The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overturned California's law banning retailers from selling or renting violent video games to people under 18 without parental consent.  It was a highly contested issue because on one side, people saw the law as inhibiting free speech.  On the other side of the debate, people said children should be protected from the violence contained in video games.  For the court, the decision hinged on 1st Amendment freedom of expression guarantees.

As our editorial board notes:

This decision will be unpopular with many, as was the court's decision upholding the right of hateful protesters to picket near military funerals. What the rulings have in common is an unyielding commitment to free speech that has served the nation well. As for parents who want to protect their children from unsuitable entertainment, this decision does not prevent them from laying down the law.

Catherine J. Ross, a law professor at George Washington University who focuses on 1st Amendment law, had a different read.  Her opinion piece for the Washington Post emphasizes the gaps and shortcomings of the law. For instance, she writes that California's statute didn't distinguish between "suitability for different age groups." She also points out that it ignored the fact that children have 1st Amendment rights too.

And she takes California to task for its "cynical approach to the rule of law."

The court pointed out that books from "Grimm’s Fairy Tales" to "The Odyssey" to "Lord of the Flies" are full of gruesome, gratuitous violence. Many great works of art could be off-limits to minors if offensive levels of violence were the litmus test, leaving youths unprepared to cope with the responsibilities of citizenship.

More broadly, California's cynical approach to the rule of law threatened all of us. Since 1954, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects violent content. Yet California argued that violent video games should fall outside the First Amendment's purview and invited the court to add to the very narrow list of categories of content deemed outside the protections of the First Amendment's speech clause. Alternatively, California tried to shoehorn violent video games into the complex definition of obscenity. This was a huge stretch. Whatever obscenity is or is not, it has long been clear that it has always been limited to sexual prurience.

Cheryl K. Olson, a public health researcher, reminds us in the New York Times that more specific studies on how violent video games affect children in different circumstances are needed.  She notes in her op-ed article that we must keep in mind we are only starting to learn how the law can and should relate to video games.

In the end, the most harmful assumption in the California law is that we know enough about the effects of video games to recommend policy solutions. (I was one of dozens of advisers for a supporting brief filed by those who challenged the law.) Almost no studies of video games and youth have been designed with policy in mind. If we want to mitigate risks of harm to our children (or the risk that our children will harm others), we need research on the specific effects of the most commonly played violent games, and of playing violent games in social groups.

We know virtually nothing, for instance, about how youths who are already prone to violent behavior, such as those exposed to violence at home and in their neighborhoods, use these games. Do they play them differently from the way other children do? Do they react differently? And if so, how might we limit the risks involved?

Now that you have more information about the law and its background, we want to know: What's your opinion on the Supreme Court ruling?

ALSO:

Facebook's face problem

Does your laptop have rights? 

Creating a 4th Amendment loophole

Ruling on violent video games: Score one for 1st Amendment

--Julia Gabrick

Photo: JT Taga-Anderson, 9, left, and Mika Taga-Anderson, 13, play Grand Theft Auto IV in Los Altos, Calif. Credit: Paul Sakuma / Associated Press

When conservative politicians talk about the "traditional family," it's usually by way of denouncing  same-sex marriage. But former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (though no supporter of marriage equality) uses the concept for another purpose: to critique contemporary child-rearing practices.

In 2005, Santorum was criticized for suggesting in his book "It Takes a Family" that working women should give up their jobs and stay at home with the kids.

Actually, the offending passage was gender-neutral: "In too many families with young children both parents are working when, if they took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them don't need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do."

But elsewhere in the book Santorum assails feminists for their "misogynistic crusade to make working outside the home the only marker of social value and self-respect." Obviously the target of that "crusade" is women.

The idea that mothers are superior caregivers for young children is politically incorrect these days, but it's widely held by the social conservatives to whom Santorum appeals. Will he be willing to give voice to it on the campaign trail?

RELATED:

Doyle McManus: Newt takes his shot

Jonah Goldberg: Run, Paul Ryan, run

Doyle McManus: Shifting sands of religion and politics

Will Mitt Romney's religion derail his political ambitions?

Patt Morrison: Founding Fathers versus 'birthers' -- smackdown!

-- Michael McGough

Photo: Former Sen. Rick Santorum gives a pat to his daughter Isabella Maria, held by his wife, Karen, at a rally in Somerset, Pa., where he officially annouced his bid for the Republican nomination for president. Credit: Jason Cohn / Reuters / June 7, 2011

Most viewed: Arnold Schwarzenegger's failings

The board weighs in on Arnold Schwarzenegger's sexual misconduct …

As a former politician and a celebrity who wants to resume an acting career, this is a crossroads for Schwarzenegger. So far, his best behavior appears to have been in supporting the child he fathered and in making a straightforward public admission of the facts (although only after he was questioned on the subject by reporters). Whatever happens next, we hope he conducts himself with honesty and integrity, which appear to have been lacking in much of his behavior over the last few decades.

… while readers leave snarky comments:

The latest installment in "GOP: The Party of Family Values."

--gustavo.gutierrez.junior

He just wanted to be another Kennedy. So he acted like one.

--HTuttle

Most commented and shared: L.A. Unified's librarians on trial

Recalling an eighth-grader who had never read an entire book, Nora Murphy relates how she worked with that student and transformed his life: "By the end of that one school year, Mario had read 42 books, exceeding the goal set by the state of California for eighth-graders. He was ready for high school." Her Op-Ed article continues:

Kids like Mario are the reason I made the transition five years ago from classroom teacher to teacher-librarian. That decision has now put me at high risk of losing my job. […]When I taught seventh-grade English, I saw how critical it was that my students read. Those who loved books and read a lot found school easier and were more successful.

Yet, Murphy laments, teacher-librarians are on the chopping block.

As with many discussions that concern how our tax dollars are spent, much of our message board is filled with a budget debate.

Teacher-Librarians are being targeted because they are more educated, and therefore, more expensive, than regular teachers. Libraries on campus exist because not all students can get to a city library. This is especially critical in low-income areas.

In a democratic society, good public education, especially literacy and critical thinking, are absolutely basic to our strength as a nation. This is what teacher-librarians advocate. Eliminate them and we are all the poorer for it. Yes, LAUSD has budget problems. But to cut teacher-librarians is to break the bones of the school body.

--Bonnie Ferron

I'll bet these education tears would fill the Mississippi river. Give me a break. Your school districts have been losing population for year but teachers keep getting hired. There is a bank of teachers that get paid even though they are not teaching because of discipline problems. You build 100 million dollar schools when a property 2 blocks away would cost a fraction of the cost. I won't mention building schools on top of fault lines or methane pockets. Teachers get summers off, weeks at Christmas, another week in the spring, etc.  We increase your pay and still kids are not learning. Test scores are falling. How about actually doing your job at a fair price. Then we can talk about not firing your lazy good for nothing keaster. 

--Landru

ALSO TRENDING:

Deporting criminal illegal immigrants

Getting California's high-speed train back on track

From Wall Street to O.C. parks, watching for the bad guys

Free speech and Islamophobia

Employing reformed gang members

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Most viewed: Billionaire Raj Rajaratnam and a warning to Wall Street

On hedge-fund manager Raj Rajaratnam's conviction Wednesday, the editorial board writes:

The sad truth about Wall Street is that big hedge funds such as Galleon and major financial firms have a huge advantage over everyman investors. Their relationships with the corporate world give them valuable insights about companies, trends and potential market-moving events, and they have the resources to hire consultants to dig up more information gold. The Rajaratnam prosecution showed, though, that paying people for access to company secrets is not "research." That point is underscored by the feds' ongoing investigation into "expert network" firms that allegedly plied technology industry workers with cash in exchange for inside information. Even if the playing field will never be truly level on Wall Street, it's good for prosecutors to remind people that the rules of the game apply to everyone.

Most commented and shared: Orange County's war on sex offenders

Orange County politicians are pursuing a pointless crusade to bar those convicted of sex crimes from parks, writes the editorial board. You read that correctly: It's pointless. (And probably just a way to get in with voters.)

The Orange County ordinance, too, may well be unconstitutional. More important, it is unfair and ineffective. Registered sex offenders aren't all child molesters; some men are on the registry for having sex with underage girlfriends when they themselves were still teenagers. Though some sex offenders are incorrigible, many have done their time and turned their lives around. Should all be permanently forbidden from taking their own children to the zoo, or the beach? And will keeping them away from parks really protect children? An estimated 90% of sex crimes against children are committed by family members or acquaintances, not perverts on park benches.

Here's what readers think of the ban. Surprisingly, we didn't get as much backlash as we thought we would. Not to say there isn't any.

Preferable idea: Ban sex offenders from churches

Since a potential sex offender is more likely to be in a church, then in a park, lets see the fascists pass an ordinance restricting sex offenders from attending a church, and watch the churches (especially the Catholic ones!) […]

--JohnMcCready

This is a better priority than banning smoking in public spaces

[T]here is quite a movement to ban smoking cigs in parks. As evil as smokers have become (in theory), how can any rational society ban puffing away in public, without first addressing how to treat true criminals in public spaces that children should be free to roam? Banning smoking is constitutional, but banning peds is not? No wonder kids are still being molested.

--JeffreyAllenMiller

Sex offenders have already served their time

This is a stupid ordinance. Public lands are for public use. They don't make this kind of distinction for violent offenders, so why just for sex offenders? It's OK to have someone on the beach who was convicted of robbery and aggravated assault, but a sex offender, no? This is poorly thought out, nigh-unenforceable, and prone to all kinds of blowback. If they have served their time, they are free. […]

--Markoff Chaney The Second

Still uncomfortable with idea putting kids at risk

While I applaud the Times for its courage to argue for the rights of an especially marginalized minority, perhaps we should remember that every single one of these sex offenders CHOSE to become a part of that minority, and at present there is no consensus as to whether prison time truly prevents recidivism for these individuals.

Intriguingly, the Times' editorial coincides with a report from The Daily Breeze about a sex offender in the city of Torrance who openly stated to police that he could not guarantee that he would not again molest a child in the future.  At what point do the rights of that individual trump those of his neighbors?  In that sex offender's exercise of his rights to visit the local park is it also fair for him to create a climate of fear among his neighbors?

I work for a public school and am entrusted with the safety of over 1,000 children.  Would the Times next tell me that in the interest of non-discrimination I should hire this registered sex offender to work at my school?

-- scott2117

Find another way to protect the children

[I]f you want to ensure your children's safety, don't let them run around unsupervised. It wasn't a good idea 80 years ago, and it isn't now. It's the child molesters you don't know about who are the real danger.

--Ironman Carmichael

ALSO TRENDING:

Free speech and Islamophobia

Employing reformed gang members

Jonah Goldberg backlash

Midwest flooding

The man behind Trader Joe's

--Alexandra Le Tellier

A decade or so ago I did a profile of the actor Neil Patrick Harris for the New York Times. At the time, Harris was making the awkward transition from child star ("Doogie Howser, M.D.") to adult actor, but the ovewhelming impression given by the story was that he was still young -- a director who had worked with him attributed one Harris comment to "the kid in him."

Imagine my consternation when I picked up a copy of the NYT and saw the artist formerly known as Doogie referred to in my story as "Mr. Harris." I shouldn't have been surprised; I knew the Times "Mistered" every man unless he was a criminal or an athlete -- or a long-dead historical figure. But still: Mr. Harris? It was the '90s equivalent of "Mr. Bieber."

Now Slate reports that the NYT, in a hurried memo after the announcement of Osama bin Laden's death, dropped the honorific "Mr." from his name. The memo didn't provide an explanation, but presumably Bin Laden was simply too evil for the conventions to be honored. It's true: "Mr. Bin Laden" sounds as ridiculous as "Mr. Harris" did 13 years ago. But once the principle of exception for immoral figures is created, where do you stop -- or start? (The NYT was able to finesse the issue of Moammar Kadafi by referring to him on second reference as "Col.") Slate reports that the NYT referred to Saddam Hussein as "Mr."

The obvious way out of this dilemma is to abolish what are called courtesy titles, as this newspaper has done. But that would sap some of the stateliness from the NYT, which prides itself on its taking newsmakers (and itself) seriously. Still, it might be worth it if the NYT doesn't want to convene a continuing court to determine who is eligible for a dishonorific.

RELATED:

The Bin Laden images we'd rather see

Operation Geronimo dishonors the Indian leader  

Jonah Goldberg: Why the hurry to gloat about Bin Laden?

A note to selected readers: Osama bin Laden really is dead

Debate: Is it appropriate to rejoice at Osama bin Laden's death?

-- Michael McGough

Illustration: Jonathan Twingley / For The Times

The second season of British chef Jamie Oliver's healthy-eating program for ABC debuted Tuesday night to dismal ratings and some backlash. It's not that people don't appreciate Oliver's efforts to improve school lunches and combat childhood obesity -– they just don’t like his heavy-handed approach. Here's Chez Pazienza's take on the Huffington Post:

[I] get the argument that little good comes from giving kids milk that pumps them full of sugar and empty calories, but is an outright ban on it really the way to go? What about the child who just likes chocolate milk and can actually handle drinking a carton of it without ballooning into a mocha-colored Violet Beauregarde? At what point do we draw the line? At what point do we decide to stop protecting some at the expense of the legitimate desires of others?

I'm all for healthier options at America's schools; that and food education are musts at this point in our evolution as a nation. But there's a difference between an option and a mandate. And while it makes sense for Jamie Oliver and his Food Revolutionaries to fire all guns at once with the understanding that it may be what's required to effect even a small amount of necessary change, there's still something decidedly draconian about pushing to reflexively relieve us of our freedom of choice when it comes to what we eat.

A similar debate is taking place around a well-intentioned "fat tax" proposed in Arizona, under which annual fees would be raised specifically for those Medicaid patients who don't take steps to improve their health. Not only might such a plan inspire obese people to lose weight, it would also mean that health insurance premiums don't go up for everyone. That's not how our readers perceive it, though. The heated conversation happening on our discussion board raises a myriad of hot-topic concerns, including personal freedom, privacy and genetics.

If Oliver were to join the discussion, he'd likely say that, like his television program, the "fat tax" is a noble effort to help. In a February interview with columnist Patt Morrison, he said he didn't see his show as a job, but rather as a responsibility:

It's not about being a food Nazi. The madness of health in America is just the amount of [bad] additives -- frankly, things that are banned in Europe. There's nothing wrong with a burger, but if you add up all the ingredients, all the additives of a cheap dodgy burger? It's about goodness and whole foods and nutrients versus the lowest form of stuff.

RELATED:

The soda tax fallacy

Our schools' sweet tooth

"Food Revolution" recap: Season 2 gets underway in L.A.

Moviegoers should know they're consuming a tub of calories

Meghan Daum: The GOP's feeding frenzy over Michelle Obama

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Jamie Oliver films in Los Angeles for the second season of "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution." Credit: Mitch Haddad / Associated Press /ABC

Politicians have no business writing textbooks, writes the editorial board on the issue of liberals in the Legislature pushing a bill that would require textbooks to include the role  and contributions of GLBT Americans.

That's not to say textbooks shouldn't address the struggle against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Though there is still a long way to go, gays and lesbians have made huge gains in recent decades and are now making history with their quest for full marriage rights. These battles no doubt have a legitimate place in the social studies curriculum. But that's a decision for educators and textbook writers to make.

Opinions are across the board on this issue, from our cartoonist Ted Rall, who weighed in with a controversial cartoon that ruffled the right, to our readers, who have had this to say:

Students deserve to learn the truth and…

Excellent editorial. Politicians should stay out of the classroom and leave the books to professionals. Politicians generally lack a scholarly historical understanding, and they always pander to whoever donates the most to the election campaigns: gays, minorities, majorities, businesses, isolationists, neo-cons, unions, and the list goes on....  California's children deserve to learn the truth, not an imaginary, sanitized view of history.

--krvonl

…Not a sanitized version of history

I could not agree more. Take the African American experience during WWII. Other than the fact it was mentioned some black soldiers fought, there was no mention of the Double V protest (since the white powers that be including J. Edgar Hoover thought it subversive) or the fact that white military leaders thought black men too stupid to fly planes (it was official policy) until labor shortages in 1942 forced them to create black squadrons (which earned the highest awards of any squadron).

But this was all sanitized since it was more important what the white people did.

And the risk is even greater today as today's children look at the world "as is" and assume it has always been this way. So they are ignorant of what it took to get it here.

--Jason Writer

 Can California even afford new history books?

So does this mean that CA has the money to replace all of the history books? Oh, I forgot. We are $26 billion in the hole. Or will this be another reason to attempt to raise our taxes. Seriously, is the state and its gay/bisexual/transgender lobbyists attempting to "out" these people as a majority in society? They comprise approximately 2% at most. I would think that rather than making it a point of focusing on their sexual preference that their accomplishments should be the focus. This is not sex ed. We are talking history. Overall, stupid idea and a waste of money.

--kcsrr15

The editorial board’s take is "polite," but deeply hostile

It's not a "preference" and it's not a "lifestyle." Teaching has long been run by the Heterosexual Dictatorship (Christopher Isherwood's ever-useful term) Fighting back against it is no easy task. But it's clear that excuses for writing gays and lesbians out of history are no longer tenable. The Times is aware fo this, but fearful of facing the truth. For means ceding power to the formerly despised. Hence this "polite" but deeply hostile Editorial.

--DavidEhrenstein

Hopefully Gov. Brown will see the wisdom of what the Times' editors have said 

Regular readers of the LA Times know that the Times’ editors are pro-gay, yet in this editorial they have spoken even-handedly and wisely. The Times’ editors should be commended for being willing to stand against those that they usually fight for (gays) when those same people have a bad idea. Legislating gay achievements into school textbooks is wrong-headed and starts us down the slippery slope of every group that feels it isn’t properly represented trying to force a re-write of textbooks to give them “their due.” It shouldn’t be the job of the legislature to legislate the “correct view” of whatever group has the legislature’s influence. Politicians (both liberal and conservative) should stay out of mandating their pet-beliefs in textbooks. Public schools should be for everyone not just gays or conservatives. Hopefully Governor Brown and others will see the wisdom of what the Times' editors have said and leave the writing of textbooks to others who are more objective and not beholden to special interest groups. 

--balvord

RELATED:

Why is there so much contempt for teachers?

Catholics and gays: Closer than you think

Reader opinion: Debating The Defense of Marriage Act

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Illustration depicting ideologically tainted textbooks. Credit: Tim Brinton/NewsArt.com

Ted Rall / For the Times

(Click on the cartoon to see a larger image.)

MORE TED RALL CARTOONS:

How Jerry Brown's budget might win Republican approval

How world news could inspire California laws

Why state legislators needn't carry concealed weapons

Cartoon: 20% of Californians had trouble affording food in 2010

California is broke, but taxing the rich is out of the question

We recently took Sarah Palin to task for dismissing the National Endowment for the Arts as a waste of tax dollars. Art, we argued, matters to human development and the economy. In the case of classical music, art also deters crime. More specifically, it sends misbehaved teenagers scattering. David Ng at Culture Monster reports:  

Whether its Handel piped into New York's Port Authority or Tchaikovsky at a public library in London, the sound of classical music is apparently so repellent to teenagers that it sends them scurrying away like frightened mice. Private institutions also find it useful: chains such as McDonald's and 7-Eleven, not to mention countless shopping malls around the world, have relied on classical music to shoo away potentially troublesome kids.

In the latest example of classical repulsion, the regional transit department in the Portland, Ore., area has been playing orchestral and operatic tunes over speakers at light-rail stations in an attempt to prevent vandalism and other crimes that result from teens having too much free time on their hands.

Theories differ as to why teens react to classical music this way. Some experts believe the music has a soothing effect, while others think it has to do more with negative neurological response. Either way, if this genre of music prevents crime by teens perhaps we ought to invest more on classical music. Another argument in favor of classical music: It can also inspire students in the classroom to learn.

RELATED:

Defending teachers and the noblest profession

To Sarah Palin: Actually, art does matter to the economy

Cartoon: Looking ahead to a possible Palin administration

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Credit: The TriMet light-rail service in Portland, Ore., has begun playing classical music at train stations in an effort to ward off the kind of crimes that happen when people just hang around. A bill making its way through the Oregon Legislature would expand the program to all light-rail stops in Clackamas, Washington and Multnomah counties deemed high-crime areas by police or residents. Credit: Rick Bowmer / Associated Press

Time magazine's website profiles Jacob Barnett, an 11-year-old genius, a Doogie Howser without the medical degree, who may be about to disprove Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The kids knows his stuff -- I guess, since I'm a mathematical semi-literate. If you want to see the little know-it-all in action, Time has a video of him teaching calculus II techniques.

I always have the same question when I read one of these stories: Where are the verbal prodigies? A 12-year-old who can disprove relativity is pretty special, but so would be a 12-year-old who wrote a sublime sonnet or the great American novel. Yet you almost never see that sort of wunderkind on TV.

My theory: Producing great literature requires experience and reflection, not just an IQ of 170.

-- Michael McGough