[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 155 (Thursday, August 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49899-49904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-18467]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[MM Docket No. 04-261; FCC 04-175]


Violent Television Programming and Its Impact on Children

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on issues 
relating to the presentation of violent programming on television and 
its impact on children.

DATES: Comments are due September 15, 2004; reply comments are due 
October 15, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. For further filing information, see SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Golant, (202) 418-7111 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Notice of Inquiry, 
FCC 04-175, adopted July 15, 2004 and released July 28, 2004. The full 
text of the Commission's NOI is available for inspection and copying 
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257) 
at its headquarters, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or may 
be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex 
International, (202) 863-2893, Portals II, Room CY-B402, 445 12th St., 
SW., Washington, DC 20554, or may be reviewed via Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/mb.

Synopsis of the Notice of Inquiry

I. Introduction

    1. We initiate this Notice of Inquiry (``NOI'') to seek comment on 
issues relating to the presentation of violent programming on 
television and its impact on children. Violent television programming 
content has been a matter of private and governmental concern and 
discussion from at least the early 1950s. Congress' response, in 1996, 
was adoption of section 551 of the Telecommunication Act 1996, which 
resulted in the Commission's implementation of the companion elements 
of the voluntary television rating system and associated ``V-chip'' 
technology in 1998. More recently, the Commission has received 
continuing expressions of Congressional concern with respect to violent 
programming. On March 5, 2004, thirty-nine members of the U.S. House of 
Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, requested the 
Commission to begin a ``Notice of Inquiry on the issue of excessively 
violent broadcast television programming and its impact on children.'' 
This proceeding is designed to be responsive to these concerns and to 
update the record on issues related to programmatic violence.
    2. Through this proceeding we seek comment and information along 
the following lines of inquiry. How much violent programming is there, 
and what are the trends? What are the effects of viewing violent 
programming on children and other segments of the population? If 
particular portrayals of violence are more likely to cause deleterious 
effects than others, what specific kinds of programming should be the 
focus of any further public policymaking in this area? Should any 
further public policymaking address all violence or just excessive or 
gratuitous violence, and how should that be defined? Are the ratings 
system and the V-chip accomplishing their intended purpose, or are 
there additional mechanisms that might be developed to control exposure 
to media violence? Finally, are there legal constraints on either 
Congress or the Commission to regulate violent programming?

II. Discussion and Request for Comment

A. Incidence of Violent Programming

    3. We seek specific information concerning how much televised 
violence there is on broadcast and non-broadcast television and whether 
the amount of violent programming is increasing or decreasing. The 
National TV Violence Study, which appears to be of the most extensive 
content analyses to date, involving the efforts of more than 300 people 
recording and watching more than 10,000 hours of television programming 
from 1994 to 1997, indicates that more than half of all television 
programming contains violence. More specifically, during the period of 
the study, the proportion of programming with violence consistently 
hovered around 60%. During prime time, the proportion rose from 53% to 
67% on broadcast networks, and from 54% to 64% on basic (i.e., non-
premium) cable channels. In addition, cartoons include an average of 
approximately one ``high-risk'' portrayal of violence per cartoon, as 
categorized by the researchers. There have been more recent reports on 
television violence. For example, the Parents Television Council 
(``PTC'') conducted a content study finding that on all the television 
networks combined, violence was 41% more frequent during the 8 p.m. 
Family Hour in 2002 than in 1998 and during the second hour of prime 
time (9-10 p.m.), violence was 134.4% more frequent in 2002 that in 
1998.
    4. We seek additional information on the frequency of televised 
violence. The National TV Violence Study reports the results of study 
during the three-year period 1994-1997. What more recent information, 
aside from the PTC Study noted above, is available about the incidence 
of violence on television programming? What are the trends? Are there 
differences between broadcast and non-broadcast media (i.e., cable and 
satellite)? Are there differences between

[[Page 49900]]

premium and non-premium channels on cable or satellite?

B. Effects of Viewing Violent Programming

    5. At its core, concern about media violence derives from concern 
about deleterious effects, particularly on children, that may result 
from exposure to it. Over the course of several decades, much research 
has been developed to examine and study these effects. Much of the 
research within the public health and scientific communities suggests 
that exposure to media violence can be associated with certain negative 
effects. Three types of studies have generally been described in the 
literature; (1) field experiments in which subjects are shown video 
programming with their short-term post-viewing behavior monitored by 
researchers; (2) cross-sectional studies involving a survey of a sample 
of individuals at one point in time and their conduct correlated with 
the amount and type of their television viewing; and (3) longitudinal 
studies that survey the same group of individuals at different times 
over many years to determine the effects of television viewing on 
subsequent behavior. Through these studies efforts have been made to 
establish a cause and effect relationship between the viewing of 
``violent'' programming by ``children'' and subsequent aggressive 
behavior on the part of these individuals. Various definitions of 
violence and various age groups have been involved. Some of the studies 
also involve the effects of television viewing of all types rather than 
just violent programming. Some involve the behavior of college-age or 
older viewers. The researchers have tended to focus on three possible 
harmful effects: (1) Increased antisocial behavior, including 
imitations of aggression or negative interaction; (2) desensitization 
to violence; and (3) increased fear of becoming a victim of violence.
    6. A year 2000 review of the scientific research on the effects of 
entertainment media violence on children, which appears as part of the 
Federal Trade Commission's report on Marketing Violent Entertainment to 
Children, summarized the research as follows:

    A majority of the investigations into the impact of media 
violence on children find that there is a high correlation between 
exposure to media violence and aggressive and at times violent 
behavior. In addition, a number of research efforts report that 
exposure to media violence is correlated with increased acceptance 
of violent behavior in others, as well as an exaggerated perception 
of the amount of violence in society. Regarding causation, however, 
the studies appear to be less conclusive. Most researchers and 
investigators agree that exposure to media violence alone does not 
cause a child to commit a violent act, and that it is not the sole, 
or even necessarily the most important, factor contributing to youth 
aggression, anti-social attitudes, and violence. Although a 
consensus among researchers exists regarding the empirical 
relationships, significant differences remain over the 
interpretation of these associations and their implications for 
public policy.

    A 2001 report from the United States Surgeon General's 2001 Youth 
Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General summarized the research thus:

    In sum, a diverse body of research provides strong evidence that 
exposure to violence in the media can increase children's aggressive 
behavior in the short term. Some studies suggest that long-term 
effects exist, and there are strong theoretical reasons why this is 
the case. But many questions remain regarding the short- and long-
term effects of media violence, especially on violent behavior. 
Despite considerable advances in research, it is not yet possible to 
describe accurately how much exposure, of what types, for how long, 
at what ages, for what types of children, or in what types of 
settings will predict violent behavior in adolescents and adults.

    Research has continued since the completion of these two Reports, 
including new longitudinal studies buttressing the conclusion that 
childhood exposure to media violence lasts into adulthood and increases 
aggressive behavior. In addition, researchers have developed new 
methods of measuring the impact of exposure to media violence on 
children, including MRI brain mapping research conducted at the Indiana 
University School of Medicine and elsewhere. According to testimony 
given in 2003 before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & 
Transportation, a comprehensive bibliography of research and 
publications in this field includes 1,945 reports on children and 
television, approximately 600 of which deal with the issue of TV 
violence.
    7. As indicated above, numerous studies have demonstrated the 
harmful effects of media violence on children. We seek comment on any 
additional recent research in the field. We seek additional comment on 
the debate and how the private sector, members of the public, and 
academia are continuing to address the net effects of media violence. 
Is there a correlation between exposure to violence and aggressive 
behavior? If so, what are the implications? Are there particular harms 
children suffer as a result of exposure to violent programming? What 
other factors contribute to observed aggressive behavior? Do depictions 
of violence in video programming have an identifiably different effect 
on children or adults than do descriptions of violence in other media, 
including print? How important is exposure to electronic media violence 
relative to other sources of exposure; i.e., does watching Wile E. 
Coyote fall off a cliff in a cartoon have more or less an impact on a 
child's psyche than reading about Hansel and Gretel forcing a witch 
into a hot oven in Grimm's fairy tales? Are there countervailing 
benefits that flow from televised violence? Does the inclusion of 
violent events in fictional accounts help individuals understand and 
process actual incidences of violence they may encounter, experience, 
or learn of? Does violence serve any artistic function that should be 
considered, or are all depictions of violence necessarily gratuitous?

C. Defining Violent or Excessively or Gratuitously Violent Programming 
for Public Policy Purposes

    8. The above discussion assumes a well established definition of 
violence in terms of measuring both the amount and effect of violent 
programming. This is not necessarily the case. There are definitional 
difficulties because ``not all violence is created equal.'' From a 
public policy standpoint, is there a need to define all violence, or 
simply gratuitous or excessive violence?
    9. For the purpose of determining, as a general matter, whether a 
program contains violence, researchers have used broad definitions. For 
example, one researcher defined violence as ``the overt expression of 
force intended to hurt or kill'' in a content analysis conducted in the 
1960s as part of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention 
of Violence. The National TV Violence Study defined violence as ``any 
overt depiction of a credible threat of physical force or the actual 
use of such force intended to physically harm an animate being or group 
of beings. Violence also includes certain depictions of physically 
harmful consequences against an animate being or group that occur as a 
result of unseen violent means.'' The UCLA Violence Reports defined 
violence as ``the act of, attempt at, physical threat of or the 
consequences of physical force.'' As the 1997 TV Violence Report 
explains, such broad definitions ``include violence, cartoon violence, 
slapstick violence--anything that involves or immediately threatens 
physical harms of any sort, intentional or unintentional, self-
inflicted or inflicted by someone or something else.'' We seek comment 
on whether these definitions are appropriate.

[[Page 49901]]

    10. At the same time, however, researchers have often attempted to 
identify the context, or qualitative nature, of a portrayal of 
violence. The 1997 TV Violence Report explains:

    While parents, critics and others complain about the problem of 
violence on television, it is not the mere presence of violence that 
is the problem. If violence alone was the problem and V-chips or 
other methods did away with violent scenes or programs, viewers 
might never see a historical drama like Roots or such outstanding 
theatrical films as Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Forrest 
Gump and Schindler's List. In many instances, the use of violence 
may be critical to a story that actually sends an anti-violence 
message. Some important stories, such as Shakespeare's Hamlet, the 
history of World War II or the life of Abraham Lincoln, would be 
impossible to convey accurately without including portrayals of 
violence.
    For centuries, violence has been an important element of 
storytelling, and violent themes have been found in the Bible, The 
Iliad and The Odyssey, fairy tales, theater, literature, film and, 
of course, television. Descriptions of violence in the Bible have 
been important for teaching lessons and establishing a moral code. 
Lessons of the evils of jealousy and revenge are learned from the 
story of Cain and Abel. Early fairy tales were filled with violence 
and gruesomeness designed to frighten children into behaving and to 
teach them right from wrong. It was only when fairy tales were 
portrayed on the big screen by Walt Disney and others that the 
violence contained in the stories was substantially sanitized.

    In other words the study suggests, ``[t]he issue is not the mere 
presence of violence but the nature of violence and the context in 
which it occurs. Context is key to the determination of whether or not 
violence is appropriate.'' The National TV Violence Study similarly 
emphasizes that ``the way in which violence is presented helps to 
determine whether a portrayal might be harmful to viewers.''
    11. But distinguishing one form of violence from another based on 
context is a difficult exercise. Again, in explaining how the 
researchers involved in the UCLA violence studies determined which 
programs raised ``concerns'' about violence, the 1997 TV Violence 
Report illustrates the problem:

    No matter how well the definitions were drawn, there would be 
those who felt that some aspect of violence should or should not 
have been included. Almost everyone has his or her own definition of 
violence. People have often attempted to validate or invalidate 
quantitative research based on how much the scholar's definition 
resembles their own. Animation for children is a good example of 
this phenomenon. Consider a cartoon in which a character is hit over 
the head with a two-by-four, a funny sound effect is heard, the 
character shakes his head and merrily continues on his way. Some 
people might consider this the worst type of violence because it is 
unrealistic, there are no consequences and it might encourage 
children to imitate it precisely because it shows no consequences. 
Others feel they watched these cartoons growing up and did not 
imitate them because they knew these cartoons obviously were not 
``real.'' Scholars have had to decide whether to count this type of 
violence and usually have included it. Anyone who feels this 
inclusion is silly would reject the entire definition and might 
ignore the conclusions of the research. The same is true with 
slapstick humor. Sports programming provides yet another example. 
Many feel that violent spectator sports such as football or hockey 
make violence an acceptable or even desirable part of American life. 
Whether to count unrealistic cartoon violence, slapstick humor or 
sports within a definition of violence is itself a difficult 
decision.

    We seek comment on these issues.
    12. Against the backdrop of these definitional difficulties, what 
kinds of portrayals of violence are of greatest concern, particularly 
with respect to children? The National TV Violence Study states that 
``[i]f the consequences of violence are demonstrated, if violence is 
shown to be regretted or punished, if its perpetrators are not 
glamorized, if the act of violence is not seen as justifiable, if in 
general violence is shown in a negative light, then the portrayal of 
violence may not create undesirable consequences. But if violence is 
glamorized, sanitized or made to seem routine, then the message is that 
it is an acceptable, and perhaps even desirable, course of action.'' 
More specifically, the National TV Violence Study indicates that the 
portrayals that pose the greatest risk for learning aggression contain 
attractive perpetrators, morally justified reasons for engaging in 
violence, repeated incidents of violence that appear realistic, 
violence that is rewarded or unpunished, and violence that does not 
show harm or pain to a victim or is presented in a humorous context. 
According to the study, portrayals that pose the greatest risk for 
desensitization contain repeated incidents of violence or violence 
presented in a humorous context. Portrayals that pose the greatest risk 
for audience fear contain attractive victims, violence that appears 
unjustified, repeated and realistic, and unpunished. In addition, the 
1997 TV Violence Report provides as examples of ``inappropriate or 
improper uses of violence'' those ``which glorify the act or teach that 
violence is always the way to resolve conflict.'' That report further 
states that ``the consequences of violence should be shown and those 
persons using violence inappropriately should be punished. We would 
also note that when violence is used realistically, it is more 
desirable to accurately portray the consequences than to sanitize the 
violence in a manner designed to make it acceptable.'' On the other 
hand, some might argue that a television program such as ``The Three 
Stooges'' does not pose a great risk to children even if the violence 
is presented humorously and without obvious consequences. Similarly, 
some might argue that more graphic violence is potentially more harmful 
to children than violence in which, for example, a body falls from a 
gunshot wound but the wounds are not shown. We seek additional comment 
on the types of portrayals that are of greatest concern, particularly 
with respect to children.
    13. How much televised violence is portrayed in a way that is most 
likely to harm children? For example, the National TV Violence Study 
states that 40% of the violent incidents studied were initiated by 
characters with qualities that make them good role models; 70% of 
violent scenes do not show penalty or remorse for violence at the time 
it occurs; roughly half of violent incidents do not show physical harm 
or pain; at least 40% of violent scenes include humor. The UCLA reports 
also identify particular shows that raised ``concerns'' about violence, 
according to a variety of contextual factors. We seek additional 
information on what type of programming is potentially the most 
damaging, and how frequently it occurs.
    14. As we consider definitional issues, we also ask commenters to 
identify with precision the age groups that qualify as ``children'' 
when they discuss whether violent programming is harmful to them. Some 
scholarship suggests that children under the age of seven or eight are 
especially impressionable because they have difficulty distinguishing 
between fantasy and reality. We seek additional information on research 
that evidences and explains the particular age groups that are of 
concern.
    15. Finally, in the context of possible regulation in this area, we 
note that members of the House Commerce Committee have asked the 
Commission to examine whether it would be in the public interest for 
the agency to define ``excessively violent programming that is harmful 
to children,'' and if so, how we might do so. We also seek comment on 
how such a standard could be implemented in a manner that is both clear 
to the industry and practical to administer. We seek comment on these 
issues to be responsive to the Committee's concerns.

[[Page 49902]]

D. TV Parental Guidelines and V-Chip

    16. A regulatory system already exists to help parents and viewers 
control the exposure of children to media violence. The television 
industry rates programming using the TV Parental Guidelines, and 
encodes programming accordingly; in addition, the Commission has 
required that, by January 1, 2000, all television sets manufactured in 
the United States or shipped in interstate commerce with a picture 
screen of thirteen inches or larger be equipped with a ``V-chip'' that 
can be programmed to block violent, sexual, or other programming that 
parents believe harmful to their children.
    17. We seek comment on the status of the existing rating and V-chip 
system as tools to help parents and viewers screen out violence. To 
what extent is programming in fact rated, using both the age-based 
ratings, and the additional content labels for violence? Are the 
ratings consistent and accurate? A 1998 Kaiser Family Foundation study 
indicates that, during the first year the ratings system was in use, 
only 20% of programs that contained violence, sexual material, or adult 
language actually used the appropriate content label. This same study 
found that 79% of violent programming is not specifically rated for 
violence.'' Moreover, a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation study indicates 
that 40% of parents who use the rating system do not believe programs 
are rated accurately. According to that study, more than half of all 
parents use the ratings system to decide what programming that their 
children may watch. In light of these findings, we seek comment on 
whether the lack of a content rating for violence renders ineffective 
any technology-based blocking mechanism, built into television sets, 
designed to limit violent programming.
    18. We seek comment on these findings of the Kaiser Family 
Foundation. Is more recent information available on these issues? To 
what extent is use being made of the rating system? Do the TV Parental 
Guidelines now in use give parents sufficient information to make 
educated programming decisions for their children?
    19. We also seek comment on the usefulness of the V-chip. Although 
as many as 40% of parents have television sets equipped with a V-chip, 
more than half of them are not aware of it, and two thirds of those who 
are do not use it. The Kaiser Foundation, in a recent study, has found 
that parents have not used the V-Chip even after a concerted effort to 
inform them about it. We seek comment on recent initiatives to educate 
parents about the V-Chip's availability. What can be done to enhance 
the usefulness of the V-chip? Are there ways to improve the ratings 
system?

E. Possible New Regulatory Solution: ``Safe Harbor''

    20. If the TV Parental Guidelines and V-chip are not adequate to 
protect children from any identifiable dangers of exposure to media 
violence, what other mechanisms are available? In their recent letter, 
members of the House Commerce Committee specifically asked how the 
Commission ``might restrict broadcast of `excessively violent 
programming that is harmful to children' during the hours when children 
are likely to be a substantial part of the viewing audience, so that it 
might supplement the TV ratings system, such as by creating time of day 
restrictions and measures that facilitate a consumer's use of the 
television ratings system.'' The legislation pending in Congress also 
involves a ``safe harbor'' provision and the Senate has adopted 
language to that effect.
    21. A starting point for considering a ``safe harbor'' solution is 
our indecency rules. Indecent speech is entitled to constitutional 
protection, and so cannot be prohibited entirely. However, to protect 
children, the Commission's rules prohibit the broadcast of indecent 
speech from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., when children are likely to be a 
substantial part of the viewing audience. The Commission may fine 
television and radio stations for broadcasting indecent content during 
this time period. At other times of the day, during the ``safe harbor'' 
of the late night and early morning hours, the Commission permits the 
broadcast of such speech. Obscene speech on cable and other 
subscription television services, as well as on broadcast services, is 
a criminal offense at all hours. Indecency regulation is only applied 
to broadcast services. Would it be in the public interest to have 
``safe harbor'' restrictions on violent programming content? Should it 
apply to the broadcast medium only?
    22. Alternatively, the Congress or the Commission could tie the 
application of any ``safe harbor'' to the television ratings system, as 
the bill pending before the Senate Commerce Committee does. That bill 
would declare it ``unlawful for any person to distribute to the public 
any violent video programming not blockable by electronic means 
specifically on the basis of its violent content when children are 
reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the audience.'' 
The Senate bill would also require the Commission, upon finding in 
ongoing review that the television ratings system and the V-chip were 
not accomplishing their intended purposes, to ``prohibit the 
distribution of violent video programming during the hours when 
children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the 
audience.'' In other words, the bill would restrict violent programming 
to a ``safe harbor'' only if the programming has not been rated 
violent, or if the Commission finds that the ratings system and V-chip 
are not accomplishing their intended purpose. The bill does not 
distinguish between broadcast and non-broadcast media, and specifically 
notes that ``[b]roadcast television, cable television, and video 
programming are (A) uniquely pervasive presences in the lives of all 
American children; and (B) readily accessible to all American 
children.'' We seek comment on whether the V-Chip is accomplishing its 
intended purpose, and if not, whether the safe harbor approach 
represents the least restrictive means to protect children.

F. Statutory and Constitutional Issues

    23. We seek to explore here the bounds of permissible action, both 
regulatory and statutory, in light of the relevant statutory and 
constitutional constraints. In their recent letter, members of the 
House Commerce Committee have asked whether the Commission currently 
has the authority to adopt a ``safe harbor'' for the broadcast of 
violent programming, ``or whether Congress would need to provide the 
Commission with statutory authority to do so, and whether Congress 
could provide the FCC with that authority in a constitutional 
fashion.'' Members of the House Commerce Committee have also asked 
about constitutional limitations on our ability to define the phrase 
``excessively violent programming that is harmful to children,'' or to 
create a ``safe harbor'' for such programming. If such a mechanism were 
adopted, should there be an exception for news or other types of 
unrated programs? Should there be an exception for cultural, 
historical, or artistic merit?
    24. The Communications Act gives the Commission broad authority to 
regulate the broadcast medium as the public interest requires. In order 
to grant a radio license, Title III of the Act requires the Commission 
to determine ``whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity 
will be served by the granting of such

[[Page 49903]]

application,'' and to issue a license only upon making an affirmative 
finding. Title III likewise directs the Commission, ``as the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity requires,'' to ``[m]ake such rules 
and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not 
inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions 
of this Act. * * *'' However, Section 326 in Title III also states: 
``Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the 
Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or 
signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or 
condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall 
interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio 
communication.'' Is the Commission's general public interest authority 
sufficiently broad to regulate any form of violent programming, in 
light of Section 326? Does the DC Circuit's recent decision in Motion 
Picture Association of America v. FCC (``MPAA'') suggest that the 
Commission's public interest authority does not extend to regulation of 
violent program content?
    25. The statutory prohibition against ``obscene, indecent, or 
profane language,'' upon which our ban on obscene speech and safe 
harbor for indecent and profane speech are based, does not implicate 
Section 326. Given the interest of members of the House Commerce 
Committee in creating a ``safe harbor,'' and its question whether we 
currently have the authority to adopt such a mechanism to regulate 
violence, could the Commission expand its definition of indecency to 
include violent programming? The Commission has traditionally defined 
indecency in terms of sexual or excretory organs and activities, but 
the Supreme Court has concluded that the term indecent ``merely refers 
to nonconformance with accepted standards of morality'' and that 
``neither our prior decisions nor the language or history of Sec.  1464 
supports the conclusion that prurient appeal is an essential component 
of indecent language.'' Certain commentators go even further and argue 
that violent programming qualifies as obscene speech, which is not 
entitled to any First Amendment protection. In this regard, we note an 
opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declining 
to conflate obscenity and violence in the context of a particular 
ordinance regulating violent video games, yet suggesting that a 
demonstrated link between exposure to such games and deleterious 
effects could possibly provide a basis for regulation of violent 
``pictures.'' We recognize that an interpretation of indecency or 
obscenity as encompassing violence would be novel, but we seek to 
determine the scope of existing standards to regulate violent 
programming, as members of the House Commerce Committee request.
    26. How does Title V of the 1996 Act, entitled ``Obscenity and 
Violence,'' affect the Commission's general authority in this area? 
Section 551 directed the Commission to prescribe ``guidelines and 
recommended procedures for the identification and rating of video 
programming that contains sexual, violent, or other indecent material 
about which parents should be informed before it is displayed to 
children,'' if the television industry itself did not establish 
``voluntary rules'' for rating such programming that were ``acceptable 
to the Commission.'' Does the reference to ``violent or other indecent 
material'' indicate that indecency encompasses violence, or otherwise 
suggest that Congress intended to empower the agency to regulate 
violent programming? Was the Commission's authority under this 
provision at an end once it found the industry guidelines acceptable? 
In other words, does the statutory scheme suggest that Congress has 
occupied the field of media violence, such that the Commission cannot 
act without new legislation?
    27. What is the extent of the Commission's current authority over 
cable television in this area? Title VI of the Act states that ``[a]ny 
Federal agency, State, or franchising authority may not impose 
requirements regarding the provision or content of cable services, 
except as provided in this title.'' As indicated above, transmission of 
obscene and other speech is ``unprotected by the Constitution of the 
United States'' and is a criminal offense. Title VI also states that, 
``[i]n order to restrict the viewing of programming which is obscene or 
indecent, upon the request of a subscriber, a cable operator shall 
provide (by sale or lease) a device by which the subscriber can 
prohibit the viewing of a particular cable service during periods 
selected by that subscriber.'' Title VI further states that ``[u]pon 
request by a cable service subscriber, a cable operator shall, without 
charge, fully scramble or otherwise fully block the audio and video 
programming of each channel carrying such programming so that one not a 
subscriber does not receive it.'' The Supreme Court has found this 
latter provision could be a less restrictive means than a ``safe 
harbor'' or ``time channeling'' requirement to protect children from 
sexually explicit programming. We seek comment on whether the 
Commission has authority to regulate violent programming on cable 
television other than as specifically provided in Title VI. Does the 
Commission have broader statutory authority to regulate violent 
programming on DBS and other non-broadcast subscription services, which 
are not covered by Section 544(f), than on cable services?
    28. Assuming the Commission has or is granted statutory authority 
to regulate violent programming, what constitutional limitations apply? 
For example, given the definitional issues discussed above, how could 
Congress or the Commission define some form of violent programming in a 
way that is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad? In addition, 
what standard of constitutional review should apply to broadcast 
regulation in this area? To non-broadcast? Even if protecting children 
from some form of violent programming is deemed a sufficiently 
important government interest, is a ``safe harbor'' the appropriate and 
most tailored means to accomplish that public policy? Given the 
mechanisms available to cable subscribers to block programming under 
Title VI, could a ``safe harbor'' constitutionally be applied to cable 
services? We seek comment on how Congress might legislate and the 
Commission might regulate in this area, consistent with applicable 
constitutional principles.

III. Positive Impact of Certain Television Programming

    29. We recognize that television programming may have a positive 
influence on individual behavior, especially educational and 
informational material directed at children. The literature suggests 
that consumption of educational television programming correlates 
positively to children's school preparedness and may also encourage 
beneficial social skills and behavioral development. Are there recent 
studies analyzing the pro-social effects of television programming that 
we should be aware of? What broadcast or non-broadcast services carry 
such material? How are parents made aware that such programming is 
available? We seek comment on what actions Congress or the Commission 
may take to encourage more programming choices that have a positive 
effect on children's development.

IV. Administrative Matters

    30. Ex Parte Rules. Pursuant to section 1.1204(b)(1) of the 
Commission's

[[Page 49904]]

rules, 47 CFR 1.1204(b)(1), this is an exempt proceeding. Ex parte 
presentations are permitted, and need not be disclosed.
    31. Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 
parties must file comments on or before September 15, 2004, and reply 
comments on or before October 15, 2004. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 
copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 
63 FR 24121 (1998). Accessible formats (computer diskettes, large 
print, audio recording, and Braille) are available to persons with 
disabilities by contacting Brian Millin, of the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or at 
[email protected].
    32. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic 
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. 
Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In 
completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full 
name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or 
rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by 
Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, 
commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], and should include 
the following words in the body of the message, ``get form .'' A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.
    33. Parties who choose to file by paper must file and original and 
four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger 
delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or 
overnight U.S. Postal Service (although we continue to experience 
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., will receive hand-delivered 
or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 
Suite CY-B402, 445 12th Street, Washington, DC 20554. All hand 
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial 
overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and 
Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol 
Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, 
and Priority Mail, should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    34. Additional Information. For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Ben Golant at 418-7111.

V. Ordering Clause

    35. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 4(i), 303(g), 303(r), and 403 of the 
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and 403, this Notice of 
Inquiry is adopted.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-18467 Filed 8-11-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P