The Rights Of Violent Media - 1299 Words

The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Susan Hurley’s idea of changing the protection that violent media receives in light of the first amendment is not justifiable. It begins with a general outline of Hurley’s claim on violent entertainment. It will then focus more closely on the reasons why it is unjustifiable to limit this form of entertainment by showing the importance of free speech in a free society. Lastly, it will question the â€Å"empirical data† that Hurley uses to defend her claim. Hurley claims that violent entertainment causes violent behavior that harms third parties and should therefore involve stricter exposure regulations. This claim tackles the controversial question of how much authority are citizens giving to their†¦show more content†¦Hurley’s point on imitation is to showcase the power that mere exposure can have on a person. Secondly, Hurley addresses the empirical data that supports her above claim. She believes that academics have efficiently addressed any questions regarding causation verse correlation. She states with a confident tone the direct causation of exposure to violent images and violent behaviors. According to her gathered research, â€Å"over 1000 studies point overwhelmingly to a casual causation between media violence and aggressive behaviors in some children† (pg. 177). She combines that with the tendency of humans to imitate to furthermore back up her claim, â€Å"human beings have a distinctly strong tendency to full-fledged imitation of intentional behavior, including novel means as well as novel goals† (pg.183). Her point was to demonstrate the raw evidence that supports her claim. Finally, she talks about the freedom of speech with regards to the evidence stated. According to political philosopher John Stuart Mill, it is the government’s obligation to protect its citizens from preventable harm. Hurley explains, â€Å"prevention of such harm to third parties provides a strong reason (or â€Å"compelling interest†) for liberal government to interfere with violent entertainment† (pg. 189). Hurley suggests re-evaluating the current value that society gives