Justice Clarence Thomas on Selling Violent Video Games to Children: "I Don't Think the First Amendment Stretches That Far."

In 2003, Reason named Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas one of our "35 Heroes of Freedom" due to his support for federalism and limited constitutional government and because he was "a reliable defender of freedom of speech in such diverse contexts as advertising, broadcasting, and campaign contributions." That judgement still holds up, but today's dissenting vote by Thomas in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association doesn't do it any favors.

As Jacob Sullum noted earlier, Justice Antonin Scalia delivered a sweeping victory for the First Amendment in that case by striking down California's ban on selling violent video games to minors. "Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat," Scalia wrote for the 7-2 majority. "But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones. Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy."

Justice Thomas took a much dimmer view of constitutionally protected speech, arguing in his dissent that "The Court's decision today does not comport with the original public understanding of the First Amendment." And it's not because Thomas sees Mortal Kombat as a lesser art form than The Divine Comedy. Here's the main thrust of his argument:

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. It would be absurd to suggest that such a society understood "the freedom of speech" to include a right to speak to minors (or a corresponding right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents. The founding generation would not have considered abridgment of "the freedom of speech" to support parental authority by restricting speech that bypasses minors' parents.

This sounds like Thomas might even uphold a ban on selling Dante to minors, which doesn't sound very much like freedom of speech to me.

Comments

[Enough About Palin]

Can minors now by booze too?

[AlmightyJB]

No, just porn, according to Root anyway.

[Bar Student]

they don't need to buy porn

[AlmightyJB]

That's true. Lucky kids.

[Bar Student]

Lucky everybody. But I already feel seriously old compared to kids these days. "When I was your age it took 30 mins to load one 10 sec video and google didn't even exist. Woooooooow"

[Fluffy]

Again, that MIGHT be logical if the law in question only regulated the behavior of those minors.

But the logic here seems to be:

1. I have authority over my minor children.
2. (Blank)
3. Therefore I have authority over YOU!
4. Whip-tash!

[Brandybuck]

Using his logic in the quoted paragraph, the only conclusion I can reach is that it's up to the parents to decide whether Junior gets the video game, NOT Clarence.

[Paul]

I haven't read the Calif. law yet, but I am hearing arguments elsewhere that the law didn't ban anything, it just made it so these games couldn't be sold to minors-- like Playboy or tobacco.

It sounds like Thomas is getting to the core of that argument.

[dunphy]

correct, in that the law doesn't prohibit minors from possessin or playing those games. this purely affects the commerce - selling it to them. if a parent wants to buy it for them and let them play it - that is entirely legal

iow, it recognizes that the parent is the "Decider" vis a vis kids.

i'm not saying i necessarily agree with the decision. however, it's kind of ironic that a 16 yr old can get an abortion w/o parental permission, but can't buy a violent video game w/o it

and also, kids have never been able to buy p0rn , so if it's ok to limit the sale of that to kids, why not certain video games?

[Mongo]

and also, kids have never been able to buy p0rn , so if it's ok to limit the sale of that to kids, why not certain video games?

It's an obscenity (sex) thing, which was found constitutional to ban, versus a violence thing.

[Paul]

and also, kids have never been able to buy p0rn , so if it's ok to limit the sale of that to kids, why not certain video games?

I made an allusion to that point below-- to the fractured nature of our nation's free-speech laws.

As a libertarian, I don't like restrictions to anything, but like I said below, if Playboy reprinted Dante's Inferno in its next several issues, then Dante would be banned to minors-- through that medium.

[dunphy]

as a libertarian (not referring to this decision , but in general) , i recognize that minors have, and should have , diminished rights vs. adults

for example, parents should have the right to spank kids. in my state they do. nobody should have the right to spank an adult (absent consent of course)

grok the difference?

this isn't a restriction on violent video games per se. it's a restriction on selling them to children. the games are free to be marketed to adults, and that includes to adults who want to purchase them for their children.

i don't buy the argument that minors should have the same rights as adults. i certainly don;'t think they should be allowed to buy cigarettes, for example

and while i am for legalization of mj, i don't think 13 yr olds (given a legal mj scheme) should be able to buy it

[AlmightyJB]

What happened to the good old days when you could send little Johnny to the store for some booze, smokes, and some "elixir":)

[squishua]

Well, I live in CA and, while I don't know the particulars of the video game law (other than it prohibits certain sales to minors), I think the Supremes got this one wrong.

These kind of articles remind me that reason is more libertine than authentically libertarian.

[dunphy]

sorry if some of us fail the Squishua Libertarian Purity test (tm).

[squishua]

@dunphy 7:03pm
Reading comprehension fail. As improbable as it seems, I was agreeing with you.

[dunphy]

if so, my bad. wouldn't be the first time...

[robc]

for example, parents should have the right to spank kids. in my state they do. nobody should have the right to spank an adult (absent consent of course)

grok the difference?

I do, not sure you do.

If I spank an adult against there will, it is assault. If I spank my child*, it isnt.

Children have the same rights to not be assaulted as adults do. There is no difference in the right at all.

*it doesnt even need to be mine, but that is a finer line.

[dunphy]

jesus christ what a perfect example of the logical fallacy "to beg the question"

the reason spanking a child is NOT assault is because it is not UNlawful. it is an "unwanted touching"

that's because we give parents the authority to do so, but adults have a right NOT to be spanked

iow, you are merely stating a definitional conclusion, not an argument. and in the process, supporting my point

christ, at least make an argument.

[Skr]

A parent recently got 5 years probation and lost custody of her kid for spanking.

[Tulpa]

Link?

Is it a case where the spanking was so severe it caused lasting damage? If so that's not really a counterexample.

[dunphy]

correct. every state places limits on what a parent can do. physical discipline within those limits does not constitute assault. outside those limits it does.

fwiw, i have investigated actual assault cases and also had probably 2 dozen or so cases where kids TRIED to , or others reported waht they believed was assault, but was in fact legal parental discipline

our RCW gives guidelines as to what is ok and what isn't.

[Keith]

I agree the direct transfer of rights arguments to children is simplistic Another example is how a parent can essentially imprison the child against their will. And it goes the other way, for example you might believe that a parent is required to provide for their child's needs, while not necessarily believing that the same reasoning means you have to provide your neighbor's healthcare.

This also gets into one issue I have with those political compass tests. They use questions about parents vs children which basically the respondents into separate parents vs nonparents, but label the former group as "authoritarian". I think this is a big part of why they are so one-dimensional, with a direct correlation between conservative and authoritarian.

Just lay off the children as a way to label people already.

[Bar Student]

The majority said that there isn't sufficient government interest in restricting the children's free speech rights. If a 16 year old wants to pay for Grand Theft Auto it is none of your business and if the parents don't like it they can take away their computer/allowance or whatever. A child can legally go buy some icecream even if the parents don't like it. This is no different.

[dunphy]

that's what it comes down to - a balancing test, and competing rights/interests, of course.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

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.

If the parents have "absolute authority" where does the government fit in? Unless the definition of "absolute" has changed recently, I would say government doesn't fit in anywhere.

So if the parents let their kids have money and let them spend it, and let them play the violent videogames in their house, the government has nothing to say about it.

[Tulpa]

I agree with the reasoning from a libertarian standpoint. I don't see how it from a constitutional standpoint, however.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

Okay, where does the Constitution grant government this authority? And how does that square with a parent's "absolute authority"?

If the parent wishes to allow the child to buy said videogame what gives the government the authority to interfere?

[AlmightyJB]

Good point but kind of begs the question as to why the federal government needs to get involved unless you're arguing that minors enjoy all the rights adults do. Maybe that's not all that unreasonable of an arguement but that certainly would make a shitload of local and state and even federal laws unconstitutional. So I'm not really sure where that line gets drawn from a Supreme Court perspective. I mean if you want to look at original intent, I don't think anything Thomas say's in the highlighted argument is false, we have just expanded original intent over the years (which is a good thing).

[Sudden]

With a purchase transaction, which is what we're dealing with here, the common law concept of informed consent seems a reasonable enough rationale for restricting certain purchasing decisions among minors. That is why the parties arguing against the law pitched it as a speech issue, because it is considered to be the one fundamental right that would trump the informed consent threshold.

All in all, I couldn't care less. Even if the parent of a 14 year old wishes to restrict their kids from getting GTA V, the kid is gonna get it from some other source. Anyone under 14 years of age wouldn't be able to pony up the scrill for the game short of having mom or dad at the store with them.

[AlmightyJB]

I agree with you, it just seems a little at odds with what goes on now concerning minor rights, especially while at school.

[Sudden]

Admittedly, I am somewhat sympathetic to Thomas' central point here. The kids are not restricted from getting the video game, however, the so-called violent video games must be purchased by the parent. Therefore, the kids are ultimately free to play such video games if and only if the parents, upon examining the title in the local Best Buy or researching it online prior to checkout at Amazon, deem the game to be acceptable for their minor children. In the absence of this law, the parents may not allow the children to get a game they disapprove of, but the child will be able to acquire it anyways. This law would essentially prohibit a child from getting a game that his/her parents would rather not allow him/her to have.

[Number 2]

There is a distinction between saying that a parent may forbid his child from doing something, and a government law mandating such a ban regardless of the parent's view on the subject. That is where Thomas' argument fails.

[Sudden]

The premise is that if the parent is forbidding the child from getting a certain game, the law restricting the child from purchasing the game himself is necessary and proper to foster the parent's goals.

However, if the parent does not mind the child having whatever game it is, the parent may purchase the game on behlf of their child. My only issue would be if Best Buy refused to sell the game if little Johnny hands daddy $65 to cover the game at checkout.

[Fluffy]

Again, you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Like Thomas is, frankly.

The law is regulating my behavior as a seller of the game, and involuntarily drafting me into the effort a particular parent is making to control their offspring.

I don't think you should be able to do that with ANY product. But fortunately, this particular product is specifically protected from such regulation.

[Tulpa]

You're stretching the definition of speech beyond all reasonable limits to apply it to Best Buy selling a video game produced by someone else, which BB had no influence on the development of, and which was wrapped in cellophane and sealed before BB even got their hands on it.

[Fluffy]

The law in question would also apply if I developed a game myself.

In addition: bookstores sell books the bookstore owners didn't write, you know.

[sandwich]

And you are fooling yourself if you think you can draw a dividing line between interactive media like video games and non-interactive media like movies and books.

[dunphy]

look at it like porn. stores can't sell porn to kids.

[Tulpa]

In some states minors aren't allowed to pay for a hotel room either.

[Apogee]

look at it like porn. stores can't sell porn to kids.

The court did - and they specifically ruled that:

As in Stevens, California has tried to make violent-speech regulation look like obscenity regulation by appending a saving clause required for the latter. That does not suffice. Our cases have been clear that the obscenity exception to the First Amendment does not cover whatever a legislature finds shocking, but only depictions of "sexual conduct," Miller, supra, at 24. See also Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 20 (1971); Roth, supra, at 487, and n. 20.

Stevens was not the first time we have encountered and rejected a State's attempt to shoehorn speech about violence into obscenity. In Winters, we considered a New York criminal statute "forbid[ding] the massing of stories of bloodshed and lust in such a way as to incite to crime against the person," 333 U. S., at 514. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the provision as a law against obscenity. "[T]here can be no more precise test of written indecency or obscenity," it said, "than the continuing and changeable experience of the community as to what types of books are likely to bring about the corruption of public morals or other analogous injury to the public order. " Id., at 514 (internal quotation marks omitted). That is of course the same expansive view of governmental power to abridge the freedom of speech based on interest-balancing that we rejected in Stevens. Our opinion in Winters, which concluded that the New York statute failed a heightened vagueness standard applicable to restrictions upon speech entitled to First Amendment protection, 333 U. S., at 517?519, made clear that violence is not part of the obscenity that the Constitution permits to be regulated. The speech reached by the statute contained "no indecency or obscenity in any sense heretofore known to the law." Id., at 519.

[dunphy]

excellent response, thankx. although the overall point, if we can restrict dissemination of hardcore porn to kids, why not restrict dissemination of certain violent video games. we can all conceive of violent video games that are at least as patently offensive as (well, i don't think porn is offensive, but you get my point).

i mean one of the reasons we PLAY some of these games is that they are offensive as hell. iow, they are the cannibal holocaust of video games

[Apogee]

although the overall point, if we can restrict dissemination of hardcore porn to kids, why not restrict dissemination of certain violent video games.

One thing I'm certain of is that I don't want the government to have the power to limit what is 'offensive' by simply re-labeling it 'obscene'.

Because I know that bureaucrats find the reduction of government quite offensive.

To be fair to your argument - I also have a problem with the definition of 'obscenity', as the well known phrase "I know it when I see it" seems rather unconstitutionally vague to me.

But perhaps this has already been discussed

[dunphy]

i would have a major problem with the ovt. banning them. the restrictions to minors necessarily has to take into account the balancing between parental authority (with the state as proxy) and the rights of minors

[Apogee]

My major problem is with the State as proxy - that seems to be the crack through which many weeds of tyranny grow.

What's amazing is the repeated acceptance in this thread that the State has any business regulating something that it simply doesn't like. Not damaging, mind you, (because if there's evidence of proven causality of action from violent game play there I'd like to hear it), and not illegal, but just something it doesn't like.

Don't want your kids playing violent video games? Time to step up and be a parent. Jesus - as though the kids that will eventually get into trouble because of bad parenting will in any way be affected by this shit.

I think that even forgetting the ridiculous nature of this law, the fact that any enforcement whatsoever would cost funds at a time of arguable fiscal emergency should be enough to squash this useless crap right through the grate and into the sewer where it belongs.

[Tulpa]

And you are fooling yourself if you think you can draw a dividing line between interactive media like video games and non-interactive media like movies and books.

I don't see how restricting the sale of movies and books to minors would run afoul of the 1st amendment either, so long as no sales to consenting adults were prohibited.

[nicole]

I already explained earlier another reason why Thomas's argument makes no sense. He's totally ignoring parents' rights to force their children, clearly no more than chattel slaves, to buy violent video games. If parents have unrestricted authority over their minor children, the government banning violent video game sales (and alcohol sales, tobacco sales, etc.) is abrogating those rights just as much as it would have the (nonexistent) First Amendment rights of those children. Duh.

[Tulpa]

Okay, where does the Constitution grant government this authority?

The California state government doesn't depend on the Constitution for authority.

[Andrew S.]

So, absent something in California's state constitution to the contrary, do you believe that police officers in California should/would be able to deny people their right against unreasonable searches and seizures or self incrimination?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It was imputed to the states pursuant to the 14th Amendment. So yes, California does depend on the Constitution for authority.

[BigT]

The 10th amendment reserves these powers to the states.

[Tulpa]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It was imputed to the states pursuant to the 14th Amendment.

No, the incorporation doctrine says that certain parts of the Bill of Rights now apply to the states. It doesn't transform the states in to enumerated power entities (as the federal govt purportedly is).

[Apogee]

The California state government doesn't depend on the Constitution for authority.

You're right - they depend on the consent of the people for authority, just like the Federal Government. Just for the sake of argument, what part of the Constitution can States violate?

[Skr]

Being given authority and having your powers limited are two different things.

[Tulpa]

None of it (except the repealed parts of course). What part of the Constitution says states can't do this?

[Apogee]

The First Amendment. See, the Court's ruling was that California was attempting to regulate the video games because they were obscene, an end run considering that they were not actually complaining about obscenity (i.e. Sexual imagery), but in actuality attempting to re-define violent content as obscene content.

The court ruled that this re-definition was invalid in that California had no standing to re-define what is obscene (and regulable), being that it has only been a First Amendment exception because it is based on sexual conduct.

So, in effect, the State of California was attempting to regulate something by re-defining it as something else - obscene content - that was already defined as regulable.

Why would California attempt to do this re-definition? Could it possibly be due to the fact that there is little to no evidence that violent imagery in and of itself is related to behavior?

Have you once, for even an instant, bothered to think about who might be driving this juggernaut of regulation, and who might stand to profit from this?

Since it doesn't actually forbid the playing or possession of said games (like alcohol and/or cigarettes), it really has nothing to do with banning said content from interaction with minors.

It's bad law, unnecessary, and has nothing to do with 'saving the children?'.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Okay, where does the Constitution grant government this authority?

We're dealing with state government power, not federal, so the grants of authority by the Constitution are not at issue. The question is whether California's law, which requires parental permission for a minor to buy certain video games - just like minors need parental permission to see certain movies (although, if I'm recalling correctly, that system is voluntary, not government mandated) - runs afoul of the First Amendment, as applied to the states via the Fourteenth.

I'm not sure. I haven't read the case or either side's reasoning, but I certainly can see Thomas's point. If we say kids can't buy certain other products that the state government (ostensibly representing the will of the people in that state) have determined to be "harmful" to minors, without parental permission, how is it unconstitutional to say they can't buy these?

It does seem to be questionable as to whether the First Amendment truly does protect a minor's right to buy violent video games. Minors don't always have the full rights that adults do, so the question is whether they have the full extent of protection under the First Amendment that adults do.

Remember "Bong Hits for Jesus"?

[Joe Federalist]

The court was wrong, because the feds have no jurisdiction. Strictly speaking, this is a state issue. If CA wants to restriction the sale of certain products to minors, the 10th Amendment gives them that right as there is no clear enumerated federal power. From a libertarian perspective, much of the havoc raised by the feds would cease if we returned to our original federalist principles along awith a more literal interpretation of the 10th Amendment.

[AlmightyJB]

Except...state governments cannot pass a law that violates your constitutional rights. The justices seem to be saying that minors have full freedom of speech rights under the first amendment, so therefore, the California law is unconstitutional. I was alluding to this earlier that this seems to be a little odd considering all of the restrictions on minors that exist today, especially both regarding first amendment and fourth amendment rights at school. Although I suppose unfortunately, the same inconsistancy holds true for adults as well.

[Tulpa]

Very unclear how minors' speech rights are violated by not selling them video games. What is the speech act being restricted here?

[Apogee]

From above - the law itself attempted to label violence as obscenity, and was struck down.

[AlmightyJB]

I believe the supremes are considering video games media in the same sense that books and movies are media. Those a re clearing covered under the first amendment. I think the larger question is (as I stated below), do children have unrestricted rights under the constitution. Even if you answer in the affirmative, it's hard to see how this squares with other restrictive laws concerning minors.

[AlmightyJB]

"are clearly" not "a re clearing". Preview, how does it work

[Apogee]

I think the larger question is (as I stated below), do children have unrestricted rights under the constitution.

I disagree. The larger question (and I think what the Court was saying) is: Can the States re-define items not covered under exceptions to the 1st Amendment as items covered under exceptions to the 1st Amendment?

The answer seems to be "no".

From the ruling:
...the obscenity exception to the First Amendment does not cover whatever a legislature finds shocking, but only depictions of "sexual conduct,

Remember, the State wasn't regulating possession or use, just the sale of such items without parental consent. It becomes more difficult to find parallels of 'unrestricted rights' when that is considered.

They don't like violent video games, but obviously have no reliable causal data to back up the passing of regulations that stand on their own merits. This regulation was sneaky and unnecessary.

[R C Dean]

Overlooking, of course, the 14th Amendment.

[Expat to Be]

I might be off, but I think a federal government that protects the core rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights is happily supported by most libertarian-minded folks.
This point really separates "Joe Federalist" from "Joe Libertarian". While "Joe Libertarian" generally wants government to be out of the picture, he often appreciates Uncle Sam protecting him from his respective state government's intrusion on what we consider to be the fundamental rights (those judicially created rights coming from interpretations of the Bill of Rights).

[asdf]

Tyranny isn't tyranny if it's done by the states!!!1

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Another form of: "It's different when we do it!"

[Brett L]

Why does anyone act surprised any more? Thomas clearly believes that minors are wards of an adult guardian at all times, and, as such, are not entitled to the same rights as full citizens. I don't agree with him, but he's very consistent about it.

[Troy]

It would be absurd to suggest that such a society understood "the freedom of speech" to include a right to speak to minors (or a corresponding right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents.

It is only absurd in the eyes of a pedophile supreme court justice who thinks a 13 year old girl's Hoo-Ha is something the government can go looking around in.

[Tulpa]

"Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat," Scalia wrote for the 7-2 majority. "But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones. Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy."

Kind of a strange analogy considering one of the games affected by the CA law was actually Dante's Inferno.

Though after about 20 minutes of impaling unbaptized infants with my scythe this morning, I can sort of sympathize with the banners.

[Episiarch]

And then you played Dante's Inferno after that, right?

[Tulpa]

-666

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat,

Taking the history of humanity as a whole, the appearance of cultured and intellectually edifying material seems to be an exception rather than a rule.

[PIRS]

My undergrad is in English, for some reason the subject of video games came up in one of my classes. I argued that the more sophisticated ones could be called "interactive literature."

Substantively, they can be as complex as a play. If plays can be considered literature, why not a video game? I am not arguing that most video games are as brilliantly written as a Shakespeare play, that is not my point. My point is that, as a genre, the could be viewed as a class of literature.

[Tulpa]

Isn't literature more of a format/mode of transmission thing than a complexity and sophistication thing? I mean, "Go Dog Go!" is literature, but the film version of "Gone with the wind" isn't.

[PIRS]

Yes and no. A screenplay of the film version of Gone with the Wind becomas "Dramatic Literature" in the same way Shakespeare's plays are. Now, let us transfer this to the world of video games. If you hand me a DVD of "Assasin's Crede" this is simply code is it not? The DVD is not, by itself, performing. It becomes a different thing when I pop it in my machine. But on the disk it is simply code, it is simply interactive literature.

[wylie]

I am not arguing that most video games are as brilliantly written as a Shakespeare play

Most PLAYS aren't as brilliantly written as Shakespeare.

So, yeah, no one should be allowed to express themselves until they've established themselves as serious artists and purveyors of True Culture. (Am I doing it right?)

[PIRS]

Exactly, once you set an arbitrary culture line you give the government a tool with which to censor anything they disapprove of.

[wylie]

For the record, I hate Shakespeare. I slept through Romeo&Juliet; and Midsummerblahblahblah in school. I just don't get what there is to like.

Yup, I'm an unrepentantly uncultured lout.

[wylie]

(oh, and the Divine Comedy is pretty lame without the cliffnotes. How people think they can properly translate poetry is beyond me. At least the story is cool, once the cliffnotes decipher all the language, unlike Shakespeare's garbage.)

[Bar Student]

Yeah the story and the political satire was pretty sweet. So was the lego version of hell I made as a project (god highschool was fucking easy).

[wylie]

Lego: Inferno, coming to Steam for the 2012 holiday season. Lego: Purgatorio scheduled for a summer-2012 release. Lego: Paradiso release date as yet unscheduled.

[Skr]

High school???? You're fucking joking,right? We're so doomed.

[Tulpa]

I'm assuming he didn't just make a Lego hell...it also had to be labeled with all the residents and their sins and stuff, right?

I don't see anything wrong with that...it requires just as much understanding of the material as writing a five page paper on the book.

[Bar Student]

Yes I had to label everything and present it. We also had to write a paper as well.

This was senior AP English at a private school too. Most of us got 5s on the test so they must have done something right.

[Paul]

You know what I like about Shakespeare?

He was considered low-brow culture for the hoi polloi until he was somehow coopted by the erudite.

[Paul]

*ahem* ...by the erudite literary types.

Damned preview... how does it work?

[Pro Libertate]

That's not entirely true, though it isn't entirely false, either. Shakespeare's company had noble and even royal patrons, which means that the aristocracy likely enjoyed his works, too. Also, lots and lots of classical allusions (and plots) in his works, which would only be fully understood by the educated class.

[Paul]

Having noble patrons doesn't necessarily make it less low-brow.

For example, our modern day nobles and royals tweet their junk on Facebook.

[Pro Libertate]

And the classical references!

[sevo]

"I Don't Think the First Amendment Stretches That Far."

Exactly 180* from the correct statement.

[Appalachian Australian]

Is there anyone under the age of 18 who knows what Mortal Kombat is, or would have any interest in buying it?

[fyngyrz]

Yes indeed, there are players over 18; I know what Mortal Combat is, I own my own copy, and I play it. I also play it with my kids. Who are also all over 18. And with my lady, who is in her 50's; I'm also in my 50's. We enjoy MC -- and Tekken, and a bunch of others, and would be happy to undertake whipping your ass at it, come to that. On our 200" projection system. But if your sense of fun -- and/or your reflexes -- have dried up, I can also point you to a shuffleboard court or a bingo hall...

[Sparky]

Reading fail.

[robc]

RIF

[toxic]

fyn, I think he was more implying that kids today don't give a shit about Mortal Kombat because its so old, not that only kids like it.

[asdf]

Did you miss the new one that just came out a bit ago? It sold pretty well.

[Sparky]

My 10 year old son bought Mortal Kombat vs DC. I was watching him play one day and thought they sure made all the female characters extra jiggly. It's funny but I think that's the reason he stopped playing it.

[Bar Student]

This has been the case since video games with female characters first appeared.

[Tulpa]

Semi-mandatory TV Tropes reference.

[crimethink]

"I Don't Think the First Amendment Stretches That Far."

I have to agree. It's like constitutional goatsie.

[Long Dong Silver]

Clarence, don't step on my game nigga!

[Anita Hill]

I'll follow you anywhere!

[Paul]

This sounds like Thomas might even uphold a ban on selling Dante to minors, which doesn't sound very much like freedom of speech to me.

If Playboy reprinted a chapter of Inferno in each of the next several issues, then yes, Dante would essentially be banned to minors.

[toxic]

Not really. Just buy the many versions without the tits.

If I put a bag of heroin in my copy of the Inferno, did the government just violate my First amendment rights?

[Fluffy]

Their action is unConstitutional anyway, since I don't see any clause granting the Congress the power to declare certain types of property contraband.

If it was necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, where was the Constitutional amendment that banned heroin?

[TomSwift]

Remember, it was the state of California, not the federal government, that banned the sales of video games to minors.

A Constitutional amendment would only be necessary if the feds did it.

[wylie]

If I put a bag of heroin in my copy of the Inferno

Well, that's one way to get kids to read The Classics, if a bit drastic.

[Paul]

That's not my point.

But actually, according to most libertarians, they have violated your rights. But that's another subject re: the War on Drugs.

[Joe M]

Something else to consider here: in 1789, the concept of "minor" as we think of it now didn't even exist. Considering that various other age-related restrictions on the purchase of things like alcohol and tobacco are products of the 20th century, I don't think Thomas' reasoning holds up very well, besides its other, more obvious problems.

[Merrill Guice]

I believe that what Clarence is saying is that IF I want my child to have something rated R or M then I need to go there and buy it for him.

The little rascal has no first amendment rights as he lives in my house and I am a benevolent dictator. Hence, you can't give him rights without my permission. Anyone who tries to give him rights anyway risks a bloody nose.

This is the continuing major hole in libertarian thought. The idea that minors have any rights is silly, but otherwise bright people keep trying.

[dunphy]

minors don't even have rights not to be physically disciplined. a parent can spank a child. if they do that with an adult (like an 18 yr old offspring), that is called "assault" (or assault and battery depending on the state).

heck, in my state, a TEACHER can use the same physical discipline a parent can (public schools have policies against this - but legally they can ).

a parent can also give cops consent to search a minor child's room. even if the child says "no", that's irrelevant.

the question is how far can the state go in limiting others' interaction with kids.

we already prohibit them selling porn to kids.

iirc, there is no law against allowing kids in to an R movie, that's strictly voluntarily MPAA stuff , though

many states allow PARENTS to serve their kids alcohol, but if anybody else does it , that's a crime.

my parents allowed me to have wine (initially watered down wine) with dinner sometimes, for example. entirely legal. and imo a better way to promote responsibility with alcohol than waiting until the kid goes off to college and then starts binge drinking

a parent can buy the alcohol to serve to the kid (in their house) but a store cannot sell to the kid. kind of similar

etc. etc

i agree that this is a major hole in (some libertarian's ) thought- the idea that kids should have all the freeedoms and responsibilities adults have

my state doesn't have curfew laws btw (uncosntitutional under our state const) but some states do.

[Fluffy]

I don't think that, actually.

As I've said, if you want to establish a regime of contraband laws where minors are punished for possessing video games, I guess I can't really stop you.

The question is whether you can punish ME for giving or selling a video game TO a minor.

In this particular case, one party to the transaction clearly possesses a Constitutional free speech protection, even if the other does not.

In all of your examples where third parties are expected to enforce parental - or state - restrictions on the activities of minors, I think we're dealing with bad law. And in some cases, tyrannical law.

Limit the behavior of minors all you want. But leave me out of it - and don't expect to be able to deputize me and make me your gatekeeper, either.

[squishua]

There was nothing in the law about punishing minors for "possession" of the games. It was only illegal for stores to sell certain games to minors unaccompanied by an adult. It had the ability to punish (fine) the retailer only, not the kids or parents.

[Fluffy]

RIGHT.

I am saying that the argument that minors don't possess the same rights as adults would only support a law that DID punish minors for possessing the games - and that such an argument DOES NOT support a law punishing retailers.

The fact that the law punishes the retailers is precisely what I am bitching about.

[AlmightyJB]

There are a number of things retailers can't sell to children: Drugs, flammables, etc. True those are not first amendment related but they don't put any more burden on them than restricting any any other type of sale. I don't disagree with you, just trying to reconcile this from a legal standpoint.

[TomSwift]

Last time a checked, state governments have the power to regulate "intrastate commerce"

[Tulpa]

Limit the behavior of minors all you want. But leave me out of it - and don't expect to be able to deputize me and make me your gatekeeper, either.

If we follow this logic, if a seven year old girl says she's OK with her 30 year old neighbor penetrating her vagina, how can you justify the state punishing him for doing so? You seem to think the only one who can be legally punished is the seven year old.

[dunphy]

exactly. this law is not about limiting the behavior of minors. it's about limiting adults in certain interactions w/minors.

minors can possess these games without ANY legal redress. it's the sellers that are limited, since the locus of control as to whether the minors can possess the games is the parents

[dunphy]

it is an entirely different thing to say

1) stores can't sell X to minors
or
2) minors should be punished (legally) for possessing X

ENTIRELY different.

this law does not make these games contraband such that kids can be prosecuted for possessing them

however, it limits the distribution to them

[TrickyVic]

There is no law that punishes movie theaters when a minor sneaks in without a parent. The ruling doesn't prevent stores from not selling to kids voluntarily. If Best Buy wants to refuse selling a minor such a game, they can.

If the first amendment applies to the states, and if one really believes in the what the Constituion says, then "make no law" stands. But that doesn't mean a company can take a moral stand and refuse to sell to minors.

[nicole]

Why isn't it the opposite? It's a major hole in some libertarians' thought that they don't take kid lib seriously enough. Yes, there are massive problems with how to treat children's rights and responsibilities ethically. But those problems are no more massive than the problems with the idea that parents own their minor children until the moment they turn 18, when they magically acquire status as a real, live, rights-bearing person.

Personally, I find the treatment of kid issues at H&R very similar to the treatment of circumcision issues. A lot of people here are emotionally attached to the status quo in a way they just aren't about other issues.

[Sparky]

To tie in another uncomfortable parallel here, you can throw abortion into the mix.

[Tulpa]

False dilemma.

You can treat children as something in between adults and chattel property. That is, they have rights to life and bodily integrity, but all the other rights of adults are mediated through their parents or the state until they reach an age where they can be expected to use them responsibly.

This causes a problem for libertarianism in particular because it only deals with those two categories of free adults and property. (of course conservatism, moderatism, liberalism etc are just ad hoc crap so they're not really better)

[nicole]

It's not meant to be a dilemma...one side is simply "how to treat children's rights and responsibilities ethically," and I'm arguing we need to take an approach other than Thomas's to do so.

The path you (Tulpa) propose is one possibility, but only one. I take an extremely different view; I can't imagine thinking it was okay to "mediate" someone else's rights if I believed he was a person. I would consider myself fully responsible for a child because it would be my fault he existed, and totally unable to ethically demand anything from him for the same reason.

AlmightyJB: They also acquire 100% financial and legal responsibility for their actions, something they shared with their parents before that.

Yes, but that's about legality, not ethics. We know that they're ethically responsible for their actions long before their 18th birthday, so why not consider this just as absurd and wrong as failing to recognize their rights?

I think these are genuinely hard issues to deal with, and it's exactly like I said, no one wants to go beyond the status quo ("they have rights to life and bodily integrity, but all the other rights of adults are mediated through their parents or the state") and legalism. If we care about consistency and not being just another ad hoc, unprincipled non-ideology, we have to take this stuff more seriously. But because so many are parents, and parenthood has got to be the most powerful brainwasher in all of society, we sound just like everyone else on these issues. "They're mine, I take care of them, so I decide." What's not ad hoc about that?

[AlmightyJB]

I certainly want kids to grow up feeling that they do have rights and that they should stand up for those rights. I have said for years that the random searches and metal detectors at schools and other things like that are just conditioning to make kids accept that stuff as normal. What I was getting at in my reply is that you can't have parental responsibility without parental control. If little Johnny shoots out your windows with a slingshot, the parent(s) can't say "I didn't do it, get the money for new windows from Johnny". No, the parent is responsibly financially and legally for their childrens actions. I think for most people (with some exceptions) it's not , "I own them so I decide", it's "I'm the one who has to deal with any consequences so I decide". I'm with you on giving them as much autonomy as their maturity can handle and recognizing and respecting their rights. At the end of the day though the parent has to make those difficult determinations.

[AlmightyJB]

"when they magically acquire status as a real, live, rights-bearing person."

They also acquire 100% financial and legal responsibility for their actions, something they shared with their parents before that.

[dunphy]

correct, and also there are some things that happen prior to 18 and some after

in my state, they can consent to sex at 14 (assuming the other is w/in so many months of their age) and sex overall at 16 to someone of any age.

they can't buy cigarettes at that age, though

and they can't possess alcohol (unless in a home w/a parent) until 21

i think the latter is dumb law, but there it is

[Fluffy]

It is not necessary to assert that minors have any rights to find the law in question wanting.

Even if we decree some sort of pater familias setup with regard to minors where parents have limitless authority over their children, what exactly does that have to do with me?

"Well, Fluffy, we need to restrict YOUR speech in order to make it easier and more convenient for us to exercise our control over our children!"

Why should I give a rat's ass what makes things easy and convenient for you lame douchebags?

More importantly, why is this a concern that trumps my first amendment rights as an adult?

"But Fluffy, we're just setting up time, place and manner restrictions on your speech!"

MAYBE that flies on public property, or if my speech is creating a noise hazard that goes over my property line (I go back and forth on that, honestly) but in this case my speech creates no property line issues and no joint public use issues.

[squishua]

So does that mean gun stores should sell directly to minors too? After all, they have 2nd amendment rights too!

[dunphy]

bingo. fwiw, i have no problem with minors possessing firearms at a certain age WITH parental supervision (or certain guardians)

it doesn't therefore follow that a minor should be able to purchase, or a person should be able to sell a gun to a 16 yr old

again, it comes down to a balancing test. and it's hardly novel that minors do NOT have all the rights, privileges AND responsibilities of adults

the question is - in THIS case, is there sufficient cause/interest to limit the sales?

i am unsure, but there re good arguments on both sides

[AlmightyJB]

"the question is - in THIS case, is there sufficient cause/interest to limit the sales?"

I think even more central than that, since we are discussing a SCOTUS case, is do minors have the full,unrestricted constitutional rights of adults. If they do not, is the SCOTUS violating the tenth amendment.

[creech]

The age of partial or full emancipation of a minor varies under the circumstances. Hand your 16 yr. the keys to the car, or drop him off at the mall, and he or she is emanicipated until you exercise control again. So if he buys a violent video game at Best Buy you have no complaint against Best Buy but you may not permit him to play it under your roof.

[Bar Student]

Nonsense. You don't magically get rights when you turn 18.

[Warty]

What about a video game where you strip-search 13-year-old girls? That would fucking KICK ASS.

[public school]

Your application for principle has been accepted.

[BigBob]

That's in the works as a TSA training simulator.

[Troy]

No shit!

[asdf]

Go to Japan.

[Invisible Finger]

Let's face it - Clarence Thomas hates kids.

[R C Dean]

Substitute books for video games, and this gets a lot easier.

And the fact that parents prohibit their kids from doing something tells us nothing about whether government can also prohibit their kids from doing something. If I prohibit my kids to go to church on Sunday, does that mean the government can, too? I don't think so.

Are prohibitions on the sale of porn to minors Constitutional? I don't see how; my copy of the Constitution doesn't have "except for porn" in it anywhere. All of the exceptions to the 1A are de facto amendments that are illegitimate.

[dunphy]

then, by your "logic" 12 yr olds should be able to legally carry firearms. since, the constitution doesn't have an age limit, and i assume that you think that adults should be able to do so (i certainly do).

the constitution doesn't even address the concept of minors, fwiw.

[Tulpa]

The govt created by the US Constitution and bound by the Bill of Rights was never supposed to have police powers, so that omission is understandable.

[dunphy]

true dat. and when the FBI was created, against much citizen opposition, the claim was made that it was expressly NOT a federal police in any way, merely an investigative agency.

granted, FBI agents almost never take ANY "police action" without express US attorney permission.

[Tulpa]

FBI agents almost never take ANY "police action" without express US attorney permission.

I don't see how this puts the federalism concerns to bed...

[dunphy]

i'm not saying it does

[toxic]

The Father's would have tossed the Hef in the darkest clink in the Union. I'm down the expanded First Amendment, but the FF didn't include "except for porn" because it seemed so incredibly obvious to them that it wasn't speech. Also, since the Bill of Rights only worked as to the federal government at that time, they weren't stopping the states from banning porn.

[toxic]

This is also probably why they didn't feel the need to address the concept of minors. The constitution was designed to create a federal government that is so weak that today modern people have a hard time wrapping out head around it because we're so used to a federal government that regulates everything.

[Fluffy]

The Founders would also have hung any of Jefferon's rape slaves if one of them had cut his throat.

They left out the words "except for porn". If they want Hef in the darkest clink in the union, next time they should be more fucking careful.

[Tulpa]

The authors of the Bill of Rights (NOT the Founders for the 974th time!) also left out "except for threats and perjury".

Of course, they didn't realize that some jackwagons 150 years later would apply what they were writing to governments that had police powers.

[R C Dean]

Once again, laws against perjury, fraud, and libel do not violate the 1A.

They are laws that penalize either (a) breaking an oath/contract or (b) the (wrongful) consequences of speech. Laws against fraud and libel are predicated on your speech doing some harm, and you can't be prosecuted unless some harm actually accrues (or at least, this used to be the case).

[Tulpa]

You didn't deal with the "threats" part.

Also, you can't really lump oaths and contracts together. If two people sign a contract written on a paper towel in the back room of Taco Bell, it has force of law just as much as if it was signed in a courthouse.

However, no oath taken anywhere away from a witness stand has any legal repurcussions if it is broken. So they really are two very different things.

Fraud's status as a "speech act" is murkier. IMHO it is, because you can have two otherwise identical transactions differing only by a statement on the part of the seller, with one being a legitimate sale and the other fraudulent. But in any case it's not essential to my argument; indeed the 1st amendment's need to not cover threats is sufficient to show there must be exceptions.

[dunphy]

one thing i can give reason credit for is that invariably in liberal blogs i would have heard the "fire in a crowded theatre" meme about 16 times by now, of course they don't realize

1) schenck was superseded by brandenburg
2) it's FALSELY shouting fire in a crowded theatre
3) this argument was used to justify prosecution of a war protester

(they never understand the 3rd)

they also use it when they want to restrict guns... "well we restrict speech. it's not absolute. "fire in a crowded theatre" therefore nobody should be able to carry handguns!"

lol

[TrickyVic]

""2) it's FALSELY shouting fire in a crowded theatre""

There is no law that says a media outlet must be honest about what they say and it was ruled in florida that the FCC's rules about honest reporting doesn't have the weight of law.

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

What says a person must be honest unless under oath?

I have no problem whatsoever about someone yelling fire in a movie theater, I have a problem with those who do harm because they are too stupid to look around to see if it is true.

If someone harms you as a result of speech, then laws against harm apply.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

All of the exceptions to the 1A are de facto amendments that are illegitimate.

I disagree with that as stated. Not "all" of them are. As far as speech, the 1A protects "the freedom of speech." If we are using the original understanding (which I tend to like), the question is what was "the freedom of speech" understood to encompass. Defamatory speech? Terroristic threats? "Fightin' words"? Lies? Extortion/blackmail? Threats of physical violence used to commit robbery or rape?

Would anyone argue that a rapist's threats to his victim are protected by the First Amendment?

Clearly there are SOME limits to what speech truly is protected within "the freedom of speech."

And then complicating the issue is whether that right is understood to apply to everyone, regardless of age.

I also am having a bit of a problem seeing where the First Amendment is implicated when we're talking about a kid's "right" to buy a video game.

[R C Dean]

Free speech means you are free to speak, not free from the consequences of your speech.

If those consequences are fraud, extortion, some criminal activity like rape, then you can and should be prosecuted.

Same with libel - you are not sued or prosecuted for libel unless some harm to reputation can be shown.

[Tulpa]

Fraud isn't a consequence, it's an integral part of a speech act. A legitimate sale and a fraudulent one can easily have exactly the same consequences.

As for threats, we prosecute those even if the threatener never attempted to harm the object of the threat.

[Tulpa]

And of course you're arguing against your own position here... if it is believed that violent video games harm those who play them in some way (at least as nebulous as "reputation"), does that suddenly end first amendment protection for them? Indeed, such an argument might extend to a ban on sales of violent video games to anyone, not just kids.

[Sparky]

I'm willing to bet that when the Constitution was written many 12 year olds did carry firearms.

[Saprky]

Nice reply feature there. This is supposed to be @dunphy.

[dunphy]

actually, you are correct. i concede that point. iirc, mel gibson got a bunch of shit when he portrayed kids in the movie the Patriot as bearing arms after the dad told them to grab them and take up arms against the british

it pissed liberals off

which is almost always a WIN

[GH]

Back then 12 years olds had jobs, smoked tobacco, drank booze, and could pay for their own video games.

[Alex K]

As father I think I should be in full control over what my daughter watches/plays. However I do not believe that video game violence is harmful.

Should it be a crime to sell violent video games to kids?

Vote: http://www.wepolls.com/p/986603/

[AlmightyJB]

Seems like the more pertinent question is "should (or do) children have the same unrestricted constitutional rights as adults?"

[Eduard van Haalen]

The best way to empower parents is to let them tell storekeepers not to sell to their kids.

Or give their kids allowances in the form of food credits or what have you.

Selectively reinforcing parents' authority in the area of violent video games, but not in other areas, raises free-expression issues - but not even Justice Thomas asks the obvious question: What is the federal government doing, second-guessing the states on this issue? Even if Congress can't regulate violent video games, does that mean the states can't?

If the federal government has arbitrary authority to go into the states and rewrite their laws in the name of liberty, then the federal government is also powerful enough to go into the states and trample all over liberty.

If they can overrule the states on violent video games, without express constitutional warrant, then they can override the states on medical marijuana, again without express constitutional warrant. In either case, the feds really need to stretch their powers by interpretation in order to reach these issues.

[dunphy]

seriously? so parents need to go around to every video game store, etc. within a reasonable radius and personally inform storekeepers not to sell to their kids?

that's absurd.

[dunphy]

"If they can overrule the states on violent video games, without express constitutional warrant, then they can override the states on medical marijuana, again without express constitutional warrant. In either case, the feds really need to stretch their powers by interpretation in order to reach these issues"

so would you be ok with a state law vs. a federal law then?

and btw, video games (generally speaking) are CLEARLY interstate commerce.

medical mj clearly is NOT, all that Raich chicanery aside

[Eduard van Haalen]

Perhaps my Cathy-Youngification of the issue was confusing, but . . . I was criticizing the law while at the same time arguing that the federal government can't overrule it.

Parents writing to individual storekeepers seems silly, but Scalia mentioned that particular example.

If the court had allowed the law to be enforced, there may have been some evidence of effectiveness, enough to change my mind. Now I won't know - which is another reason the Court is wrong; other states could have watched California's law to see if it was a good model for them. But instead, the lesson to the states is: don't bother, the feds own this issue and they'll decide what's best for your people.

[Mr. FIFY]

Like the horse-meat thread, this decision was just in response to feel-good legislation.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Someday someone will make a human centipeed video game and then the courts will jump right on the ban wagon.

[Joe M]

Someone already did.

[Sparky]

Will it have a trackball controller? What will the human centipede have to maneuver around as it moves down the screen, bar stools? Will a naked serving girl descend from the top of the screen placing new bar stools on occasion? Will a naked crack whore dance around the screen from time to time trying to destroy you?

Sorry, these questions need to be answered.

[AlmightyJB]

Don't they have strip clubs where you live?

[jtuf]

I can see how kids don't have a a right to buy violent video games. I just wish Congress would also stop DEA agents from shooting a kid's dog right in front of him.

[shrike]

Tony, I want to play a game of balls on chin with you. Love you, and forget you're my Christ-fag.

[Tulpa]

Thought experiment: say Idaho passes a law prohibiting the sale of anything to kids. Crackers, paper towels, video games, spatulas, etc.

Explain how this is in violation of any part of the Bill of Rights. If you can't, it's hard to see how a much less expansive law is in violation.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

I think the argument is that the video game is an "artistic work" or "expressive" or whatever - a publication, like a movie or a book - and therefore is a form of "speech" potentially protected by the 1A. But what I don't see is how this blocks the law, as I understand it (again, haven't read all the perticklers). As I understand it, the law did not say you couldn't produce, sell or own those video games. It just said you couldn't sell certain ones to minors unless the parents gave permission.

I dunno. And I have to admit it's not important enough to me right now to go read it all to make up my mind.

[R C Dean]

Don't need to. The BoR doesn't have a right to crackers or whatever.

Do it with books, and see what you think.

[Tulpa]

I don't think there would be any free speech issue at all with prohibiting the sale of books to minors. The author's freedom of speech doesn't imply the right to an audience.

It would however be a very stupid and unlibertarian law.

[Eben]

"parents have absolute authority over their children."
Really, so they can lawfully put them in a dryer with a bunch of rats?

[Eduard van Haalen]

If a state wants to actually legalize parents killing their children, perhaps the Supreme Court could interfere, but how likely is that particular scare scenario, eh?

[Tulpa]

The right to life and bodily integrity is absolute from birth until (a) enlistment in the armed services, (b) conviction of a capital crime, or (c) natural death.

[dunphy]

if that were the case, then circumcision laws would be unlawful

[dunphy]

or i mean circumcision would be unlawful

[appleaccessories]

yes, we can go as far as we can think.

[Bills corpse]

He's a fraud--big surprise.

[Res Publica Americana]

A lot of parents around here let their kids carry their own handguns and rifles to ranges and competitions. Not really surprising or shocking unless you're from... well, most families in this country.

[Res Publica Americana]

Also, if it were to secede from the Union, minors in Vermont would be able to buy and sell firearms freely -- pretty sure there aren't any restrictions there.

[Swedish libertarian]

To join the party late and probably repeat what others have already said, that isn't specifically an argument for making it illegal for minors to buy games, it's an argument for making it illegal for minors to buy anything.

But hey, as long as the "I'm a libertarian, but..."-conservatives are happy...

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Yes, preventing minors from buying alcohol and tobacco (not to mention weed and other drugs) has been an incredibly successful and resourceful use of government resources. Almost no kids do those things these days.

With the skillful hand of the government we can prevent the scourge of pasty-faced 17 year olds whiling away countless hours at home with their junk food and their cartoon violence.

[E.Z.]

This isn't an issue about the rights of minors, it's about limiting the free speech rights of the sellers. Aside from the ridiculous 'obscene material' exception, the government of the state of California can't constitutionally restrict a store owner from selling any work of art to any other person - doing so is restricting the speech rights of that store owner. The store owners can (and do) voluntarily restrict who they sell video games to, but it's illegal for California to put a law in place which can punish them for distributing art to a certain group. That sort of law burdens the store owners with enforcement and can produce a chilling effect on a particular form of speech.

Even ignoring the ridiculousness of Thomas's classification of minors (some of whom would have been adults at the time of the framing of the Constitution, and some of whom have no parents to approve of these purchases), this is not a case about the rights of minors.

[Matt Braynard]

"This sounds like Thomas might even uphold a ban on selling Dante to minors, which doesn't sound very much like freedom of speech to me."

That's because you're a moron.

A democratically-elected state legislature could decide that it is illegal to give minors a free copy of the US Constitution without their parent's consent.

That would be a stupid law, but it's not Unconstitutional.

You had the other idiots on the court pondering like philosopher kings about fairy tales and links between violence and video games. They took the power away from the parents and gave it to themselves.

I like Thomas' opinions because they are so well written even a fourth grader could understand them.

When you complete fourth grade, maybe his dissent will make sense.

[Helen Kizer]

You are dead wrong! Clarence Thomas is absolutely right! It's people like you who carry free speech to extreme levels that don't even use common sense that has our youth in such a mess today. Common sense tells anyone that a citizen's rights should end when his abuse of them harms other people. The violent and obsence video games of today are ruining our youth and turning them into bullies and worse, murderers!!!