Aside from the obvious fact that video games should enjoy the same free speech protections as other potentially-objectionable media, the most interesting thing to come out of the case is more evidence that Clarence Thomas is kind of a domineering asshole:
Thomas details briefly the rights of the colonial child (short version: Daddy Owns You) and then concludes that “[i]n light of this history, the Framers could not possibly have understood ‘the freedom of speech’ to include an unqualified right to speak to minors.” In his view, such speech has “been historically unprotected [and has] not yet been specifically identified or discussed as such in our case law.” Unlike Scalia, who isn’t inclined to create new classifications of unprotected speech, Thomas wants to reach back through the centuries and restore an old one: the right to have nobody else speak to your child. In Thomas’ view, since the California law doesn’t preclude a parent or guardian from buying their child a violent video game, the law serves only to ensure that sellers cannot bypass a parent by selling to the child without parental consent.
This may be “less important” than the GPS tracking case the court will hear next session1, but it’s good news.
Update: Also, Sonar is re-opening. I guess they got their pissing contest over with.