Scalia wrong, Thomas right on violent games 

Those who paint U.S. Supreme Court justices with a broad brush only prove they don’t really understand the court.

Justice Antonin Scalia was dead wrong in striking down California’s restriction on selling horribly violent video games to children. And Justice Clarence Thomas did a spectacular job of showing why the founders would uphold this law.

California enacted a law restricting the sale of graphically-violent video games to children, requiring an adult to make the purchase. One such graphic game involves the player torturing a girl as she pleads for mercy, urinating on her, dousing her with gasoline and setting her on fire.

Video game merchants challenged the law for violating the First Amendment. By a single vote, the court agreed. That majority was Scalia, joined by moderate Anthony Kennedy and three liberal justices (Ruth Ginsburg and President Barack Obama’s two appointees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan).

The court upheld the law 7-2, but not on speech grounds. Scalia wrote for five justices that there are four types of speech outside First Amendment protection: obscenity, child porn, incitement and “fighting words.”

Holding that obscenity only covers sexual material, the court struck down this law for not satisfying the “strict scrutiny” required of content-based speech restrictions.

Justice Sam Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, voted that the law was void for vagueness — so poorly written that people could not tell where the line was drawn, which would require the statute to be rewritten.

While not reaching the free speech issue, he strongly suggested Scalia was wrong.

The first dissent was by Justice Stephen Breyer. He quoted from a 1944 case, where the court recognized that the “power of the state to control the conduct of children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults.” He added that this modest restriction on speech is okay because its benefits outweigh the costs to liberty.

It was Thomas who filed an outstanding dissent that cogently set forth why this law would be acceptable in 1791 when the First Amendment was adopted.

Referencing Scalia’s four types of unprotected speech, Thomas explains, “the practices and beliefs held by the founders reveal another category. … speech to minor children bypassing their parents. … Parents had absolute authority over their minor children and. … parents used that authority to direct the proper development of their children.”

Thomas continued that parents in 1791 had a duty to restrict influences on their children, because children were recognized to have their own moral failings, and parents were to rigorously instill good values in them and secure wholesome influences on their development.

For that reason, parents took charge of their children’s education and monitored what they read and who they spend time with. Even in their late teens, children could not marry or join the military without parental consent, or vote, serve on juries or be witnesses in court.

Thomas showed how the founders believed limited government could only endure if parents faithfully raised children to become virtuous and productive adults. Parents had a “sacred trust” to shield children from corrupting influences and to safeguard their development into responsible citizens.

Thomas’ dissent speaks to countless cultural issues we face today. It should be recommended reading for anyone trying to understand the framers’ meaning in the First Amendment where children are concerned.

Examiner legal contributor Ken Klukowski is a fellow with the Family Research Council.

About The Author

Ken Klukowski

Pin It

More by Ken Klukowski

Latest in Guest Columns

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation