Censorship in Media

It seems that in today's culture, violence is everywhere. On the streets, in schools, and slowly creeping it's way into American homes through television and games. Almost any channel on the television portrays violent images that young children could be viewing. Exposure to such casual violence can have any number of effects on children; however, parents generally know what is best for their own children and should be responsible for monitoring them. With the amount of technology available today to block channels and monitor what children see on the television, it is unnecessary for the government to regulate violence in the media and should not replace parents as the decision makers in American households.

According to a formal report released in April of 2007 by the Federal Communications Commission, the average American household has the television on for eight hours a day, with children watching for up to half of that time. This is a huge amount of time for one to spend in front of a television set ("FCC Report"). Being in front of a television for this extended amount of time, a child is at great risk for exposure to violence. With the potential risk being high, many lawmakers have felt it necessary to investigate the regulation of networks to what time frame and types of content can be aired. Government interference in regulation of media brings all sorts of Constitutional questions into play. Under the first amendment, the networks have every right to air what they want; however, according to the FCC's report, research conducted by the National Cable Television Association has found that violence in media has effects such as anti-social behavior, aggression, and desensitization to young children. The FCC proposes that the U.S. government define violence and filter out what is deemed inappropriate to a later time slot where younger viewers are less likely to be watching ("FCC Report").

The problem with this proposition is that filtering a network's content or directing its line-up is in violation of the First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" ("Bill of Rights"). Secondly, moving graphic material to a later time slot is not a foolproof method for keeping it inaccessible to children. And finally, any definition that the government provides for violence will dissatisfy most because of the unnecessary material that becomes filtered and for the material that is left for all viewers to see. Merriam-Webster defines violence as an "exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse" ("Merriam-Webster Online"). Technically, with this definition, many television shows would be deemed violent, as well as a lot of children's movies. Sleeping Beauty, Robin Hood, Snow White, The Lion King, etc. all have violence that could be considered unacceptable to children, yet these movies are specifically designed for younger audiences. Despite all this, it is almost impossible to tell what effects, if any, these movies would have on children. A report made by the Surgeon General in 2001 stated, "it is not yet possible to describe accurately how much exposure, of what types, for how long, at what ages, for what types of children, or in what types of settings will predict violent behavior in adolescents and adults" (Corn-Revere). Since there is such a small amount of concrete data on the topic, it's hard to reach a scientific conclusion.

In an open letter to members of Congress from the ACLU, it urges the government to not play a part in media regulation. It addresses matters, such as preserving the freedom of speech, research on the topic of violence and children is inconclusive, and that government shouldn't replace parents and decide what is best for children, but rather educate the population on parental blocks and making good viewing decisions (Fredrickson). Parents have the option now of blocking shows by rating or content, of if appropriate, blocking entire channels, either through cable box settings or the provider itself. Also, ratings are in place from the television networks to help parents monitor children ("Controlyourtv.org"). Of course, in any instance, the best parental control could be simply turning the TV off.

The American Psychiatric Association suggests that parents limit their children's viewing time to only an hour or two daily. They also suggest that parents get involved in what programs are being watched and how big a part the television plays in their children's daily life ("HealthyMinds.org"). The government does not have the capacity to make the decisions of what is right for children to view because everyone is different. In some cases, viewing violent material can actually be imperative to the psychological development of a child. An article in Mother Jones, Gerard Jones recounts his shy childhood, and how reading violent comic books helped him relate to the characters and mature socially. Through his work with Melanie Moore, Ph.D., he has developed a program called Power Play, which helps young people develop and improve their self-knowledge through combative story telling. Moore writes in the article, "Children need violent entertainment in order to explore the inescapable feelings that they've been taught to deny, and to reintegrate those feelings into a more whole, more complex, more resilient selfhood" (Jones). By, in essence, living vicariously through these stories, children can experience emotions and feelings that are crucial to developing minds.

The government should not be allowed to replace American parents as decision makers. Only a parent can truly determine what is best for their children, and with the amount of technology today, home censorship is easier than ever. And parents always have the one power to regulate that the government doesn't, by simply turning off the television.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Works Cited

"Before the Federal Communications Commission." Report. 25 April 2007. Federal Communications Commission. 1 Jul 2008.

"Bill of Rights." United States Constitution. Cornell University Law School. 1 Jul 2008.

Corn-Revere, Robert. "FCC television-violence report: a conclusion in search of an analysis." First Ammendment Topics. 27 April 2007. FirstAmmendmentCenter.org. 1 Jul 2008.

Fredrickson, Caroline. "ACLU Letter to Senators Inouye and Stevens Regarding Senate Hearing on The Impact of Media Violence on Children ." American Civil Liberties Union. 26 June 2007. ACLU. 1 Jul 2008.

Jones, Gerard. "Violent Media is Good for Kids." Mother Jones 28 June 2000 1 Jul 2008 violent_media.html>.

"Psychiatric Effects of Media Violence." HealthyMinds.org. 2008. American Psychiatric Association. 1 Jul 2008.

"Take Control. It's Easy.." Cabel Puts You In Control. Controlyourtv.org. 1 Jul 2008.

"violence." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. Merriam-Webster Online. 1 July 2008