Because of my illness I am a little behind on my current events.

I would like someone to tell me exactly how someone can take the position of defending the decision to publish the Mohammed cartoons by the Dutch newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, and also take the position that video games need to be regulated/banned by the government.

I know, that seems hyperbolic, but hear me out.

The Dutch editor has been criticized for publishing the cartoons even though “he must have known what the response would be”. I have heard this argument over and over, “of course they are free to publish them, but they should not have”. It seems this argument only applies to things that offend other religions. If something offends YOUR religion or beliefs, it is a completely different matter. Freedom of Speech doesn’t apply to people the offend YOU.
Publishing the cartoons would likely incite violence, which is granted. The argument for banning violent games is that publishing them might incite violence. What exactly is the difference? If anyone were to ask me, the argument for censoring the Dutch is based on a stronger case then the case for censoring video games, and yet in both cases the right to free speech demands no censorship happens in either case.

I don’t believe that violent games turns kids into killers for a second The game censorship fans have no evidence to back up that claim. On the other hand, anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together and is paying attention could have predicted that publishing those cartoons would eventually lead to violence. Yes, I know the cartoons are not new, but the ammunition was there, all the jihadi Imams had to do was strike the match.

I still see people defending the rights of the Dutch newspaper while calling for censorship of video games. People that I read and admire among them.

Am I nuts?