I was a Comm troop deployed to an airbase in Pakistan in 2004. While there, the OIC for the Comm flight (Officer in Charge of all communications) thought it would be a brilliant idea to order the "morale" servers shut down. These were essentially just file servers that people had dumped music and movies to as they cycled through, and were pretty much the only access to entertainment we had at a rather isolated base. He was on a kick for going to JAG or IA, and figured shutting down some copyright infringement would be a good point for his transfer and for his oak leaves. What actually happened was even the base commander was pissed, and at a commander's call a couple days later, (aka an official, in uniform, at attention kind of meeting), when he got up to speak, he was booed. Thinking back on it still shocks me to this day. If a single airman ever booed an officer in a commanders call, there'd be UCMJ action, no question. But an entire base of airmen spontaneously and unanimously booed him. It would be akin to the CIO getting booed at a shareholder meeting or press conference, where the board can legally imprison any attendee they care to.

(In the end he stood up and promised a "legal" solution to the problem would be deployed within 24 hours. Myself and my co-server types looked at each other, decided he was talking out of his ass, and just turned the regular servers back on at the appointed time).

The problem with your little scheme is this bit:

"and you can increase the price per unit because you can no longer expect to recoup your losses on game software purchases."

And that's where you hit a problem. Selling something to the government at a higher rate than what you sell it at to the general public, or, really anyone else, is itself illegal, and will get your company into a mess of trouble. You're right that they could argue that it's not the same, bla bla bla, but try getting a jury to agree that the military, aka, the government, aka, the taxpayer, aka THEM, should pay MORE for a version with Fewer features, well, Best of luck with that.

And given that this "version" will have been made specifically for the military, it's going to look an AMAZING amount like them trying to overcharge and and defraud the government. This would be a huge liability for Sony, for little gain, and open a distracting front into a market they've never expressed an interest in aside from a few "Gee whiz, look what our game console can do" PR pieces.

Please note, when doing robotics work, calling any part of your creation "HAL" is usually a mistake...

It's even less scary than you think. They weren't deciding any Due Process issue at all. Don't just read about it. Read the decision. This is not a Due Process decision.
  From the decision:
 

The District Court, accepting two of the respondents'
claims, granted their motion to dismiss. It agreed with
respondents that the Constitution requires proof beyond a
reasonable doubt, id., at 551-559 (citing In re Winship,
397 U. S. 358 (1970)), and it agreed that, in enacting the
statute, Congress exceeded its Article I legislative powers,
507 F. Supp. 2d, at 530-551. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the dismissal on
this latter, legislative-power ground. 551 F. 3d 274, 278-
284 (2009). It did not decide the standard-of-proof question, nor did it address any of respondents' other constitutional challenges. Id., at 276, n. 1.
The Government sought certiorari, and we granted its
request, limited to the question of Congress' authority
under Art. I, 8 of the Constitution.

The question presented is whether the Necessary and
Proper Clause, Art. I, 8, cl. 18, grants Congress authority
sufficient to enact the statute before us. In resolving that
question, we assume, but we do not decide, that other
provisions of the Constitution--such as the Due Process
Clause--do not prohibit civil commitment in these circumstances.
Cf. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346; Addington v. Texas,
441 U. S. 418 (1979). In other words, we assume for argument's
sake that the Federal Constitution would permit
a State to enact this statute, and we ask solely whether
the Federal Government, exercising its enumerated powers,
may enact such a statute as well. On that assumption,
we conclude that the Constitution grants Congress
legislative power sufficient to enact 4248.

So, the issue of due process, as well as a couple other constitutional issues raised were never reached. This is based on the assumption that this is within state power to do. That assumption now needs to be challenged.

The District Court, accepting two of the respondents' claims, granted their motion to dismiss. It agreed with respondents that the Constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, id., at 551-559 (citing In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970)), and it agreed that, in enacting the statute, Congress exceeded its Article I legislative powers, 507 F. Supp. 2d, at 530-551. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the dismissal on this latter, legislative-power ground. 551 F. 3d 274, 278- 284 (2009). It did not decide the standard-of-proof question, nor did it address any of respondents' other constitutional challenges. Id., at 276, n. 1. The Government sought certiorari, and we granted its request, limited to the question of Congress' authority under Art. I, 8 of the Constitution.

So, the issue of due process, as well as a couple other constitutional issues raised were never reached. They need to reengage on these other constitutional challenges.

It serves them right for deleting all that porn. Karma's a bitch!

While jury service is commendable, you sir should be ashamed of what you've done. This guy was put in a no-win situation, one which YOU YOURSELF could someday face. To equate what he did with felony computer tampering puts us all one bad situation away from being felons, damned if we do and damned if we don't. Juries are there to ask the tough questions, to make sure laws squash people who don't deserve it. One quote from the article describes Mr Childs as "egotistical and paranoid". Well, you'd better lock a lot of us up then, because when you hold heightened responsibility and are tasked with guarding that system, that's what you're actions are going to look like.

You state you "felt terrible" about the verdict. If that's true, then you made the wrong decision. And you've made life more dangerous for all network and systems professionals.

"Public school employees are government employees. Therefore they are subject to every restriction that a police officer would be subject to with respect to dealing with citizens."

Unfortunately no. This case among many others... http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Safford_United_School_District
Among other things, the requirements for searches is much lower, no warrant requirements, etc.

"./ ? Where is dot slash?"

It's your present directory, silly!

From the pic on the article, It looks like they did, but my first thought on seeing this was "I hoped they contracted with professionals rather than having in-house employees do this!"

Won't do much good. If high school is anything to go by, being that interested in computers or even history is pretty gay. These are not the type of minds that you can use logic on to good effect.

The case of interest here would be Tinker Vs. Des Moines. Decided by the Supreme Court in 1969, It held that while the school had a compelling interest in curtailing certain rights that would otherwise be unacceptable violations of certain civil liberties, (in this case the first amendment, though the decision seems to apply to others) speech that was non-disruptive to the school environment could not be denied.

It's a complicated decision, and there has been MUCH discussion on exactly how Tinker does and does not apply, but it would seem to blow several of your arguments out of the water. One, that school districts arn't bound by the Constitution, not being "Federal government agencies". They are (Bound, that is, not federal). They get have special dispensation due to the fact that there is a compelling government interest in educating children, and that interest can justify curtailing certain civil liberties, at least as held by this case. But that shows clearly that school districts are held to constitutional tests, and are clearly NOT outside the jurisdictional bounds of the constitution or the federal court system.

Now, just what contributes to disruptive speech, acceptable curtailing of rights, and other issues has been argued fiercely, often in other SCOTUS cases. However, schools are NOT private entities, and cannot censor at will without substantial cause.

We don't have to make a mockery of the legal system. It's doing a fine job all by itself.