For our debate we are not proposing that we completely revoke all rights, we are merely advocating that we limit the channels and mediums in which we do things. It won't kill us to make limits, but it might if we don't. That is why it is JUSTIFIABLE to limit adult's freedom of expression--it is in our, society's, best interests to protect the children. Lional Tate is just one example of a child gone bad because of the media. Tate mimicked his idol the Rock, killing a six-year old girl by smashing her skull, pulverizing her liver, breaking her ribs and causing numerous cuts and bruises. If that's not enough of an example what about the teen from New Jersey who simply listened to Ozzy Osborne's "Suicide Solution" and killed himself? These are not random occurrences, we hear about them on the news frequently. If our freedom of expression is harming kids why can't we fix the problem by not allowing them access to it?.
Argument one, People, especially children are very susceptible to being influenced by what they watch or see happen throughout their lives.
"Monkey see, Monkey do". Everyone has heard this phrase sometime in his or her life. This phrase is simple, yet very applicable to today's debate. When a child sees someone or something doing something. They will of course follow suit and imitate the action being performed. Children do not know any better. Therefore they are innocent and deserve to be respected. It is for these following reasons that we argue for the censorship of harmful materials that could influence a child or children into violent acts, expressions, and other dangerous actions. Through television, video games, and movies, children and teens view countless acts of violence, brutality, and terror as part of entertainment. They become conditioned to associating violence with entertainment. First-person shooter video games develop our children's skills in operating weapons. The games reward marksmanship, and further reinforce the association of killing with entertainment.