I mostly agree, but to play devil's advocate a little: It's easy to say this is all correlation not causation, that it is the homes the media is consumed in no

I mostly agree, but to play devil's advocate a little: It's easy to say this is all correlation not causation, that it is the homes the media is consumed in not the media itself. But knowing that, and knowing you have a limited reach into other people's homes, media being the primary interface, what do you do? A kid playing GTA is obviously not going to shoot up his school simply because of GTA, but I'm not sure it's fair to say GTA didn't play any role at all (combined, of course, with a sick mind), and that it wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back. I, too, see that this is a stretch, but it's a possibility (one that conveniently can't be 100% ruled out), and in the minds of those who aim to control the media I think this is the primary motivation. If you're trying to affect change in a "free" society, control of media is pretty much the best place to do it. As for how to respond: it's not "this is an unsolvable problem," though in many ways it is the "last war." The answer is to produce more and better media than the opposition, in this case censorship committees, game ratings boards, etc. That fight never stops, but I think fighting it is part of our responsibility in the whole stewardship of culture thing, regardless of what side you are on.