[Pollster1]

So in 2011, for example, he dissented from a majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia that struck down, on First Amendment grounds, a California law that made it a crime to sell a “violent” video game to a minor without parental permission. “The founding generation,” Justice Thomas wrote in dissent, “would not have considered it an abridgment of ‘the freedom of speech’ to support parental authority by restricting speech that bypasses minor’s parents.”

I had mixed feelings on that case. I do not see a free speech infringement in requiring parental permission when selling a video game. However, I also do not see an appropriate state government role in restricting those sales. My preference is that government stay out of that question because a parent who provides a child with the money for an unknown purchase is giving implicit permission to buy whatever the child wants (other than alcohol, tobacco, and porn, which all have existing purchase limits). I would have voted with Thomas, but my reasoning would have been that FedGov lacks authority under the 9th and 10th Amendments to intervene.

Note: None of my kids owned any video games while they lived with me. I guided them toward outdoor activities and games that did not require electricity.

[morphing libertarian]

kids get money other than from their parents. the store is the appropriate choke point.