On 2-20-13, I published a post regarding a most amazing case, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants–complete with dozens of quotes as to how under the First Amendment the government has absolutely no interest in censoring or regulating content based speech and that speech covers not only my blog, but apparently it can cover the trashiest of computer and Wii-Fi games and what not, ie, Grand Theft Auto (GTA).
Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny—that is, unless it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. R.A.V., 505 U.S., at 395, 112 S.Ct. 2538. The State must specifically identify an “actual problem” in need of solving, Playboy, 529 U.S., at 822–823, 120 S.Ct. 1878, and the curtailment of free speech must be actually necessary to the solution, see R.A.V., supra, at 395, 112 S.Ct. 2538. That is a demanding standard. “It is rare that a regulation restricting speech because of its content will ever be permissible.” Playboy, supra, at 818, 120 S.Ct. 1878. *** end of quote.
So is the ARDC saying that my blog is a “problem in need of solving?”
Now, as any parent knows, GTA and perhaps Postal has got to be about the trashiest, most obnoxious, detestable, despicable digital media games out there.
The US Supremes says this is “content based speech” and the government cannot regulate its dissemination to even children.
You know, this is the game where you get to rob whatever–a bank, a 7-11, a gas station, kill the clerk, pay for a hooker in an alley, beat her up or kill her, and you get points! That’s right, points for evil deeds. You can even get points for killing a cop during your robbery. (I wonder if they have demerits for feeding the poor, or donating clothes).
I digress. The game is a parental nightmare and a horror show.
So my question is, why is the ARDC going after my blog and saying I cannot speak out against corruption, I am lying about it (despite the fact the court records are published here, the evidence is published here and the blog is complete in and of itself)–when the US Supremes have said you have to leave even the worst and most despicable of trashy video games alone–it’s protected speech?
Can ANYONE answer that one?
What if a lawyer wrote that game or portions of it? Would the Illinois ARDC go after that lawyer?
What if my blog were put into book form and sent to the ARDC, could they draft up a complaint against a book? Can they ban a book or discipline a lawyer in the US for writing a book about corruption in the courts?
Are we fast approaching the decline of our democratic, open and free speech civilization where the ARDC will start rounding up and banning books? Will they have the Illinois sheriff do it?
Inquiring minds want to know.
In Germany in the 1930’s the Gestapo took away all the weapons from the Jews. A Jew was shot on sight, frisked in the street and shot if he had any weapon–gun or knife. When that was done, the Gestapo then went and rounded up Jewish lawyers in the courts and banned them from practicing law.
The slippery slope, the wedge with the edge.
While the US Supreme Court has clearly spoke, apparently not all lawyer have heard–apparently the lawyers at the ARDC have not heard.
A 2011 decision. The latest. Confirming over 100 years of free speech case law that I get to say what I want unless someone can prove it is blatantly false or made up–and even then, as long as it is clear it is satire or my imagination, I don’t think they can regulate that either.
What if Lewis Carroll were a lawyer? Could he have written Alice in Wonderland, clearly making fun of royalty as pompous asses?
I still have a lot of questions that no one has answered.
Is the next step book burning?
Just so you know, Attys Jerome Larkin, Haspel and Opryczek, you are free to posts your comments here. I won’t ban them and you can link anywhere you please.
I WILL FREELY GIVE YOU FREE SPEECH, why do you not afford me the same courtesy?