re: #79 Lidane

I wrote a grad school paper on that case. I got to know it pretty well.

The dissent by Thomas was incoherent and useless. He basically says that because parents have the absolute right to control their children and, more to the point, control access to their children, they have the absolute right to have the state control access to their children, even if it means restricting speech. You know, because the Founders would never have understood the freedom of speech to include a right to speak to children without going through their parents. Or something.

The dissent by Breyer was based on his belief that correlation = causation and that kids need to be protected from video games. Not only did he blatantly pad his dissent with a 15 page list of articles that claimed a potential link between video games and violence in children, and he thought that the California law was a minor restraint on speech at best.

Yeah I read the page on the dissent. Assumed correctly that they were based on two different reasons. That logic alone by Thomas is why he shouldn’t be a model judge. I mean damn at least Scalia and Alito will mostly give good reasons for why they feel the way they do. As for Breyer, as I said disappointed, I don’t know why he can’t see why censoring games is a mere minor restraint. Glad common sense prevailed in the end though.