Posted on 10/17/2011 5:53:45 AM PDT by Kaslin
Rarely has the Supreme Court struck a blow for individual freedom as it did in its recent decision in Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association. The ruling had dissenters on the left (Justice Breyer) and on the right (Justice Thomas), but nobody on the political center-right should be doing anything but cheering the outcome of this case, which centered on a 2005 California law restricting the sale of certain violent video games to children.
The Court upheld lower court decisions and revoked the law, ruling that video games were protected speech under the First Amendment. No one in their right mind would endorse the sale of these games to minors; in fact, many people believe that no one in their right mind (of any age) should even play these games. But the issue was whether the government has the right to restrict their sale, or whether the responsibility for such restrictions belongs in the hands of parents. What the high court really concluded is that government is not in the parenting business, and that Moms and Dads should get their fat carcasses off the couch, monitor what their kids are doing, and learn how to say NO.
In a world where regulations are taking over almost every imaginable aspect of our lives, it’s rare that anyone from the government instructs you to figure things out for yourself. One particularly pernicious area of government intervention is within the relationship between children and their parents. Too often, kids are told that they don’t have to listen to their parents, because there is a government agency chock-full of bureaucrats ready to help.
The Supreme Court clearly stated that no matter how heinous the game, it is the parents – not the government – who are responsible for supervising their children and ensuring that they don’t entertain themselves with this garbage. What a refreshing ruling. It’s a cold slap in the face of every growing bureaucracy that wants to take over our lives.
Unfortunately, this decision didn’t stop the State of California from attempting to expand their domain in another invasive and equally fruitless manner. The legislature passed – and Governor Jerry Brown signed – an anti cyber-bullying bill, which continues a trend in which government injects itself into issues better handled on a local, community basis. The fact that this bill became law demonstrates how leftists place no limit on how they will intercede into our lives – even if they have absolutely no ability to enforce the bill they passed.
The bill allows schools to suspend students for “bullying” classmates on social networking sites. This raises a huge number of questions. Are schools now supposed to hire personnel to monitor these websites? What, exactly, constitutes bullying? Does one girl professing that another girl dresses geeky constitute bullying? Does one boy saying that another plays football like a girl constitute bullying? Isn’t this all really another means of suppressing the First Amendment?
This is what happens when government over-intrudes into our lives and personal decisions. Unbelievably, the California State PTA went along with this. Maybe they should have figured out that they endorsed abandoning parental rights and responsibilities to a bunch of faceless bureaucrats. Or perhaps they should spend a little more time parenting instead of attending PTA meetings, after which they no doubt return home and wonder why they pay so much money in state taxes.
Hopefully, some intelligent organization will sue the State of California and overturn this ridiculous piece of legislation. We need thoughtful and committed warriors to fight the continuing expansion of government. It’s not just that government spends 37% of every dollar in our economy (as opposed to 27% just fifty years ago). It’s the entire attitude that government is capable of making every decision for us – a growing trend whose ultimate effect is the breakdown of families and communities.
A perfect example of this nanny-state attitude emerged in the fight over light bulbs. As you know, the standard incandescent bulb is being phased out by government fiat. In response to some objections to this policy, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu – who is convinced that he knows better than the rest of us – made this incredible statement: “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money,” which just confirms his opinion that if both bulbs are on the shelf, we are too stupid to select the correct one ourselves. Sometimes it feels like we’re all drowning in the limitless arrogance of these petty little dictators.
Soon, people like Steven Chu will be making all of our decisions unless we stand up and say “No more! We’re doing quite fine without you, so take a hike.” That’s exactly what the Supreme Court said: Parents, you’re in charge now, so do your job.
Hallelujah!
They got this one right.
Funny it often doesn’t seem that way when it comes to sex education in school or corporal punishment the government is ready to take over the parents job.
But when it comes to keeping porn or violent entertainment material from your kids; hey you parents step up to the plate.
Actually, the Framers would argue that the right (power, really) to restrict such sales belongs to the States or to the people.
ML/NJ
I’m pretty sure “the people” in this case means the parents.
Thomas’s dissent is a great read. He reveals himself as being the only strict originalist left of the Supreme Court.
They got this one right.
///
no, they didn’t.
Justice Thomas was correct, as usual.
should children be allowed to purchase alcohol, cigarettes and drugs without parental permission?
...all that law said, was that these violent sadistic games, couldn’t be purchased by underage children.
yes, the government infringes on too many freedoms.
but seriously, you want children to have the freedom
to purchase games where they can not just watch,
but interactively torture and abuse girls,
as in the one game actually discussed by the Supreme Court?
What ever happened to Joe Camel?
Yeah, and "States" means the States. Until the 20th century States and local governments routinely banned publication of materials they deemed harmful to the people at large.
ML/NJ
It’s the parent’s job to keep porn out of the hands of children! No laws should be in place that restrict the sale of even the most filthy of magazines from freely being sold to elementary school children! </sarc>
Well now... Suppose my freedom of expression is driving passing stopped school buses and driving drunk past schools. Then no government bureaucrat has the right to restrict me, it's up to the parents to teach their children to move fast and look both ways.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to drive so but just in case let's make sure they have a “right” to! It's freedom! tra la la.
It may the worst swill ever but it's Bruce's line of blow.
Are you saying that it was a legitimate power of the state and local government? Or that they simply usurped that power from the people?
Justice Harlan spoke truly in stating that "every member of the Court for at least the last 135 years has agreed that our Founders did not consider the requirements of the Bill of Rights so fundamental that they should operate directly against the States." [footnote says: Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 173(1968), dissenting opinion in which Justice Stewart concurred.]I believe the reference to "135 years," dates from Barron v. Baltimore (1833) where Justice Marshall essentially ruled that the States were not bound in any way by the Bill of Rights.
ML/NJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.