Get rid of government censorship of TV and Radio

My opponent clearly stated in the OP that "I believe that government censorship should be done away with in the United States." That is clearly an absolute statement, and since we are talking about TV and Radio, it is an absolute statement of censorship on those. I presented three examples of government censorship in those mediums, which have gone unrefuted. As for my opponent's case, he has yet to provide any logically reason for why it is the parent's responsibility and not the government, or at least not a shared responsibility. Nor moral frame work, nothing. Since none will be presented until the final round, if at all, the moral frame work of different entities' responsibilities will be up for debate and challengeable. Typically the limiting of debates, after such an absolute claim, is not accepted. A common example is when someone debates "Abortion should not be allowed" and then later tries to argue that they only meant in certain circumstances. But, in the spirit of debate, I will accept the limit and argue that government should be allowed to censor TV, Radio, Games, and other forms of entertainment for explicit material as well. Children within a society are partially the responsibility of that society. This is because they often attend public schools, use various public resources (libraries, parks, tax credits, etc), and if they get into trouble, they can become a burden on society (damage public property, use resources of public jails, etc). Since they can become a potential burden on society, it is in society's best interest that the risk of burden is minimized. Ideally, this responsibility should fall on the parents, however, should the parents fail in their responsibility, it is better for society to pick up the slack, then to allow that risk to cause harm. Since the government is charged with protecting our society and its interests, this responsibility falls to the government. Now that it has been identified that the government holds some degree of responsibility, we have moral justification for government actions. All that is left is to show logical evidence for censorship. A meta-study from 2007 noted that violent video games correlated to increased risk factors for aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, lower school performance, more likely to engage in fights, etc [1]. The same study also pointed out various studies that showed the same correlation to the watching of violent movies and TV shows. Another study from 2001 showed that parents are unaware of the actual levels of violence in many games and movies/tv shows [2]. The jump from correlation to causation must be done logically. As pointed out in 2004 meta-study (which compiled studies from 1993-2004) [3], violent individuals are often the "good guys" in many video games and movies, thus providing a positive image to children that "violence is a good way to get what you want." In regards to sexual images to young ages (mostly boys), they tend to reinforce the natural urge of sex and more often than not, hide the negative effects (STDs, pregnancy, ruined relationships, etc) [4]. Since certain content within video games, TV, movies, (all forms of media entertainment really, the medium does not really matter) can have negative effects on younger children, and since the government, acting for society, has a partial responsibility to protecting and preventing certain negative effects that increase the harm to society, they have a moral obligation to censor these to some degree, to minimize these risks, while allowing as much freedom to the parents as morally permissible e.g. there is a fine balance. The Resolution is refuted (again, under tighter rules). Thank you, [1] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu... [2] http://www.childrennow.org... [3] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu... [4] http://www.media-awareness.ca...