I am writing in response to letters written by both Tyler Britten and Ross Merinski in Monday's Collegian concerning Grammy-nominated recording artist Eminem.

Both Tyler and Ross vehemently defended Eminem and his First Amendment rights in their response to Tim Swift's column concerning the rapper's release, The Marshall Mathers LP. While I share Tyler and Ross's position on Eminem's right to free speech, I do not believe that is the issue.

Eminem's lyrics are unambiguously vile, repugnant and contemptible by just about anybody's standards.

Nonetheless, in some sectors of society his music is considered artistic and should always be protected under the First Amendment.

However, what isn't protected under the First Amendment is his right to market his album to children, which is what I believe he has done since he gained national exposure.

Astutely aware that while making public appearances on MTV before 10 p.m., doing interviews for youth-oriented magazines (for example, Rolling Stone), and writing "made-for-television" lyrics for singles like "The Real Slim Shady," Eminem knowingly encourages consumers under 18 to buy his music.

After all, what other motivation would he have for appearing on Total Request Live, a show that is extremely popular with teenagers not nearly of age to hear his hateful music?

Ross Merinsky asserted that "People are too worried about how artists have an influence on violence." With conclusive facts and research on my side, I absolutely worry about how an artist like Eminem could impact his audience when his listeners are under 18.