A Stitch in Haste

The win:

A federal judge has ruled that a Michigan law that bars retailers from selling or renting violent video games to minors is unconstitutional.
...
"Video games contain creative, expressive free speech, inseparable from their interactive functional elements, and are therefore protected by the First Amendment," [the judge] said in his ruling.
...
Similar laws have been struck down or put on hold in several states, including California, Illinois and Washington.

MY TAKE: As I understand it, the issue in this case wasn't the basic concept of banning the sale of violent games to minors, but rather with the vagueness of the word "violent" itself — what precisely is that supposed to mean? Is my 180 mph Xbox 360 racing game "violent"? But it is conceivable that a more detailed law with greater specificity about what is "violent" could be crafted that would, unfortunately, survive judicial scrutiny. Stay tuned. More thoughts from defcon:blog.

---

The loss:

A state judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit that sought to force the city to allow private, social dancing in restaurants, clubs and bars.
...
A group calling itself the Gotham West Coast Swing Club and several people said that because the city's cabaret law barred them from dancing with other people it unconstitutionally infringed on their right of free expression.
...
The judge disagreed. He said dancing is not constitutionally protected expression and the city has the right to regulate circumstances under which eating and drinking places can let patrons dance.

MY TAKE: So "art" is constitutionally protected but "dance" is not? Go figure. The rationalization of the "cabaret license" law is that locales with dancing will have a competitive advantage (gasp!) over those that don't, with the result that more people will frequent them, with consequently more traffic, noise, sidewalk congestion, etc. Stated differently, even the remotest chance of even the slightest supposed negative externality is sufficient grounds to nullify the First Amendment. Then again, we live in a society where most people think it's perfectly permissible and perfectly logical to tell owners of private property that they can't allow competent adults to choose to smoke in their establishments either. By that standard, a "dancing license" restriction is minuscule. More thoughts from Gothamist.