Supreme Court, Sold Out.

[Meem]

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/27/137446...deo-game-sales

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPl...55&m=131018340

the games sold can show sex, violence, rape ... and someone said ... freedom of speech ... so then, why can't they buy playboy magazines?

[SteveA]

I could comment on a lot of things, but in this case it seems pretty simple - yes, the Supreme Court made a bad ruling. It's not a federal issue. It should be up to people in California to resolve it and other states could resolve it differently.

It doesn't seem that people in one state should be telling people in other states what their children should or shouldn't be watching.

So there's yet another conflict at the federal level that was unnecessary.

[SteveA]

Actually, there was an Amendment (the 14th http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution) that extended the Bill of Rights to states as well and that was partly about what the Civil War was about.

So if it really is over a freedom of speech issue, then at least with the amended version of the Constitution, then the Supreme Court might have technically ruled correctly though as you said, it appears it's rather selective in how they apply this (why doesn't the FCC act similarly too?)

I think the states should be as independent as much as possible and if there was a single most important individual right it should over an ability to leave a state relatively unmolested (so in that sense, I agree that forms of involuntary slavery should be unconstitutional, or at least that states have some provision to allow people to leave before bad legislation is put into effect - then again, it seems it should be common convention for legislation to avoid being retroactively (unless somehow truly necessary) - it's easily abused if laws can alter terms of agreements 'after the fact', yet such laws appear almost common now).

... I ramble as usual.

[SteveA]

One more quick comment. I saw a list at this Wikipedia site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law, which seems worth looking at:

Joseph Raz

In 1977, the influential political theorist Joseph Raz identified several principles that may be associated with the rule of law in some (but not all) societies.[52] Raz's principles encompass the requirements of guiding the individual's behaviour and minimizing the danger that results from the exercise of discretionary power in an arbitrary fashion, and in this last respect he shares common ground with the constitutional theorists A. V. Dicey, Friedrich Hayek and E. P. Thompson. Some of Raz's principles are as follows:

• That laws should be prospective rather than retroactive.
• Laws should be stable and not changed too frequently, as lack of awareness of the law prevents one from being guided by it.
• There should be clear rules and procedures for making laws.
• The independence of the judiciary has to be guaranteed.
• The principles of natural justice should be observed, particularly those concerning the right to a fair hearing.
• The courts should have the power of judicial review over the way in which the other principles are implemented.
• The courts should be accessible; no man may be denied justice.
• The discretion of law enforcement and crime prevention agencies should not be allowed to pervert the law.

According to Raz, the validity of these principles depends upon the particular circumstances of different societies, whereas the rule of law generally "is not to be confused with democracy, justice, equality (before the law or otherwise), human rights of any kind or respect for persons or for the dignity of man".[52]