"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