Rou

Phyllis Schlafly doesn't like the first amendment. More precisely, she doesn't respect it. She wants to redefine it so that she can silence those things she doesn't understand or agree with. It's a common position, sadly enough. So many people think that free speech means they get to say what they want, and no body else should be granted those same rights.

Her target: video games.

Extremely violent video games have become the dangerous obsession of a significant portion of our youth, and several towns and states have passed ordinances intended to prevent minors from buying or viewing them. But judicial supremacists are striking down these laws by claiming this extremely graphic violence deserves the same First Amendment protection as Shakespeare

My eye is immediately drawn to certain things. First, Shakespeare was very graphic if you actually read what he said. Second, yes, they are both protected by the First. And third, 'supremacist' is a strange word choice. I'm not sure if it means what she thinks it means.

She continues and attempts to redefine speech to fit her needs:

Legitimate free speech expresses violence in a rational context, rather than displaying it graphically to evoke an immediate emotional reaction. It is not a First Amendment right to cause panic on an airplane by shouting that someone has a bomb; nor is it legitimate free speech to evoke violent reactions in children through graphic video game

Yes, shouting "Bomb" Or "Fire" isn't free speech. However, she fails to demonstrate how video games equate to this. Without that, it's nothing more than a straw man. Set it up and knock it down as many times as you like, the two are not obviously linked, so it doesn't work. There has NEVER been a single properly formated study that demonstrated a causal link between video games and violent behavior. Never. Not once. Correlation, some. But that's not the same thing.

Further, I find "displaying it graphically to evoke an immediate emotional reaction" to be a highly disturbing concept if it were ever applied legally. Saving Private Ryan, the Matrix, and Saw would all be legislated under it. Hell, damn near every movie strives to evoke emotion. Games do the same thing for the same reason, unless you're discussing Tetris or Bejeweled.

Seriously, when was the last action movie that expressed the violent content in a rational manner? Why would we hold movies up to a different standard? Sometimes I wonder if dumb shits like Phyllis Schlafly realize that a 5 year old is legally allowed to purchase a R rated movie. There are corporate policies against it, not legislative ones. Why should games be different?

So, Phyllis Schlafly, please, next time you want to discuss things rationally, I suggest you sit down and think really hard about what the freedom of speech really means. Speech doesn't just mean Hello Kitty and Danielle Steele and Shakespeare. It's not just Pride and Prejudice, the GodFather, and Citizen Kane. Not just the statue of David and the Mona Lisa. Not just flag waving and PTA petitions. It's also racism, anger, hate, sex, and violence. Grand Theft Auto 3, flag burning, and Debbie Does Dallas. The KKK, the Nation of Islam, and Westboro Baptist Church. You can not have one side of the coin without the other.

I'm sorry if you don't want your precious little snowflake to be exposed to it. As a parent, that is your prerogative and responsibility. You have ample methods at your disposal to restrict their access. If you choose not to avail yourself, that is entirely your fault. Before you strike out and act as if the world is full of 'supremacists' who don't agree with you, I suggest you take a deep breath and realize that you're not always right, and even if you were, the world is better because people are allowed to disagree with you.

Free speech is what it is. You're not allowed to redefine it just to fit your narrow minded agenda.