RIP Justice Scalia. Didn't agree with him on * many things but he seemed like a relatively principled judge, as far as they go.
(edit: Actually, can't think of too "many" things off the top of my head where I fully disagreed with him. I did enjoy reading his written rulings)
In the coming days, it'll be interesting to see retrospectives on how Justice Scalia ruled on such issues as tech privacy and censorship. For example, in Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion which said that "video games qualify for First Amendment protection"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan...
edit: More context on the ruling if you don't feel like clicking through: The 7-2 opinion struck down a California law that banned the sales of video games to minors, which had been signed into law by (of all the ironies), Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Basically, the court saw video games as art:
> Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.
As described by Wikipedia:
> Scalia's decision also stated that the current self-moderated industry standards like the ESRB are operated effectively to regulate the sale of more mature games to minors, and that "filling the remaining modest gap in concerned-parents' control can hardly be a compelling state interest" requiring a law to enforce.
The two dissents were Justice Breyer (considered a liberal justice) and Justice Thomas, who is seen just as much of the conservative base as Scalia is. According to Wikipedia:
> Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer dissented, each authoring a separate dissent. Justice Thomas, in his dissent, considered that historically, the Founding Fathers "believed parents to have complete authority over their minor children and expected parents to direct the development of those children," and that the intent of the First Amendment "does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians."
Justice Alito and Roberts, the 2 other conservative members of the court, concurred with Scalia's opinion, but had reservations about being too lax in regulating the content of video games:
> "There are reasons to suspect that the experience of playing violent video games just might be very different from reading a book, listening to the radio, or watching a movie or a television show," referencing the book Infinite Reality which highlights the psychological effects of virtual reality, and argued that the decision "would not squelch legislative efforts to deal with what is perceived by some to be a significant and developing social problem.