The New York Puke, err Times

The New York Times shows again why it’s not even worth of being on the bottom of a bird cage.

On May 6, 2010 it was very supportive of "Free Expression", saying California cannot regulate video games.

But video games are a form of free expression. Many have elaborate plots and characters, often drawn from fiction or history. The California law is a content-based restriction, something that is presumed invalid under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made it clear that minors have First Amendment rights....California lawmakers may have been right when they decided that video games in which players kill and maim are not the most socially beneficial form of expression. The Constitution, however, does not require speech to be ideal for it to be protected

But where was the idea of “The Constitution, however, does not require speech to be ideal for it to be protected” in January

With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.

Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.

As a result of Thursday’s ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.

Gee, are the leftist of the NY Times showing typical liberal hypocrisy…free speech for people and groups I like, not for others. They seem to have issues with regulation of commerce inside of the state (something that is in a legislature’s authority) but none with abusing political speech, the thing the First Amendment was designed to protect.