Justice Thomas on Children's Access to Speech

Today's big albeit largely unsurprising news out of the Supreme Court is that the high court struck down California's law against violent video games. Kotaku's Stephen Totilo has a great summary of highlights from Justice Scalia's majority opinion, Justice Alito's concurrence, and the two dissents by Justices Breyer and Thomas.

The Journal has long been a big fan of Justice Thomas, so I thought it prudent to interrupt our summer sabbatical to comment on Justice Thomas' dissent.  His words have to seem radical to most modern readers:
In my view, the “practices and beliefs held by the Founders” reveal another category of excluded speech: speech to minor children bypassing their parents . . . . It would be absurd to suggest that such a society understood “the freedom of speech” to include a right to speak to minors (or a corresponding right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents.
If nothing else, Justice Thomas remains ideologically consistent, moreso than any other justice can claim to be. That said, as even Justice Scalia points out in the majority, this would allow the state to prevent children from hearing or saying anything absent parental consent. The result "could [make it] criminal to admit persons under 18 to a political rally without their parents’ prior written consent—even a political rally in support of laws against corporal punishment of children, or laws in favor of greater rights for minors."

This sort of result is the necessary byproduct of Justice Thomas' strict originalism and suggests all the more that a slavish reading of the Constitution according to the mindset and worldview of 18th Century WASPs is problematic for the governance of our modern pluralistic society.

What is perhaps more problematic with Justice Thomas' holding is that it seems to strip many constitutional rights from any citizen under the age of majority, and considering our now college-prolonged adolescence, we could rationally raise the age of majority well into one's twenties.  And what would these children be left with other than a constitutional right to vote in an originalist world?