? Should we classify that as xenophobia or military offensive?
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Modcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
27,876
Online
263d 19h 55m
thoughts? @sub human @Rice Rice Baby
 
IncelKing

IncelKing

Chaos is a laddER
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Posts
4,977
Online
124d 6h 39m
I support the rape and murder of women (in video game)
 
fukurou

fukurou

the supreme coder
Joined
Dec 17, 2021
Posts
1,056
Online
24d 11h 53m
 
Puppeter

Puppeter

INCELS LEAD THE WAY
★★★
Joined
Apr 10, 2022
Posts
2,287
Online
17d 20h 40m
It should be mandatory mission to kill or grape a foid
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Modcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
27,876
Online
263d 19h 55m
Legal precedent supersedes your moral sensibilities.

If you can't differentiate a serious and believable threat of violence against your personage from an innocuous message about or within video games, then you need to spend less time on the internet, and it's obvious you have never received a real threat of violence.


On my way to slaughter villagers (in minecraft). :feelsmusic: -Nobody cares

On my way to slaughter foids (in minecraft). :feelsbaton: "Yes officer, this post right here"

vs.

On [Date and Time] I am going to [Violent action] you and your family at [Home Address]. :feelsLSD:

I am going to [Violent action] you if I ever see you on the streets of [City]. :feelsdevil:
Well, true threats are a completely separate area of First Amendment jurisprudence that's worth discussing, but I'm kind of tired already lol.

I would recommend anyone with an interest in the true threats exception to the First Amendment read Watts v. United States (1969), Virginia v. Black (2003), and Elonis v. United States (2015).
 
oldcel75

oldcel75

Major
★★
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Posts
2,165
Online
26d 4h 53m
Thank you for another high IQ post.
 
The Enforcer

The Enforcer

Not fit to survive
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 25, 2021
Posts
1,702
Online
30d 9h 17m
just lol at reddit still thinking that they can have people put in prison for wrongthink or annoying them. It's just reflective of their ideal world. Where ugly men are put into death camps.
 
LeFrenchCel

LeFrenchCel

No love
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Posts
5,981
Online
48d 6h 10m
Based and not only in video game
 
sub human

sub human

I just wasn’t made for these times
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Posts
8,084
Online
55d 12h 10m
Based and truthpilled.

Tbh I don't take anything reddit says seriously. I don't think they actually think through what they say, they just think anything they don't like should be banned. It's funny though about how absolutely oblivious they are to what free speech actually is.
 
Deleted member 21770

Deleted member 21770

Let that sink in.
-
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Posts
1,557
Online
16d 17h 17m
no, violence against women in real fucking life nigger
 
proudweeb

proudweeb

P
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 20, 2021
Posts
253,000
Online
109d 8h 8m
damn @Sneir didn't even post in this thread yet lol
 
Rice Rice Baby

Rice Rice Baby

gibs me bat
★★★
Joined
Jan 31, 2022
Posts
223
Online
3d 6h 14m
Good post as always. Maybe should've touched on the Thomas dissent a little to throw IT a lil' bone, especially since his reasoning is based so largely on the conservative family values I'm sure IT loves so much :feelskek:
 
Indari

Indari

Captain Indari
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Posts
32,110
Online
175d 11h 34m
started reading, then opened some porn instead
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Modcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
27,876
Online
263d 19h 55m
Good post as always. Maybe should've touched on the Thomas dissent a little to throw IT a lil' bone, especially since his reasoning is based so largely on the conservative family values I'm sure IT loves so much :feelskek:
Would have loved to elaborate but I felt like the post was already getting too long.

There is scant historical evidence to support Thomas' contention that the original public meaning of the 1A did not support the free speech of minors; and his lone dissent in Mahanoy Area School District (2021) shows even Alito and Barrett rejects this application of "conservative family values". [UWSL]The actual historical record shows that many of the Founding Founders were teenagers when they began reading and writing about politics. If I recall correctly, Benjamin Franklin was 16 when he began writing under the pseudonym of "Silence Dogood". [/UWSL]

Breyer's dissent of course tries to adopt a supposedly pragmatic approach to the 1A by upholding the California statute at issue under the variable obscenity standard in Ginsberg v. New York (1968), and I'm guessing that this is the opinion that most Redditcucks would've supported. But that theory of constitutional interpretation is unsupported; the text of the 1A doesn't apply only to "speech that makes sense", it applies to "speech".

In any case, neither Breyer nor Thomas denied that video games constituted expression protected by the 1A; their dissents instead centered around the scope of minors' 1A rights, as opposed to adults'. [UWSL]CuckTears' belief that violent video games isn't considered speech at all, even for adults, is simply far divorced from our current legal reality. [/UWSL]

On mobile so forgive typos if any
 
Last edited:
ilieknothing

ilieknothing

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
7,179
Online
153d 12h 18m
Red Dead Redemption 2 came out a few years ago, to me it was a shittier version of GTA V with cowboys. I did kill my fair share of foids on it though :feelskek:

I unfortunately do not live in a free land like the USA. In the current political climate I’m pretty sure any game that has violence against foids would be banned. :feelswhat:
 
decembrist_kirillov

decembrist_kirillov

Morningstar
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 12, 2021
Posts
14,890
Online
36d 17h 35m
they dont even let us do this in video game. jesus.
 
Escthectrler

Escthectrler

Captain
★★★★
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Posts
1,898
Online
48d 17h 10m
Indracel

Indracel

Misogynistic Leftist
★★★★
Joined
Jul 21, 2022
Posts
1,377
Online
20d 2h 43m
So last week, the following screenshot showed up on r/gamingcirclejerk:

View attachment 651564

It’s pretty self-explanatory. Some rando possesses a YouTube channel where he presumably kills and tortures female non-player characters. Predictably, r/IncelTear is extremely upset. There’s the usual wailing of “muh misogyny!” But some of them also question the premise that killing and torturing women in video games is free speech.

View attachment 651565

Full disclosure: I’ve never played Red Dead Redemption 2, so I don’t understand RDR 2’s specific game mechanics. But the law is clear: The United States Constitution protects the production, sale, purchase, and consumption of violent video games.

Here’s a brief American legal history of...video gaming.

America’s Best Family Showplace v. City of New York (E.D.N.Y. 1982)

View attachment 651569
Judge McLaughin

Forty years ago, these Redditors would actually have been correct.

In the 1980s, American law did not categorize video games as free speech. “Before entertainment is accorded First Amendment protection there must be some element of information or some idea being communicated,” held Judge Joseph M. McLaughlin in America’s Best, 536 F. Supp. 170, 173 (E.D.N.Y. 1982). “In no sense can it be said that video games are meant to inform. Rather, a video game, like a pinball game, a game of chess, or a game of baseball, is pure entertainment with no informational element.” Id. at 174.

But between the 1980s and the 2000s, American society changed:
  1. Graphics cards, CPUs, hard drives, etc. improved exponentially in terms of performance.
  2. The video game industry was consequently able to produce and publish increasingly sophisticated video games, providing a far more detailed and immersive experience to gamers.
  3. As a result, the federal judiciary no longer viewed video games as “pure entertainment”, and was receptive to arguments that video games contained symbolic expression.
At the same time, the increasing realism of video games culminated in a moral panic amongst parents concerned that video games would contribute to juvenile delinquency and real-world violence. After the Columbine High School shooting of 1999, these “concerned parent” groups successfully lobbied many state legislatures to regulate the sale of video games to minors, spawning a wave of litigation in the 2000s.

The result was a series of resounding legal victories for video game developers and the First Amendment.

American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick (7th Cir. 2001)

View attachment 651567
Judge Posner

In 2000, Indianapolis enacted an ordinance banning minors from using an “amusement machine” that contains “graphic violence” or “strong sexual content” unless they were accompanied by a parent. Arcade operators immediately challenged the law in federal court, and the following year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit permanently enjoined it. American Amusement, 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001).

Judge Richard A. Posner (who is coincidentally the most cited legal scholar in U.S. history) concluded that video games were speech. And needless to say, freedom of speech contains no general exception for depictions of violence. Indeed, “violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low,” Posner wrote, comparing violent video games to Homer’s Odyssey, Tolstoy’s War and Peace, and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Id. at 577.

Interactive Digital Software v. St. Louis County (8th Cir. 2003)

View attachment 651568
Judge Arnold

Two years after the Seventh Circuit’s decision in American Amusement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit struck down a similar city ordinance, this time in St. Louis, Missouri. In Interactive Digital, 329 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2003), Judge Morris S. Arnold agreed that video games constituted speech, noting that depictions of violence cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity. Id. at 957-958 (internal quotations omitted). Moreover, because lawyers for St. Louis failed to show empirical evidence that violent video games harmed minors, the ordinance failed strict scrutiny and was thus unconstitutional.

Entertainment Software Association v. Blagojevich (N.D. Ill. 2005)

In 2002, the Illinois General Assembly passed a statute banning the sale of video games which depict or simulate “death, dismemberment, amputation, decapitation, maiming, disfigurement, mutilation of body parts, or rape” to minors. Blagojevich, 404 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1057 (N.D. Ill. 2005). After a bench trial, the law was struck down by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for violating the First Amendment, citing American Amusement.

Entertainment Software Association v. Granholm (E.D. Mich. 2006)

In 2005, Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed into law a bill that banned retailers from selling “ultra violent explicit video games” to minors under 17. The bill defined “ultra violent explicit” as depictions of “actions causing death, inflicting cruelty, dismemberment, decapitation, maiming, disfigurement, or other mutilation of body parts, murder, criminal sexual conduct, or torture”. Granholm, 426 F. Supp. 2d 646, 648-649 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (paraphrased).

The following year, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan invalidated the law for not only violating the First Amendment of minors, but also the Fourteenth Amendment for being unconstitutionally vague. Id.

Entertainment Software Association. v. Hatch (D. Minn. 2006)

In 2006, Republican Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed into law a bill that would impose a $25 fine on any minor under 17 who rented or purchased a video game rated “AO” or “M” by the ESRB. Lawyers for Minnesota state argued that the “worthless, disgusting nature” of certain video games made them less deserving of constitutional protection.

The law was permanently enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota the same year, holding that “the First Amendment…was certainly established to keep the state from becoming the arbiter of what constitutes ‘worthless’ and ‘disgusting’ speech”. Hatch, 443 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1072-1073 (D. Minn. 2006).

Entertainment Software Association v. Foti (M.D. La. 2006)

That year, Democratic Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed into law a bill banning the sale of any video games that “appeal to a minor’s morbid interest in violence”. In just weeks, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana invalidated the law. Foti, 451 F. Supp. 2d 823 (M.D. La. 2006).

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)

View attachment 651570

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court finally weighed in on video games and the First Amendment. The case centered around a California law which would have fined retailers $1,000 for each instance of selling a “violent video game” to a minor under 17; it was initially signed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005.

During oral argument, the Justices hotly debated whether the First Amendment protected even a ten-year-old’s right to buy a video game in which schoolgirls are “hit with shovels,” “set on fire,” and “decapitated”:

Audio excerpt of oral argument (08-1448 Tr. p. 32-34)

View: https://voca.ro/172886LZKYEI


View attachment 651571
Justice Scalia

In a 7-2 decision, the Court concluded that it did. Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan authored the majority opinion nullifying the California law. (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion.)

“Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.Brown, 564 U.S. 786, 790 (2011). The majority continued: "Victims are dismembered, decapitated, disemboweled, set on fire, and chopped into little pieces...Blood gushes, splatters, and pools...but disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression.” Id. at 798-799 (internal quotations omitted).

Conclusion

States have repeatedly tried to restrict the availability of violent video games. In every single instance, these laws failed to survive federal judicial review, thanks to the First Amendment.

There are video games that portray women as assertive and strong, capable of beating larger men in hand-to-hand combat. Then there are games that portray women as submissive objects—either as rewards of conquest or targets of violence. And some video games have educational value. For example, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has praised Plague Inc. for introducing young people to epidemiology. Other games are less educational: In Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, the campaign level “No Russian” allows the player to mindlessly gun down dozens of civilians in an airport terminal.


As far as the law is concerned, there exists a constitutional right to make, buy, sell, and play all of these video games. The social value of the speech these games impart is irrelevant. And it is completely antithetical to the American way of government for the state to screen and censor art, literature, film, and video games for disagreeable messages. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).

View attachment 651566

So is it free speech to kill and torture women (and men) in a video game? The answer is unambiguously yes. :feelsaww::feelsaww::feelsaww: This applies even to gameplay that is “hateful” and “influences others”. There is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. And in fact, the very purpose of free speech is to allow citizens to influence each other—and therefore influence government and policy. That’s why freedom of speech is considered a fundamental right.

Just one last thing to add: No one’s going to become a serial killer after killing and torturing femoids in some random game any more than they’re going to sign up for the Navy SEALs after a session of CS:GO, or rob a bank after a round of Payday 2. That is just plainly absurd.


can US district courts / courts of appeal strike down state legislation or only temporarily block their enforcement?
 
Nikalas

Nikalas

I want to be caressed by mommy
★★★
Joined
Jun 10, 2022
Posts
1,733
Online
7d 8h 57m
Incels playing video games le bad

They are so hateful of us they want to ban us from playing video games
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Modcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
27,876
Online
263d 19h 55m
can US district courts / courts of appeal strike down state legislation or only temporarily block their enforcement?

The U.S. Constitution, including the Amendments, is the supreme law of the land. So tasked with the power of judicial review, the federal courts can permanently enjoin the enforcement of (strike down) any state and federal legislation that is unconstitutional.
 
Indracel

Indracel

Misogynistic Leftist
★★★★
Joined
Jul 21, 2022
Posts
1,377
Online
20d 2h 43m
The U.S. Constitution, including the Amendments, is the supreme law of the land. So tasked with the power of judicial review, the federal courts can permanently enjoin the enforcement of (strike down) any state and federal legislation that is unconstitutional.

So a random US district judge from Idaho can strike down legislation passed by Congress like the Supreme Court?
 
Last edited:
spongysleight

spongysleight

quarantine forever
★★★
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Posts
211
Online
3d 4h 35m
Okay cool post, high effort I like it
 
faded

faded

Leechmaxxed kikecel
-
Joined
Aug 7, 2021
Posts
5,549
Online
111d 12h 48m
How about no one talks about killing Russians, Arabs, Asians in video games? Should we classify that as xenophobia or military offensive?
Oy vey
 
TheDarkEnigma

TheDarkEnigma

St. JackieArklövcel
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Posts
15,438
Online
309d 22h 54m
I like torturing, raping and killing femalos. (in video game) :feelskek:
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Modcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
27,876
Online
263d 19h 55m
So a random US district judge from Idaho can strike down legislation passed by Congress like the Supreme Court?
Yes.

Of course, it's likely that if a federal law was overturned, the U.S. Department of Justice would then appeal the district judge's decision to an appellate court. In the case of Idaho, that would be the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

You can see the geographical breakdown of the federal courts here:
US Court of Appeals and District Court map

If the Ninth Circuit agrees with the district judge's decision to strike down the law, the DOJ can then appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
InMemoriam

InMemoriam

Secret Schizoid
★★★
Joined
Feb 19, 2022
Posts
3,297
Online
46d 5h 7m
Imagine being this petty JFL
Issa video game IT cucks never cease to out seethe us
 
FinnCel

FinnCel

Alcoholcel
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 13, 2018
Posts
32,723
Online
128d 11h 42m
You can torture anyone in games, who cares as long as its not real life
 
M

MogPill

OGcel
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 14, 2022
Posts
400
Online
2d 3h 28m
Legal precedent supersedes your moral sensibilities.

If you can't differentiate a serious and believable threat of violence against your personage from an innocuous message about or within video games, then you need to spend less time on the internet, and it's obvious you have never received a real threat of violence.


On my way to slaughter villagers (in minecraft). :feelsmusic: -Nobody cares

On my way to slaughter foids (in minecraft). :feelsbaton: "Yes officer, this post right here"

vs.

On [Date and Time] I am going to [Violent action] you and your family at [Home Address]. :feelsLSD:

I am going to [Violent action] you if I ever see you on the streets of [City]. :feelsdevil:
:feelskek::feelsokman:
 
l33tbl0k3

l33tbl0k3

thermostat iq
★★
Joined
Apr 9, 2020
Posts
1,145
Online
11d 17h 30m
based and also that youtuber is an artist :panties:
 
Mellatt

Mellatt

Have a rotten day!
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 4, 2022
Posts
8,801
Online
15d 2h 59m
I can’t believe IT retards actually believe this stupid shit they say.
 
Feetcel

Feetcel

Horny.
-
Joined
Aug 31, 2022
Posts
118
Online
4h 59m
bitch why u need to quote the constitution to say me killing prostitutes in gta isn't le epic evil hate crime? obviously I can do what I want it's pixels on a screen, anyone who says otherwise is a tone policing fag
 
Acion

Acion

Banned
-
Joined
Sep 1, 2022
Posts
596
Online
2d 19h 41m
What is the channel?
 
-TheRinku127-

-TheRinku127-

Overcel
★★★★
Joined
Jun 11, 2022
Posts
3,880
Online
48d 3h 31m
Seeing SJW foids trying to remove our freedom to do what we want even in video games makes my blood boil. It came down already from the flag changer spider man mod that got banned and now they're going for this as well.
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Modcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
27,876
Online
263d 19h 55m
bitch why u need to quote the constitution to say me killing prostitutes in gta isn't le epic evil hate crime? obviously I can do what I want it's pixels on a screen, anyone who says otherwise is a tone policing fag
Because soys and snownigger soccer moms love moral panics. The courts have to keep them in check somehow, to protect my right to kill women in video games.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78:
But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws.

Seeing SJW foids trying to remove our freedom to do what we want even in video games makes my blood boil. It came down already from the flag changer spider man mod that got banned and now they're going for this as well.
I don't know anything about the flag changer spider man mod. Can you explain the drama to me?
 
Last edited:
-TheRinku127-

-TheRinku127-

Overcel
★★★★
Joined
Jun 11, 2022
Posts
3,880
Online
48d 3h 31m
I don't know anything about the flag changer spider man mod. Can you explain the drama to me?
It was a small mod for Spider-Man Remastered that changed the pride flags to US flags through changing the localization from US/World to Middle East. The faggots on Twitter got wind of it. And as expected, they seethe and mass-report to get it banned. Ironic that they blame the modder when in fact the developers were behind of this. Shouldn't it be that the developers be called homophobic? Burning a US flag is okay for them, but not burning a pride flag. The insanity.
 
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top