The United States Supreme Court just heard arguments on the question of whether California's law banning the sale of excessively violent video games is constitutional. Now, I love constitutional law and all that. But I love irony even more. Is there anything more ironic for a case with this issue than the caption?
The part that makes this especially ironic is Arnold Schwarzenegger name appearing as the figurehead who supports the regulation of excessive video violence. That is, 'The Terminator' is against violent video games for kids. Now, obviously Ahnold didn't pass the law, and I don't even know if he supported it. Doesn't matter. Just savor the caption, and let the irony fill your lungs for a moment.
Oh, and if you like spirited debate you'll appreciate the transcript of the oral argument. If you like hearing people who have the dimmest understanding of technology ask questions then you'll appreciate it even more. What did James Madison think about video games? Read the transcript grasshopper!
Now a quick note to Those Who Take These Kinds of Things VERY Seriously:
Please, don't misunderstand my playful sarcasm. I'm not saying the Justices need to have a deep understanding of computer video games to render a sensible legal decision. However, I do hope that when they render their opinion it doesn't have any embarrassing displays of cultural ignorance.
P.S. If you want a better practice, start using the 80/20 Principle.
Maybe Arnold supports it because Terminators–like Vulcans–aren’t human and therefore aren’t covered by the regulation?
Justice Breyer’s apparent sympathy for this rather vague and paternalistic law surprised me. Although I’m not an originalist, hopefully Justice Scalia’s more skeptical view will prevail.