Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« A Dangerous Job | Photos From Seattle Pride 2011 »

Monday, June 27, 2011

2012 / Games The Supreme Court Is Right About Some Things, Wrong About Others

Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:40 AM

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down on First Amendment grounds a California law that barred the sale of violent video games to children. The 7-to-2 decision was the latest in a series of rulings protecting free speech, joining ones on funeral protests, videos showing cruelty to animals and political speech by corporations.

The California law the court struck down would have charged video game stores a $1,000 fine for selling violent video games to children. This is a rare case when the conservatives on the court are the good guys. Scalia, in particular, cited Grimm's fairy tales as an example that kids have always been exposed to violence.

But of course, the Supreme Court continues to be frustrating in other areas—particularly campaign finance reform:

The Supreme Court, closely divided along ideological lines, made it harder for states and cities to use public funding of campaigns to limit the effect of private money on elections.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices struck down an Arizona law offering extra "matching funds" to candidates who opted to accept only public funds and who faced a free-spending opponent who relied on personal money. The matching funds were designed to make sure the publicly funded candidates could keep pace with their opponent.

Before the Roberts court is done, we'll have presidential candidates sponsored by Coke and Pepsi.

Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Clarence Thomas and his wife are sponsored by the Koch billions, so why not?

Posted by Vince on June 27, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Question is, would you vote for the Pepsi candidate? Or the Coke candidate?

Posted by JeniPeep on June 27, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Before the Robert's court is done, the presidency will just be awarded to whomever has the most cash, and then become an hereditary post.

Posted by Pol Pot

on June 27, 2011 at 11:49 AM

President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho

Posted by pox on June 27, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Perhaps corporations could just run for office as legal persons.

Posted by in-frequent on June 27, 2011 at 12:11 PM

@2 Why vote for the Pepsi candidate when you can just vote for Pepsi. For congress.

Posted by in-frequent on June 27, 2011 at 12:13 PM

America, where kids can buy ultra violent video games, but dear god, don't let them buy porn!!! Their minds will be ruined!

Posted by Andy_Squirrel on June 27, 2011 at 12:17 PM

wow, did you look at the Brown opinion at all? the conservatives weren't the good guys, scalia was (and was joined by most of the liberals on the court). thomas and breyer both dissented, and there was a concurrence by roberts and alito which did not agree with scalia's argument.

Posted by Cook on June 27, 2011 at 12:18 PM

I liked the sideways callout by Scalia regarding Thomas' usual ideological laziness.

“He cites no case, state or federal, supporting this view, and to our knowledge there is none,” Justice Scalia wrote of Justice Thomas.

Posted by laterite on June 27, 2011 at 12:53 PM

If they're sponsored by Coke and Pepsi do we have to blindfold ourselves and taste each of them?

Posted by Root on June 27, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Money is speech. Deal with it :D

Posted by Freedom costs $1.50 on June 27, 2011 at 4:13 PM

@9 - Scalia's clerks are tired of doing all the work for Thomas's.

Posted by SoSea Resident on June 27, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Why did the Supreme Court vote "the right way"? Because it was a pro-corporation decision, that's all you need to know.

Can kids go into R-rated movies without their parents, now? I mean, freedom of speech and all.

Posted by Drew2u on June 27, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Not only does the Arizona decision relate only to a single provision of the law (additional funding based on how much money one's opponent raises), but similar laws had already been overturned in other states. This decision is neither surprising nor a big deal in the long run.

Posted by Sean P. on June 27, 2011 at 8:18 PM