On June 27th, the supreme Court Stuck down a law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. In a time when the supreme court seems split on just about every major decision, the high court voted 7-2 to strike down the ban, calling it unconstitutional. The Full Article can be read at:
But I'll summarize for those not interested in venturing the internet universe.
This decision saw a union of Traditionally Liberal and Conservative Judges, with "Big Bad" Antonin Scalia, a conservative, siding with Ginsberg and Obama's 2 justices in the majority decision. Likewise, the Chief Justice and Samuel Alito also sided with the majority, though they had some reservations about certain aspects of the law and wrote such in their opinions.
The two who voted against it? Justice Breyer and Clarence Thomas. In their humble opinions, Consistency is a must, and if raunchy sexual material can be restricted, (or, as Breyer said, a picture of a nude woman), violence should be as well.
Seems to me that the Old Robes are suffering from a bit o' dissociative disorder. What is it, do we restrict content or not? If kids want sex, they'll turn off filters. If they want violence, they'll have an older relative buy the game. Are we going to restrict these things like cigarettes and alcohol?
But I digress. Should the striking down of this ban set a precedent for another challenge to the long-standing obscenity doctrines? Will it succeed this time? Maybe, next month, we'll have a new game, "sexercise" released for sale to all children?
