In general, I don't like to comment substantively on my comics, but I do want to make a quick explanatory note on this week's comic.
My point is not that I think it's wrong to allow the sale of violent video games to children. If I was in charge of Everything, I'd probably not allow any prohibitions on these sales, and leave it up to parents to monitor what their kids are buying and using. That said, I think, given all the other restrictions on the liberty of children we allow, taking away their right to purchase very violent materials wouldn't be our worst decision. (Plus, you know that even the mildly motivated among them would get their hands on it anyway!)
What I think is absolutely insane about this new case handed down by the Supreme Court, written by our favorite action-hero, Justice Scalia, is that the current state of First Amendment jurisprudence is now basically that:
(i) You can't prohibit the sale of violent video games to children of any age, no matter how horrific, shocking and sadistic the violence.
BUT
(ii) It's fine to prohibit the sale of sexually provocative material to minors, no matter how mild the sexual content, even a mere flash of nipple or buttocks.
This stark dichotomy is a reflection of a pretty sick culture that glorifies violence and even sadism as entertainment, prosecutes three simultaneous wars while most citizens barely notice, and actually debates whether or not torture is a valid information-gathering technique.
**************
UPDATE: This reminded me of this blog post I wrote a while ago. An amazingly hypocritical movie poster controversy involving "Saw V" and "Zack and Miri Make a Porno."