"In the 2000 presidential race, democratic candidate Al Gore, his running mate Joseph Lieberman, and several other politicians called for legislation to regulate the advertising of violent entertainment. No such legislation passed, which is fortunate because it would have dealt a serious blow to free speech. There is no solid evidence that violent entertainment causes violence, so government censorship of material is not justified. Censoring violent entertainment simply because it is unpopular would set a dangerous precedent that would threaten speech about other politically sensitive issues, such as abortion or homosexuality."




I disagree that the passing of a law for censoring violence would cause a "serious blow for free speech." I believe that movies and television would be the same without it; at least you can go to a certain extent, but all the gore and gutting of people or showing someone getting their brains blown out, that's not really necessary. You can convert scenes with your imagination; having to see the actual damage, yeah it's "awesome", but it's also disturbing. Violent entertainment is shown all around the world, and children are watching it, which is partly they're parents fault for allowing them to, but they don't need to watch shows that are practically promoting that "some" violence is okay. For instance payback; killing in return because someone you loved was killed. Children and youth believe that it's okay to do that. The media should have certain limits on the quantity of violence they put on television and in movies.