stephen breyer

SCOTUS Strikes Down California Law Banning The Sale Of Violent Video Games To Minors

Posted 6/28/11 at 11:02am by jamie

In 2005 California passed a law banning the sale of violent video games to those under 18. The law has constantly been challenged in the courts, so it was never fully enacted and now it never will be:

The court reached a decision in Brown v. the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) by a vote of 7-2, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer dissenting. Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the law would have created a new class of regulations for content aimed at children.

“No doubt a State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed,” Scalia wrote, noting that even fairy tales such as “Snow White” and “Cinderella” feature graphic descriptions of violence.

Dissenting on the decision were Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas. Justice Breyer brings up a point I thought when I first heard this decision:

“But what sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?” Breyer said.

“What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman — bound, gagged, tortured and killed — is also topless?”

Let little Johnny shoot, stab, decapitate or beat to a pulp video game character Susie, but just as long as she doesn't show any boob. If that happens then we have a problem!

America Screwed Again

Posted 1/21/10 at 10:46am by jamie

The Supreme Court has just removed campaign donation restrictions on corporations:

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

[SNIP]

However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The conservatives on the court seem hell bent on transferring the power from the people to corporate America. The Democrats have said they will put through new restrictions, but I highly doubt it. They are caving to everything right now and why should this be any different. I’m sure if a bill hits the Senate then Harry Reid will just buckle as usual.

Pages

Comments



blog advertising is good for you

Tip Jar

Monthly archive

Follow Me On Twitter


Follow IntoxiNation on Twitter:
Follow IntoxiNation on Twitter