Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
"What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?”
Justice Stephen Breyer*, somehow arguing the opposite of what you’d think this paragraph means.
"What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?”
I could see him take that to argue either way with no clear winner. Which direction was it?
I assume he wanted to ban both sexual content and fictional violence.
According to Wikipedia, that quote is from Justice Stephen Breyer but yeah I got a chuckle out of your comment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association
Yep, my original source got it wrong, confusing the two dissenting opinions