I understand, however is not government passing obviously flawed legislation, or legislation at all that removes parental control and gives to the govt at any level not a power grab as well?
That’s where the whole Govern best that governs least comes in. Look at the link I posted above for USA 1910 drinking age.
Until the prohibition fiasco, there was no law. PARENTS had the responsibility as did the bar owners.
I don’t think we totally disagree here in the broad sense. But the details divide us.
How did that law remove parental control?
Norm Lenhart: “I understand, however is not government passing obviously flawed legislation, or legislation at all that removes parental control and gives to the govt at any level not a power grab as well?”
You’re right. All government is a power grab, but citizens give power to governments for reasons, like safety and security. In this case, a majority (that’s important) decided violent video games were harming (a safety issue) their children. A majority of them banned together and passed a law. That law might have been poorly written, but that’s not why Justice Scalia and most of the liberal justices tossed it out. They simply decided minors have a constitutional right to buy violent video game.
That’s the crux of the issue. Who gets to decide what’s harmful or obscene, the people of a given state or the Supreme Court? Now it no longer matters what you or I think because the SCOTUS has substituted its judgement for our own. It no longer matters if 90% of the voters in a given state think violent video games are harming their children. You might be part of the 10% who disagree, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK for to use the SCOTUS as a bludgeon against the right of the 90% to govern their community.