FCC Turns to Congress For Definition of Violence

In a report adopted April 25, the FCC asked Congress to take the lead to providing a definition of “violence” rather than providing one itself. Here is the news release from the agency.

The FederalCommunications Commission (FCC) released today a Report on the issue of excessivelyviolent television programming and its impact on children. The FCC found that research indicates exposureto violence in the media can increase aggressive behavior in children, at leastin the short term.  Given this finding,the FCC recommends that action should be taken to address violent programming.

TheReport released today responds to a request from the U.S House ofRepresentatives Committee on Energy and Commerce that the FCC undertake aninquiry on television violence. Specifically,Congress asked the Commission to consider the harm that excessively violentprogramming has upon children; whether it would be in the public interest forthe Commission to formulate a definition of “excessively violent programmingthat is harmful to children” and to regulate such programming; and if so, whatwould be the definition and measures for limiting excessively violentprogramming most likely to be sustained in court.

 

In its Report, the FCC:

· agrees with theviews expressed by the Surgeon General, and finds that, on balance, researchprovides strong evidence that exposure to violence in the media can increaseaggressive behavior in children, at least in the short term.

· notes that whileviewer-initiated blocking and mandatory ratings would impose lesser burdens onprotected speech, and is skeptical that they will fully serve the government’sinterests in promoting parental supervision and protecting the well-being ofminors.

· believes that theV-chip is of limited effectiveness in protecting children from violenttelevision content.

· observes thatcable operator-provided advanced parental controls do not appear to be availableon a sufficient number of cable-connected television sets to be considered aneffective solution at this time.

· believes thatfurther action to enable viewer-initiated blocking of violent televisioncontent would serve the government’s interests in protecting the well-being ofchildren and facilitating parental supervision and would be reasonably likelyto be upheld as constitutional.

· finds thatstudies and surveys demonstrate that the voluntary TV ratings system is oflimited effectiveness in protecting children from violent televisioncontent.

· believes thatCongress could develop an appropriate definition of excessively violentprogramming, but such language needs to be narrowly tailored and in conformancewith judicial precedent.

· suggests that industrycould on its own initiative commit itself to reducing the amount of excessivelyviolent programming viewed by children (e.g., broadcasters could adopt a familyhour at the beginning of prime time, during which they decline to air violentcontent).

· observes that multichannelvideo programming providers (MVPDs) could provide consumers greater choice inhow they purchase their programming so that they could avoid violentprogramming. (e.g., an a la carte regime would enable viewers to buy theirtelevision channels individually or in smaller bundles).

· finds that Congresscould implement a time channeling solution and/or mandate some other form ofconsumer choice in obtaining video programming, such as the provision by MVPDsof video channels provided on family tiers or on an a la carte basis (e.g.,channel blocking and reimbursement).

Here’s a link to the press release. Here’s a link to the Report. Here are the statements of Commissioners Martin, Copps, Adelstein, Tate, and McDowell.