Uh oh: here's we go . . . down the 1st Amendment rabbit hole

The U. S. Supreme Court has released a ruling today that should set off fireworks, if I understand the implications and consequences.

The ruling upholds the U. S. Appeals Court's decision to throw out California's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors, on the grounds that it violates the minor's free speech rights under the First Amendment. The decision was 7-2 with Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer dissenting.

Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion:

"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

And he added that, unlike depictions of "sexual conduct," there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White.

For once I agree with Clarence Thomas, who wrote in his dissenting opinion:

"The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians."

Now, does this decision mean that there can no longer be any restrictions imposed on books, magazines, videos, or games that children can access?

Do conservatives realize that this means no more banning books in school libraries? No more restrictions on sex education in schools, including acceptance of homosexuality? No more protection of minors from exposure to pornography? No more age limits to visit adult book stores?

I suppose he would say that parents still have the right to put restrictions on their children; but they would have no grounds to go after those who try to make sexual stuff available to minors.

Scalia's distinction between sex and violence, in what children are permitted to see, is based solely on "tradition." Will that hold up? I don't see how it can. Otherwise, we would still have slavery. [I acknolwedge that I have not read the entire opinion, just the quotes that are on the internet so far. There could be more justification.]

It's a strange decision -- and strange bedfellows. Scalia and Ginsburg on one side; Thomas and Breyer on the other.

Ralph