Monday, June 27, 2011

Supreme court says violent video games OK for children

Apparently, it is OK for American children to purchase and play violent video games, because the Supreme Court just said it is protected free speech.

How odd that it is OK for children to be exposed to violent content, but not nudity. As if a 16-year old purchasing a copy of Playboy was worse than him playing a video game in which he can virtually decapitate or dismember other human beings.

In your mind, which one is worse for young people?

Which type of media content is less harmful to children and teenagers? Nudity or violence?

Or are both harmful?

Or are both harmless?

If violent content is constitutionally protected free speech, isn't nudity also free speech?

Why are Americans so addicted to graphic violence, but repulsed by titties?*

Is it hypocrisy?

*Apologies to those who find this word offensive. Get a life.


  1. Similarly amusing is that the same people who would pay to see a boxing match would likely gross out if the same boxers kissed each other.

  2. When in fact, that might actually be a safer activity than giving each other concussions.