First Amendment Tour De Farce

Two rulings from the Supreme Court before they get out of town have illuminated the broad, almost, unrestricted view the current Supreme Court has of First Amendment rights.

The Court struck down yet another campaign financing law, this time in Arizona, and also struck down a law aimed at limiting sales of violent video games to minors.  As usual I agree with Clarence Thomas more than any other Justice.

The Court, in the video game case, has ruled that no matter how violent, the states may not ban the sale to minors.  Thus, once again, parents can rightly see the government as an enemy in their attempts to raise their children.

I play video games and have a wide tolerance for violence in them.  It strikes me, as it struck the California legislature, that selling games that involve the beating and rape of women to children is not in the public interest and comes under the traditional police power of the states when it comes to minors.

Thomas took an originalist perspective and noted there is no question parents are the mediators of a child’s first amendment rights.  Justices Alito and Roberts found the law too vague (a reasonable position and consistent with past rulings) but were willing to uphold the law if more narrowly construed.

Scalia was having none of it, joined by Kennedy and all the Democratic appointees besides Breyer, he somehow separated violence from obscenity.  If California thinks simulated beatings, shootings and kidnapping of women are obscene, I do not see who Justice Scalia is to argue with them.  Are kids now going to be able to sue their parents for confiscating their video games?

On campaign finance, once again the Court is not going to let governments put its thumb on the scales when it comes to elections.

The Court sends the message -- even in a shocking context -- that any non-viewpoint neutral restriction on speech (or the money that buys that speech) will likely be struck down by this Court.