What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively but virtually binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her? …It's Scilia who is really sick.
What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only if the woman — bound, gagged, tortured and killed — is also topless?
So what if children’s active minds are engaged in decisions in which people are dismembered, decapitated, disemboweled, set on fire and chopped into little pieces.Apparently it's ok as long as certain parts of their bodies are covered.
I tend not to favor restricting speech, but if it is to be restricted it makes no sense, as Egan put it, that "children should be free to slice a clothed Godiva to bits — on screen — but should be shielded from seeing her as she was when she rode through the streets of Coventry."