Remember that Supreme Court case regarding California's law banning the sale of violent video games to minors? This morning, 5 out of 9 justices confirmed that California should shut the hell up, even though WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDRENS? (Two more concurred, but left room for future restrictions.) Hilarious old crankypants Antonin Scalia wrote the majority decision, reminding us that profitable speech will always be protected speech: "California has singled out the purveyors of video games for disfavored treatment—at least when compared to booksellers, cartoonists and movie producers—and has given no persuasive reason why."

But of course what-about-the-children-ism is a long-standing and profitable industry (far less profitable than the industries it exploits, but still comfortable), so get ready for the backlash. A couple of hours after the announcement of this decision that basically everyone saw coming, we got an insane press release from Dr. Gregory Jantz touting his availability for mongering scares (all bolds are sic, sic, sic):

  • Are video games a gateway drug to a life of delinquency, blurred boundaries, and twisted conceptions of right and wrong?
  • Do they have similar psychological effects on the mind like drugs do?
  • Are these images dangerous to the development of teenagers?
  • What about their younger siblings?
  • Can these images actually create future criminals?
  • Should kids have unrestricted access to these violent, potentially dangerous, video games?
  • If the courts can’t regulate these games, what can parents do?

(Answer key: No, most don't, all evidence points to no, they are awesome, seems unlikely, probably not, relax and learn from history)

The Stranger Testing Department is Rob Lightner and Paul Hughes.