Re: Re: Who's the baby? . . . The war is real
A little melodramatic? . . . rape death and assault . . . well.
There is no direct link from crappy TV to bloodthirst and turmoil. Millions of people watch this stuff everyday without attacking grandma afterwards. A few sick people may react badly to some of it because they are sick. They grow up in a tough community, or get made fun, or have problems at home, and they are drawn to violence on TV. It can provide a release, sometimes a justification for other things in their life and mind. They either misinterpret a message or take something more seriously than the filmmakers did.
I have no doubt that violence can have a negative effect on people. But only in context of other problems in their life. Without a direct causal relationship between art and violence, any prohibitive legislation would be no different than all other arbitrary censorship. It would be political posturing bound to be shot down in the courts.
Senator Rockefeller was right when he said violence is the issue Congress should be addressing and working to prevent. But Congress has to weigh their role. (Even if their was a direct link), when dealing with criminal activity, you can proscribe free speech or you can prevent that activity. The first is as irrelevant as it is unconstitutional.
Tim O'Keefe
There is no direct link from crappy TV to bloodthirst and turmoil. Millions of people watch this stuff everyday without attacking grandma afterwards. A few sick people may react badly to some of it because they are sick. They grow up in a tough community, or get made fun, or have problems at home, and they are drawn to violence on TV. It can provide a release, sometimes a justification for other things in their life and mind. They either misinterpret a message or take something more seriously than the filmmakers did.
I have no doubt that violence can have a negative effect on people. But only in context of other problems in their life. Without a direct causal relationship between art and violence, any prohibitive legislation would be no different than all other arbitrary censorship. It would be political posturing bound to be shot down in the courts.
Senator Rockefeller was right when he said violence is the issue Congress should be addressing and working to prevent. But Congress has to weigh their role. (Even if their was a direct link), when dealing with criminal activity, you can proscribe free speech or you can prevent that activity. The first is as irrelevant as it is unconstitutional.
Tim O'Keefe
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< E-Liberal Home