No it wouldn't. Free speech means everyone has the right to offer their opinion, regardless of political affiliation or where they stand on a particular topic. As a member of the government, he should know this and more importantly, defend it. He might not like what gamers have to say on the subject, but he has no business telling us to basically shut the hell up.

??? You guessed what right?

And that evidence is...?

oh.. which party to make fun of

fixed to clarify.

The evidence actually shows the exact opposite. He is going against the evidence, provides none of his own, and makes a claim. I fail to see why he shouldn't be ignored.

A good place to start would be the amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court case, http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/08-1448_amicus-California-Psychological-Association-et-al..pdf

Yeah, being punched by an obviously violent gamer will really help our case...

at least it might be funny

I don't care about our "case", I don't care about arguing with imbecils who lie just for the sake of getting a few votes, I just wanna see that fucker serving Bloody Marys from his nose. That's all....
Also this.

That's dangerous in America. He might shoot you.

The article linked by OP is slightly inaccurate, so to speak. The purpose of the 2005 bill was not to "ban sales of ultra-violent video games", but to make retailers place M-rated games separately from non-M-rated ones, and to criminalize selling M-rated games to minors. I actually agree with these, please don't punch me in the nose.

Except for the fact that it singles out one medium for Scarlet Lettering while doing fuck-all about other mediums that display just as much, if not more, of the contentious behavior.

The study it cites, and more specifically the person who headed it, is of questionable legitimacy.

In debating these idiots we give them a certain air of legitimacy. The general public don't follow up on whether or not the debate was won or lost (note that Dr. Andersons' previous studies on this issue have been rejected by the courts that considered them) they only ever hear that there was a debate.

He's not really wrong though. His language is annoying, but it's a fair point. Most gamers I see talking about this issue sound just like gun hobbyists: defending their hobby to extremes because they're biased.

Media effects us tremendously. Nothing wrong with examining games' effect on kids and perhaps making it harder for them to play violent ones.

Their purpose might have been sane but their wording made it a bad bill. Those who wrote the stupid thing should be kicked in the butt and thrown out of their jobs for being incompetent.

I'm obviously a violent gamer for suggesting the above. Question is, am I violent because I play games or am I just a violent dude that plays games. And I should also shut the eff up because there's a US senator talking and he knows stuff - "he knows better"(tm). Btw, did the americans show any evidence of those chemical weapons that the Iraqis supposedly had and for which they got their country bombed to crumbles ?

I absolutely agree that there is nothing wrong with examining the situation. In fact, I encourage it because I am certain that it will prove what multiple legitimate studies have already proven: games do not increase actual violence in any measurable or significant way. They do increase aggression in individuals, as does any competitive activity such as sports, but aggression does not automatically equal violent acts.

What I disagree with is that any group, especially a group so intimately involved with the topic at hand, should be excluded from this discussion. Why is Yee's obvious bias about games more valid than gamers' bias?