NCJ Number
160248
Date Published
1995
Length
3 pages
Annotation
There is no concrete evidence that media violence contributes to societal violence; consequently, there is no reason to believe that censoring media violence would have an effect on violence in society; in addition, with cable and satellite television, censorship would be difficult.
Abstract
American lawlessness has no obvious connection to what goes out over the airwaves. The 1980's were only slightly more murderous than the 1930's, before TV could be blamed. The national pattern of violence is not a recent creation of TV programming. Further, broadcast television has gotten less bloody in recent years, not more. Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a July 1993 speech that "the 25 most popular series, most of which are situation comedies, have no violence." Police dramas, which used to be common, are now rare. There is no indication, however, that this trend toward nonviolent TV programming has impacted the way people behave. Various Federal politicians have threatened to restrict and censor violent television programming. Congress may be able to find ways to alter the composition of broadcast TV without violating the first amendment, but it will not be easy. The most violent images are on cable and video, where the U.S. Supreme Court is no more likely to tolerate Federal interference with content than it would in books and movies. Even if cable and video productions could be censored, it would be a mistake to let the Federal Government expand its role in deciding what Americans should be allowed to see and hear.