Cal Thomas published yesterday,
Intellectually, I understand the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision that the First Amendment protects the most violent of video games.
Well, I don’t understand.
Because I thought the First Amendment was intended to protect political speech.
But I can’t see that it says so expressly:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So we’re “stuck” with going by what it actually says.
I still say the modern-day usage of the First Amendment has become mangled, perverted, and distorted.
And inconsistent. For example, how does the government get away with fining broadcasters for using certain language on the air waves? And for another example, how come imaginary hate speech isn’t protected?
Politics.
Humanity.
Imperfection.
Oh well.
I must say, though, that I’m very thankful for the First Amendment.
And I’ll also say that I agree with Mr. Thomas’ closing statements:
In a perfect world, children would listen to, respect, and obey their parents. But this is far from a perfect world and parents could use occasional help from the state in preventing violent culture from undermining what’s in the best interest of the child, and the country. This ruling by the Supreme Court does not achieve that end.