SCOTUS: Video game ban unconstitutional

Of course, the "time, place and manner" standard for the First Amendment would seem to be a fine umbrella under which to shade the California law (tho overapplication of that standard is not my idea of a good thing). And where's Spock Stain to chime in on this and many other things?

 

Ultimately, campaign finance reform is going to have to come via Constitutional amendment.

 

Does some random blogger really have the same amount of influence as a corporation, lobbyist or interest group that funnels truckloads of money into a political campaign?

I don't think anyone would make the argument that they do, or the candidate with the most money isn't, barring some outlier factor like a scandal that grabs public interest, likely to be the one who gets elected most of the time.

I think there's an overriding public interest in attempting to deter corruption and influence peddling, which I think are rampant in American government right now. And I think money, like porn (but not violent video games), should be treated as fundamentally different than other types of speech.

The present SCOTUS disagrees with me 5-4 and I think we're all ultimately worse off for it.

ETA: Ultimately it very well may take some sort of Constitutional amendment, though the Money is Speech and Furthermore is the Same as Other Types of Non-Money Speech is a somewhat recent phenomena, and is codified by judicial precedent more than anything else.

 

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the idea of the government stepping in to save us from ourselves because some people are being too influential and we can't make ourselves see past it. That makes campaign finance reform sound like a band-aid on an unworkable, gaping wound in society.

 

If you really want campaign finance reform put in term limits and get rid of the congressional retirement plan. After that the crooks won't want the job so bad and won't spend as much money as a way to get rich off screwing over the American public... or they will, but not for as long

 

Good lord...stop the presses...THIS!!!!!!

 

True as it might be, it's not the Supreme Court's job to perform social engineering of this type.

 

The court made porn not as protected in upholding certain laws; it could certainly do the same with violence. Or it could similarly overturn laws that make porn not as protected. It's not some impossibility, as you posit it. The court has the effect of doing social engineering all the time

 

Just because prior courts made mistakes doesn't mean this one gets to or has to. The BBWAA and Veterans' Committee has made some awful election choices. That doesn't mean that David Eckstein gets in now.

There are two issues here:

(1) Protecting violence.
(2) Protecting the medium.

Violence has always been a part of children's literature, and sex has not. Also, there is nothing particularly note worthy about video games that they deserve to lose protection afforded other mediums.

Rightly decided. All the way.

 

Dooley, it sounds like the gulf here is that you're a judicial liberal and I'm more of a conservative. Just different philosophies about the role of a judge at any particular point in time.

 

"all the time" is a bit of a stretch. It happens, but it's very rare.

 

Right. The SCUTUS is not a super legislative body, and no one should wish it to be one.

The Court has an important, specific role to play. But, it's not as a legislature.