So, I signed in not that long ago to submit this as news:

In a 7 to 2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected California's law on selling or renting "violent" video games to minors. The law which was created in 2005 defined violent video games as ones that show "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Such games were judged to be protected by the First Amendment which guarantees an American citizen's right to freedom of expression.

The Entertainment Software Asociation's President and CEO Michael D. Gallagher was quoted as saying "The Court declared forcefully that content-based restrictions on games are unconstitutional; and that parents, not government bureaucrats, have the right to decide what is appropriate for their children."

...only to find that ace reporter SomeGuy scooped me, haha.

Oh yeah, concerning that other news article I linked to the last post (the slippery slope of surveillance), don't expect any of my thoughts on it anytime soon. To say the least, things have gotten more complicated. If I had known back then that today I'd be reading a 2 volume study from Britain's House of Lords on surveillance, I'd not have been so calm to say I would "add some thoughts on it [in] the coming days." Ah well, at least I'm brushing up on my Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that's not a bad thing at all.