More like Lose-Lose.

This is the activist Supreme Court you're talking about, the one that thinks, contrary to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, that corporations are people.

They'll probably invent some additional corporate power to treat American citizens like serfs, probably involving tattooing bar codes on us to prove age of eligibility to consume video games.

The more violent, the better! Bring on the bloodspray, SCOTUS.

First Amendment >> the rest. Should be an easy decision unless some fine point of the law is written in such a way that it really caught one of them to pay attention. I'm betting they'll just affirm things in a specific way?

How would this law even work with online retailers?
And why single out one medium? Are there similar fines for selling 'objectionable' music? DVDs? Books?

I'm glad that California has such a surplus of funds that they can afford this litigation and the subsequent Vice Squads needed to 'sting' stores.

This is the same Supreme Court which struck the federal law banning depictions of animal cruelty. 8-1! First Amendment issues don't fit in a liberal-conservative analysis. Scalia voted to strike a law banning flag burning.

@4 "I'm glad that California has such a surplus of funds that they can afford this litigation and the subsequent Vice Squads needed to 'sting' stores."

Zing!

Bloooooooodddddddddsprrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy