Supreme Court insults parents with latest ruling

Justice Scalia leads Supreme Court

in attack on American families

As a Christian, I cannot begin to describe how stunned I was when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a California law banning the sale of violent videos to children. Even more stunning, it was Justice Scalia who wrote this despicable attack on parents rights to know what their children are being sold.

It’s a shame that one of the few things California’s liberal legislators got right, helping parents keep violence and smut purveyors from selling their filth to children is now history.

A bad day at the office Justice Scalia

Supreme Court failing families

There are evil temptations everywhere these days. Even afternoon shows supposedly aimed at a young audience are inundated with scantily clad teenage girls and over sexed young men ogling at them. Billboards are strewn with disgusting images of buxom tarts and alcoholic beverages.

Parents need help protecting their children from these images and temptations that lead to venereal disease, teen pregnancy and worse. The Supreme Court has failed the parents of our nation.

I suppose some of the liberal loyalists will be praising this ruling as some kind of blow for free speech. You have no right to sell smut, show smut, or encourage smutty behavior to children. The Supreme Court just made it more difficult for parents to stop these actions and easier for the morally bankrupt to exploit easily influenced children.

I wonder how the seven justices that signed on to this despicable ruling will sleep at night. It will certainly be difficult for them to sleep while their children are playing some loud, violent war video game. Or worse, playing some porno video with disgusting sex sounds.

May God have mercy on the Supreme Court and may God have mercy on America.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2011 MadMikesAmerica
Did you like this? Share it:
Posted by on June 27, 2011. Filed under Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Back to Main Page

18 Responses to Supreme Court insults parents with latest ruling

  1. TAO

    June 27, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    Okay, Milton, here is where I agree with you! I think with this case and the one in regards with Westboro Church were both bad decisions.

    Freedom of speech is not as slippery of a slope as everyone wants to believe. At one time smut was sold in bookstores and or convenience stores in plastic bags with the key parts covered and they required proof of age to purchase. Now, with the internet there are no plastic bags, no covers, no proof of age, and no one to pay.

    Violent videos are the same way….why not have a rating system and keep the “R” rated ones behind a counter? We are allowing the government to spy on us and delve deeper into our private lives all over the desire to fight terrorism.

    So when kids get crazy ideas from violent videos, or learn to build bombs on the internet and go to school and kill their school mates…we look toward the parents and wonder how they could let this happen.

    Protesting at funerals may occur on public property but they occur to disrupt a private event…..thats not speech but rather intrusion. Westboro can protest gays in the military all day long in the public square, or in Washington…but when someone dies and are being buried the cemetary is no longer a public facility but rather a private one. Cemetaries are share public facilities set aside for private use. Kind of like renting a space in the city park for a family reunion…..

    Do those under the age of 18 have rights? Under the constitution? If we believe that they do, then at what age do they become responsible for their actions? You cannot claim that children under 18 have a right to violent videos and then when they kill someone one claim that they are a child who was influenced by said videos.

  2. A Michael J. Scott

    June 27, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Parents need to police what their children are playing and watching. I don’t give a hoot about God or Christians or any of that nonsense and I don’t give a rat’s ass about what stores are selling. I’ve been in lots of game stores and I have never seen a pornographic game or video. I have seen war games, and I used to watch cartoons as Wiley Coyote had anvils fall on his head. Did I believe any of it? Did I throw myself off of cliffs chasing road runners or blow myself up building bombs from Acme? No. I know fiction and fantasy when I see it and so do most kids. The next thing you know you wacky Christians will be trying to ban Elvis again. If we start banning everything the hypocritical Christians don’t like there would be little left in the world to enjoy. Finally the fact that that idiot Clarence Thomas was one of the two lone dissenters speaks volumes about the credibility and validity of such a nonsense law.

    • TAO

      June 27, 2011 at 6:44 pm

      So, you want to compare “watching” Wiley Coyote on television, most likely in black and white with participating in the playing of a video game? Big difference in the level of involvement…there is not way sitting on a sofa watching a cartoon, and lets not forget televisions were smaller and had one speaker, can compare to the graphic detail, the amount of involvement one attains from playing a video game. Its no different than trying to compare playing a pinball machine with playing one of the first atari video games (monochrome).

      Its no different than if you had a sister who had gotten knocked up while you were watching Wiley Coyote on television…she would have had to go to your parents because there was no planned parenthood and nothing she could have done on her own without her parents.

      Now, disregard the religion issue, take it off the table…Milton opened this with one hell of a raw meat line considering that Liberals take pride in being athesists…

      Liberals run into problems on these issues because on one hand they want to claim that there is no violence in videos, or television, and they pull out Wiley Coyote….but they forget, we also had Mayberry USA, Leave it to Beaver, and a whole host of other television fare, that no longer exists.

      Lets also not forget we only had three channels, and they played the Star spangled banner in the morning when they came back on air and the played it again when they went off the air.

      THAT is real easy to control. How many stores did you have where you lived when you watching Wiley Coyote? I remember having gas stations where they pumped your gas, we didn’t have convenience stores….

      Did your Mom work? Mine didn’t. How many malls did you have to hang out in? I didn’t see my first mall till 1977.

      Its real easy to get pissed over “christianity” and then make real wild claims…but to claim that raising a kid today is just like it was when we were kids is bull….and you are a couple of years older than I am.

      If I got in trouble in school I got my ass beat…and one time in front of the teacher…..what would happen today if a parent did that? My dad would be in jail.

      Yeah, parents need to take responsiblity for watching their kids….and then when they do the first thing that happens is some educated liberal wants to criticise them, or inform them that that is not the right way…..

      I wonder what would happen if teachers were allowed to spank kids again….or make them stand in a corner with their nose up against the wall…humiliate the little tyke?

      The Christians are not the only hypocrites sometimes….

      • A Michael J. Scott

        June 27, 2011 at 7:03 pm

        I don’t see anything wrong with teachers applying a finely defined level of corporal punishment to children under the proper circumstances. There are many teachers who would be far more merciful than some parents, and might actually instill some discipline where some parents could care less.

        Secondly don’t tell me what I was comparing or how many channels I had on TV. Of course there’s violence in video games, just like in cartoons. My point is simple: PARENTS, not the government need to make the decision whether or not playing violent war games will turn them into blood crazed killers.

        Where did you get the idea that “liberals”claim there is no violence in video games or television? That is a ridiculous premise and made up out of whole cloth.

        Finally where did I say that raising children today is the same as it was when I was growing up and where did you get the idea that “educated liberals” criticize parents for raising their children the right way? The fact is your rant has no basis in fact and was unresponsive to my comment.

    • RickRay

      June 28, 2011 at 6:05 pm

      You are right Michael. I grew up watching nothing but war movies, cowboy shoot ’em up shows, Bugs Bunny, horror movies and the likes. I was as gentle and sensitive a kid as you could get. However, I also spent my time playing outdoors, with my friends, hockey, baseball and games we made up. Part of the problem is today’s parents don’t want to say “no” to their kids for fear of being called abusive and bad parents. We got a spanking once in awhile but knew what was right and what was wrong without preachy religion being around, most of the time anyway. Compared to the way children talk to their parents in this time period is way different from when I grew up. I’m a retired teacher and I have seen both the helicopter parents and those who don’t give a damn. Love your kids but let them know who’s running the show here, please !

  3. benrw

    June 27, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    You’re conflating so many issues. It is the PARENTS’ responsibility, not the government’s, to parent their children. If you believe in individual responsibility and respect the family, then you, too, Milton, should celebrate this ruling as putting more power to the family unit, not the government.

    You can’t have it both ways. You want the government to protect your free speech, but you also want it to ignore that same obligation when it comes to what you want people to be exposed to.

  4. jenny40

    June 27, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    I’m with Mike and Ben on this one all the way!! Mr. Tao I think you are a little bit too impressed with yourself. What you said makes no sense whatsoever. I’m a fierce liberal but I’m not a fool. Of course there’s violence in video games, on television, and in theaters, but I don’t think that has any more influence on children than the Saturday Morning Cartoons or those Vampire movies.

  5. TAO

    June 27, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    Of course anytime you say anything everything becomes “conservative” vs. “liberal” Then we form our little groups and do battle.

    Jenny wants me to believe that some how I am full of myself because I do not believe that their is way to compare sitting and watching a cartoon for a half hour, and sitting and playing a video game….and by playing we mean that the individual with the controls is making the violence happen, they are actually participating and causing the violence on the screen….big difference.

    Lets also not forget that the world has changed dramatically in 40 years. Back 40 years there were no big box stores, there was only little mom and pops, with a couple of dimestores and grocery stores. You actually had owners who decided what to stock in their stores. Lets also not forget that condoms were only sold in drugstores, and they were behind the counter…you had to ask for them and the clerk, who normally was the owner could decide if they sold them to you or not.

    Kids didn’t have any rights then and they definitely didn’t have anything resembling freedom of speech.

    40 years ago the vast majority of women did not work, and there were no daycares; if someone needed babysitting there was a relative down the street who could fill in.

    Now, we have the vast majority of women who have to work, we have a majority of kids growing up in broken homes and or single parent homes and Americans have pretty much moved all over the place and destroyed whatever family support structure that could help.

    Now we have cable television running 24/7, we got cell phones that take pictures that kids can send anywhere or adults. We got the internet that gives all of us access to all sorts of things.

    Now we are okay with corporal punishment in schools, as long as there are rules….Mike, what were the rules back 40 years ago? Did anyone question a teacher who punished a student in class?

    On one hand liberals, of which I am one, will claim that it takes a village to raise a child….and on the other hand we want to make parents responsible for everything their child does.

    We want parents to be responsible for their kids but at the same time we want to allow 16 year olds girls to be able to get abortions without their parents consent.

    The Surpreme Court ruled today that kids have freedom of speech and I think that is wrong…just like I think that believing that corporations have freedom of speech is wrong too!

    So, allowing the state to enact laws that limit the sell of “violent” videos and computer games infringes upon a child’s freedom of speech? Well what about laws that limit a child’s access to cigarettes? Alochol, or pornography?

    We liberals also talk about this thing called a “social contract” and I don’t remember too many school shootings back 40 years ago….and I think that the social contract today would require us to look into the link between violent video games that children play and violence that they act out. Now, I will say that watching violence on television where you do nothing but sit there is different than playing video games where you actually participate and make things happen….

    I think our social contract is going to force us to seriously reconsider lots of things….and either we honestly accept the concept that it takes a whole village to raise a child…or we say bullshit….but you can’t have it both ways.

    It has nothing to do with religion or politics for that matter….its not a conversative vs liberal thing….it actually is a social contract issue and do we really believe that children have first amendment rights but yet we want to hold the parents responsible?

    Next thing you know someone will claim that fetuses have first amendment rights….

  6. Sagacious Hillbilly

    June 27, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    My children never needed any court to protect them from social deviance. I and my wife were strong enough influences on them that they didn’t have any great interests in inhumane violence and other recreant media sources.
    It’s too bad these self righteous xian types have to have the courts protect their children. Maybe if they’d get off their shit wagon and take responsibility for raising their children themselves . . . nope, aint gonna happen. They need their morality legislated. Fucking frauds.

  7. Milton Thornridge

    June 28, 2011 at 8:31 am

    So a parent is supposed to put blinders on their children and keep them in dark rooms so they can’t see soft porn billboards.

    The fact is parents need help from their communities to protect and raise easily influenced children. This is a function of government. There. I said it. Are you liberals happy now? Milton thinks government should protect citizens.

    The enemies of our nation are many. Enemies of moral and upright behaviour are thuggish brutes that need the law fighting against them. Not for them.

    • TAO

      June 28, 2011 at 9:50 am

      Now you have to run out a buy Hillary Clinton’s book “It Takes a Village To Raise A Child” and the metamorphis is complete….

  8. Milton Thornridge

    June 28, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    Family values should not be the sole intellectual property of the right or left Mr. Tao. Now if your liberal brethren would practice what Hillary preached our nation would be a more perfect place to raise our children.

  9. TAO

    June 28, 2011 at 2:33 pm


    When you get your idiots to realize that children were once fetuses too, and that a birth does not negate the necessity of their protection…

    When you get your idiots to realize that children need to learn and think as much as they pray and believe….

    When you get your idiots to realize that children are not marked at birth by the sins and or status of their parents and that equality of opportunity and equality of access does not equate to equality of outcome and that success is not inherited thus every new generation should be a new beginning not an inherited aristocracy….

    Then I will worry about the liberals, who are those folks that are more left of you but of the right of me…

  10. lazersedge

    June 28, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    Mr. Tao, you stated, “Kids didn’t have any rights then and they definitely didn’t have anything resembling freedom of speech.

    40 years ago the vast majority of women did not work, and there were no daycares; if someone needed babysitting there was a relative down the street who could fill in.”

    I don’t know where the hell you you were 40 years ago but I know where I was, I was actually married and raising two small children. Children and women did have rights and my wife at the time did work outside the home. Guess what there was even day care centers back then, and “surprise” we had cable TV with R rated movies. There were no v chips or parental control on the TV’s then, parents had to do it, and we did. It isn’t that difficult you jerk. All it takes is to care enough about you children to spend time with them and love them enough to know what they are doing. You and Uncle Miltie are cut out of the same bolt of cloth. You want the government to police the morality of everyone in the country instead of allowing everyone making their decision. Both of my children have grown into great citizens who are Christians by their own choice not because some idiot or government law thought it was the right thing to do. So shut up and run your own house.

    • TAO

      June 28, 2011 at 8:15 pm

      The ratings of movies did not start until 1968 and it was voluntary….Cable televsion did not begin till 1972/1973 and that was HBO and it was in test mode for a couple of years.

      So, if you had cable with movies with R ratings you were one of the test families….

      In 1971 only 31.7% of women worked and of those only 56.8% were married… let me help you with the math…18% of married women worked in 1971!!!!

      Head Start started in 1965 but as a summer program it wasn’t until 1981 that it became a full blown pre school program

      It might help if you put the beer down and search the web for FACTS before you go off and blowhard your stupidity all over the web…..

      • lazersedge

        June 29, 2011 at 11:35 am

        Tao, as I said, I don’t know where you were but I worked as a police officer and in the city where I worked it was against the law to show movies that were R rated (no it wasn’t voluntary) and I, as part of my job, assisted in closing down theaters which dared challenge the law. That was 1968 -1973. Again, I don’t know where you were but you stated that children had no rights but I don’t remember any court taking their rights from them I do remember In Re Gault (1967) holding that they had the same rights as adults in any court proceeding against them. Your statement was that the vast majority of women did not work. You didn’t specify married women. Regardless, in your mind women and children may not have been real people worthy of consideration, but that is your stupidity not mine. Crawl back in your hole.

        • TAO

          June 29, 2011 at 12:09 pm


          You answered your own question….

          You were responsible for enforcing local government ordinances in movie theatres. That was not “cable televsion” nor was it nationwide.

          What the Surpreme Court did was take away the right for local and or state to do what you were paid to do 40 years ago.

          I have never said Women had no rights…what I did say, is that back 40 years ago, we began to change from a society where children “were seen but not heard” to a society where we want to give children the same rights as adults…but where we hold adults accountable for their actions we want to make parents responsible for the acts of the children.

          Now, we have no problem enacting laws that say you have to reach a certain age to smoke, to drink, to vote, to drive a car, to get married, and to have sex with others…but then we rejoice at the fact that the courts said states cannot limit access to art or ideas by age…because that limits the childs freedom of speech.

          With all freedom comes responsibility…but in the case of violent movies and or videos you want to argue that the children have freedom but the parents have the responsibllity.

          If a clerk in a store can be held accountable for verifying that someone is of age to purchase cigarettes then what is the problem with demanding the same thing with violent videos….pornography is art is it not? But we have no problem setting an age limit on it before it can be purchased.