[DJ MacWoW]

That's ridiculous.

Why do you want a nanny state to raise children? I'm seeing the most ridiculous comments for government intervention instead of parental control.

[ansel12]

Why do you want a nanny state to raise children?

Most of us would choose to raise our kids in the cleaner community of traditional America, before you guys and the Warren Court created the post 1960s America.

[tacticalogic]

Why do you want a nanny state to raise children? I'm seeing the most ridiculous comments for government intervention instead of parental control.

I don't see where how this law takes away any of your "parental control". If you want your kids to play any of those games, they can, but you have to buy it and give it to them. That control is still in your hands.

[newzjunkey]

The issue here is whether a state government can intervene on the side of parents to prevent children from circumventing parental rights via direct purchase of violent video games without regard to age. Scalia and the majority said no.

This decision further feeds the increased movement towards children as equal decision makers and deprecation of parents, marginalizing them as little more than an ATM. This dovetails with what we've seen in abortion vs. parental notification too or banning meals from home at public schools.

It's now been established commercial entities cannot be prevented by law from having a direct relationship with your child whether you know it or not.

---

For those who think San Francisco can't ban infant circumcision, I offer this case as hinting otherwise. The court will obviously recognize the child's right to be secure in his own natural body and right to exercise his religious freedom trumps the parents'.