[strlen]

> especially gaming

Experiment: go to the range, find 10 men or women under the age of ~35 with AR-15s. Ask if they play first person shooters. Pretty sure over 75% will say "yes."

I am not an FPS person myself -- I like nethack and freeciv -- but aside from the fact that even violent video games are unambiguously protected by the first amendment, the demographics just can't be ignored.

[hga]

I would modify the above to:

"but aside from the fact that even violent video games are unambiguously protected by current first amendment jurisprudence"

You wouldn't have to go too far back for your original statement to be iffy or downright false; that said, I don't see this changing in the foreseeable future, but then again the Supremes are never entirely predictable.

[strlen]

7-2 decision seems fairly solid to me. Breyer is being... Breyer (whose judicial philosophy seems to be more of "that's just like your opinion, man..."), and I would say Thomas' dissent is more focused on "in loco parentis" role of the state (in line with his other decisions involving minors) -- which I haven't really noticed amongst other prominent jurists (given Thomas is generally very solid on 1A).

The law overturned in Brown [originally -- in irony of all ironies -- Schwarzenegger] vs. Entertainment Merchants Association was created by a fellow who is currently better known for gems like these:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb...

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...