Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?

Government can't do a better job of raising my daughter than I can because they simply don't and can't care as much. To impose by force such government interference not only takes away our rights but also our greater love and resultant capabilities.

Remember, my daughter has been a fan of those violent and sexually explicit Kubrick movies since seeing the formerly X-rated Clockwork Orange at age six. So I guess Riverrat had better call the authorities on me for my 'child abuse' as he said he would do in a previous post.

And here's a hint--the "public" at EvC is saying something about this, we just don't agree with your stance that the FCC should be able to strictly censure what is broadcasted.

YOU are the only one in this thread supporting censorship, the limiting or flat-out denying of the right to free speech as provided by the First Amendment.

The fact is, Rat, the government does not own the airwaves, any more than they own the paper we print books and newspapers on.

Now, the government may be justified in limiting that free speech somewhat, for the same reason you are not allowed to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and cause a stampede. But only to prevent real, objective harm.

And Rat, throughout this thread, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that violent media causes anything you and I would agree constitutes real, objective harm to children.

. You watch TV by choice. You own a TV by choice. You ALLOW your children to watch TV by choice.

Why do the networks produce violent media, Rat? Becasue it gets ratings. What are ratings? Ratings are a reflection of the number of people who vote with their remotes, Rat - the number of people who actually want to watch those violent shows. The majority of Americans in those surveys may say they have a problem with it, but when it comes down to the real world and their own viewing preferences...violent shows are pretty damned popular. What gives you the right to censor what the majority of people want to watch, when you are never forced to watch the same?

So by your logic, if 100% of the people believe the Earth is flat, it really is flat.

STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTINRe: In the Matter of Violent Television Programming and Its Impact On Children, MB Docket No. 04-261For decades, parents, healthcare professionals, and government officials have discussed and debated the impact of excessively violent programming on children. In fact almost 70% of respondents in a poll conducted for the Associated Press said there was too much violence on television. Four years ago, members of Congress asked the Commission to conduct an inquiry and to issue a report examining the harmful impact of violent video programming on children and what if anything Congress could do about it.
The concern about the potential impact of excessively violent programming is not surprising given that in the Children’s Television Act, Congress noted that by the time the average child is eighteen years old, he or she will have watched between 10,000 and 15,000 hours of television. As stated in our Report, children on average watch between two and four hours of TV per day. Even the youngest children - those age six and under - watch an average of two hours of television each day, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
To assess the impact of violent programming on children, the Commission reviewed numerous studies conducted by the medical and social science communities. Research on whether watching violent programming actually causes aggressive behavior in children is inconclusive. However, major studies, including those by the Surgeon General and the Federal Trade Commission, have found that exposure to violent content on TV is associated with an increase in aggressive or violent behavior in children. In addition, a joint statement by major medical associations including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association identified some of the effects of exposure to violence as being emotional desensitization towards violence in real life and having a higher tendency for violent behavior later in life. In other words, the evidence does not prove causation, but it does demonstrate a strong correlation.
These findings make clear, and the Commission today affirms, that exposure to violent programming can be harmful to children.
When it comes to protecting their children from such harm, parents are the first and last line of defense. Thus, it is critical then that they have the necessary tools to protect their children. Today the Commission concludes that current blocking technologies and ratings systems are insufficient and do not fully serve the interest of promoting parental supervision and protecting children. Less than half of the TV sets in American households are capable of blocking content that is not suitable for children. Even parents who have TVs equipped with a V-chip need more help. According to a recent Zogby poll, 88% of parents did not use a V-chip or a cable blocking device. In part, blocking solutions don’t work because they are dependent on an imperfect television ratings system. Only 8% of respondents in the Zogby poll could correctly identify the ratings categories.
Clearly, steps should be taken to protect children from excessively violent programming. Some might say such action is long overdue. Parents need more tools to protect children from excessively violent programming. And, as the Commission finds today, they need tools that address the violent programming on all platforms”broadcast, cable and satellite.
I have long encouraged industry to give parents more direct control over the television content that comes into their homes. Broadcasters could reinstate the Family Hour at the beginning of prime-time, during which they would air only programs appropriate for children. Cable and satellite operators could enable parents to avoid purchasing channels that tend to show excessively violent programming by allowing them to purchase channels individually or in smaller bundles as they currently do for “premium channels” like HBO.
Whenever government considers such regulations, it must do so with great care and deliberation. For example, real life violence shown in a news story is not the same as fictional violence graphically depicted for purposes of “entertainment”. Congress specifically asked the Commission to consider whether it would be possible to restrict the showing of violent programming during the hours of the day when children are likely to be watching television. The United States Supreme Court has upheld this sort of time channeling in the context of indecent programming. In that context, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could apply regulations when the government’s interest was “substantial” and the restriction was “narrowly tailored.” The Supreme Court emphasized two factors: the “pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans,” and the government’s interests in the well-being of children and in supporting parental supervision of children.
The television industry has already developed definitions of violence that is used in their ratings system. Specifically, the TV Parental Guidelines developed by the television industry include ratings that indicate the presence of "fantasy violence," "no violence," "moderate violence," "intense violence," and "graphic violence." Thus, it appears that the industry agrees with some basic definition of violence in programming, at least for use with blocking technologies. I therefore question commenters’ arguments that violence can be defined sufficiently for ratings and blocking purposes, but not defined sufficiently for purposes of time channeling requirements.
Requiring cable and satellite television providers to offer programming in a more a la carte manner would be a more content neutral means for Congress to regulate violent programming and therefore would raise fewer constitutional issues. All of the versions of a la carte would keep government out of regulating content directly while enabling consumers, including parents, to receive the programming they want and believe to be appropriate for their families. For instance, cable operators already block any channel that a consumer requests to be blocked. One form of a la carte could simply require the cable operator to reimburse consumers for the channels they request to have blocked. While the Constitution protects the right to speak, it certainly doesn’t protect a right to get paid for that speech. Cable operators also could offer to block and reimburse only those channels not subject to time channeling restrictions.
Multichannel video distributors in other countries already sell cable channels in a more a la carte fashion. For instance, In Hong Kong, consumers can select and pay for only the channels they want. A family who wants to watch sports, movies, news and children’s programming can receive 15 free channels plus a selection of 11 additional digital channels including ESPN, HBO, CNN Headline News, National Geographic, Animal Planet, and Discovery for only $27.50 per month. To get the same channels in Washington, DC, it would cost $82.00 per month.
Similarly, in Canada, after buying basic cable, digital subscribers can buy channels individually or enjoy significant savings on a “5 pack”, a “10 pack”, or a “15 pack” of their own choosing.It has long been my hope that the broadcast, cable and satellite industries would address content issues on their own, providing parents with effective tools to protect their children. Today the Commission, in response to specific Congressional questions, concludes that exposure to violent programming can be harmful to children and that Congress could provide parents more tools to limit their children’s exposure to violent programming in a Constitutional way.

Oh, so you like and accept studies that you think support your personal opinions, but reject and hate those studies that don't.

Why did YOU post it if YOU didn't think that people's opinions constituted evidence of the sort we were requesting?

Or do you think it is just as invalid as all of the other hated studies, but since your opponents value studies, you thought you'd see if we accept it?

But you haven't demostrated that what you personally believe reflects reality.

And I do hope you stop going to conventional doctors, since their knowledge and ability to cure cancer and other diseases is based upon all of those hated studies that you reject. Good luck with the psychic surgeon and the faith healers.

Of course. However, when others attempt to replicate your study, they will see how much you "tweaked" your numbers and if you "tweaked" them too much, your study's claims will be considered invalidated and it will fade away, never to be cited or built upon by any other researcher.

Yes. That is because the evidence does not justify that conclusion.

Correlation means that one event is associated with the incidence of another event but that the second is not directly caused by the first.

If it is discovered to be true that ANY TV watching increases violent behavior in kids, will you get rid of your TV?

No, but it doesn't show that it is. You seem to want to maintain your bias regardless of little evidence to support your beliefs.

When parents don't parent, bad things can happen from many different sources.

I have kids...I don't agree. What makes you think Schraf would agree if she had some?

Actually, I don't disagree that advertizing should match the "rating" of the show it is shown during, and that there should be a clear rating system so people know what "octane" a show is about to be shown.But that's about it.