A Stitch in Haste

This is what I wrote back in June when Louisiana passed a patently unconstitutional ban on the sale of "violent" video games to minors:

Of course the whole point of the Miller obscenity test is that it applies to, um, obscenity (i.e., pornography) — and nothing else. There is no reason to suspect that the Supreme Court, especially given its recent Internet-and-children cases, is at all inclined to extend Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), beyond obscenity. These hack Louisiana legislators may be a bit too quick to pat themselves on the back for their cleverness, given that every single federal court that has heard a challenge to video game restrictions has struck down those laws. Every single time.

Make that "every single time plus one" --

U.S. District Judge James Brady said the state had no right to bar distribution of materials simply because they show violent behavior.

Brady issued an injunction, calling the law an "invasion of First Amendment rights" of producers, retailers and the minors who play the games.

"Depictions of violence are entitled to full constitutional protection," Brady wrote Thursday.

Which invites the question: Were the hack Louisiana legislators and the hack Louisiana governor just incompetent or wilfully insolent when they enacted this law, which any second-year law student could have told them never stood a chance of being upheld. This one just wasn't difficult — and they passed it anyway.

So remind me who are the "activists" here — the politicians who show a complete disregard for the Constitution, or the judges who don't?

More thoughts from ACS Blog.