"Admittedly, Chaput does acknowledge that he doesn't think all games are bad, but he does note his problem with the fact that the recent decision "extends and elevates the individual's right to free expression - or in this case, a corporation's right to make a healthy profit - at the expense of family sovereignty, the natural rights of parents and the intent of the Constitution's authors.""
It's already been stated there's " about fifty things wrong with this," but....
-It actually doesn't extend anything, this was a decision on whether or not California could expand the definition of " obscenity."
-Corporations would readily make a healthy profit without this ruling. It does nothing to it.
-There is no expense to family sovereignty. Parents can still tell their kids they can't buy a violent video game, even if the stores can legally sell them. Which they can, but tend not to. Ditto the rights of parents, since it's basically the same thing. The ruling hardly states " You must allow your kids to play GTA."
-If the Constitution's authors had intended limits on free speech, they would have included them. Many of the founding fathers spoke up in defense of speech that people are foaming at the mouth about now.
Further, the Constitutional framers didn't see fit to recognise women or blacks as people worthy of equal rights and protection. I consider the Catholic Church to be a rather date institution, but I doubt even they would go so far as to complain that we have elevated women's rights against the intents of of founding fathers. Or blacks. Or any other group. Well, maybe gays, but only because it's still considered culturally okay to speak out against gays. In 50 years, it will be as taboo as saying blacks should be property.
But on that note, the bible says one should remove the speck from your eye before attempting to remove the one in your neighbour's eye. I would appreciate it if the RCC would spend more time trying to improve its own flaws before complaining about the morality of others.
