Rooster Cogburn said:
I think I get what you are trying to say, I'm just pointing out that a law that respects the constitution would be very different from the type of law that was ruled on in this case.
I agree--you do get what I'm trying to say. Any law proposed would have to consider this newly-minted interpretation of the Constitutions stance on free speech, and as such that law would have to be drastically different from the one dealt with in this case.
So there's no need for us to already start warming up our paranoia engine because of this perceived "opening" in the concurrent opinion. The decision itself has ensured that any future legislation would have to be
far more sensible than what was proposed in this case.
We have a tendency to pre-overreact to anything we see that could potentially be critical of gaming, and I think that alone makes us an easy target. Folks used to call it having a "Punch Me Face"--the look of someone going around looking for a fight, inviting trouble.