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.
