**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. MCDOWELL**

*Re: In the Matter of Violent Television Programming and Its Impact on
Children,* Report to Congress

As the father of three young children, I am deeply concerned about the
coarsening of television content and the effects of television violence
on children. As a society, we should do all that the law allows to help
shield our children from harmful television content. Today's Report is a
response to Congress' 2004 request that the FCC provide a comprehensive
summary and analysis of the factual and legal landscape surrounding this
issue. Although I would have preferred a more thorough study, I support
this Report as a well-intentioned, if not complete, first step toward
launching a new national dialogue on this important matter. The Report
provides a helpful summary of the social science research regarding the
effects of exposure to violence in the media on the behavior of
children. It provides a preliminary discussion of the effectiveness of
the TV ratings system and blocking technologies and of the issues
regarding how government may define violence for regulatory purposes.

Congress may wish to build upon what the Commission has started by
digging deeper into the issues we raise today. For instance, further
discussion should probe into many areas by better researching the
answers to many important questions, including:

-   What additional actions can parents take to protect their children?

-   How can industry and government help educate parents regarding their
    options?

-   How effective are screening and content selection technologies that
    are currently available to families? and

-   What constitutional challenges lie ahead should Congress and the
    Commission decide to enact and implement a new anti-violence regime?

In my view, the next step should be to review fully the screening and
content selection tools parents currently have and find ways that
industry and government can help educate parents regarding those
options. Parents should be the first and last line of defense in
protecting their children from excessively violent content, or any other
content that may cause harm to children. Unfortunately, today's Report
does not sufficiently brief Congress on the full range of tools
available or what can be done to mobilize parents in this pursuit. I
hope that our Report does not lull some into thinking that government
action alone is the answer to the television violence pandemic. By
itself, government action would be an insufficient cure. Even if
Congress were able to enact flawlessly worded legislation that enjoyed
perfect enforcement, parents play the most important role in deciding
what is appropriate for their families. While government can and should
do all that it can to protect children, parents should not shirk their
primary responsibility to be actively engaged in their upbringing.

Fortunately, today's parents have at their disposal more choices in
parental controls and blocking technologies than ever before. Never have
parents been more empowered to choose what their children should and
should not watch. Since January 2000, as required by Congress, all TV
sets with screens 13 inches or larger come equipped with the V-chip,
which allows parents to block programs based on the TV rating assigned
to those programs. Cable operators provide parental controls in both
their analog and digital set-top boxes, with more advanced controls in
the digital boxes. DBS subscribers have access to parental controls that
allow blocking by channel, by program, by time and/or by TV rating. Tivo
offers KidsZone, a tool that combines editorial recommendations from
experts with technology for parents to select the shows they want their
children to watch. Moreover, all consumers have an unprecedented amount
of control over what they watch and when they watch it through DVDs,
programs that are downloadable from websites and through time-shifting
technologies such as digital video recorders.

As discussed in the Report, however, research has shown that while the
vast majority of parents are concerned about violent content on TV, very
few of them use most parental controls. It seems that many parents do
not have sufficient knowledge about these technologies, and about the TV
ratings system, to use parental controls effectively. Industry and
government should encourage additional consumer education so that
parents can learn about the tools available to them. Campaigns aimed at
educating parents, such as thetvboss.org and pauseparentplay.org, are a
great start. Their websites provide detailed practical information about
the V-chip, cable and satellite controls and TV ratings, among other
things. Also, groups like Common Sense Media and the Parents Television
Council offer reviews of TV shows and movies to help provide guidance to
parents. More needs to be done, however, to make a connection between
parental concerns about content inappropriate for their children and
parental use of tools that will help them make and enforce their
programming choices. I strongly encourage the private sector and public
interest groups to continue their work in this pursuit.

Meanwhile, even though the market is developing and promoting
technological solutions that may help parents control the television
content that their children view, Congress still may deem it necessary
to place statutory restrictions on the broadcast of excessively violent
content. The Commission would be remiss if it did not underscore to
Congress that such a voyage, although noble in its goal, will lead us
through uncharted constitutional waters. I am disappointed that this
Report does not provide more than a cursory mention of these important
legal issues. It fails to illuminate a path for Congress to follow in
order to safely avoid what legal pitfalls may lie ahead. Should Congress
pursue the laudable endeavor of protecting America's children from
excessive television violence through new statutory mandates, it should
first take the step of seeking additional constitutional legal advice.
Any action should be conducted in a prudent manner that withstands
constitutional muster. The 39 House members who directed us to conduct
our inquiry demanded as much when they asked the Commission specifically
to address in this Report the "constitutional limitations" in defining
"excessively violent programming that is harmful to children" or in
"constraining or prohibiting broadcast of such material during hours
when children are likely to be a significant or part of the broadcast
viewing audience." I fear that our Report may fall short of their
request.

Additionally, this Report briefly outlines court decisions upholding the
Commission's authority to regulate the broadcast of indecent content by
restricting the airing of such content during certain hours. I note that
the brief constitutional discussion in the Report focuses solely on the
regulation of [broadcast]{.underline} television. Other possible
mandates mentioned in the Report, such as requiring MVPDs to provide
channels on family tiers or on an à la carte basis, would require the
regulation of non-broadcast entities, possibly cable operators, DBS
providers and other MVPDs. Accordingly, before Congress adopts any of
these possible mandates, I suggest that Congress seek analysis of such
regulation under the applicable constitutional standard. Potential
Congressional action against television violence based upon our Report
should only be considered in the limited context of broadcasting because
the Commission has not offered sufficient legal analysis to support
broader regulation.

In sum, I support this Report and hope that it is helpful to Congress.
This is only the first step in what I hope will be a comprehensive study
of governmental options to inform the national debate over television
violence. The governmental interest at stake -- protecting children from
excessively violent television programming -- is powerful, of course.
Nonetheless, historically, courts have balanced similar interests
against the First Amendment rights of broadcasters with mixed results.
As our experience with the indecency laws has shown, enforcement of such
regulations involves the difficult task of defining the inappropriate
content and then applying that definition in the context of specific
programming. Defining excessive violence in a legally sustainable way
and applying that definition will be at least as difficult. As recent
tragedies have reminded us, we live in an often violent world. News
reports, documentaries and other television programs must address
violent topics, almost by necessity, which makes defining excessive
violence that much more difficult. While we should encourage Congress'
further examination of this issue, having a new statutory regime
regulating television violence overturned by the courts on
constitutional grounds only would undermine the very crusade against
television violence that any prospective legislation may intend to
address. Such a defeat could set back the cause for years. In the
meantime, as a society, we should do all that we can to achieve our goal
through all available means. Our children deserve no less.