Martin Says Congress Can Control Violence on TV
FCC Chmn. Martin stopped short of recommending that Congress limit TV violence. But in comments preceding release of a long-awaited Commission report on the subject, he said Supreme Court rulings let legislators to apply narrow restrictions. “Whenever government considers such regulations, it must do so with great care and deliberation,” Martin said in a written statement: “The Supreme Court has ruled that the government could apply regulations when the government’s interest was ’substantial’ and the restriction was ‘narrowly tailored.'”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Making cable operators sell channels individually is a good way to deal with the problem without raising constitutional concerns, Martin said late Wed. before the FCC report to Congress was made public. Broadcasters, cable operators and DBS providers must give parents “more tools to protect children from excessively violent programming,” Martin said: “All of the versions of a la carte would keep government out of regulating content directly.”
Congress could make cable operators provide a limited version of a la carte without running afoul of the Constitution, Martin told us, saying that was his personal opinion. Requiring cable operators to reimburse consumers for channels they didn’t want to watch, he told reporters, “would be something that would be constitutional… Congress would end up having to take action to impose a la carte.”
Martin said industry paved the way for defining what’s violent by developing content ratings. He cited the TV Parental Guidelines. “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 purposes of time channeling requirements.”
Along with a la carte, Martin stumped for a family TV hour, citing data showing parents worry about violence but don’t know how to use V-chips. “Current blocking and ratings systems are insufficient,” he said: “Less than half of the TV sets in American households are capable of blocking content that is not suitable for children.”
Martin also stopped short of saying that research links viewing violence to committing violent acts, calling evidence of causality “inconclusive. However, major studies, including those by the Surgeon General and the Federal Trade Commission, have found that exposure to violence content on TV is associated with an increase in aggressive or violent behavior in children.”
Martin’s comments on violence largely were reflected in a summary of the FCC report given to the media. It was unclear when the full report will be made public. Cable operators, DBS providers and other multichannel video providers (MVPDs) must do more to suppress violent programming, the report’s summary said: “Congress could implement a time channeling solution and/or mandate some other form of consumer choice in obtaining video programming, such as the provision by MVPDs of video channels provided on family tiers or on an a la carte basis.”