I have a lot of homework to do, so I can't really provide the thorough answer that I would like to right now, but I would like to touch on a couple things.
To SE: In regard to the question of religion, I tend to disagree. Yes, there was a lot of religious warfare, the Crusades being a prime example. But, I think that more people have been killed after the popularization of the printing press. I am hesitant to use the Holocaust as an example, because in that case the Jews were more of an ethnic group, but in the Middle East right now, in Ireland there is the Protestants and the Catholics, etc. And I think there is a difference today. The prime reason I said that there would be less killings is that conversions to those religions would be severely hampered. If people do not have access to the religious texts of these religions, it is far less likely for them to join those religions, thereby adding another body, and possibly countless more in later generations, that might later take part in these conflicts.
The problem with this analogy is that you are saying that since you don't wnat to force people to do it, you should have an institutionalized system to do it (we do in fact have that.
No, we don't. We have an institution that forces other people to do it. And that is not better, in fact it is worse, because whereas people can fight against someone like me trying to tell them to do something, you can't fight against our government.
We are helping to remove influences that would push them to a predisposition, thus enabling them to avoid it in the first place.
But SE, you are missing the point I am trying to make. Some people are not seriously affected by these things. Some are. Therefore, I should think that it would follow that these people would have a predisposition to be affected. Something in their person reacts to what they are seeing. And that is going to happen sooner or later anyway. The only way to stop them from being affected would be to take away the thing in their person which would be affected, which would be difficult. In effect, the only person who could achieve that through humane means would be the person themselves.
As a sidenote, I freely admit to being blase. I don't have a whole lot of faith in humanity, and I think that our society is very close to toeing its way over some very dangerous lines.
To Jena:
Both violence and sexuality are slippery paths because they are both of dual natures as has been discussed here. IE: When is violence defensive vs offensive and when is the nude figure art vs porn?
So who should decide? Would you really trust our government to decide that for you?
To Fell: I don't think the government can. I do think that the parents, and, if not the parents, then other people close to the child can. This means grandparents, teachers, and especially friends. Among others, but you get the idea.
To anyone I missed, sorry. If you really want me to answer a question or respond to something, refer me back to it.