[Constitutionalist Conservative]

There are a lot of angles from which to look at this story, but one thing stood out to me the most: The First Amendment's free speech protection (which originally applied to the expression of political opinions that the federal government didn't like) is further reduced to meaninglessness when it is applied to cases like this.

[YOUGOTIT]

Right On!

[GailA]

Another reason to be sure hanoi john doesn't get elected...judges.

[catpuppy]

It has gotten to the point where someday soon a judge will find that cr&pping on the sidewalk is "free speech" and that any law enacted by a duly elected legislature is unconstitutional.

Like day after tomorrow ...

[dpwiener]

The First Amendment's free speech protection (which originally applied to the expression of political opinions that the federal government didn't like) is further reduced to meaninglessness when it is applied to cases like this.

While protecting political speech is arguably the most important reason for the First Amendment, it is certainly not the only reason. Video games are also entitled to First Amendment protection. It's good to see judges stand up against faddish censorship laws based on half-baked "anti-violence" theories.

Monitoring their kid's video games is the parents' job, not some government bureaucrat's job.

[SunkenCiv]

A federal judge yesterday struck down Washington state's ban on selling violent video games to minors, calling it an unconstitutional violation of free speech.

Where's Joe Lieberman?

George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent

[SunkenCiv]

INTRODUCTION TO JUSTICE HOLMES' DISSENTING OPINION ON THE ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES CASE

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes did not depart very far from the older British notion that free speech and press meant little more than no prior restraint, that is, one could say what one wanted, but then could be prosecuted for it. Freedom of speech, he declared, was not unlimited, and in a famous aphorism noted that one could not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

The test he announced at that time became the basis for all speech tests for the next fifty years: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

NOT A PING LIST, merely posted to: Constitutionalist Conservative; catpuppy; Dead Corpse; dpwiener; GailA; middie; Saint Athanasius; ValerieUSA; YOUGOTIT

[inquest]

Washington State should enforce it anyway.

[xm177e2]

The First Amendment's free speech protection (which originally applied to the expression of political opinions that the federal government didn't like) is further reduced to meaninglessness when it is applied to cases like this.

How could expanding the power of something reduce it "to meaninglessness???"

[hchutch]

Good for the judge.

Jack Thompson's got about as much credibility in my book as Srah Brady.