US Television Has Always Been Blamed For Excessive Violence That It Perpetuates Around the World, But Now The Feds Are In With Proposals To Regulate What The Industry Has Failed To Do

Philip M. Stone - April 27, 2007

Moral revulsion has never been enough legally to regulate American TV violence, but the Federal Communications Commission is giving another go at preventing children from seeing what most medical and psychological groups say kids really should not be watching.

The civil libertarians simple answer is for parents to “just say no” and turn the set off   or change the channel. There even are special chips such as the V-chip available in all sets manaufactured since 2000 that allow parents to lock out the bad stuff, but for reasons best known to parents none of that seems to be working.

So, while very few will argue against it being responsible parents who have the primary responsibility to stop children watching at home what they should not, and the FCC in its proposals to Congress makes the very point that parents are the first line of defense, the fact is it seems the FCC is saying in as nice a way as possible that parents basically are not doing the job.

Mind you, the FCC says it’s not all the parents fault -- sometimes programming will contain material the parents didn’t count on, or a seemingly harmless program suddenly shows, for instance, a movie trailer with a lot of violence, and it all slips through.

In the US its difficult to argue against First Amendment free speech protections – the fact is producers have the right to make violent shows – but maybe two proposals the FCC has put on offer to Congress might control who sees that violence (and we won’t even get into here the definition of “violence”.) 

The FCC proposes that violent programming not be shown from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. That leaves eight hours when the kids should be asleep, and so are a lot of adults who have to get up early. There are always the recorders to take care of what is missed. The other proposal is for mandatory ratings based on strict guidelines that are much more severe than the industry voluntarily uses now and on which the FCC says it gets a lot of complaints.

The FCC’s recommendations came because three years ago Congress asked for an examination of whether television violence can make children more violent and aggressive than if they had not been exposed to such viewing. Some statistics that the FCC served up are truly frightening. A television is turned on in the average household for more than eight hours daily, and it is children who do the most watching. By the time they go to their first classroom they have seen more than three years worth of programs.

And have you taken a look at children’s TV programming lately? If you want to see violence just watch some cartoons. And if you really want to get into it how about our favorite Tom and Jerry cartoons? Just how many times does Jerry have to hit Tom over the head, or Tom bangs Jerry with his fist? Is that violence – oops, forgot we weren’t getting into a definition of violence in this piece.

In the UK, the Boomerang Cartoon Network is removing smoking scenes from 1700 cartoons. How about removing the violence scenes, too —once we agree on what violence is? Maybe difficult because once that’s done there may not be much video left to show?

And let’s not forget we are also in the middst of campaigns to protect kids from those unhealthy ads promoting foods high in salt, fats, or sugar and recommendations  A US public-private task force is expected to make recommendations this summer.

Whatever happens with these proposed violence regulations it’s a sure bet nothing is going to occur fast. Back in 1995 the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia said that the First Amendment basically puts an end in most cases to the regulation of violence on television. No matter what Congress passes, that judgement will figure prominently in any appeal.

But Harry T. Edwards, the judge in that 1995 case, had some comments in a law review article that should not be forgotten. “As a father and step-father of four children, the husband of a trial judge in Washington, D.C., who works with the perpetrators and victims of juvenile violence every day, and an Afro-American who has watched the younger generation of his race slaughtered by the blight of violence and drugs in the inner-cities of America, I am disappointed that more regulation of violence is not possible.

“Like many parents of my vintage, I believe, in my gut, that there is no doubt that the trash that our children see as ‘entertainment’ adversely affects their future, either because they mimic what they see or become the potential victims in a society littered with immorality, and too much callous disregard for human life.”

In that article Judge Edwards said he doubted any attempt to force the labeling of violence on any program would be found to be Constitutional, and he thought the best protection would be for legislation requiring V-chip technology which parents can use to lock out programs they don’t believe their children should be watching – again putting the onus on the parents. It was that same chip that Al Gore in 1996 called the ultimate parental weapon against unwanted programming.

That chip, which by law is part of any US TV manufactured since 2000, has not been the great success that everyone hoped, and the FCC says that only 10% of parents actually use of it. The broadcast industry still believes that is the right solution and is in the middle of a $300 million marketing program to educate parents about the chip and other similar technology.

In other words, “Let us produce  shows with violence, and you decide, using the technology available to you, whether you or your kids will watch that show. And let’s keep the government out of this.” 

While various parents groups, medical groups and the like applauded the FCC’s recommendations, the Media Coalition, an association that says it defends the American public's First Amendment right to have access to the broadest possible range of opinion, gave an initial view that sums up what the lawmakers and courts will face.  "The FCC is broadcasting the wrong signal. The courts have consistently found restricting violent content is contrary to the First Amendment.  Contrary to what the FCC has implied in this report, the Supreme Court has made clear that speech is presumed to be protected by the First Amendment unless it falls into one of a few very narrow categories: defamation, incitement, obscenity, and pornography produced with children.  Media with violent themes or depictions, on TV or otherwise, does not fall into any of these categories.”

Which reminds one of that great saying by CBS television pioneer Edward R. Morrow, “Just because you have the right to say it doesn't mean it's the right thing to say." 

Hollywood and protectors of the First Amendment should give some thought to that, too. Simple question for a TV producer to answer. “Do I want my kids or grand kids seeing stuff like this?” If not, they can easily bypass the V-chip; just don’t produce it, or agree it should be shown after what the British call the “watershed” hour of  9 pm when at least the young kids should be tucked up in bed.

The “watershed” is a simple solution, and it works.

Further Complicated: Advertising, Children and Television - ftm Knowledge file for March 2007 - includes 18 articles and is available as a PDF file at no charge to ftm members.

ftm Follow Up & Comments