Members of Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, concerned that the television ratings system and V-chip are not working as well as intended, have proposed additional measures to regulate programming for young viewers. During 2000 two bills reflecting these concerns were considered in Congress but not acted on. Although there is no evidence the same bills will be reintroduced, similar proposals undoubtedly will be brought up by those who believe there is too much violence in television programming.

    The television industry, in compliance with FCC regulations and Section 551 of the Telecommunications Act, implemented age-based TV ratings in 1997. These ratings were designed to work in conjunction with the V-chip technology that enables parents to block programming they deem not suitable for their children. By January 2000, manufacturers were required to install V-chips in all sets with screens larger than 13 inches sold in the United States.

    Soon after the technology became available, television networks and local stations began airing public service announcements about the V-chip. At the station level, 2,600 PSAs were aired. There are 1,200 commercial broadcasters in the United States.

    Notwithstanding these efforts and the increasing availability of the V-chip in television sets, the Annenberg Public Policy Center reported in June 2000 that even though two of five households had TVs containing the V-chip, only half of those were using the technology. Moreover, 39 percent of American parents had not heard of the V-chip, the center said.

    In an April speech, FCC Commissioner Gloria Tristani criticized the major networks for not doing a better job of informing parents about the V-chip and ratings system. Complaining that the networks had not upheld their part of the burden for reducing youth violence, Tristani urged the networks to be more responsible and to air more PSAs. The commissioner also endorsed the idea that violence in the media could be treated the same as obscenity under the law.

    In 2000, Congress considered two new measures that would have affected television programming for children. The Children’s Protection from Violent Programming Act (S. 876), introduced in the Senate in October, would have made the V-chip ratings system mandatory and compelled the entertainment industry to rate the violent content in TV programs. Furthermore, if the FCC found that the V-chip did not effectively protect children from violence, the FCC would be required to ban violent programming during certain hours when children were likely to be watching.

    Another measure considered by both houses was the Children’s Protection Act (H.R. 5350 and S. 2127). This bill would have suspended antitrust laws, thereby allowing the entertainment industry to develop a voluntary code of conduct. In May, four members of the Senate, including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), had written a letter to the FCC condemning the "rapidly declining standards of broadcast television" and a "rising tide of glorified violence and increasingly explicit sexual content."

    The letter called on the FCC to consider, among other things, reviving the old code of the National Association of Broadcasters, in effect from 1952 to 1983. That code, which acknowledged a special responsibility to children, called on broadcasters to avoid content aired "for the purpose of sensationalism or to shock or exploit the audience or appeal to prurient interests or to morbid curiosity."

    FCC Chairman William Kennard responded favorably to the suggestion. "I take this recommendation very seriously, and join you ... in urging broadcasters to develop and enforce a voluntary code to help ensure that the programming carried when children are likely to be watching is programming that parents would find appropriate for their children."

    Even if the antitrust barriers that contributed to the demise of the broadcasters’ original code of conduct were removed, proposals to resurrect the code still raise First Amendment concerns for both the industry and the television audience. Those concerns are especially compelling if compliance with such a code were to become a component of the license renewal process or were used in other ways to influence programming decisions. Pressure from lawmakers and regulators diminishes the claim that such a code would be a voluntary one, thus having the effect of limiting speech that the government dislikes.

    Proposals such as the Children’s Protection from Violent Programming Act also must be examined carefully for their impact on free-press rights. Unless such measures clearly define "violence" and exempt news and sports from rating and blocking, these types of programming could be affected during hours when children are "reasonably likely" to be watching.

    Furthermore, if Congress moves into the area suggested by Commissioner Tristani and others -- that violence in the media can be handled like obscenity -- significant First Amendment issues also arise. The courts in general have declined to regard violent speech in the same way as obscene speech, which is itself narrowly defined.

    At the very least, the mandatory use of the ratings system and the potential ban of violent programming raise significant constitutional questions. However, such proposals may be premature since youth violence has declined dramatically in recent years to an all-time low, and the V-chip has had very little time to show whether it will work as intended.