FCC decides it can start censoring violence on TV as well
#1
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FCC decides it can start censoring violence on TV as well
Can I just go ahead and give up now?
WASHINGTON — Congress could regulate violence on cable, satellite and broadcast television without violating the First Amendment, the Federal Communications Commission said in a report released Wednesday.
The report, which had been requested by Congress, contains suggestions for action by lawmakers, but it stops short of making specific recommendations.
A correlation exists between bloodshed on television and violence in real life, the commission said.
Concluding that "exposure to violent programming can be harmful to children," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wrote in a statement accompanying the report that "Congress could provide parents more tools to limit their children's exposure to violent programming in a constitutional way."
Among those tools, Congress could require cable companies to sell their programming on a per-channel or family tier basis, rather than only in pre-bundled packages.
As for broadcast television, the report cites Supreme Court precedent to suggest the agency could regulate violent programming much as it regulates sexual content and profanity — by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching. Or it could create a family-viewing hour.
It also says that technology intended to help parents shield their children from objectionable programming, such as the V-chip, is inadequate.
The report indicates that Congress could develop a definition of excessively violent programming but that such language "needs to be narrowly tailored in conformance with judicial precedent."
Martin has been joined in his push for cleaning up the airwaves by Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps, who wrote: "It is not an easy challenge to develop rules that pass constitutional muster, but given what amounts to a public health crisis at hand, I believe it is a challenge that must be met."
Word of the report, which has been circulating around the agency for months, has alarmed executives in the broadcast and cable industries as well as the American Civil Liberties Union.
Their concern is how the agency would define violent programming and what would qualify for sanction — for example, how violent news programming would be treated. Martin suggested Wednesday there may be a special exception for news, saying the context and content of the message should be considered.
The ACLU had harsh words for the report, calling the FCC's recommendations "political pandering," in a statement attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, the organization's director of its legislative office in Washington.
"There are some things the government does well, but deciding what is aired and when on television is not one of them," she said.
Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, while approving the report in part and concurring in part, said he was disappointed with it because of a lack of clarity.
"We punted to Congress the difficult questions that Congress asked us to answer," he said, such as coming up with a definition for excessively violent programming.
The report was requested by a bipartisan group of 39 House members nearly three years ago and is well past its Jan. 1, 2005, due date.
The lawmakers asked whether the FCC could define "exceedingly violent programming that is harmful to children." It also asked whether the agency could regulate such programming "in a constitutional manner."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said he will file legislation that may incorporate some of the commission's recommendations.
The report, which had been requested by Congress, contains suggestions for action by lawmakers, but it stops short of making specific recommendations.
A correlation exists between bloodshed on television and violence in real life, the commission said.
Concluding that "exposure to violent programming can be harmful to children," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wrote in a statement accompanying the report that "Congress could provide parents more tools to limit their children's exposure to violent programming in a constitutional way."
Among those tools, Congress could require cable companies to sell their programming on a per-channel or family tier basis, rather than only in pre-bundled packages.
As for broadcast television, the report cites Supreme Court precedent to suggest the agency could regulate violent programming much as it regulates sexual content and profanity — by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching. Or it could create a family-viewing hour.
It also says that technology intended to help parents shield their children from objectionable programming, such as the V-chip, is inadequate.
The report indicates that Congress could develop a definition of excessively violent programming but that such language "needs to be narrowly tailored in conformance with judicial precedent."
Martin has been joined in his push for cleaning up the airwaves by Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps, who wrote: "It is not an easy challenge to develop rules that pass constitutional muster, but given what amounts to a public health crisis at hand, I believe it is a challenge that must be met."
Word of the report, which has been circulating around the agency for months, has alarmed executives in the broadcast and cable industries as well as the American Civil Liberties Union.
Their concern is how the agency would define violent programming and what would qualify for sanction — for example, how violent news programming would be treated. Martin suggested Wednesday there may be a special exception for news, saying the context and content of the message should be considered.
The ACLU had harsh words for the report, calling the FCC's recommendations "political pandering," in a statement attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, the organization's director of its legislative office in Washington.
"There are some things the government does well, but deciding what is aired and when on television is not one of them," she said.
Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, while approving the report in part and concurring in part, said he was disappointed with it because of a lack of clarity.
"We punted to Congress the difficult questions that Congress asked us to answer," he said, such as coming up with a definition for excessively violent programming.
The report was requested by a bipartisan group of 39 House members nearly three years ago and is well past its Jan. 1, 2005, due date.
The lawmakers asked whether the FCC could define "exceedingly violent programming that is harmful to children." It also asked whether the agency could regulate such programming "in a constitutional manner."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said he will file legislation that may incorporate some of the commission's recommendations.
#6
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sesame Street (the apt. next to Bob's)
Posts: 20,195
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
exposure to violent programming can be harmful to children
#8
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
I do believe a certain amount of exposure to certain content does cause, or increase the risk of, certain behaviors; this risk goes up as either exposure increases, exposure to countering influences decreases, and/or the age of the audience is lower (Watch any six year old kid after he watches Power Rangers or something); however, I don't think limited exposure necessarily does permanent 'damage' or causes permanent change.
That said, I think tools already exist for parents--who are involved--to use...Between program listings, internet reviews, ratings, DVRs, on-demand, and shows on dvd, there is no excuse for the average parent to not be at least somewhat aware of what his kids are watching (again, assuming a certain level of interest/involvement.) And if the parent is not involved at all, virtually nothing short of nanny-state child raising will help.
I wouldn't mind slightly more flexible tiers in cable programming, but going to pure a la carte means we'd probably get stuck with 23 American "Reality" Networks and four Doctor channels.
I think news networks are one of the worst offenders--I saw one time where CNN ran the same thirty second clip of cops shooting a fleeing felon at least seven times in fifteen minutes. It wasn't as graphic as a slasher movie, but it wasn't something I wanted my child seeing, especially repeatedly.
Though they're on cable, if the All Knowing Government were to do something like this, I wish they'd start with some of the sexually demeaning and offensive 'music' played on the music networks.
Ultimately, though, I think if they add anything, it should only be a regulation penalizing/fining a network or a program for willfully misrepresenting their ratings; I believe in much less government intervention, but one think i would support is 'truth in advertising' enforced by law (reactively).
That said, I think tools already exist for parents--who are involved--to use...Between program listings, internet reviews, ratings, DVRs, on-demand, and shows on dvd, there is no excuse for the average parent to not be at least somewhat aware of what his kids are watching (again, assuming a certain level of interest/involvement.) And if the parent is not involved at all, virtually nothing short of nanny-state child raising will help.
I wouldn't mind slightly more flexible tiers in cable programming, but going to pure a la carte means we'd probably get stuck with 23 American "Reality" Networks and four Doctor channels.
I think news networks are one of the worst offenders--I saw one time where CNN ran the same thirty second clip of cops shooting a fleeing felon at least seven times in fifteen minutes. It wasn't as graphic as a slasher movie, but it wasn't something I wanted my child seeing, especially repeatedly.
Though they're on cable, if the All Knowing Government were to do something like this, I wish they'd start with some of the sexually demeaning and offensive 'music' played on the music networks.
Ultimately, though, I think if they add anything, it should only be a regulation penalizing/fining a network or a program for willfully misrepresenting their ratings; I believe in much less government intervention, but one think i would support is 'truth in advertising' enforced by law (reactively).
#9
Originally Posted by ChrisHicks
exposure to irresponsible parenting is much more harmful.
#11
DVD Talk God
I hate seeing BS stories like this about the FCC. Does the FCC want Reading Rainbow and Sesame Street in Prime Time or something? Jesus Christ!!!
It's all about those lazy ass parents who need to find a scape goat for their bad parenting skills. Apparently clear disclaimers on Violence and TV ratings just aren't enough.
It's all about those lazy ass parents who need to find a scape goat for their bad parenting skills. Apparently clear disclaimers on Violence and TV ratings just aren't enough.
#12
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: MN -> TX -> SoCal
Posts: 1,592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ACLU had harsh words for the report, calling the FCC's recommendations "political pandering,"
The report was requested ... nearly three years ago and is well past its Jan. 1, 2005, due date.
#13
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought this is what the ratings were for. What the hell is wrong with using the V-chip for limiting this stuff.
The FCC must really want internet distributed content / IPTV to take off. The more Disneyfied network primetime becomes, the more people will look elsewhere for decent entertainment.
The FCC must really want internet distributed content / IPTV to take off. The more Disneyfied network primetime becomes, the more people will look elsewhere for decent entertainment.
#14
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
"exposure to violent programming can be harmful to children,"
We are indeed taking a step back in the world. Remember when people were rasist on TV? what happened to that?
Hell a show like the Jeffersons would be off the air in a week.
I say violence isn't the problem on TV, how about the sex? Christ thats all Greys Anatomy previews show. Whos havin' sex tonight?-Who cares?
So much for a free country. Pretty soon all that will be on TV is fluffy cloud shows. I work for a living and i have the right to enjoy whatever the fuck i want, If i want some violence in a TV show i want to see it. These Damn Kids don't even watch most primetime tv shows because there to fucking stupid to understand it.
Why ban something they don't even fucking watch?
Sorry for all the rudeness but christ stuff like this is really pissing me off. Blame the parents and stop banning everything.
#15
"regulate violent programming much as it regulates sexual content and profanity — by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching. Or it could create a family-viewing hour."
I dont see anything wrong with that.
I find violence to be more offensive than sex.
I dont see anything wrong with that.
I find violence to be more offensive than sex.
#16
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by wearetheborg
"regulate violent programming much as it regulates sexual content and profanity — by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching. Or it could create a family-viewing hour."
I dont see anything wrong with that.
I find violence to be more offensive than sex.
I dont see anything wrong with that.
I find violence to be more offensive than sex.
Isn't 3pm to 5pm already family programming? And 5pm through 8pm is safe as well if you avoid the news. How many more hours of tv do you have to dedicate to minors? And while you may find violence more offensive then sex I may find sex more offensive then violence or I might not find either offensive. At what point is it up to the parents to monitor what there kids watch?
#17
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,299
Received 1,815 Likes
on
1,131 Posts
People with kids, "Family Groups", and the FCC are ruining America's so called "Freedom". As an Adult with no kids, I resent being told what the fuck I can and cannot watch and listen too.
Fuck the FCC....
Fuck the FCC....
#18
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Morf
Correlation does not imply causation, asshats.
#19
DVD Talk Hero
You know what completely blows my mind?
Whenever these stories come up, no one, and I mean NO ONE brings up the fact that millions of TVs in this country come with some kind of V-chip device, DVD players can be rating-locked, and video game systems can be age-restricted.
I get that Americans are idiots and can't program anything, but that isn't the content-provider's fault. A self-policing mechanism (besides the remote and the off-switch) already exists in nearly every single device!
Why this is never mentioned by people who oppose these restrictions is beyond me.
Whenever these stories come up, no one, and I mean NO ONE brings up the fact that millions of TVs in this country come with some kind of V-chip device, DVD players can be rating-locked, and video game systems can be age-restricted.
I get that Americans are idiots and can't program anything, but that isn't the content-provider's fault. A self-policing mechanism (besides the remote and the off-switch) already exists in nearly every single device!
Why this is never mentioned by people who oppose these restrictions is beyond me.
#20
Another instance where we are told that things aren't our fault, but the fault of some external factor like music or tv. How is that any less harmful to children and their behavior?
#21
Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montgomery, Alabama
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by exharrison
Another instance where we are told that things aren't our fault, but the fault of some external factor like music or tv. How is that any less harmful to children and their behavior?
The problem is parents looking for a scapegoat when their kids end up being screwed up losers...
#22
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 12,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Draven
You know what completely blows my mind?
Whenever these stories come up, no one, and I mean NO ONE brings up the fact that millions of TVs in this country come with some kind of V-chip device, DVD players can be rating-locked, and video game systems can be age-restricted.
I get that Americans are idiots and can't program anything, but that isn't the content-provider's fault. A self-policing mechanism (besides the remote and the off-switch) already exists in nearly every single device!
Why this is never mentioned by people who oppose these restrictions is beyond me.
Whenever these stories come up, no one, and I mean NO ONE brings up the fact that millions of TVs in this country come with some kind of V-chip device, DVD players can be rating-locked, and video game systems can be age-restricted.
I get that Americans are idiots and can't program anything, but that isn't the content-provider's fault. A self-policing mechanism (besides the remote and the off-switch) already exists in nearly every single device!
Why this is never mentioned by people who oppose these restrictions is beyond me.
The sad thing is that most of these movements are being driven by and large by watchdog groups. And when you have someone who would never normally watch a show determining if it is acceptable for people who would, there is a problem.
And that's before you even get into what I'll go to my grave believing is one of the most egregious anti-1st amendment government agencies. And people just let it happen.
Last edited by Mad Dawg; 04-27-07 at 11:37 AM.
#24
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 12,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report said that research on whether violent programming had caused children to act more aggressively was inconclusive. But it also cited studies, including one by the surgeon general, that say exposure to violent content has been associated with increased aggression or violent behavior in children, at least in the short term.
It said that the V-chip and other blocking technology had failed because, according to recent studies, nearly 9 out of 10 parents do not use them And the ratings system was of limited use, the study found, because less than half of parents surveyed had used it.
It said that the V-chip and other blocking technology had failed because, according to recent studies, nearly 9 out of 10 parents do not use them And the ratings system was of limited use, the study found, because less than half of parents surveyed had used it.
It just makes me sick.
#25
DVD Talk Hero
The commission, in a long-awaited report, concluded that the program ratings system and technology intended to help parents block offensive programs — like the V-chip — had failed to protect children from being regularly exposed to violence.