3. Plessy v.
Ferguson
Another time the
Supreme Court actually followed Spike Lee's general advice to "do the right
thing" was in 1954 with "Brown v. Board of Education." Once again, the Justices were actually
correcting the myopic vision of their predecessors' decision in the 1896 case
of Plessy v. Ferguson, with its "separate but equal" gobbledygook about schools
for folks with white skin and for other folks with black. In my childhood, I remember driving through
the South with my parents, seeing numerous billboards with the injunction,
"Impeach Earl Warren!" Warren's
infamously "liberal" court had had the effrontery to unanimously aver that
"separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Even as an 8-year old I could see the logic
in that! But now, I wonder: how many
8-year olds had gone to school for nearly 60 years and never even knew they
were being educated and indoctrinated in a system that would not recognize
their essential equality? And what did
"freedom of speech" mean in those segregated schools where teachers and administrators
were enjoined to follow the Supreme Court sanctioned script? How many ardent voices were stifled and lost
because the script was rotten" and "the law of the land"?
4. Violent Video
Games
Let's move into
the past couple of years.
In the case of
"Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association," June, 2011, writing for the
five justices in the majority, Antonin Scalia cogitated:
"Like the
protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate
ideas--and even social messages--through many familiar literary devices (such as
characters, dialogue, plot and music) and through features distinctive to the
medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world. That suffices to confer First Amendment
protection."
Here's another
example of our First Amendment being whacked" and stretched to fit the model
first postulated by Marshall's court back in 1819; i.e., that corporations are
entitled--yes, that word, "entitlement"--entitled to the same protections as
"persons" under the First Amendment. And
that means, entitled to make as much money from susceptible kids as is
humanly--or corporately--possible.
Whether "Grand
Theft Auto" should be placed in the same category as "The Outline of History"
(books), "Hamlet" (plays) or "Casablanca" (movies) is a fine point Justice
Scalia seems unwilling to consider.
(Porn violence, shouldn't it more properly be placed with "Debbie Does
Dallas"?)
Here's another example of a SCOTUS decision
which one hopes a much more rational, real, live people-serving Court will
overturn (sooner rather than later).
I'll use Schiesel's words from his pro-decision article to make some
counterpoints. (And, not to poison the
well too much, let's recall that Mr. Schiesel works for one of the largest and
most powerful news corporations in the world!).
Thus,
"Monday's decision invalidated a California law
intended to regulate the sale of violent video games to children. As someone
who plays hundreds of hours of violent video games every year, I certainly
recognize that many are extremely inappropriate for children. It would be unconscionable
to allow a young child to sit through, much less control, the gory scenes in
some games, just as it would be to let them watch an R-rated "torture porn"
film.
"With a game like "Grand Theft Auto IV," set in
a satirice rendition of New York City, there are certainly 16-year-olds who
will do nothing but embark on wild virtual crime sprees. " That doesn't mean
that game retailers should sell anything to anyone. The game industry has
adopted an internal ratings and enforcement system that is at least as
effective as the similarly private and voluntary system for Hollywood films. It
is only responsible that any media industry give parents thorough information
about the violence and sexual content of its products.
"But as the court ruled on Monday, deciding just what ideas
children may be exposed to is not the proper role of government."
To which one feels compelled to respond to Messrs. Schiesel and
Scalia--as Joseph Welch responded to the demagogue McCarthy during the infamous
Congressional witch-hunt of 1954: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of
decency?"
Is this not one of the great myths of our Corporatocracy, allowing
for the mangling of our First Amendment: "As the Court ruled on Monday,
deciding just what ideas children may be exposed to is not the proper role of
government"? Actually, is our government
not constantly deciding what ideas our children may be exposed to from the
first time they pledge allegiance to the flag, to the books they read throughout
public school?
The plain fact is, those kids most in need of "parental guidance"
are the ones least likely to get it!
(Let's recall Newtown's Adam Lanza, for example, holed up in his
basement, saturating his tortured mind with the bizarre, violent, blood-letting
of "Grand Theft Auto," etc.) But, in a
world as skewed as ours, the rights of "corporate persons" to make tons of
money by mind-raping kids trumps the rights of flesh-and-blood persons to
protect their children from garbage videos, garbage food, garbage
pharmaceuticals, etc.
5. Corporations United
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
