Passage Summary: A critic argues that we can restrict violent TV without being hypocrites about free speech because the damage from the violence is worse than the damage from the restriction.

Conclusion: It is not inconsistent to support both free speech and legislation that limits violence on television.

Reasoning: The harm caused by violent programming is greater than the harm caused by the resulting decrease in free speech.

Analysis: The critic is using a 'balancing test' to justify their position, weighing the harm of the content against the harm of the restriction. To justify this reasoning, we need a principle that validates this specific trade-off. Look for an answer that states something like: 'It is permissible to limit a right if the harm prevented by the limitation outweighs the harm caused by the limitation itself.' The goal is to find a rule that turns the critic's comparison of harms into a valid reason for action.