The Brilliance Of Clarence Thomas

The Supreme Court recently ruled in Brown v. Entertainment a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games directly to minors, as unconstitutional. The video game manufacturers held that this restriction would be a violation of free speech. The court agreed with them in a 7-2 ruling with Justices Breyer (go figure) and Thomas dissenting, that the law does not comport with the 1st Amendment which nullifies California’s attempt to protect minors.

Thomas in his dissent opinion shows his incredible intellect here: Justice Thomas dissenting.

His opinion is that the 1st Amendment does NOT apply to all speech. Society has created some specific restrictions on speech, in this case involving minors acknowledging that parental authority over them is absolute. Considering the societal structure at the time, it’s obvious the founders would have never enacted anything abridging that parental authority. The parents held full authority and responsibility for properly raising their children, legal guardians naturally would be included. The 18th century family considered the husband as head of the household, and that was never challenged either. Thomas lays this out in an understandable fashion, that minors only have rights through the parents, not via constitutional conveyance, therefore speech involving minors lies outside the 1st Amendment.

Justice Thomas’ opinion on this supports the integrity of the family unit, by confirming parental authority as a natural right that lies outside the constitution. Unfortunately the majority of the court disagreed and another erosion of parental rights, unalienable rights, has occurred. We as parents and in my case grandparents (don’t go there assholes) need to remain vigilant with our federal court system full of liberals and their demented ideology. I do want to state that I would be against this law as well, since it attempts to legislate a parental responsibility. The ONLY way to keep minors from playing excessively violent games, is to actually supervise the kids. Our ‘modern’ culture is all to willing to abrogate their responsibilities for children, as this law attempted to do. I can attest to this one personally using anecdotal evidence from my job, but that’s an entire topic in itself.

Is it any wonder that progressive, socialists hate this man? Wouldn’t that be racist? Oh wait, any speech by a liberal by definition, cannot be racist, they’re ‘out for the little guy’ right?

-Carry On

0 0 vote
Article Rating
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
lc purple raider
lc purple raider
July 1, 2011 14:28

Based on these views of childhood, the founding generation understood parents to have a right and duty to govern their children’s growth. Parents were expected to direct the development and education of their children and ensure that bad habits did not take root. And the brilliance of Justice Thomas continues. Also, this is why the marxists so desperately wants to… Read more »

LC Cheapshot911, Dept. of Redneck Tech, Imperial Photographer, K.o.E.
LC Cheapshot911, Dept. of Redneck Tech, Imperial Photographer, K.o.E.
July 1, 2011 17:24

Now that he’s got a nasty weiner out of his face, he can realllly get busy.
Weiner’s last piece of hatchet work was against Justice Thomas,, failure to launch due to software nub’osity.

Cannon Fodder
Cannon Fodder
July 1, 2011 18:49

From Thomas’ dissent:

The historical evidence shows that the founding generation believed parents had absolute authority over their minor children and expected parents to use that authority to direct the proper development of their children.

He says this, yet the government constantly steps in and tells you how to deal with and raise your children.

Lady H
Lady H
July 1, 2011 21:45

Agree with Justice Thomas on this one, sorry that Justice Scalia went with the majority.

Then why have age restrictions on alcohol and smokes then? I’m sorry, but it’s been proven that violent video games do influence a child’s behavior negatively. (I’ve had a talk with my son about this personally.)

July 1, 2011 23:09

Testes

Cricket
Cricket
July 2, 2011 08:05

Is this the part where we tell the Supremes to stuff it? I have never really cared for any legislation that undermines parental authority any way, but it seems to me that if the 10th Amendment was used in passing that law, and therefore, a standard, then the SC needs to stay the heck out of it. Lastly, the oh-so-dishy… Read more »

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere
Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere
July 4, 2011 17:18

Thomas in his dissent opinion shows his incredible intellect here:

I knew there was a reason I liked you, Gramps.