Get rid of government censorship of TV and Radio

My opponent restates, "this is something that falls under personal and parental responsibility," and "It's not the government's job," however, he has provided no ethical framework for why it isn't the government's job and why it is the parent's job. He has assigned responsibility to a group of people for no reason. And since no reasoning was given, there is no logical reason to accept it and it can be dismissed. Next time, if he feels that it is the parent's responsibility, he should state WHY it is their responsibility. We should also note, that at no point did he challenge my reasoning for why the government has a partial responsibility. Namely that these kids can become potential risks to society and so that risk should be minimized as government is charged by society to take care and protect of society (we often prefer to have government protect the rights of society, but that falls under the same umbrella). Since my ethical frame work was not even challenged, it is to be accepted as far as this debate is concerned. Now, let's move on to my opponent's arguments. I will be very generous and fill in the many aspects that his argument was assuming (but forgot to say) as well as accept his appeal to authority fallacy. He said that the supreme court ruled that video games are protected free speech, and implied that the protection of free speech is more important than the protection of society. However, this is not what the supreme court said. Let us actually take a look. The supreme court was only looking at whether the state could legally stop violent video games from being sold to kids. They were not looking at the right of censorship on the whole. Summarizing the both the concurring and dissenting opinions, "the issue may need to be re-examined in future case law, considering the disparate community standards treatment of violence compared to pornography, and the changing nature of video games with continually improving technology. " The supreme court has many time held that free speech is not unlimited. Most evidently and historically in Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire [1] and later, in a more appropriate to this debate, U. S. vs Thomas [2], that obscenities are not protected under the 1st amendment. This clearly points that there is a balance that must be respected, as such, should video games cross that line (which the supreme court already acknowledged exists), then the censorship of them is acceptable by the supreme court (commonly held in cases of pornographic images). We can see that this is clearly evident in our modern day law, it is illegal to sell porn to minors. California was basically trying to get violent video games into that same bucket, that only adults can purchase them. But the supreme court ruled, not that nothing is allowed to violate free speech, but that violence wasn't past the threshold to legally be placed there. This actually confirms my side, as the supreme court acknowledges that there is a line of where government censorship is allowed. My opponent also attempts to say that the studies don't hold up in court, however the court was not ruling on the accuracy or legitimacy of the studies (since they cannot logically deny the links), but merely that even with the link of childhood violence to violent video games, it doesn't cross the needed threshold. So, in conclusion, the supreme court has acknowledged that there is a line where government censorship is allowed, which completely removes any and all arguments made by my opponent. No refutations to any of my examples have been made. And no counter ethical frame work for what is the government's responsibility has been made. I thank my opponent for this debate, and if he continues to choose to leave DDO for our overly oppressive censorship, I wish him the best where ever he chooses to go. [1] . http://www.bc.edu... [2] . http://www.netlitigation.com...