Anita Sarkessian states that video games change every men’s mindset towards women. They become more violent and disrespectful when it comes to females. However, many people argue with her stating that not all video games involve harsh environments. In response, Anita Sarkessian pro-claims that top selling video games, in general, have the history of promoting violence and harassment towards women (Stermer). Even tough, some people agree with Anita Sarkessian, many anti-feminist and gamers disagree with …show more content…
In Sarkeesian’s case, she only stated her opinion on how women are threated in video games. The first Amendment allows the public the right to speech out, but accusing someone or bulling them violates the law (Mantilla). In Sarkeesian’s speeches, she informs the public about her opinion and does not point out any person in particular. Thus, she is not violating the First Amendment. “According to the first amendment, she does not break any form of speech …” (Mantilla). The constitution allows her to continue her campaign, and state her beliefs. However, her followers have crossed some borders when it comes to freedom of speech (Mantilla). They accused many YouTubers for stating their opinion on the Feminist Frequency (Kondrat). In essence, Sarkeesian does not violate any law; therefore, her follower’s actions does not interfere with her. Furthermore, the threats she has received have been under investigation, because the First Amendment does not protect cyberbullying. A person should not be scared to inform the public about his or her opinion. Overall, vigorous criticism only becomes cyberbullying or go against the constitution, if the other party is harassed or his or her life is in danger (Black). Furthermore, Sarkeesian campaign spreads negativity and the topic is over-hyped in my