Spring Break
FCC: Within its limits
Matt Watson
Issue date: 2/27/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
As reported by The Associated Press on Feb. 16, the Federal Communications Commission has written a report yet to be released that suggests methods by which Congress can limit violent programming on broadcast television and cable.
According to studies cited in the report, violent programming can lead to "short-term aggressive behavior in children," which can be reduced by passing a law that would, among other things, limit the degree of violence shown during the hours that children often watch television. This would affect shows such as "24."
Some people have already overreacted to this report. "Members of the creative community and First Amendment advocates," as the AP article reported, are beginning to warn against the report, which they see as contradicting the constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech.
However, I believe it is exaggerating to say the legislative suggestions in this report are unconstitutional. Since the report hasn't been released, it's hard to make the best judgment right now, but if the report is anything like the FCC has explained it, then what they are doing is fair game. It's a game they've been playing for years, and much of what they have done seems to be appreciated by the public.
According to the statements the FCC has made, they are not taking a completely new approach to limiting content. They only seem to be trying to limit violence on television the same way they have limited profanity and sexually-explicit material in years past.
This still will not be good enough for some people who argue that almost no controls should be enforced on television programs because of the First Amendment. It's simply impractical to argue this. Limitations and regulations on programming, if they do not overstep certain boundaries, are practical and acceptable. They are the reason the more apprehensive parents can go to work in the summer and know that their children can flip through the channels without being exposed to very explicit material.
According to studies cited in the report, violent programming can lead to "short-term aggressive behavior in children," which can be reduced by passing a law that would, among other things, limit the degree of violence shown during the hours that children often watch television. This would affect shows such as "24."
Some people have already overreacted to this report. "Members of the creative community and First Amendment advocates," as the AP article reported, are beginning to warn against the report, which they see as contradicting the constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech.
However, I believe it is exaggerating to say the legislative suggestions in this report are unconstitutional. Since the report hasn't been released, it's hard to make the best judgment right now, but if the report is anything like the FCC has explained it, then what they are doing is fair game. It's a game they've been playing for years, and much of what they have done seems to be appreciated by the public.
According to the statements the FCC has made, they are not taking a completely new approach to limiting content. They only seem to be trying to limit violence on television the same way they have limited profanity and sexually-explicit material in years past.
This still will not be good enough for some people who argue that almost no controls should be enforced on television programs because of the First Amendment. It's simply impractical to argue this. Limitations and regulations on programming, if they do not overstep certain boundaries, are practical and acceptable. They are the reason the more apprehensive parents can go to work in the summer and know that their children can flip through the channels without being exposed to very explicit material.
Be the first to comment on this story