Clarence Thomas, the First Amendment, and "Originalism at the Wrong Time"
The Harlan Institute's Josh Blackman has a very sharp analysis of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, where Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion struck down California's ban on the sale of violent video games to children. As I noted yesterday, Thomas argued that "the founding generation would not have considered abridgment of 'the freedom of speech' to support parental authority by restricting speech that bypasses minors' parents." But as Blackman points out:
Justice Thomas is guilty of "originalism at the wrong time." Here we have a California Law that touches the First Amendment. We are not talking about the First Amendment directly, but rather the First Amendment as applied through the 14th Amendment. The relevant temporal inquiry is not the founding era, but 1868 (when the 14th Amendment was ratified).
Yet he cites, at great length the views of the founding generation on the "Freedom of speech."
This same issue came up during the gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago, which asked whether the Second Amendnent was applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment. In that case, it was Thomas whose landmark concurring opinion offered something of a history lesson on the 14th Amendment and its original public meaning. So it is strange indeed to find Thomas apparently ignoring the relevent historical information here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The mindset of men in 1868 was a lot more statist than it was in the 1780s.
While I'm quite convinced that as men, the founders would be quite horrified by what passes as entertainment these days.
However, as men, I believe they were smart enough to know that when they wrote things like "Congress shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed" etc., they meant what they said.
I'm not fully convinced that time travelers didn't infiltrate and influence the convention while the constitution was being written.
"However, as men, I believe they were smart enough to know that when they wrote things like "Congress shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed" etc., they meant what they said."
Almost like they considered the alternatives and decided that while we couldn't get utopia, but we'll take the best we can?
While I'm quite convinced that as men, the founders would be quite horrified by what passes as entertainment these days.
..probably a lot less than you might think, considering that Benjamin Franklin wrote a humorous essay called "A Letter To A Royal Academy" which was all about FARTING and who also wrote a more serious but prosaic, "Advice to a Young Man on the Choice of a Mistress"
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocS.....1-fra.html
Interestingly from wikipedia: "The Mistress letter was not the only document by Franklin that later generations censored. The bawdy portion of Franklin's writing was accepted during his own era. "
So interesting. Do you have any other examples?
Not anymore from the founders that I know of unfortunately. Straying a bit off topic, there are many works by others, sometimes defying prudish sentiment and indeed faced harsh opposition during their times, both in the US and abroad:
sexualfables.com/i-modi.php
- I Modi, 16th century, basically a western version of Kama Sutra
More relevant to the US, "Fanny Hill: Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" by John Cleland (1748, England)
http://www.amazon.com/Fanny-In.....149&sr=1-4
- that cover uses an illustration (NSFW) by Avril depicting Ch. 8 of the book
"The book eventually made its way to the United States, where in 1821 it was banned for obscenity."
It should be noted at the time, about 100 years after the founding and after the Enlightenment era, America was undergoing a reversal with the Second Awakening era, which killed prostitution, gave us prohibition and what we're still fighting with today.
"The Second Great Awakening stimulated the establishment of many reform movements designed to remedy the evils of society"
And Thomas Paine probably bore the worst treatment of this era by the press and public after being imprisoned in France and escaping a death sentence by accident during the French revolution, when he returned home, where Jefferson remained his only friend and ally in politics, after publishing The Age of Reason. Craig Nelson discusses in his book on Paine:
The Federalist press went after him with a mouth-foaming fury, its General Advertiser calling Paine "that living opprobrium of humanity . . . the infamous scavenger of all the filth which could be raked from the dirty paths which have been hitherto trodden by all the revilers of Christianity;" the Baltimore Republican referred to him as "this loathsome reptile," the Philadelphia Port Folio said he was "a drunken atheist, and the scavenger of faction," while Boston's Mercury and New-England Palladium called him a "lying, drunken brutal infidel, who rejoiced in the opportunity of basking and wallowing in the confusion, devastation, bloodshed, rapine, and murder, in which his soul delights." Paine's homecoming even inspired William Cobbett to immediately reprint the Crown-commissioned Francis Oldys attack "biography."
So notorious was his reputation, in fact, that Tom needed help from a presidential aide and had to register under a pseudonym just to find a hotel room. When his whereabouts were uncovered, one Federalist wrote: "He dines at the public table, and, as a show, is as profitable to Lovell [the Washington boardinghouse owner] as an Ourang Outang, for many strangers who come to the city feel a curiosity to see the creature."
Thanks np, I find it fascinating. I've spent time in Europe and was aware of their attitudes but I was under the impression that America had puritan stock and values.
Though, IIRC, I read that the early Irish immigrants prostituted their children in large cities.
Franklin, like the rest of the Founders, had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.
Not really true since James Madison was involved. In fact Madison initially did not want to include the Bill of Rights fearing that people would take it as an exhaustive list of rights, of what's allowed (where the intent was to limit government powers) but later changed his mind, which is why we have it as Amendments as opposed to being incorporated in the Constitution proper
From now on 1700's Philly will look like Sin City in my mind.
I'm far more convinced that we would be quite horrified by what passed as entertainment in the 18th century.
Bear baiting!
Washington and Jefferson were avid cockfighters. 18th Century sport and entertainment was great stuff, particularly if you weren't dirt poor.
And, of course, public executions.
What percentage of the membership of the Continental Congress, in your opinion, would suffer aneurysms, heart attacks, super cluster-fuck brain explosions, and spontaneous combustion were had they been brought to today and witnessed the state of the republic?
I'm going to go with, "All of them except Hamilton".
He would have rubbed his hands together with a knowing smile and a supreme sense of self-satisfaction.
Verily, would we roll up our puffy-sleeved shirts and have at the scoundrels.
Those scoundrels, good sir, are the MS-13.
Well, have at them anyway!
I doubt that MS-13 is any worse than the Barbary Pirates, and ol' Thomas Jefferson fucked them right up.
Damn...I'm still shocked the Supremes got one right for a change.
Supremes you say? That Diana Ross can pick my cotton any time, if you know what I mean.
"Thomas argued that "the founding generation would not have considered abridgment of 'the freedom of speech' to support parental authority by restricting speech that bypasses minors' parents."
What a wonderful time it must have been! Children always minded their parents and never, oh, snuck under the tent flaps at the county fair.
Is it just me or could schooling be interpereted as bannable under that logic?
Back then, schools and tutors were considered to exercise power delegated to them by parents.
Schooling without the consent of the parents, you mean.
Even Alexander Hamilton, in complete totalitarian fury, would have dropped dead in shock at today's federal government.
Fucking statists.
Children are routinely denied full access to their rights to property and liberty. Their second, 4th, 6th, and 13th ammendment rights are not respected, and their parents can subject them to false imprisonment and assault. Even their first ammendent rights are not secure; severe restrictions being placed on their rights to assembly and to religious freedom.
Except that children back did not mean anyone under the age of 18, which is a very recent concept. You were basically treated as an adult around the time you reached 15. This is still the way it is in Amish communities. In fact, just look at how low the age of consent and likewise marriage was back then. like 12 and younger.
Some things never change.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-0.....s=PM:CRIME
I'm no Scott, but I question a man's 'Amish-ness' when he's engaging in 'sexting'.
In Miller, Justice Alito writes that the 14th Amendment does not alter the Bill of Rights when it incorporates it. This is at the end of section 5A.
This is pretty consistent for Thomas.
His judicial record shows that he doesn't believe minors are afforded Bill of right Protections and have very few rights.
He took that same position during the Tylenol Strip Search case as well
It's not that they don't have rights, it's that their rights are mediated through their parents.
Which was why his opinion in the Tylenol case was a crock even for him -- the parents did not consent to the search.
Doesn't that make them the parents' rights?
in loco parentis or whatever the fuck it is.As schooling is compulsory, they will come with guns if you totally refuse it, I think parents should be consulted first on everything. I can understand where Thomas is coming from. He didn't grow up around too many people who "succeeded", and of the ones who did they likely all had hard-ass adults around who didn't take any shit from youths.
So really, Thomas's belief is that the rights of children are held in escrow by the nearest adult "Thomas" believes is responsible enough to have them.
I can never understand Thomas. Some days I think he's the only thing standing in between congressional statist intent and the Constitution itself, and on other days he seems to just sound like a regular old nanny stater.
Makes no sense.
I don't think he ever claimed to be libertarian. He's a conservative, no more no less. So long as the state enforces his choices, he's down with that.
I don't disagree with you, and this is why I don't trust conservatives either, but his dissent in Raich was such a devastating indictment of government overreach ("Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.") I have a hard time believing the same guy also believes none of it applies when it comes to children.
It just doesn't makes sense to me.
Here's the entire quote that I bungled from Thomas in the Raich dissent-
Unless of course, they're children. In which case I have no idea what he means.
I can't predict Thomas either.
He's very deferent to state power and very skeptical of federal power.
Thomas, to a greater extent than any other Justice, disaggregates the question of whether something is bad or unwise or even tyrannical from the question of whether it is actually unconstitutional (and whether something is good or wise from whether it's constitutional).
This makes him the absolute best guarantee against Federal overreach, because the Constitution created a federal government of limited, enumerated powers. This on the other hand makes him weak on state overreach, because the US Constitution does relatively little to explicitly restrict the powers of states.
So it is strange indeed to find Thomas apparently ignoring the relevent historical information here.
This is my major problem with the Supes - No matter which Justice you tend to agree/disagree with, it seems that they will, in some different decision at some time, use the same logic in the same way, and come to an exactly opposite conclusion.
Clarence Thomas is just a fuck. I don't even remember which recent opinion of his made me finally come to that conclusion, but what is important is that I remember that he is a fuck.
Am *I* "just a fuck"?
no dear you're the anti-fuck
No, you are a Latina woman fuck.
What about me?
You're just fucked.
Ruthie let me do it in the backdoor
Here is a little-known novel from the late 1860s:
LARCENY OF A CARRIAGE - AN ADVENTURE
by Vi Acom
Hezekiah Strong leapt into the carriage, brandishing his gun and expelling the driver into the street. Seizing the reins with one hand while firing his gun into the air with the other, naughty Hezekiah lashed the horses, accelerating their pace from a canter to a gallop.
The carriage toppled a fruit stand next to the dry goods store as Hezekiah sped towards the Mechanics and Farmers Bank on Main Street. Tying the horses to the hitching post, Hezekiah went into the bank and, invoking the persuasive power of his firearm, relieved the tellers and the customers of their money and jewelry, the latter of which was referred to by Hezekiah, in his bizarre thieves' dialect, as "bling."
Returning to the carriage with his ill-acquired wealth, Hezekiah reloaded his gun and resumed his mad charge through the streets. Hearing cries of "stop, thief!" Hezekiah noticed a carriage behind him filled with armed Pinkerton detectives. When Hezekiah declined their invitation to surrender, the Pinkertons unloaded their weapons into Hezekiah's carriage, grazing his arm. Hezekiah returned the Pinkerton's fire, forcing the detectives to swerve off the road to avoid the deadly assault.
Having shaken the Pinkerton's, Hezekiah spurred his horses until he had arrived at one of the town's disreputable districts. His lady friend, Hannah, was waiting near the curb, and on his urging she leapt into the carriage.
Hannah's employer, Shaft Petergrind, noticed Hannah absconding, and shot at Hezekiah's carriage, proclaiming, "don't run out on me until you've paid me my money, woman!"
Hezekiah calmly aimed a bullet at Petergrind's forehead, felling the panderer with a single shot.
"I must say," said Hannah, "all this violence has gotten me very much excited. It is warm in here - pray allow me to disrobe down to my shift" . . .
etc.
Porn Wars, anyone?
Too bad Frank Zappa is dead.
ME, bitches.
Farewell, United States of America, and greetings to the People's Great Democratic Republic of the Union of the Socialist Independent States of America, the PGDRUSISA!
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I'd LOVE to live in such a country.
Kochsuckers. ARF ARF ARF ARF ARF ARF!!
Farewell, United States of America, and greetings to the People's Great Democratic Republic of the Union of the Socialist Independent States of America, the PGDRUSISA!
The species has a strange custom whereby the state has power to regulate depictions of boobies and penises but not bloody carnage.
take me with you! I wanna see alien boobies and penises!
But if originalism is correct, any interpretation of the first amendment in 1868 that differed from the original interpretation is invalid; thus, except where it explicitly says otherwise, the 14th amendment simply applies the original interpretation to the states.
It was only through ignorance that Thomas was able to find the way he wanted to.
are these the same justices that said its ok that a local school district punished a boy who held up a sign about "bong hits for jesus"? what a flawed institution this 'supreme' court has become with no structural logic behind their decisions. either speech is free or its not. just don't go skipping school wearing a shirt that might embarrass your school and play all the first person assassin games you like. really whats wrong with either if your moral compass is that out of whack?
I find the comments disparaging Thomas just wacky.
Children are wards of their parents. A parent putting their baby in a crib is not unlawful imprisonment. A parent choosing what books, movies, and video games a kid may see is not an abridgment of the kid's freedom of speech - it is called "parenting".
Again, Thomas is the only rational, honest jurist in town.
Yeah all that is fine but it has nothing to do with this case. According to Thomas's logic, we should ban kids from turning on TVs, because it's the parent's right to decide if their kid wants to watch television. But turning on the TV does not keep parents from turning it off. Buying video games does not keep parents from taking them away, or not allowing kids to go out and buy them. What the government is banning does not restrict parental rights.
I think a better equivalent is a mandatory parental lock feature on every cable box that requires a password to access non-approved channels. Parents can still give their children the password just as they can buy their children Call of Duty. This is not a ban on possession.
Where did I say it was a ban on possession? The TV analogy is just as good.
I generally like Judge Thomas's rulings, and I consider his position in this case to be an honorable position to hold, but wrong.
It is pretty clear that the founding generation was primarily concerned with *political* speech, and might not even have considered pictures or video to be "speech" - but on the other hand, they might have. What is clear, however, is that in the 21st century we *do* consider these speech, and speech should not be restricted by law.
My only remaining concern is that we have this one huge exception, "obscenity". In Thailand, criticizing the king is considered obscene, so the obscenity exception is a huge one. "Obscenity" just means "we really, really don't like it" - and that is not good enough. Madison did not write "Congress shall make no law, unless they really, really don't like something" - he stopped after "make no law".
To sum up, everyone here is doubting Thomas.
What Thomas is saying is not that it would be great public policy for California to prohibit speech aimed at minors, he is simply saying there is no constitutional right to speak to minors without parental consent.
I actually agree that this is not a freedom of speech issue unless porn access to minors is also a freedom of speech issue. This is simply exeptionalism from precedent. General obscenity laws are an abridgement of freedom of speech. This I do not believe is. I do not agree with the state of California on the law, but do not believe the majority really had the correct ruling on this.
This is a bunch of legal positivist nonsense. So, let me get this straight: even though the 14th amendment allegedly incorporates the 1st amendment, it incorporates not the 1791 version but the version as incorporated in 1868. Right?
Except it was not "incorporated" until 1925, by judicial fiat, in Gitlow v. New York. What to do? 1925, 1868, or 1791 "originalism"? Poppycock.
I can only say that the law is strict.And i think the strict attitude aslo in bisiness.
http://www.coniefoxdresses.com
I can only say law is strict.
I can only say law is strict,and i aslo think the bisiness need,too.
http://www.coniefoxdresses.com
is good
Different people have different thoughts,just like buy things,different people have different like,that is the word says,here for [url=http://www.timberlandbootsvip.co.uk/]timberland roll top[/url],which is the same,different people have different thoughts,some maybe like [url=http://www.timberlandbootsvip.co.uk/]timberland custom boots[/url]
this is not a freedom of speech issue unless porn access to minors is also a freedom of speech issue.
Lipu heavy industry is a professional Mobile Crushing Plant manufacturer and exporter in China. We are specializing in Mobile Crushing Plant. These products are been delivered to Europe, United States, Asia, the Middle East, Russia, Africa etc. countries. We are expanding more cooperation partners all over the world.
Nice article.
hese are perfectly wonderful!
OK,I have to say I like this article