By coincidence the Stop Porn Culture conference and the US Supreme Court decision about violent videos came upon us at the same time. What caught our attention was that although the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that states can legally keep pornography from youngsters, it has now ruled states cannot keep violent video games from them.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the court’s majority decision in the video game case. Among other things, he wrote “Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas — and even social messages — through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.” And later: “No doubt a State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm… but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.”
That last part did strike us as running counter to the assumptions behind the Supreme Court’s permitting a ban on, say, video depictions of sexual acts being shown to the very young. In perhaps the most important case involving children and their access to pornography (Ashcroft vs. ACLU, 00-1293) the court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of using “community standards” as a measure for determining what material should be prohibited or regulated online.
A pornographic book or video can also “communicate ideas — and even social messages — through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music)” yet those books and videos can be restricted using “community standards.” OK, we’ll stop now and admit we’re confused. As a matter of fact, Justice Scalia does go into the difference in legal standing between pornography and depictions of violence. Justice Scalia has never been one of our favorite Supreme Court justices, but his opinions are always interesting to read, and if you’d like to read his opinion, please click on this link http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf
- If you have a comment to make, we'd like to hear from you, so long as it doesn't reduce us to tears. Or, better yet, if you've written a couple of paragraphs on an engaging topic, send them along. Our email address is on the Contact page.
It's been raining again. Endlessly. It's a warm rain, but it has the capacity to soak you, so the outside tables are abandoned and everybody is inside where it's more cheerful. .
Gene Mirabelli, who writes most of the posts here, has published another novel, Renato, the Painter, about which Publishers Weekly says "In prose as lusty and vigorous as Renato himself, Mirabelli captures the feeling of coming to terms - ready or not - with old age." The author doesn't know why the reviewer thinks a 70-year-old protagonist is old. Of course, the author himself is in his 80s, and that may explain a few things. If you want to know more about the writer or his book, and we hope you do, please turn to the contact page. Bless you!
What have we got here…
Apologies Art Arts Banks Bicycles Books Chicken Little Classic novels Culture Democrats Economics Fire Flowers Food Great literature History Jobs Lies Literature Media Movies Nasturtiums Nature Nudity Occupy Wall Street orignal sin Painting Patriot Act Poem Poetry Politics predestination Privacy Reading Religion Republicans Romney Rush Limbaugh Sandra Fluke Science Sex Society Supreme Court Taxes theology

