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?