Mob calls for head of a man...they're just missing the torches and pitchforks

In San Francisco protestors rage on, demanding a radio station fire talk radio host, Michael Savage, for his off-color and rude remarks about autism. You can read about it here at the San Francisco Chronicle, amongst others.

Instead of taking several approaches, like boycotting the show's sponsors, or heaven forbid, stop listening to the show, they are calling for his head in something that seems more like an angry mob pounding on the door of a ruined tower for the monster to come out.

Personally, I don't agree with the remarks quoted in the various newspapers. I'm not a citizen of California and have never listened to his show. I only have read what the press has quoted him with. He sounds like a very small-minded shock-jockey making his daily wages by exploiting society's perverse interest in crude and offensive personalities. Hell, the common person would also go see the gladiators in a coliseum if it was available.

The point is that as a people we shouldn't be shouting for people to be gagged for saying something that offends someone. If we continue like this, we will not ever be able to speak our minds, because anything spoken at any time could have the potential for hurting someone. Our voices will be neutered and discourse will be dulled by the fear of political correctness.

There are better recourses.

My personal favorite is to turn it off. Don't listen to it. Someone can scream till they are blue in the face, but if they are not given an ear, the message does not go through. People who doggedly listen to someone because they hate the message only give strength to that person (and in the end dollars - sponsors love a good audience). Stop listening and soon the audience will go down, the sponsors will drop out and the man goes away with a puff of smoke and a whisper.

To call for the man's job only makes him more of an interesting prospect for other competitors. Believe me, where ever he will get hired, his audience is assured because they will want to know what he does next. Sponsors will know he will get a good audience and will in the end provide more funding. Every new protest and new politician grabbing for a bit of the limelight in this screaming mob just feeds the thing they hate.

Frankly I don't care what he's saying. I don't even care if he personally thinks that his remarks were valid or if he said them because he knew he would get a rise. All I know is that he's probably got the highest ratings at this point. Good going mob.

New York Censoring Video Games?

According to an Associated Press article, on Tuesday New York Governor David Paterson signed a law that he claims will lead to restrictions on video game violence and increase parental awareness of video game violence and appropriateness.

It's a two-parter (as most censorship laws are) that will first create a "commission" or "authority" to study the effects of violence in video gaming. In this case, it will be an "Advisory Council." The second part of this law will require parental controls on consoles and prominent age ratings on each game by 2010.

This bit of unconstitutional censorship luckily comes with only a small whimper rather than a loud wail like other similar laws. Experts claim that the law itself is so vague that it will hardly be effective, and will most likely be struck down like the others because of its unconstitutionality.

Either way, though...what brings people to think that they need a body of law to judicate what we can see or do? What state believes that they have the ability to restrict one form of media over others? Why not restrict movies or music the same way as video games?

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart stated in his opinion for Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) that, "I know it when I see it..." What you could take away from the case was that obsenity cannot be determined by a general body of law but as a fluid label that can only be determined by smaller, local principalities who can judge the moral tolerance of their own communities.

So what makes New York think that they can decide what is appropriate in the grand landscape of video games? I believe it is the parent's job to know and be aware of what media their child consumes. It's rather lazy to blame a video game for a child's poor mistakes, especially when a parent has all the chances to govern their own household. If you believe your child cannot determine what is right or wrong, perhaps GTA is not for them. However, just blindly buying a game and not even looking if the rating is appropriate for their age group should put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the parent and the parent alone.

Video games are not made solely for young children. The sooner most people understand that, the sooner the censorship of this industry will go the way of the movie industry. Like the movie industry, video games come with their own rating. This new NY law states that it will make age levels more prominent. How much more prominent do they want the T for Teen rating, or the M for Mature rating? So far, the ESRB already has the game industry make sure they feature the ESRB ratings as much and as prominently as possible.

It all goes back to the parents though. Next time you go to the game store and buy that game for your child, take a look at the rating. Is the content appropriate for your child? Perhaps you know nothing about video games...that's okay. Perhaps you don't care about what one game does over another...that's fine. I'm pretty sure though that you care about your child.

As with anything, do your homework. For the sake of your child, read the back, check out the rating, heck, even ask someone in the aisles. Most gamers would be happy to help out a parent trying to choose wisely for their child.

As for this law, it will be pushed back as all the others have but perhaps those with the power to vote should put down their controllers and take a stand for Free Speech and not elect those who wish to take it from you.