Supreme Court Expected to Give Gaming Verdict Monday

[Nuke_em_05]

You have a fixation on absolutes.

And you are dodging the issue.

My contention from the outset has been that freedom of speech is not absolute; as many on this site, particularly this article, seem to presuppose.

No one presupposes that. You are falsely inferring from this that video games are not protected from government regulation by the First Amendment. Pointing out your error does not mean we have a fixation on absolutes. You are making hasty generalizations and accusing anyone who doesn't follow you down the rabbit hole of absolutism.

I am not claiming that the first amendment is toothless. My point is that many "rights" are interpreted differently when it comes to involving minors.

Now restate that in a way that is relevant to the First Amendment and you will have a point. I don't think it can be done.

We can't prohibit sale of alcohol,

This is kind of a tangent, but we can, we have, we do. Pull over in Atlanta on a Sunday and try to find a six pack. And there are dry counties all over the place.

...but we can prohibit the sale of alcohol to minors. We can't revoke the right to bear arms, except to minors and we can require the passing of background checks.

And yet, we can't regulate sale to minors of protected speech. That is what the law is. It does not matter how many examples of underage regulation you present. Seriously, give me another. And another. Doesn't matter.

Many rights, including the Bill thereof, are quite potent. The misconception I am seeing is that they are 100% absolute, when they very often (granted, for good reason) have limitations, especially when concerning minors.

It is not impossible that a better defined law prohibiting the sale of violent media to minors could pass.

Not impossible, just unconstitutional.

This law, probably not. The hypothetical law would need a stronger justification, a much more specific definition, and broader application.

It is difficult to imagine a likely scenario where this would not also be unconstitutional.

The hypothetical law wouldn't be as horrible as people are claiming. It wouldn't lead to a slippery slope because the first amendment fully protects sale to adults and the definition would be very limited.

Your argument is that sales to adults are protected? Well, sales to minors are protected, but that is apparently no barrier to legislation. Putting it that way is more like a threat than a reassurance. But what has us worried are concerns much more far reaching and potentially sinister.

In the end, it would not allow for the sale of inappropriately violent media to minors; which like I tried to say in the beginning is something many in the industry, including this website, support.

Not selling to minors, yes. Censorship, no.

This law will most likey not pass, but it isn't the end of it either way.

And that is what makes free speech advocacy and public outcry so important.

If it passes, minors can't buy violent media; I suppose the better phrasing is; violent media can't be sold to minors. If it doesn't, legislators will just try again until they find something acceptable.

Of course. They've been at it over two centuries now. They've failed for two centuries, yet they could be successful at any time. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

A ruling that completely nullifies future attempts seems unlikely.

While I think a somewhat wishy-washy decision is more likely, I definitely wouldn't call that outcome unlikely. If ever they were to totally crush a piece of legislation, I can't think of anything more appropriate for a total crushing.

I understand. You believe that freedom of speech is absolute, 100% comprehensive.

I asked before, but I never really got an answer. If freedom of speech is absolute, what is your opinion of pornography legislation?

I mean, you feel very strongly that explicit gratuitous violence and gore is protected by the first amendment. Why did explicit gratuitous sexual content not get afforded the same protection?

This law is not censorship. Under it, developers could still create and sell violent video games. The government would not stop them, or make them change it.

Unless they tried to sell it to minors.

I know that you do not believe so, you have made it quite clear, but the to minors bit is the key part, and it does make a difference.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Let it be known that the Governator is pretty much dead in the aspect of respect what with the daughter story,him not being governor,his life founded on acting not politics,and he's already lost.

 

[The Apothecarry]

If we lose, I'm getting my degree in Game Design and moving to Canada.

 

[Dense_Electric]

I understand. You believe that freedom of speech is absolute, 100% comprehensive.

I asked before, but I never really got an answer. If freedom of speech is absolute, what is your opinion of pornography legislation?

I mean, you feel very strongly that explicit gratuitous violence and gore is protected by the first amendment. Why did explicit gratuitous sexual content not get afforded the same protection?

This law is not censorship. Under it, developers could still create and sell violent video games. The government would not stop them, or make them change it.

Unless they tried to sell it to minors.

I know that you do not believe so, you have made it quite clear, but the to minors bit is the key part, and it does make a difference.

If I may add my two cents - you're missing the bigger picture here. That is, government intrusion versus the freedom of the individual (minor or not). In the United States, no other medium is regulated with legal precedent - theaters don't show R-rated films to children under their own policies, not those of the state. Music stores don't sell explicit music to children because they choose to not do so, not because the law says so. Why should the sale of M-rated games be any different? We've seen it time and again, the best course of action is to let these industries be regulated by themselves, the people that know them best, not a bureaucrat sitting alone in an office a thousand miles away who's never played a game other than Pong. That is effectively what this ruling will decide. It's not the law itself, it's the implications that come with it.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

I understand. You believe that freedom of speech is absolute, 100% comprehensive.

I asked before, but I never really got an answer. If freedom of speech is absolute, what is your opinion of pornography legislation?

I mean, you feel very strongly that explicit gratuitous violence and gore is protected by the first amendment. Why did explicit gratuitous sexual content not get afforded the same protection?

This law is not censorship. Under it, developers could still create and sell violent video games. The government would not stop them, or make them change it.

Unless they tried to sell it to minors.

I know that you do not believe so, you have made it quite clear, but the to minors bit is the key part, and it does make a difference.

If I may add my two cents - you're missing the bigger picture here. That is, government intrusion versus the freedom of the individual (minor or not). In the United States, no other medium is regulated with legal precedent - theaters don't show R-rated films to children under their own policies, not those of the state. Music stores don't sell explicit music to children because they choose to not do so, not because the law says so. Why should the sale of M-rated games be any different? We've seen it time and again, the best course of action is to let these industries be regulated by themselves, the people that know them best, not a bureaucrat sitting alone in an office a thousand miles away who's never played a game other than Pong. That is effectively what this ruling will decide. It's not the law itself, it's the implications that come with it.

I already addressed this issue (in comparison to the ESRB), and was informed (by the opposition) that it is essentially a straw man argument. I addressed it early because I didn't want to come around to it later, though that seems to have happened regardless. Look back several posts for full details.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I understand. You believe that freedom of speech is absolute, 100% comprehensive.

I have repeated again and again that I do not believe this (in the way that you mean it). I have repeated again and again that far from believing freedom of speech is absolute, I am simply naming what is protected from government regulation by the First Amendment. That in no way implies that freedom of speech is 100% comprehensive.

I asked before, but I never really got an answer.

Read the thread again, I addressed this.

If freedom of speech is absolute, what is your opinion of pornography legislation?

Not sure how I feel about that, but I'd prefer to just focus on what the law is.

I mean, you feel very strongly that explicit gratuitous violence and gore is protected by the first amendment.

My feelings aren't the issue. Violent media is protected. That's not my opinion, that's a fact.

Why did explicit gratuitous sexual content not get afforded the same protection?

You'd have to ask James Madison, I guess. But I'll sum up the case law for you as best I can. The First Amendment was either never intended or never assumed to protect what is called 'obscenity', which includes pornography. These cases simply weren't looked at as freedom of speech cases. Then someone in modern times tried to use the First Amendment to get regulation of obscenity ruled unconstitutional. The SCOTUS found that the First Amendment does not and never had protected obscenity from government regulation, and therefore that obscenity was outside the scope of the First Amendment.

Now, could something like this happen to video games? Short answer is no. While the case law demonstrated obscenity was not protected, it will demonstrate the opposite in the case of violent media. When the justices research First Amendment cases, they will find that the depiction of violent media is and always has been protected speech. To declare at this late date that violent media is outside the scope of the First Amendment would fly in the face of historical precedent and the intention of the law. It would be unconstitutional on a huge scale.

This law is not censorship.

It is the definition of censorship. At least, what is ordinarily referred to as "censorship".

Under it, developers could still create and sell violent video games. The government would not stop them, or make them change it.

They would not be legally barred from making violent games, they would only be confronted with an enormous incentive to not make such games through the legal system. Also, by not receiving First Amendment protection, video games would cease to be a serious artistic medium, or almost assuredly never become one. On top of that, it would effectively unmake every First Amendment ruling of the twentieth century by opening the door for legislatures to decide what is and is not protected speech.

Unless they tried to sell it to minors.

As I outlined above, lots of bad things happen even if no minor ever gains access to a single violent game.

I know that you do not believe so, you have made it quite clear, but the to minors bit is the key part, and it does make a difference.

In your mind and conscience, perhaps, but not according to the laws of the United States as they exist before this ruling. BELIEF HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. There is not a single SCOTUS ruling that backs up your ridiculous claim that the First Amendment does not prohibit government regulation of protected speech on the basis of preventing sales to minors. You can believe that 2+2=10 if you want, but that does not make it true. The facts is the facts. If you want to talk opinions, fine, sure- let's do that. But if you want to talk about the law, then please understand that your feelings are irrelevant to what the text on the page is and how that text is interpreted by the courts.

You are repeating the same stuff you've been repeating for three posts now. It does not matter how many times you say it or how strongly you believe. The law is what the law is, and that's that.

EDIT: The ruling is made, and the majority opinion is pretty much identical to my contentions:

...the State wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children. That is unprecedented and mistaken. This country has no tradition of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

I understand. You believe that freedom of speech is absolute, 100% comprehensive.

I have repeated again and again that I do not believe this (in the way that you mean it). I have repeated again and again that far from believing freedom of speech is absolute, I am simply naming what is protected from government regulation by the First Amendment. That in no way implies that freedom of speech is 100% comprehensive.

I asked before, but I never really got an answer.

Read the thread again, I addressed this.

If freedom of speech is absolute, what is your opinion of pornography legislation?

Not sure how I feel about that, but I'd prefer to just focus on what the law is.

I mean, you feel very strongly that explicit gratuitous violence and gore is protected by the first amendment.

My feelings aren't the issue. Violent media is protected. That's not my opinion, that's a fact.

Why did explicit gratuitous sexual content not get afforded the same protection?

You'd have to ask James Madison, I guess. But I'll sum up the case law for you as best I can. The First Amendment was either never intended or never assumed to protect what is called 'obscenity', which includes pornography. These cases simply weren't looked at as freedom of speech cases. Then someone in modern times tried to use the First Amendment to get regulation of obscenity ruled unconstitutional. The SCOTUS found that the First Amendment does not and never had protected obscenity from government regulation, and therefore that obscenity was outside the scope of the First Amendment.

Now, could something like this happen to video games? Short answer is no. While the case law demonstrated obscenity was not protected, it will demonstrate the opposite in the case of violent media. When the justices research First Amendment cases, they will find that the depiction of violent media is and always has been protected speech. To declare at this late date that violent media is outside the scope of the First Amendment would fly in the face of historical precedent and the intention of the law. It would be unconstitutional on a huge scale.

This law is not censorship.

It is the definition of censorship. At least, what is ordinarily referred to as "censorship".

Under it, developers could still create and sell violent video games. The government would not stop them, or make them change it.

They would not be legally barred from making violent games, they would only be confronted with an enormous incentive to not make such games through the legal system. Also, by not receiving First Amendment protection, video games would cease to be a serious artistic medium, or almost assuredly never become one. On top of that, it would effectively unmake every First Amendment ruling of the twentieth century by opening the door for legislatures to decide what is and is not protected speech.

Unless they tried to sell it to minors.

As I outlined above, lots of bad things happen even if no minor ever gains access to a single violent game.

I know that you do not believe so, you have made it quite clear, but the to minors bit is the key part, and it does make a difference.

In your mind and conscience, perhaps, but not according to the laws of the United States as they exist before this ruling. BELIEF HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. There is not a single SCOTUS ruling that backs up your ridiculous claim that the First Amendment does not prohibit government regulation of protected speech on the basis of preventing sales to minors. You can believe that 2+2=10 if you want, but that does not make it true. The facts is the facts. If you want to talk opinions, fine, sure- let's do that. But if you want to talk about the law, then please understand that your feelings are irrelevant to what the text on the page is and how that text is interpreted by the courts.

You are repeating the same stuff you've been repeating for three posts now. It does not matter how many times you say it or how strongly you believe. The law is what the law is, and that's that.

EDIT: The ruling is made, and the majority opinion is pretty much identical to my contentions:

...the State wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children. That is unprecedented and mistaken. This country has no tradition of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence.

I'm trying to figure out where it is you find "obscenity" not potentially including depictions of violence or gore. Obscenity, even in the legal sense, is anything "morally offensive, repugnant, or disgusting". The definitions vary, but none of them indicate that it is exclusive to sexuality.

This ruling was based on the law in question. The key things they point out:

1. This law was poorly justified. The conclusions of the "research" was poorly supported.
2. This law was too specific in application. Video games, but not Saturday morning cartoons.
3. This law was too vague in definition.

The concurrent opinions illustrate that had this law been structured better, they would have voted for it.

A law with better justification, broader application, and a stronger definition, might pass in the future. Granted, that will be a long time away.

Notice that the majority opinion only pointed out that there is no precedent for restricting children's access to depictions of violence. This law didn't provide enough to establish such a precedent, but the ruling didn't set a precedent in the opposite, either.

This ruling is good, it does establish "officially" that video games have the same rights as all other speech, regardless of interactivity. It is a good thing and it does invalidate the main problem I had with the proposed law; it was specific to video games. This means any future law like this will need to take on games, music, film, print, everything, as well.

Legislators are going to get very gun-shy at this point; due to this recent slam and the new guidelines, so we probably won't see anything like this again for a while. The thing is, it will pop up again eventually.

In theory, someone could develop such a law. Well-defined, broad-application, and constitutional. The caveat (to such legislators) is, for such a law to be accomplished, it would hardly be something to be "afraid" of, and might even be a "good" thing. The other thing is it would require an overwhelming amount of evidence to justify setting a precedent for regulating depictions of violence to minors.

In short; it will be a long time before we see a law that tries to regulate video games again. At this point, actually, we will never see a law that tries to regulate video games alone again, it will have to apply to all forms of speech. A law that tries to regulate "violence" in speech, however, is still constitutionally possible. When such a theoretical law is crafted, it will not be the end of the world, either.

I'm glad for this ruling; it announces that video games have the same protection as any other medium. That is a very important thing. I'm just saying that isn't the end of it as far as attempts to regulate violence and minors goes.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I'm trying to figure out where it is you find "obscenity" not potentially including depictions of violence or gore. Obscenity, even in the legal sense, is anything "morally offensive, repugnant, or disgusting". The definitions vary, but none of them indicate that it is exclusive to sexuality.

The definition of 'obscenity' that is relevant to a First Amendment defense is the one used in constitutional law. Currently, this is what is called the Miller Test. Something is obscene if :"(a)...'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find the work, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,...(b)...the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c)...the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." So yes, the definition of obscenity used by the courts is very specific to content of a sexual nature. It must be sexual in nature and it must spark the prurient interest. By the way, dissenting justices of the Miller Test and obscenity legislation in general have claimed that it might lead to further and unconstitutional limitations on freedom of speech. So here we are, I guess.

This ruling was based on the law in question. The key things they point out:

1. This law was poorly justified. The conclusions of the "research" was poorly supported.
2. This law was too specific in application. Video games, but not Saturday morning cartoons.
3. This law was too vague in definition.

It was also based on broad constitutional realities about what the government is empowered to do to regulate expression. This was not a case of "close, but no cigar" as you seem to be trying to imply. The Supreme Court rejected this type of law in whole and in principle.

The most basic principle- that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573-is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test.

The concurrent opinions illustrate that had this law been structured better, they would have voted for it.

Not exactly. And they would have been wrong if they had, for reasons that are plainly laid out in the majority decision.

A law with better justification, broader application, and a stronger definition, might pass in the future. Granted, that will be a long time away.

Notice that the majority opinion only pointed out that there is no precedent for restricting children's access to depictions of violence.

They also called it "mistaken" and wrote pages detailing exactly why.

This law didn't provide enough to establish such a precedent, but the ruling didn't set a precedent in the opposite, either.

That is exactly what this ruling does. How exactly is it you think precedents are established?

This ruling is good, it does establish "officially" that video games have the same rights as all other speech, regardless of interactivity. It is a good thing and it does invalidate the main problem I had with the proposed law; it was specific to video games. This means any future law like this will need to take on games, music, film, print, everything, as well.

We can both agree that is a good thing.

Legislators are going to get very gun-shy at this point; due to this recent slam and the new guidelines, so we probably won't see anything like this again for a while. The thing is, it will pop up again eventually.

In theory, someone could develop such a law. Well-defined, broad-application, and constitutional. The caveat (to such legislators) is, for such a law to be accomplished, it would hardly be something to be "afraid" of, and might even be a "good" thing. The other thing is it would require an overwhelming amount of evidence to justify setting a precedent for regulating depictions of violence to minors.

Do you know how impossible it is to make something like that hold up in court? Well, Brown vs. EMA makes it seem pretty hard. Do you think it is likely they can produce that type of evidence? I doubt I'll lose a lot of sleep over it. Are violent games going to develop carcinogenic properties or something? Okay, it's completely improbable but technically not impossible, just like it always was before this ruling. Consider that a victory if you want.

In short; it will be a long time before we see a law that tries to regulate video games again. At this point, actually, we will never see a law that tries to regulate video games alone again, it will have to apply to all forms of speech. A law that tries to regulate "violence" in speech, however, is still constitutionally possible. When such a theoretical law is crafted, it will not be the end of the world, either.

I'm glad for this ruling; it announces that video games have the same protection as any other medium. That is a very important thing. I'm just saying that isn't the end of it as far as attempts to regulate violence and minors goes.

You are ludicrously overstating the likelihood of a future law to regulate "violence" in speech being ruled constitutional. It's been attempted a dozen different times, a dozen different ways. It'll be shot down so fast the pilot won't have time to eject. Attempting to pass a law even more broad only makes it more overtly unconstitutional. Do you seriously think the Supreme Court would have taken this case if California had attempted to regulate violent speech across all mediums? The Supreme Court justices wouldn't get past the front page before tossing it in their "special file". The effect of granting First Amendment protections to video games is to prevent the government from regulating them, just like it can't regulate other mediums. You are treating this as if the ruling was some kind of strange inverse of the true ruling. Instead of elevating games to protected status, you somehow seem to interpret this as stripping everything else of First Amendment protections. You are seriously misunderstanding the impact of this ruling.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

I'm trying to figure out where it is you find "obscenity" not potentially including depictions of violence or gore. Obscenity, even in the legal sense, is anything "morally offensive, repugnant, or disgusting". The definitions vary, but none of them indicate that it is exclusive to sexuality.

The definition of 'obscenity' that is relevant to a First Amendment defense is the one used in constitutional law. Currently, this is what is called the Miller Test. Something is obscene if :"(a)...'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find the work, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,...(b)...the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c)...the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." So yes, the definition of obscenity used by the courts is very specific to content of a sexual nature. It must be sexual in nature and it must spark the prurient interest. By the way, dissenting justices of the Miller Test and obscenity legislation in general have claimed that it might lead to further and unconstitutional limitations on freedom of speech. So here we are, I guess.

This ruling was based on the law in question. The key things they point out:

1. This law was poorly justified. The conclusions of the "research" was poorly supported.
2. This law was too specific in application. Video games, but not Saturday morning cartoons.
3. This law was too vague in definition.

It was also based on broad constitutional realities about what the government is empowered to do to regulate expression. This was not a case of "close, but no cigar" as you seem to be trying to imply. The Supreme Court rejected this type of law in whole and in principle.

The most basic principle- that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573-is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test.

The concurrent opinions illustrate that had this law been structured better, they would have voted for it.

Not exactly. And they would have been wrong if they had, for reasons that are plainly laid out in the majority decision.

A law with better justification, broader application, and a stronger definition, might pass in the future. Granted, that will be a long time away.

Notice that the majority opinion only pointed out that there is no precedent for restricting children's access to depictions of violence.

They also called it "mistaken" and wrote pages detailing exactly why.

This law didn't provide enough to establish such a precedent, but the ruling didn't set a precedent in the opposite, either.

That is exactly what this ruling does. How exactly is it you think precedents are established?

This ruling is good, it does establish "officially" that video games have the same rights as all other speech, regardless of interactivity. It is a good thing and it does invalidate the main problem I had with the proposed law; it was specific to video games. This means any future law like this will need to take on games, music, film, print, everything, as well.

We can both agree that is a good thing.

Legislators are going to get very gun-shy at this point; due to this recent slam and the new guidelines, so we probably won't see anything like this again for a while. The thing is, it will pop up again eventually.

In theory, someone could develop such a law. Well-defined, broad-application, and constitutional. The caveat (to such legislators) is, for such a law to be accomplished, it would hardly be something to be "afraid" of, and might even be a "good" thing. The other thing is it would require an overwhelming amount of evidence to justify setting a precedent for regulating depictions of violence to minors.

Do you know how impossible it is to make something like that hold up in court? Well, Brown vs. EMA makes it seem pretty hard. Do you think it is likely they can produce that type of evidence? I doubt I'll lose a lot of sleep over it. Are violent games going to develop carcinogenic properties or something? Okay, it's completely improbable but technically not impossible, just like it always was before this ruling. Consider that a victory if you want.

In short; it will be a long time before we see a law that tries to regulate video games again. At this point, actually, we will never see a law that tries to regulate video games alone again, it will have to apply to all forms of speech. A law that tries to regulate "violence" in speech, however, is still constitutionally possible. When such a theoretical law is crafted, it will not be the end of the world, either.

I'm glad for this ruling; it announces that video games have the same protection as any other medium. That is a very important thing. I'm just saying that isn't the end of it as far as attempts to regulate violence and minors goes.

You are ludicrously overstating the likelihood of a future law to regulate "violence" in speech being ruled constitutional. It's been attempted a dozen different times, a dozen different ways. It'll be shot down so fast the pilot won't have time to eject. Attempting to pass a law even more broad only makes it more overtly unconstitutional. Do you seriously think the Supreme Court would have taken this case if California had attempted to regulate violent speech across all mediums? The Supreme Court justices wouldn't get past the front page before tossing it in their "special file". The effect of granting First Amendment protections to video games is to prevent the government from regulating them, just like it can't regulate other mediums. You are treating this as if the ruling was some kind of strange inverse of the true ruling. Instead of elevating games to protected status, you somehow seem to interpret this as stripping everything else of First Amendment protections. You are seriously misunderstanding the impact of this ruling.

I understand that this ruling elevated games to protected status, or rather simply " officially" acknowledged that they always have been.

My point is that the protection for violence and minors is not absolute. I said that it is possible if justification can be made. I didn't say that such justification exists. I don't believe that it does.

I am also saying that in the hypothetical situation where such justification exists, and the hypothetical "appropriate law" were created, it probably wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Clearly, the risk of that situation is low.

Look, I'm with the majority on this one, but I'm leaning with Alito and Roberts on some of it. Only on the idea that a better defined law could have passed. Unlike Alito, I think games are under the same protection, and unlike the other dissenters, that justification is required.

Here's the thing to keep in mind, one more like Alito & Roberts, or even Thomas and Breyer, and a "better defined" law, and "we" could have "lost" this.

The good news is that justices of that mindset are slowly fading out.

The deal is, you can't just account for the letter of the law. You have to account for the interpretation. The constitution was "amended", we call the first bits the "bill of rights", but even the amendments have been revised or repealed over time. The law itself changes, and the people in charge of enforcing and interpreting it change, all the time.

You can "win" an argument with me, some stupid guy on the internet as far as you care; but the point is there are four justices up there who think less generously on the matter than I do. You can consider them as foolish as you consider me to be, but that doesn't mean you should disregard their opinion, because their opinion makes a difference. It is something to take into account when discussing the future of this ruling.