Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaioshin Sama
e: Whoops! Apparently Thomas couldn't actually bring himself to agree with Scalia on this one, resulting in an extremely rare divergence of opinion for the two. He's one of two dissenting opinions. Wow! His whole first amendment doesn't apply to children ruling is fairly scary in and of itself (not so much the lack of right to speak to minors argument so much as the right of minors to access speech one) though and opens a whole new can of worms regarding the guy and his bizzaro ideas of justice. I can't say I agree with the whole argument that parents should have absolute authority over their kids entire lives until they are of age because that's the way it was in pre-revolutionary war times either. I don't think it's possible to have any more ultra-conservative (approaching on absurd) logic than that.
|
I think the idea is that Minors do not have free speach rights, but also that minors do not have the responsibilities that go with it. Minors are not treated as full adults by the law.
Likewise parents have full responsibility for their children. Children are not legally responsible for their own actions. Likewise if a child destroys another person's property, it is their parents(or their supervisor at the time) liability. This implies that parents have to maintain some level of control over their kids.