What is wrong with Antonin Scalia? I might actually agree with him in this case--disallowing California from banning sales of violent video games to children--but his reasoning is incomprehensible at best.
Barre-Montpelier Times Argus: "Unlike depictions of 'sexual conduct,' Scalia said there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children’s access to depictions of violence."
Which United States does he live in? In America, children have been restricted from attending violent movies for decades. That's what the "R" in "R-rated" stands for: restricted. In fact, children can be restricted from attending movies simply for the presence of a couple of "f--" words. Apparently, in Scalia-land, it's okay to take the role of a homicidal chain-saw murderer in a video-game, but not to watch someone do it in a movie.
There's also the curious notion that violence and dismemberment is okay, but sexuality is grounds for government regulation. Chop off someone's head, that's fine, but kiss someone's breasts, that is a serious problem. In the America I live in, it is illegal to sell to children magazines with pictures of women showing their pubic hair. Apparently, it is okay to rip people to pieces, so long as they don't take their pants off.
Perhaps Scalia is making the decision on a technicality. After all, it isn't illegal to let children watch R movies, it is a policy adopted by the motion-picture institute that children not be admitted. This gets into another bizarre country: it is okay for a corporation to make up rules about who they admit and who they don't, but not for the elected representatives of the people. God forbid the people should have a say in the matter.
One can make the case that the government should not be regulating sales on moral grounds, period. It would make for an interesting discussion. But Scalia is a total loon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment