Sex and the Supremes

[groovedaddy]

Quite a bit of rough stuff was bandied about in one of the final Supreme Court decisions of the term released last month — dismembering, bondage, decapitation, a bounty of bloodletting in video games that bring the thrill of the kill to new levels. No problem there, in the view of the court: for children who want to simulate brutal homicide, it’s protected free speech.

Sex, not so good. Naked women. Naked men. Fornication. Ewww! The black-robed majority made it clear that the United States of America will always make an exception for sex: “historically unprotected speech,” in the words of Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the 7-2 video game opinion.

The take-away point from Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association was that the court continued to expand freedoms granted by the First Amendment. But in overturning a California attempt to ban underage video game sales, the case revealed a fascinating intra-justice discussion about modern depictions of sex and violence — why one can be censored, and the other cannot.

Ultimately, the back-and-forth by the high court reinforced the notion of a nation that will always be a little skittish about sex, while viewing violence as American as apple pie. If this ruling is indeed a triumph for the First Amendment, it continues a strange double standard.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/sex-and-the-supremes/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1

[Stargleamer]

1. And here I thought this post was going to be about. . .

Diana, and Flo, and Mary (and maybe Cindy too). Oh well.

[groovedaddy]

2. Keep dreaming. n.t

[Stargleamer]

3. Of Course, I'll dream on. . .

After all, they always were better Supremes than Scalia (yuck!), Roberts, Alioto and Kennedy.