I was really impressed by the class mock trial. I learned a lot about media and the first amendment. But I think the biggest thing I took away was viewpoint discrimination.
You would think that most parents would want to protect their kids from the harmful effects of violent media, but I think that the government intervening to assist parent is going to far.
To say you are restricting offensive material is one thing, but the problem, viewpoint discrimination, would create massive conflict. I am an avid Harry Potter fan, but some groups found it offensive enough to burn! Violence in Disney shows is excessive and yet it is aimed toward children. So much of life is a conflict of opinions. And if the government give preferential treatment to one definition of offensive it alienates the rest of the population.
I guess what I am trying to say is I learned that government intervention needs to be carefully regulated. We may need the government to assist in some matters, but only in matters that don't take away our rights to make decisions for ourself about what is good or bad for us or for our children.
Lisa Jean
I agree! After all I've learned about violent media, and particularly violent video games, I would've thought that I would totally support restricting its sale to minors. But looking at it as a purely legal thing, and not just focusing on what opinions I personally had, really made me think. It's true- if we ban that, where do we draw the line?
ReplyDeleteSame here. The real problem is that the demand for this media is high enough to supply it. Restrictions should begin with the parents of the consumers. It is their job to regulate media in the home. Now that morality has become so subjective, it will not works for the government to put objective bans on questionable material.
ReplyDelete