Still, most of the justices seemed to agree that a ruling in favor of the California law would require a novel extension of First Amendment principles to expressions concerning violence.
I’m dead serious. And the reason it’s great is because while “reasonableness” is fantastic, sometimes it’s the opposite of what is good for a country. A lot of nations get by on reasonableness alone, which means that when someone comes up with a seemingly “reasonable” proposition, such as fining video game store owners for selling violent video games to minors whose parents should know better, it breezes throughr. And reasonable law piles on reasonable law, until some poor bastard who made the mistake of getting on the bad side of a government official gets his life ruined for selling hundreds of Grand Theft Auto to 17 year-olds. Or the new historical video game “Antietem” gets banned from being sold to kids who might learn something important from it.
I support sanity and reasonableness, But I’m also very, very grateful that we have a Supreme Court that stolidly makes “unreasonable” judgments in order to err on the side of free speech.