[Senate Report 104-234]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress 2d Session        SENATE                 Report
                                                       104-234
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 336


 
             TELEVISION VIOLENCE REPORT CARD ACT OF 1995

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

           COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                                   on

                                 S. 772




 February 9 (legislative day, February 7), 1996.--Ordered to be printed
                                     

       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                      one hundred fourth congress
                             second session

  LARRY PRESSLER, South Dakota, 
             Chairman
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina   TED STEVENS, Alaska
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky            CONRAD BURNS, Montana
J. JAMES EXON, Nebraska              SLADE GORTON, Washington
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West VirginiaTRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts         KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana            OLYMPIA SNOWE, Maine
RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada             JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        BILL FRIST, Tennessee
  Patric G. Link, Chief of Staff
Kevin G. Curtin, Democratic Chief 
    Counsel and Staff Director
                                                       Calendar No. 336
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 2d Session                                                     104-234
_______________________________________________________________________


              TELEVISION VIOLENCE REPORT CARD ACT OF 1995

                                _______


 February 9 (legislative day, February 7), 1996.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


      Mr. Pressler, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                Transportation, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 772]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to 
which was referred the bill to provide for an assessment of the 
violence broadcast on television, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    S. 772, the ``Television Violence Report Card Act of 
1995'', provides for an assessment of violence on television. 
Under the legislation, the Secretary of Commerce would award 
grants to a private, not for profit entity to conduct 
assessments of violence on television and make the assessments 
available to the public. The legislation would require that 
assessments be done periodically and made available to the 
public at least once every 90 days.
    S. 772 would impose no regulation nor penalties on the 
television industry. Rather, the legislation takes the approach 
of providing consumers with information necessary to monitor 
television viewing in their homes. S. 772 achieves the goal of 
protecting children through empowering consumers with 
information as opposed to other approaches that use regulation 
or government mandates such as requiring television set 
manufacturers to build sets containing a ``V-Chip.''

                          Background and Needs

    Congressional concern over the amount of violence on 
television extends back over forty years. As early as the 
1950's, researchers believed that the spread of television was 
partly to blame for the significant increase in violent crime 
in the early part of that decade. Congress first began to 
examine the link between television and violence with hearings 
in the 1950s, holding hearings concerning violence in radio and 
television and its impact on children and youth in 1952 and 
1954.
    Concern arose again in the late 1960s and early 1970s after 
the wave of urban unrest caused some to question the effect of 
television on violent behavior. Since the early 1960's, the 
Committee has held eighteen hearings on the subject of 
television violence.\1\ However, no legislation was reported 
out of the Committee.
    \1\ S.Hrng. 91-6 (March 12, 19, and 20, 1969); S.Hrng. 92-32 
(September 28, 1971); S.Hrng. 92-52 (March 21, 22, 23, and 24, 1972); 
S.Hrng. 93-76 (April 3, 4, and 5, 1974); S.Hrng. 94-62 (February 13, 
1976); S.Hrng. 95-60 (May 9, 10 and 11, 1977); S.Hrng. 101-221 (June 
12, 1989); S.Hrng. 103-852 (October 20, 1993); and S.Hrng. 104--- (July 
12, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response to public concern over the urban riots of the 
1960's, President Lyndon B. Johnson established the National 
Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. The 
Commission's Mass Media Task Force looked at the impact of 
violence contained in entertainment programs aired on 
television and concluded that (1) television violence does have 
a negative impact on behavior and (2) television violence 
encourages subsequent violent behavior and ``fosters moral and 
social values about violence in daily life which are 
unacceptable in a civilized society.'' \2\
    \2\ U.S. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of 
Violence. To Establish Justice, To Insure Domestic Tranquility. Final 
Report of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of 
Violence. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., December 1969, p. 199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1969, Senator John Pastore, Chairman of the Senate 
Subcommittee on Communications of the Committee on Commerce, 
petitioned the Surgeon General to investigate the effects of TV 
violence. In 1972, Surgeon General Jessie Steinfeld released a 
study \3\ demonstrating a correlation between television 
violence and violent behavior and called for Congressional 
action. The five-volume report concluded that there was a 
causal effect from TV violence, but primarily on children 
presupposed to be aggressive. The then-FCC Chairman, Dean 
Burch, declined to regulate violence, saying that the FCC 
should not ``make fundamental programming judgments.''
    \3\ U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Surgeon 
General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social 
Behavior. Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence. 
Report to the Surgeon General. U.S. Public Health Service. Washington, 
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1972, p. 279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Several more hearings were held after the release of the 
Surgeon General's report in the 1970's. Despite studies showing 
an increase in violent programming, little regulatory or 
Congressional action was taken. Discussions continued regarding 
the relationship between violence in society and what was shown 
on television. The continued concerns prompted Congress to 
request the FCC to study possible solutions to the problems of 
television violence and sexually-oriented materials.
    On February 20, 1975, under the direction of then-Chairman 
Wiley, the FCC issued its Report on the Broadcast of Violent 
and Obscene Material. The report recommended statutory 
clarification regarding the Commission's authority to prohibit 
certain broadcasts of obscene and indecent materials. However, 
with regard to the issue of television violence, the FCC did 
not recommend any congressional action because the industry had 
recently adopted a voluntary ``family viewing'' period.\4\ The 
Television Code, however, fell out of use in the 1980's.
    \4\ On February 4, 1975, the National Association of Broadcasters 
(NAB) Television Code Review Board adopted a code implementing a family 
viewing period between 7 and 9 p.m., viewer advisories, and warnings to 
publishers of the advisories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The growth of violence in our society has prompted Congress 
to look for as many solutions as possible to reduce the extent 
of this problem. Each year, over 20,000 people are murdered in 
the U.S.--one person is killed every 22 minutes. While France 
has a murder rate of two homicides per 100,000 people; the U.S. 
has 9.4. The U.S. murder rate is four times the rate of Europe 
and 11 times higher than that of Japan. The U.S. homicide rate 
is rising 6 times faster than the population. Violence is the 
second leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 
15 and 24, and is the leading cause of death for African-
Americans of that age group.
    Each time the issue was raised in Congress, however, the 
industry continually promised to regulate itself while at the 
same time urging against Congressional action. In 1975, Richard 
Wiley, Chairman of the FCC, announced that he had reached an 
agreement with the broadcasters that made Congressional action 
unnecessary. This agreement provided that the television 
industry would voluntarily restrict the showing of violent 
shows during the ``family hour.''

                        research on tv violence

    During the 1980s, the amount of violence on television 
increased substantially. One study found up to 32 acts of 
violence on television on children's programming. Another study 
found that the amount of violence on television tripled in the 
1980's. The increase in violence coincides with an increase in 
the amount of time children spend watching television. Children 
spend, on average, 28 hours per week watching television, which 
is more time than they spend in school. The average child 
watches 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on 
television before finishing elementary school.
    A 1982 study observed that in a sample of 81 hours of 
television programs, there were approximately 1,500 acts of 
aggression and that 69% of these aggressive actions were judged 
unnecessary to the plot.\5\ A comparison between crime 
portrayals on television and the FBI's crime statistics found 
that since 1955, television characters have been murdered at a 
rate of 1000 times higher than real world victims. Television 
crime not only presents a higher rate of violent crime than in 
the real world, it portrays a different type of crime. Guns are 
more pervasive on television and violent crime is more often 
calculated and felony in nature on television than in real 
life.\6\
    \5\ Williams, T., Zabrack, M. & Joy, L., The Portrayal of 
Aggression on North American Television, Journal of Applied Social 
Psychology, 12, 1982, pp. 360-380.
    \6\ S. Robert Licther, Linda S. Lichter and Stanley Rothman, Prime 
Time: How TV Portrays American Culture, (Regnery Publishing, Inc., 
Washington, D.C., 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Between 200 and 3000 independent research studies have now 
been conducted that demonstrate a causal link between viewing 
violent programming and aggressive behavior. Several national 
organizations, including the National Institutes for Mental 
Health, the American Psychological Association, and the 
National Parent-Teacher Association, believe that legislation 
is necessary to help parents protect their children and to 
protect unsupervised children from the negative effects of 
television violence.
    Research has consistently shown a link between viewing 
violence on television and violent behavior. In 1956, one of 
the first studies of television violence reported that 4-year-
olds who watched the ``Woody Woodpecker'' cartoon were more 
likely to display aggressive behavior than children who watched 
the ``Little Red Hen.'' Following the Surgeon General's 1972 
report, significant research was conducted detailing the 
correlation between viewing violent television and later 
aggressive behavior. Several of the leading medical 
associations published similar conclusions, including the 
American Medical Association, the American Psychological 
Association, the American Pediatric Association, and the 
American Academy of Pediatrics.\7\
    \7\ Centerwall, Brandon S., Television and Violence: The Scale of 
the Problem and Where to Go From Here. JAMA, v. 267, no. 22, June 10, 
1992, p.3059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For instance, a study by Tanis Williams supports the 
conclusion that there is a direct correlation between 
television violence and aggressive behavior in children. 
Williams, a researcher at the University of British Columbia, 
studied the impact of television on a small rural community in 
Canada that received television signals for the first time in 
1973. The researchers observed forty-five first and second 
graders for signs of inappropriate aggressive behavior. Two 
years later, the same group was observed and it was found that 
the aggressive behavior in the children increased by 160 
percent as compared to a control group that saw no noticeable 
increase in aggressive behavior.\8\
    \8\ Centerwall, Brandon. Television and Violent Crime, Public 
Interest, No.111, Spring 1993, p.56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A survey of over 800 children in 1972 found that frequent 
viewers of television violence expressed a greater willingness 
to resort to violence to resolve conflict situations than did 
infrequent viewers.\9\ A survey of 3,500 students (ages 9 to 
18) linked high amounts of television viewing and preference 
for violent programs and juvenile delinquency \10\ and another 
1984 study demonstrated that childhood television viewing 
habits are related to adult criminal behavior.\11\
    \9\ G. Comstock & E. Ruberstein (Eds.), Television and Social 
Behavior: Vol. 3. Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness, (Government 
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972), pp. 314-335.
    \10\ Thornton, W., & Voigt, L., Youth & Society, vol. 15, n. 4, 
1984, pp. 445-468.
    \11\ Huesman, L., Eron, L., Lefkowitz, M., & Walder, L., 
Developmental Psychology, 1984, vol. 20, pp. 1120-1134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1982, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) 
produced a new report entitled Television and Behavior: Ten 
Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties. 
In contrast to the Surgeon General's 1972 report, the NIMH 
concluded that TV violence affects all children, not just those 
predisposed to aggression. The 1982 report reaffirmed the 
conclusions of the earlier studies stating:

          After 10 more years of research, the consensus among 
        most of the research community is that violence on 
        television does lead to aggressive behavior by children 
        and teenagers who watch the programs. This conclusion 
        is based on laboratory experiments and on field 
        studies. Not all children become aggressive, of course, 
        but the correlations between violence and aggression 
        are positive. In magnitude, television violence is as 
        strongly correlated with aggressive behavior as any 
        other behavioral variable that has been measured. The 
        research question has moved from asking whether or not 
        there is an effect to seeking explanations for the 
        effect.\12\ 
    \12\ The NIMH Report, p. 6.

    Not all research, though, supported this conclusion. In 
1982, NBC sponsored a study of the issue and reported there was 
no correlation. In addition, a 1984 analysis of all the 
available studies by Jonathan L. Freedman, of the Department of 
Psychology at the University of Toronto, concluded that the 
published studies did not support the hypothesis that viewing 
habits of children resulted in subsequent changes in behavior 
in children. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports 
that both the NBC study and the Freedman studies have been 
discounted by additional research. In fact, a re-analysis of 
the NBC study revealed a direct correlation between viewing 
violence and harmful behavioral changes in children.
    More recent research adds credibility to the findings of 
the NIMH. Two of the most widely publicized empirical studies 
adopt two different methodologies, but arrive at the same 
result. In one of the studies, Dr. Leonard Eron followed a 
group of children in upstate New York State and examined them 
at ages 8, 19 and 30. The study found that the more the 
participants watched TV at age 8, the more serious were the 
crimes of which they were convicted by age 30, the more 
aggressive was their behavior when drinking, and the harsher 
was the punishment which they inflicted on their own children. 
Similar experiments were conducted in Australia, Finland, 
Israel, and Poland, and the outcome was the same in each 
experiment.
    Another study was conducted by Dr. Brandon Centerwall, a 
Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Washington. He 
studied the homicide rates in South Africa, Canada and the 
United States in relation to the introduction of television. In 
all three countries, Dr. Centerwall found that the homicide 
rate doubled about 10 or 15 years after the introduction of 
television. According to Dr. Centerwall, the lag time in each 
country reflects the fact that television exerts its behavior-
modifying effects primarily on children, whereas violent 
activity is primarily an adult activity. Dr. Centerwall 
concludes that ``long-term childhood exposure to television is 
a causal factor behind approximately one-half of the homicides 
committed in the United States.'' This report \13\ concerning 
the harmful impact of viewing television violence on 
preadolescent children found that extensive exposure to 
television violence could lead to chronic effects extending 
into later adolescence and adulthood.
    \13\ Centerwall, p. 3059-3063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These studies explore the link between violent television 
and violent behavior. However, violent behavior may not be the 
only harm caused by television violence. The American 
Psychological Association believes that the harm caused by 
violent television is broader and includes fearfulness and 
callousness:

          Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim 
        of violence, with a resultant increase in self-
        protective behaviors and increased mistrust of others;
          Viewing violence increases desensitization to 
        violence, resulting in calloused attitudes toward 
        violence directed at others and a decreased likelihood 
        to take action on behalf of the victim when violence 
        occurs (behavioral apathy); and
          Viewing violence increases viewers' appetites for 
        becoming involved with violence or exposing themselves 
        to violence.

            anecdotal evidence of the effect of tv violence

    In addition to the research, there are several compelling 
examples of the effects of television on children. In May 1979, 
Johnny Carson used a professional stuntman to ``hang'' Carson 
on stage. After a ``noose'' was placed around Carson's neck, he 
was dropped through a trap door and emerged unharmed. The next 
day, a young boy, Nicholas DeFilippo, was found dead with a 
rope around his neck in front of a TV set tuned to NBC. The 
parents of the child sued NBC for negligence, but lost their 
suit. Twenty-six people died from self-inflicted gunshot wounds 
to the head after watching the Russian Roulette scene in the 
movie ``The Deer Hunter'' when it was shown on national TV.
  U.S. courts heard 15 cases in which youths were victims of 
violent incidents triggered by the media between 1977 and 1987. 
In nine of these cases, children or teenagers were injured or 
killed themselves while imitating something they had read about 
or seen on television.\14\
    \14\ Lee, J., Journal of Communication, vol. 37, v. 2, 1987, pp. 
106-138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       the growth of tv violence

    According to several studies, television violence increased 
during the 1980s both during prime-time and during children's 
television hours. Children between the ages of 2 and 11 watch 
television an average of 28 hours per week. According to a 
University of Pennsylvania study, in 1992 a record 32 violent 
acts per hour were recorded during children's shows. The 
American Psychological Association estimates that a typical 
child will watch 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence 
before finishing elementary school.
    A similar story exists for prime-time programming. The 
National Coalition on Television Violence (NCTV), a monitoring 
and advocacy group, found that 25 percent of the prime-time 
shows in the 1992 fall season contained ``very violent'' 
material.
    In August 1994, the Center for Media and Public Affairs 
released the results of a new survey showing an increase in the 
amount of violence on a single day of television in Washington, 
D.C. As it did in 1992, the Center monitored 10 channels of 
programming (six broadcast channels and 4 cable programs) on a 
single day in April. The Center found a 41% increase in 
television violence over the findings of its 1992 study. The 
Center counted 2605 violent scenes in that day, an average of 
almost 15 scenes of violence per channel per hour. Life-
threatening violence increased by 67% and incidents involving 
gun play rose 45%. The Center found that the greatest sources 
of violence on television came from ``promos'' for upcoming 
shows and movies, which were up 69% from 1992. Only toy 
commercials saw a reduction in violence; violence in toy 
commercials dropped 85%.
    Sponsors of these studies believe that there are several 
reasons for this increased TV violence. One cause is the 
increase in ``reality shows'', such as Top Cops, Hard Copy, and 
A Current Affair. These shows describe or provide tape footage 
from actual police activity, including efforts to subdue 
suspects resisting arrest. Another reason is the increase in 
violence shown on the nightly news programs, which may in part 
result from the increase in violent acts in society. A very 
significant factor is the increase in cable programming that 
seeks smaller, niche audiences. According to one study, 3 of 
the top 4 most violent channels were cable channels, while the 
three major network affiliates and the public broadcasting 
affiliate were at the bottom of the list--the 144 music videos 
on MTV included almost as much violence as the three network 
affiliates combined.
    Some believe that the most violent programs are cartoons. 
The inclusion of fantasy or animated characters in the 
compilation of violent programming is controversial. Some 
observers believe that cartoon violence should be distinguished 
from ``real-life'' violence that may glamorize violence. Many 
child psychologists, however, believe that young children are 
especially vulnerable to violent programs because they are 
unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
    An example of this problem involved MTV's cartoon, ``Beavis 
and Butt-head'', which used to air every day at 7:00 p.m. The 
cartoon is a parody of two young teenagers and their view of 
daily life. The two characters engage in what some observers 
view as irresponsible activity, including cruelty to animals. 
In particular, the show occasionally has the two characters 
suggesting that setting objects on fire is ``cool''. It has 
been alleged that the cartoon's depiction of unsafe fireplay 
led one 5-year-old in Ohio to set his family's mobile home on 
fire, causing the death of his 2-year-old sister in 1993. 
Although MTV denies any connection, it has removed all 
references to fire for future episodes, and has rescheduled the 
program to 10:00 p.m.

                  response by the television community

  Although the broadcast community now admits that there is 
some link between violent television and violent behavior, the 
broadcasters join with the other sectors of the industry in 
believing that these findings exaggerate the importance of 
television violence. They argue, for instance, that the Eron 
and Centerwall studies contain methodological problems because 
they fail to take into account other factors that may 
contribute to the violent behavior. They argue that income 
level, socioeconomic status, and especially the amount of 
supervision by parents have a greater impact on violent 
behavior than television. One study noted that an increase in 
violent behavior by children also was found after children 
watched Sesame Street, perhaps the most successful educational 
television show. They note that the homicide rate for white 
males in the U.S. and Canada stabilized 15 years after the 
introduction of television and did not increase in the 1980s 
despite the increase in the amount of television violence.
  Other efforts being undertaken include a series of public 
service announcements (PSAs). For example, in November 1993, 
NBC launched a campaign called ``The More You Know'' focusing 
on teenage violence and conflict resolution.
  In an effort to address the increase of television violence 
during the 1980s, Congress passed legislation proposed by 
Senator Simon providing the television industry a three-year 
exemption from the antitrust laws to give it an opportunity to 
develop common standards to reduce violent programming. In 
December 1992, three networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) adopted a 
common set of ``Standards for the Depiction of Violence in 
Television Programs.'' Some observers have criticized these 
efforts because the standards adopted by the networks appear 
weaker than the networks' own standards.
  In June 1993, the networks also decided voluntarily to place 
``warning'' labels before any show which the networks believed 
to contain violent material. The three networks committed that, 
before and during the broadcasting of various series, movies, 
made-for-TV movies, mini-series and specials that might contain 
excessive violence, the following announcement would be made: 
``Due to some violent content, parental discretion is 
advised.'' The warning label has been tested for the past two 
years. The warning is also included in advertising and 
promotional material for certain programs and is offered to 
newspapers and magazines that print television viewing 
schedules.
  A similar advisory program was adopted by the Independent 
Television Association (INTV--the trade group representing many 
of the 350 television stations not affiliated with one of the 
three networks). All the station members of INTV have adopted 
this voluntary code.
  In January 1994, both broadcast network and cable television 
executives announced that they would hire independent monitors 
to assess the amount of violence on television. The cable 
television industry chose Mediascope, a non-profit California-
based group, to monitor its programming for violent content and 
provide a report for the public that is expected in the spring 
of 1996. On June 29, 1994, the four broadcast networks (ABC, 
NBC, CBS, and Fox) selected the University of California at Los 
Angeles (UCLA) Communication Policy Center to analyze, assess, 
and report on television violence.
  In February 1994, the National Cable Television Association 
(NCTA) adopted an industry policy called ``Voices Against 
Violence.'' The cable industry agreed to reduce and eliminate 
the gratuitous use of violence, implement a parental advisory 
system, and develop, in cooperation with broadcasters, a 
violence ratings system that endorses viewer discretion 
technology.

                       actions in other countries

  In 1994, the Canadian broadcasters, under pressure from the 
Canadian Government, instituted a new voluntary Code Against 
Violence for television that took effect this year. The code 
bans shows with gratuitous violence and limits those shows that 
include scenes of violence suitable for adults only to the 
hours after 9 p.m. The code places limits on children's shows 
by requiring that violence not be a central theme. Also, it 
stipulates that, in children's programs, violence not be shown 
as a preferred way of solving problems and that the 
consequences of violence be demonstrated. Similar measures have 
also been adopted by the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, New 
Zealand, Australia, and Colombia.

                        constitutional analysis

  While S. 772 does not impose any limitation on speech 
protected under the First Amendment, the Committee recognizes 
that there is a clear governmental interest in protecting 
children and society in general from the harmful affects of 
television violence.
  The Government has several compelling interests in protecting 
children from the harmful effects of viewing violence: an 
interest in protecting children from harm, an interest in 
protecting society in general, an interest in helping parents 
raise their children, and an interest in the privacy of the 
home. Each of these are discussed below.
  Government has a compelling interest in protecting children 
from the harm caused by television violence. As several 
witnesses testified, there is little doubt that children's 
viewing of violence on television encourages them to engage in 
violent and anti-social behavior, either as children or later 
as adults. Somewhere between 200 and 3000 independent studies 
demonstrate a causal connection between viewing violence and 
violent behavior.\15\ These studies have included ``field'' 
studies of the effect of television on persons in real life and 
laboratory studies. While the studies concluded in 1972 by the 
National Institute of Mental Health concluded that there was a 
causal relationship between viewing violence and behavior 
primarily among those children predisposed to violence, more 
recent research demonstrates that violent television affects 
almost all children. Dr. Eron stated in his testimony before 
the Committee as follows:
    \15\ Only one researcher has called into question the conclusions 
of these studies. See, Testimony of Jonathan Freedman, Professor of 
Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Ontario, 
Canada, Hearing on Television Violence before the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation, July 12, 1995. While Prof. 
Freedman questions the conclusions drawn by these studies, Prof. 
Freedman admits that he has not performed any research of his own on 
this topic. The Committee is not aware of any study finding no linkage 
between viewing television violence and violent behavior. As noted 
earlier, the Congressional Research Service found that Prof. Freedman's 
criticisms were answered by further research.

          One of the places violence is learned is on 
        television. Over 35 years of laboratory and real-life 
        studies provide evidence that televised violence is a 
        cause of aggression among children, both 
        contemporaneously, and over time. Television violence 
        affects youngsters of all ages, both genders, at all 
        socio-economic levels, and all levels of intelligence. 
        The effect is not limited to children who are already 
        disposed to being aggressive, and it is not restricted 
        to the United States.\16\
    \16\ Oral Testimony of Dr. Leonard Eron on behalf of the American 
Psychological Association, Institute for Social Research, University of 
Michigan, before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, Communications Subcommittee, July 12, 1995.

  While it is perhaps axiomatic that children who become 
violent because of television suffer harm, it is worth noting 
that such children suffer harm in many ways. For example, they 
can become anti-social, distant from others, and unproductive 
members of society, especially if their actions arouse fear in 
other people. They can suffer from imprisonment or other forms 
of criminal punishment if their violence leads to illegal 
behavior.
  Violent behavior may not be the only harm caused by viewing 
violent television. According to the American Psychological 
Association, viewing violence can cause fearfulness, 
desensitization, or an increased appetite for more 
violence.\17\ In other words, as with ``obscenity'' and 
``indecency'', the harm from television violence may result 
simply from viewing violent material, even if no violent 
behavior follows such viewing.
    \17\ See, Testimony of Shirley Igo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  A related compelling Governmental interest is the need to 
protect society as a whole from the harmful results of 
television-induced violent behavior. A child who views 
excessive amounts of television violence is not the only person 
who suffers harm. As Dr. Eron testified, children who watch 
excessive amounts of television when they are young are more 
``prone to be convicted for more serious crimes by age 30; more 
aggressive while under the influence of alcohol; and, harsher 
in the punishment they administered to their own children.'' 
\18\
    \18\ Written Testimony of Dr. Eron, p. 2. Dr. Eron further warns 
that ``. . . like secondary smoke effects, . . . don't think that just 
because you have protected your child from the effects of television 
violence that your child is not affected. You and your child might be 
the victims of violence perpetrated by someone who as a youngster, did 
learn the motivation for and the techniques of violence from 
television.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The Government's interest in protecting the privacy of the 
home from intrusion by violent programming may provide a fourth 
compelling Governmental interest. The Supreme Court has 
recognized that ``in the privacy of the home * * * the 
individual's right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First 
Amendment rights of an intruder''.\19\ The right to privacy in 
one's home was recently used to uphold legislation limiting 
persons from making automated telephone calls to residences and 
small businesses.\20\ Just as subscribers to telephones do not 
give permission to telemarketers to place automated telephone 
calls, the ownership of a television does not give programmers 
permission to broadcast material that is an intrusion into the 
privacy of the home.
    \19\ FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 748 (1978).
    \20\ See, Moser v. FCC, 46 F. 3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 
by Supreme Court on June 26, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Some in the broadcast industry, for instance, argue that the 
industry should be trusted to regulate itself to reduce the 
amount of violence. Parents should bear the primary 
responsibility for protecting their children, according to some 
observers. Others say that the warnings and advisories that 
many programmers now add to certain shows are a lesser 
restrictive means of protecting children. Finally, some believe 
that parental control technologies, such as the so-called ``V-
chip'' technology, would protect children without imposing as 
much of a burden on the First Amendment rights of the 
television industry.
  S. 772 provides a non-regulatory and unintrusive approach to 
addressing the problem of television violence. The legislation 
imposes no limit on the television community's right to free 
speech.
    As discussed earlier, the television industry has been told 
to improve its programming by Congress for over 40 years. The 
first Congressional hearings on television violence were held 
in 1952. Hearings were held in the Senate in 1954 and again in 
the 1960's, the 1970's, and 1980's. At each hearing, 
representatives of the television industry testified that they 
were committed to ensuring that their programming was safe and 
appropriate for children. In 1972, the Surgeon General called 
for Congressional action, but this call was ignored after the 
broadcast industry reached an agreement with the FCC to 
restrict violent programs and programs unsuitable for children 
during the ``family hour''.
    There is substantial evidence, however, that despite the 
promises of the television industry, the amount of violence on 
television is far greater than the amount of violence in 
society and continues to increase. According to one study, 
``[s]ince 1955, television characters have been murdered at a 
rate one thousand times higher than real-world victims. Indeed, 
television violence has far outstripped reality since the 
1950s.'' \21\ As noted earlier, the American Academy of 
Pediatrics recorded a threefold increase in the amount of 
violence on television during the 1980's. The most recent 
survey of television in one city found a 41% increase in two 
years.
    \21\ S. Robert Lichter, Linda S. Lichter and Stanley Rothman, Prime 
Time: How TV portrays American Culture, (Regnery Publishing, Inc., 
Washington, D.C., 1994), p. 275.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As Shirley Igo noted in her testimony before the Committee 
on behalf of the National Parent-Teachers Association, the 
broadcast networks have drastically reduced the amount of 
educational programming for children:

          * * * it was found that in 1980, the three major 
        networks combined were showing 11 hours of educational 
        shows per week, but by 1990 such programming had 
        diminished to less than two hours per week. Yet, there 
        was more non-educational programming targeted at 
        children than ever before. * * * It is clear to the 
        National PTA and should be clear to members of this 
        Committee that if our collective goal is to reduce 
        violence on television, voluntary efforts by the 
        industry will not get our nation to achieving that 
        goal.\22\
    \22\ Testimony of Shirley Igo, National PTA Vice-President for 
Legislation, before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, July 12, 1995.

    The incentives of the television industry can be 
illustrated by a quote from a memo giving directions to the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
writers of the program ``Man Against Crime'' on CBS in 1953:

          It has been found that we retain audience interest 
        best when our stories are concerned with murder. 
        Therefore, although other crimes may be introduced, 
        somebody must be murdered, preferably early, with the 
        threat of more violence to come. \23\
    \23\ Quoted in Eric Barnouw, Image Empire: A History of Broadcast 
in the United States, Vol. III, p. 23.

    The latest attempt to allow the industry to regulate itself 
came in 1990, when Sen. Paul Simon authored legislation to give 
the television industry a three-year exemption from the 
antitrust laws to develop a common code to limit television 
violence. In December 1992, the four broadcast networks 
released a common code of conduct that many criticized for 
being weaker than the networks' own code of practices. In any 
case, the code appears to have had little effect on the amount 
of violence on television.
    Some observers argue that a requirement to put warnings or 
parental advisories before certain violent programs would be a 
less restrictive means of satisfying the Government's interest 
in protecting children. The Committee has received no evidence, 
however, that such warnings accomplish the purpose of 
protecting children.\24\ Indeed, there is some reason to 
believe that advisories may increase the amount of violence on 
television, if the television industry believes that it has 
provided notice to parents to protect itself from criticism. 
Some observers believe that programmers may want a warning 
label to be placed on a program in order to attract 
viewers.\25\
    \24\ The Committee notes that it has received no evidence 
indicating that the warning labels on music records and compact discs 
has reduced the exposure of children to inappropriate lyrics.
    \25\ For example, Ms. Lindsay Wagner, a television actress, 
testified in 1993 that filmmakers sometimes lobby to get an ``R'' 
rating. ``We now have a couple of generations that have been reared on 
violence for fun and many flock to the films with warnings.'' Testimony 
of Ms. Lindsay Wagner, Hearing on S. 1383, the Children's Protection 
from Violent Programming Act of 1993, before the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation, p. 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some observers believe that a variety of technologies that 
are now available to television consumers can assist parents in 
controlling the programs that their children watch. The 
Committee received testimony from a number of manufacturers 
during which they demonstrated how these technologies could be 
used. The television industry believes that there is no need 
for government action because parents can purchase technologies 
on the market that will allow them to screen out undesirable 
programs. In addition, the Committee also received testimony in 
favor of mandating that certain of these technologies be placed 
in every television set manufactured after a certain date (the 
so-called V-chip legislation).
    For several reasons, it is not clear that any of these 
approaches will be effective.
    First, each of these alternatives requires that parents 
spend money to purchase either a box, a service, a new 
television set, or software programs to conduct the screening. 
In other words, these alternatives place the burden on the 
parent, rather than on the industry that is generating the 
violent programming. Often, parents either cannot afford or 
choose not to spend the money to purchase these technologies. 
The developer of the Telecommander technology, for instance, 
received a patent for his television screening device in 1978, 
but has not been able to obtain capital to bring the product to 
market, presumably because of the uncertain demand for the 
product.
    For the V-chip approach to be effective, parents would need 
to purchase new television sets with the chip before the 
parents could block out objectionable programs. According to 
the Electronics Industries Association, television sets are 
replaced every 8 to 12 years. For those families that have not 
yet replaced their televisions, and for those that retain old 
televisions even after they purchase a new television set, the 
V-chip may approach may not have much impact.
    Second, there are significant questions about the ability 
of parents to program the technologies effectively. Any such 
technological approach must be easy enough for parents to use, 
but must be difficult enough to prevent the children from 
unblocking the program. In many households, however, the 
children often are more comfortable with the technologies than 
the parents.\26\
    \26\ It is worth noting that one of the witnesses at the July 12 
hearing before the Committee had difficulty operating the technology 
that his company had developed. See, Oral Testimony of Mr. Wayne C. 
Luplow, Vice President, Zenith Electronics Corporation, Hearing on 
Television Violence before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, July 12, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, the V-chip legislation already adopted by the Senate 
and House in the comprehensive telecommunications bills passed 
by each body (S. 652 and H.R. 1555) would not require 
programmers to encode each signal. Without such a requirement, 
however, it is uncertain whether programmers would rate the 
programs voluntarily and, if not, whether the legislation would 
be effective.
    The ``report card'' approach, by comparison, would not 
require the programmers to rate each and every program, but 
would simply provide consumers with information with which to 
make their own choices about what should be viewed in their 
homes.

                          Legislative History

    In October 1993, the Senate Commerce Committee held a 
hearing on television violence to consider a variety of 
legislative proposals. Attorney General Janet Reno testified 
that the legislation currently pending before the Committee, 
including S.973, the ``Television Violence Report Card Act of 
1993'', would be constitutional. The broadcast networks and 
other industry representatives argued that the amount of 
violent programming was less than in previous years. The 
industry also testified that the industry should be given more 
time to implement its warning labels before legislation should 
be considered.
    On July 12, 1995, the Committee held its second hearing on 
television violence to consider pending measures, including 
S.772 (104th Congress), a measure similar to S. 973 (103rd 
Congress). In open executive session on August 10, 1995, the 
Committee ordered reported S.772, without amendment, by a 
recorded vote of 13 yeas and 4 nays, with two Senators not 
voting.

                            Estimated Costs

    In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, October 25, 1995.
Hon. Larry Pressler,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed S. 772, the Television Violence Report Card Act of 
1995, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation on August 10, 1995. CBO estimates 
that enacting S. 772 would not result in any significant cost 
to the federal government. Because enactment of S. 772 would 
not affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply to the bill. The bill also would not 
affect the budgets of state or local governments.
    S. 772 would direct the Department of Commerce to award 
grants to one or more not-for-profit organizations for the 
purpose of evaluating and reporting on the violence contained 
in television programs at least once every 90 days during 
fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The bill would authorize the 
appropriation of such sums as necessary to award the required 
grants. CBO expects that the Domestic Policy Division of the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
(NTIA) would award and monitor the grants. We estimate that the 
costs to NTIA to administer the grants and the amounts awarded 
would total less than $500,000 per year, subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel 
Forward.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

  In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the 
legislation, as reported.
  This legislation will have little, if any, impact on the 
television and cable industries. The legislation simply 
authorizes the Department of Commerce to make grants to not-
for-profit entities to assess the level of violence in 
television programming. The legislation does not require or 
suggest any action to be taken by the FCC in regulating these 
industries and does not impose any obligation on the industries 
themselves. The purpose of the legislation is to provide 
viewers with information that they may use in deciding what 
programs to watch.
  The legislation will have no impact on the personal privacy 
of consumers or the industries. The recipients of grant money 
will assess television programs made available to the public 
and will not scrutinize business records or proprietary 
information of the companies involved in airing these programs.
  The legislation will not affect any persons in the television 
and cable industries. The employees of the Department of 
Commerce will face the added responsibility of administering 
the grant program. This burden is likely to be small because 
the Department already conducts several grant programs 
involving much greater amounts of money than is involved in 
this legislation. The Department of Commerce is expected to 
receive applications by interested not-for-profit entities to 
receive the grants, which will result in a slight increase in 
the amount of paperwork at the Department of Commerce.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short title

  This section states the short title of the bill as the 
Television Violence Report Card Act of 1995.

Section 2. Findings

  Section 2 of the bill states Congressional findings.

Section 3. Television violence report cards

  Section 3 requires that the Secretary of Commerce make grants 
during fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to not-for-profit entities 
for the purpose of assessing the nature and extent of 
television violence.
  The guidelines for carrying out an assessment are set forth 
in subsection (b) of section 3. An entity receiving a grant is 
required to (1) review current broadcast and cable television 
programs to determine the nature and extent of violence 
depicted in each program, (2) prepare an assessment that 
describes and categorizes that violence, and (3) make its 
assessment available to the public. The program review shall be 
carried out at least once every 90 days. When publicizing the 
assessment, the entity must identify the sponsor or sponsors of 
each television program covered.
  Subsection (c) directs the Secretary of Commerce to use 
competitive procedures to determine which entities will be 
awarded grants under this section.
  Subsection (d) authorizes the appropriation of such sums as 
may be necessary to make the grants.

                      Rollcall Votes in Committee

  In accordance with paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following description of the record votes during its 
consideration of S. 772:
  At the close of debate on S. 772, the Chairman announced a 
rollcall vote on the bill. On a rollcall vote of 13 yeas and 4 
nays as follows, the bill was ordered reported:

        YEAS--13                      NAYS--4
Mr. Hollings                        Mr. Pressler
Mr. McCain 1                   Mr. Stevens 1
Mr. Gorton                          Mr. Ashcroft 1
Mr. Lott                            Mr. Breaux
Mrs. Hutchison
Ms. Snowe
Mr. Inouye 1
Mr. Ford
Mr. Exon 1
Mr. Rockefeller
Mr. Kerry 1
Mr. Bryan 1
Mr. Dorgan

    \1\ By proxy
                   MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR PRESSLER

    S. 772 would institute government-sponsored ``report 
cards'' on television programming. By categorizing programming 
on the basis of its content, the government would establish 
what is tantamount to a ``black list'' of programming it does 
not like, and as such, violates the First Amendment under 
established U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
    The bill also authorizes the Commerce Department to provide 
grants to one or more nonprofit organizations sufficient to 
fund a review of current television programs to determine the 
nature and extent of violence depicted in each program, 
describe and categorize those determinations, and make that 
information, as well as the identity of the programs 
advertising sponsors, publicly available. Such review, the 
legislation mandates, should take place at least every ninety 
days.
    Under S. 772, the government, through the grant program, 
would categorize some programming disfavorably on the basis of 
its content. By publicizing the advertisers of disfavored 
programming in an attempt to bring down the public's wrath upon 
them, the legislation intentionally pastes a ``scarlet letter'' 
on those who would dare sponsor ``violent'' programming. This 
government-sponsored black-listing of programmers and 
advertisers will chill--if not freeze--the broadcast of 
``disfavored'' programming. The constitutional infirmities of 
such a proposal are substantial and well established.
    Putting content labels on television programs through 
government-sponsored report cards is not the same as requiring 
Food and Drug Administration labels on food products, as 
proponents have argued. Television programs qualify as speech 
protected by the first amendment, food products do not.
    As recently as last summer in Rosenberger v. University of 
Virginia,\27\ the Supreme Court recognized that ``the first 
danger to liberty lies in granting the State the power to 
examine publications to determine whether or not they are based 
on some ultimate idea and if so for the State to classify 
them.'' The ``second, and corollary, danger'' to free speech 
comes from ``the chilling of individual thought and 
expression.'' S. 772's proposal to categorize programming 
according to violent content, and then disclose the advertisers 
of such programming, directly implicates the ``[v]ital First 
Amendment speech principles'' that concerned the Court in 
Rosenberger.
    \27\ Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 115 S.Ct.2510 (1995) 
*This case has not yet been published in the official Supreme Court 
Reporter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One certain result from S. 772--indeed, it is the hope and 
intention of the sponsors--is that advertisers will be 
discouraged from sponsoring programs deemed high in violent 
content. The Supreme Court in Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members 
of the N.Y. State Crime Bd.\28\ found such a result places a 
financial burden on programming that is presumptively 
unconstitutional. Simply put, the legislation, by design, would 
have a chilling effect on speech sufficient to render it 
``censorship effectuated by extralegal sanctions.'' Bantam 
Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963).\29\ As the Supreme Court 
recognized in its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling, such 
impermissible sanctions are cognizable ``even if any deterrent 
effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights arises, not 
through direct government action, but indirectly as an 
unintended but inevitable result of the government's conduct 
requiring [the report cards.]'' \30\.
    \28\ Simon & Shuster, Inc. v. Members of the N.Y. State Crime 
Victims Bd. 502 U.S. 105 (1991).
    \29\ Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 72 (1963).
    \30\ Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 65 (1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  While S. 772 poses as a First Amendment-friendly proposal 
that, unlike other proposals, does not ban any programming or 
mandate the transmission of government ratings, the offenses to 
the First Amendment are equally offensive. In order to survive 
judicial scrutiny, the reporting system established must be 
unrelated to any desire to suppress free speech. S. 772, which 
is clearly intended to suppress free speech, albeit indirectly, 
obviously fails that test.
  Moreover, the fact that non-profit organizations, rather than 
the government, would classify the programs does not save this 
legislation from violating the First Amendment. Under S. 772, 
the Commerce Department will award grants to groups based on 
their ability to meet criteria for classification set by the 
government. This is clearly the government speaking through 
federally funded private entities. The Commerce Department, 
through its grant decision-making, will in effect define the 
kind of violent expression that will be targeted, the type of 
programming that is deemed inappropriately or deleteriously 
violent, and the fundamental nature of the report card. This 
control over the nature and extent of the report, as well as 
the means of carrying it out, makes this whole approach one of 
state action, rather than private activity.
  Of course, there is no First Amendment violation if private 
organizations wish to take the tack of this legislation, i.e., 
categorize television programming and urge boycotts against the 
sponsors of violent programming. However, such efforts are not 
to be led, encouraged or paid for by the government, as S. 772 
explicitly would do.
  In fact, a variety of organizations currently publish 
ratings, reviews and content summaries of television 
programming. Congress should not squander taxpayer money on new 
studies to generate information about the content of television 
programming that the private sector already is generating on 
its own in a competitive market.
  As the committee hearings demonstrated, the inherent 
subjectivity of defining violence is inescapable when applied 
to analysis of actual programming. The Concordia College study, 
which was put forth as a demonstration of how a report card 
study would work, yielded incredulous results. For instance, 
the Helen Keller film, the ``Miracle Worker'' was rated on par 
with ``Beavis and Butthead,'' while an Arts and Entertainment 
channel documentary ranked nearly five times worse in terms of 
violent content.
  The task of categorizing violence is fraught with unintended 
consequences. One clear result will be a black-listing of 
programmers and advertisers who sponsor programming the 
government does not favor. The American public utterly rejected 
black-listing when it was used against individuals in the 
entertainment industry decades ago. We in the Senate must not 
begin to go down this path again. Congress would do well to 
leave viewing decisions where they belong, in the hands of 
parents, and avoid transgressing the First Amendment of the 
Constitution.

                                
