U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–773 PDF 2004

DERIVATIVE RIGHTS, MORAL RIGHTS, AND

MOVIE FILTERING TECHNOLOGY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, THE INTERNET, 

AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 20, 2004

Serial No. 93

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, THE INTERNET, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

BLAINE MERRITT, Chief Counsel 

DAVID WHITNEY, Counsel 

JOE KEELEY, Counsel 

ALEC FRENCH, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 20, 2004

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property .................................................................................................... 1

The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the 

Internet, and Intellectual Property .................................................................... 2

The Honorable Ric Keller, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Florida ............................................................................................................... 4

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 5

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Virginia ................................................................................................... 6

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of California .......................................................................................................... 7

WITNESSES 

Ms. Joanne Cantor, Professor Emerita, University of Wisconsin-Madison 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10

Mr. Jeff J. McIntyre, Senior Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer, American 

Psychological Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 19

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 21

Mr. Bill Aho, Chief Executive Officer, ClearPlay, Inc. 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 22

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 24

Ms. Marjorie Heins, Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University 

School of Law, and Founding Director, Free Expression Policy Project 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 26

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of Taylor Hackford, on behalf of the Directors Guild 

of America ............................................................................................................. 86

Prepared Statement of the American Medical Association .................................. 91

Prepared Statement of Rick Bray, CEO, Principle Solutions, Inc. & TVG 

Vision, LLC ........................................................................................................... 93

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property ......................... 97

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 98

Page

IV

Response to question submitted by Representative Howard L. Berman to 

Marjorie Heins, Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University 

School of Law, and Founding Director, Free Expression Policy Project .......... 99

Book Review submitted by Joanne Cantor, Professor Emerita, University 

of Wisconsin-Madison .......................................................................................... 101

Remarks submitted by Joanne Cantor, Professor Emerita, University of Wisconsin-Madison ..................................................................................................... 102

(1)

DERIVATIVE RIGHTS, MORAL RIGHTS, AND 

MOVIE FILTERING TECHNOLOGY 

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, THE INTERNET,

AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in 

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar S. Smith 

(Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property will come to order. We have a very interesting 

hearing today which we all look forward to, and when I say ‘‘we,’’

let me explain that the reason for the dearth of Members, at least 

Members to my right, is that the Republican Conference is listening to President Bush. In fact, I had to leave early in order to not 

be any more late than I am now to this particular hearing, but I 

am sure we will be joined by some of our colleagues shortly. I am 

sure the President will give equal time to my colleagues on my left 

in the near future, as well, so we will see. 

I am going to recognize myself for an opening statement, then 

the Ranking Minority Member, and then we’ll look forward to hearing what our witnesses have to say. 

Today, we will hear testimony on an issue that is of vital importance to families across America. How do we help provide a safe 

and nurturing home environment for our children? 

A generation ago, there was not near the amount of sex, violence, 

and profanity on television and in movies than there is today, but 

I still remember how my own parents dealt with it. We had a small 

box, it was actually not a box, it was a round device that had a 

switch on it that they manually clicked whenever there was something objectionable that I might have heard on the television and 

this muted out the sound. There are other times when they would 

get up and turn off the TV for a minute or two. They felt then, as 

most Americans do today, that it is the right of parents to protect 

their children from offensive audio or video in their own homes. 

Just as the author of a book should not be able to force me to 

read that book in any particular manner or order, a studio or director should not be able to use the law to force me or my children 

to watch a movie in a particular way. It is unrealistic and impractical to expect parents to monitor their children’s video habits 24 

hours a day. They need our help and support. 

2

Some have argued that this hearing should not be held due to 

ongoing litigation between a number of parties. That is like saying 

a hearing should not be held on copyright piracy because copyright 

laws are challenged in the courts all the time, and unsuccessfully, 

I might add. This hearing instead is about the technology that allows parents to shield their children from violence, sex, and profanity, not a court case, and, of course, it is not about a lawsuit. 

We will hear from two witnesses about the scientific research 

that exists to demonstrate the impact of media violence on children. Such research is a scientific validation of basic common 

sense. Violence, sex, and profanity repeatedly seen and heard in 

movies are not good for our children and can, in fact, affect their 

behavior. 

Our third witness is the CEO of ClearPlay. I am not here to endorse ClearPlay, the company, but I will endorse the common sense 

approach that ClearPlay, the technology, uses to enable parents to 

protect their children from that violence, sex, and profanity. 

ClearPlay, the technology, does not create derivative works, does 

not add new material to a movie, and makes no permanent alterations to a legally purchased or rented DVD. This technology does 

not violate the copyright and trademark laws of our nation, nor 

does the technology violate the DMCA. In fact, ClearPlay, the technology, will only work with legal DVDs. It will not work with a copied DVD. 

The technology available today is the electronic equivalent of 

what parents did a generation ago to protect their children by 

muting the sound or fast-forwarding over objectionable material. 

The issue isn’t whether a movie loses some of its authenticity due 

to skipping of various audio and video but whether parents have 

a right to shield their children from offensive content. I believe that 

the right of parents to protect their children is essential, and if 

they choose to designate a third party to help them accomplish 

this, more power to them. 

Since there is an outstanding lawsuit involving several of the 

companies that create such family-friendly technology, I am going 

to avoid talking about the lawsuit today. Negotiations among some 

of the parties have been ongoing for 8 months and I hope that the 

participants will resolve their issues very soon. If not, the Chairman of the full Judiciary Committee and I are prepared to introduce legislation or use other legislative vehicles to protect the right 

of parents to shield their children from violence, sex, and profanity. 

That concludes my opening statement and the gentleman from 

California, Mr. Berman, the Ranking Member, is recognized for his. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This hearing 

certainly delves into a number of interesting issues about artistic 

freedom, the definition of copyright infringing derivative works, 

and the extent to which the unfair competitions of the Lanham Act 

protect the moral rights of creators. 

However, I am not sure any of these issues are ripe for a Congressional hearing. The movie studios, directors, and ClearPlay are 

actively engaged in licensing negotiations to resolve their dispute. 

As I understand it, those negotiations had been close to a mutually 

acceptable conclusion. The public posturing and adversarial nature 

3

inherent in Congressional hearings is bound to set back these negotiations and thus thwart the stated purpose of the hearing. 

Furthermore, the problem on which this hearing focuses is hypothetical, at best. A district court case addressing these very issues 

has not yet proceeded past the most preliminary stages. It seems 

a waste of time to discuss statutory amendments before any court 

has interpreted the law in an allegedly undesirable way. 

But despite my misgivings, we’re here, so I might as well use my 

time to clearly state my opposition to the hypothetical legislation 

that may be forthcoming to address the hypothetical problem before us. I don’t believe Congress should give companies the right 

to alter, distort, and mutilate creative works or to sell otherwise infringing products that do functionally the same thing. 

I believe such legislation will be an affront to the artistic freedom 

of creators. It would violate fundamental principles of copyright 

and trademark law, and if drafted to avoid violating the first 

amendment, it would almost surely defeat the apparent purposes 

of its drafters. 

Such legislation presents an almost endless variety of complications and conundrums. Would legislation attempt to define the 

types of offensive content that could be altered or deleted? If such 

definitions include violence, sexual material, and profanity, the legislation will almost certainly violate the first amendment, and first 

amendment concerns aside, putting them aside, attempts to define 

offensive conduct will backfire. Legislation that allows the deletion 

of violent scenes from ‘‘The Last Samurai’’ would also allow ‘‘The 

Passion of the Christ’’ to be stripped of its graphic violence. Do 

those who find the violence in ‘‘The Passion’’ so integral to the 

story think a sanitized version would do the story justice? 

Of course, first amendment concerns could be skirted by granting 

a content-neutral right to edit content, but that will just create further problems. For every case in which ClearPlay sanitizes the 

kitty litter humor in ‘‘The Cat in the Hat,’’ another company will 

strip ‘‘The Passion’’ of offensive depictions of Jews. Personally, I 

might not mind the outcome. 

Someone else might prefer if scenes depicting interracial physical 

content were cut from ‘‘Look Who’s Coming to Dinner’’ or ‘‘Jungle 

Fever,’’ but I don’t think this is what America is about. Innovation, 

growth, and progress occur through exposure to an unbridled marketplace of ideas, not by ensuring that everything you see, read, 

and experience fits within your preconceived world views. 

Would legislation distinguish between fictional and non-fictional 

works? I don’t see how. For instance, is ‘‘The Passion of the Christ’’

fictional or historical? What about ‘‘The Reagans’’ mini-series? And 

who would be the arbiter, the Anti-Defamation League in the case 

of ‘‘The Passion,’’ the Reagan family in the case of ‘‘The Reagans’’? 

But if the legislation does not make a fiction/non-fiction distinction, 

it’s an invitation to rewrite history. For instance, World War II documentaries could be stripped of concentration camp footage. ‘‘Fahrenheit 911’’ could be stripped of scenes linking the houses of Bush 

and Fahd. 

And on what principle basis would such legislation apply only to 

motion pictures? If it is really meant to empower consumers to customize their lawfully purchased copyrighted works, then it would 

4

apply to all copyrighted works. It would legalize the unauthorized 

software plug-ins that enable you to play the ‘‘Tomb Raider’’ computer game with a topless Laura Croft and to put the faces of 

teachers and classmates on the heads of target monsters in certain 

shooter computer games. Would the legislation make it legal for 

someone with digital editing software to doctor a 30-year-old photograph of a Vietnam War rally so that it appears that John Kerry 

is standing next to Jane Fonda? 

Would the legislation only apply to digital works? If so, what 

nonsense. It means that someone could sell an e-book reader that 

prevents reading the murder scene in an e-book version of 

Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment but can’t sell the hard-copy 

book with the offending pages ripped out. Why would legislation 

protect technology that skips the violent scenes in a DVD version 

of ‘‘Platoon’’ but not protect a service that cuts the same scenes 

from the VHS version? If both activities are copyright infringement 

today, why would legislation only immunize the digital infringement? 

As a parent, I am concerned about what my children see and 

hear in our cacophonous media society, but I believe parenting is 

the parents’ job, not the Government’s. I wonder why vocal proponents of personal responsibility and limited Government readily 

abandon those principles when presented with the opportunity to 

place the Government in loco parentis. If the Government should 

stay out of our gun closets, shouldn’t it stay out of our bedrooms 

and living rooms? 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman, the balance of whatever time I might 

have. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Berman. 

Are there other Members who wish to make opening statements? 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller, is recognized. 

Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to briefly 

thank the witnesses for being here today. 

I would disagree just a bit with the opening statement by Mr. 

Berman. I certainly respect what he has to say, but I don’t think 

it’s premature to have this hearing. I represent an area that family 

is everything, Orlando, Florida. We market ourselves to family. We 

like clean entertainment. We fight gaming operations because we 

think that would bring an unsavory factor. And at the same time, 

in the interest of full disclosure, I represent some of the major 

movie companies who are not so thrilled about potential legislation 

here. 

In the interest of free speech, I’m looking forward to hearing both 

sides of this. While it may be premature in some people’s minds to 

have legislation on this issue, it’s certainly not premature to have 

a hearing on it so that we can get educated on both sides, and 

that’s what you guys are here to do and tell us your thoughts on 

these and other issues. 

And so I thank you very much for taking time out of your busy 

lives to be here and I look forward to listening to your testimony 

with great interest and getting educated on the issue. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Keller. 

5

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, the Ranking Member of the full Committee, is recognized. 

Mr. CONYERS. Good morning, Chairman. I am so happy to be 

here. As you know, I sent a letter to you and the Chairman yesterday. You are aware of that, aren’t you? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, Mr. Conyers, I am. 

Mr. CONYERS. And it says, in part, I am concerned that this 

hearing would interfere with ongoing negotiations regarding Huntsman v. Soderbergh and should be delayed until the resolution of 

that case. 

As you know, the parties to the lawsuit have been negotiating in 

good faith to resolve copyright issues surrounding the editing of 

film. Our Committee has a longstanding precedent of not investigating matters pending in the courts, and the hearing entitled 

‘‘Derivative Rights’’ et cetera would clearly involve the Committee 

in litigation. Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Is it too late to ask you to honor the—— Mr. SMITH. Mr. Conyers, will you yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course. 

Mr. SMITH. It is too late to make the request, but it is not to late 

for me to respond to your request, if you’d like for me to do so. 

Mr. CONYERS. That’s why I sent it. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. If the gentleman will yield further, let me 

mention a couple of things. First of all, the ongoing negotiations, 

as I mentioned in my opening statement, have, in fact, been ongoing for 8 months, and it’s actually my hope that today’s hearing 

will expedite the solution and resolution of the problems and I have 

good reason to believe that that’s the case. 

As far as witnesses who are a party to a lawsuit not testifying, 

if we made that a hard rule, I’d say we would have eliminated half 

of our witnesses over the last several months, including witnesses 

from MPAA and the Recording Industry of America, and I haven’t 

heard any objections to those individuals testifying. 

Lastly, this hearing, as I also mentioned, is really not about a 

lawsuit or anything about the negotiations. It’s about technology 

that I think can be used very valuably by parents, and I thank the 

gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir, for the response. 

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent to 

just have 30 seconds to ask you a question? Ten seconds to ask you 

a question? 

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds out of order. 

Mr. BERMAN. If the Chairman chooses, because negotiations 

haven’t gone anywhere, because the issue isn’t resolved in any 

other fashion, if he chooses to introduce legislation, will we have 

an opportunity to have a hearing on that legislation? 

Mr. SMITH. If the gentleman will yield, I would expect us to have 

a hearing on that legislation and have no reason to expect that it 

wouldn’t be the case. Thank you. Good question. 

The gentleman from Virginia, does he have an opening statement? 

Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. I’m sorry. Mr. Conyers? 

6

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I thought you had given back your time. Is it still 

your time? The gentleman continues to be recognized. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. You see, there may be only 

20 or 30 members of the bar that have engaged in this kind of litigation that could possibly come to the conclusion that a Congressional hearing on legislation would facilitate its quick resolution. 

What it does is that we are flagrantly entering into one side of this 

litigation to the complete detriment of the other side. 

Now, we have courses in law school that will help anybody that 

doesn’t understand this. As a matter of fact, you don’t even have 

to go to law school to figure this out. Congressional pressure would 

automatically appear by just holding the hearing. So to think that 

it would facilitate a legitimate resolution of the problem is very 

hard for me to understand. 

Now, why isn’t Jack Valenti here? Well, good question. I’ll tell 

you why he isn’t here. He isn’t allowed to be here, and that’s who 

should be representing the motion picture studios. 

So this is a wonderful way to start a Thursday morning, May 20, 

in which we just hold a hearing about the end of intellectual property law as we know it, because what we are saying, and nobody 

knows this better than Mr. Aho, is that we’re not only not going 

to protect intellectual property law, which was the whole idea, we 

are going to legalize people for profit intersecting into other people’s property. 

Well, on what grounds? Is there some higher moral ground or is 

there some laws that we don’t understand about? Is there something special about this case that allows it to do what nothing has 

ever happened before in the history of intellectual property law? 

What? What gives in Utah and with Mr. Aho and with this company? 

By what right are we now going to say, well, look, if you want 

to edit a little bit on intellectual property, well, we just had a hearing in the House of Representatives in the Judiciary Committee 

that has jurisdiction. They say it’s okay. 

I think that somewhere along the line, that there ought to be a 

balanced hearing—a balanced hearing. What about the producers? 

What about the directors? What about the people whose property 

it is? Do they ever get a chance to say anything? What’s happening? 

Well, I thank the Chairman for allowing me to vent a little bit. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

I will recognize myself for 15 seconds. The gentleman from 

Michigan asked a good question, which is where is the MPAA and 

what about Jack Valenti? I need to say, and I’m happy to say for 

the record, that Mr. Valenti called me. In fact, he called me from 

France day before yesterday and expressed a preference not to be 

a part of this panel. So that’s the quick answer to your question. 

Does the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, have an opening 

statement? 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will be very brief. 

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, when I walked in here, 

I thought this was a simple little hearing and I guess I have to rely 

7

now on the statement, thou doest protest too much. You know, 

when you’re talking, I think I look at what Mr. Keller said, that 

this is a hearing to put facts on the table and ideas on the table, 

and truly I believe that in the marketplace of ideas, truth will win 

out, and I, for the life of me, scratch my head and wonder why certain people are so concerned that we get certain facts and ideas out 

on the table that we can explore. 

I don’t think there’s any legislation that is before us at this time. 

But if we have learned anything from this Committee, it is that 

technology moves so quick that we have to constantly be exploring 

those new ideas and those new concepts so that we can be up with 

the technology. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, what we’re really looking at here, when 

I hear individuals saying we want to keep the Government out of 

our homes and out of our bedrooms, that’s exactly what we want 

to talk about, whether or not our copyright laws are keeping parents in their homes from determining what their children are going 

to see and how they are going to see it. 

So Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing and 

I hope that what we’re going to be doing today is putting facts on 

the table so that we can see how our parents in their homes can 

have a better voice and how they determine what their children are 

going to see. And so I hope that’s what we’ll explore today. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Forbes. 

Are there any other Members who wish to make opening statements? The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Just briefly. I’m looking forward to the testimony. 

I think there’s an obvious reason why, in addition to any other, 

why this hearing is being held, and that’s to assert our jurisdiction. 

Certainly the Commerce Committee has looked at this, but we are 

the Intellectual Property Subcommittee and I think it is important 

that we maintain over jurisdiction over intellectual property. 

Clearly, I realize that ClearPlay is not—the issues before—at 

play here are not about encryption and defeat of technology in the 

DMCA, but I think some of the issues really are similar, even 

though that is not the gist of the legal dispute. And so I’m looking 

forward to hearing from the witnesses and especially the academic 

witnesses for their guidance, not just on this issue but the broader 

issue of consumer rights to utilize what it is they have bought. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. 

Let me say that we’ve been joined by a Member of the Judiciary 

Committee, Mr. Cannon from Utah. We appreciate his presence. He 

has a particular interest in this subject at hand and we will look 

forward to his participation later on. 

Let me proceed with introducing our witnesses today. Joanne 

Cantor is a Professor Emerita, University of Wisconsin at Madison. 

Jeff McIntyre is the Senior Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer 

of the American Psychological Association. Bill Aho is Chief Executive Officer, ClearPlay Inc. And Marjorie Heins is a Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School and 

Founding Director of the Free Expression Policy Project. 

We welcome you all, and Ms. Cantor, we will begin with you. 

8

STATEMENT OF JOANNE CANTOR, PROFESSOR EMERITA, 

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 

Ms. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to present my views on the media’s impact on children. 

Since 1974, I’ve been a professor at the University of Wisconsin, 

focusing the greater part of my research on the impact of media violence on children’s aggressive behavior and emotional health. My 

parenting book, Mommy, I’m Scared and my new children’s book, 

Teddy’s TV Troubles present parents—help parents and children 

cope with the disturbing images that television and movies present 

on a daily basis. Finally, and not the least important, I am the 

mother of a teenage son. 

I am submitting for the record a paper I wrote on the psychological effects of media violence on children and adolescents, which 

is also available on my website, tvtroubles.com. Let me summarize 

the major points here. 

We now know a lot about the effects of media violence. Study 

after study has shown that children often behave more violently 

after watching media violence. The violence they engage in ranges 

from trivial aggressive play to injurious behavior with serious medical consequences. Children also show higher levels of hostility 

after viewing violence, and the effects of this hostility range from 

being in a nasty mood to an increased tendency to interpret a neutral comment or action as an attack. 

In addition, children can be desensitized by media violence, becoming less distressed by real violence and less likely to sympathize with victims. Finally, media violence makes children fearful, and these effects range from a general sense that the world is 

dangerous to full-blown anxieties, nightmares, sleep disturbances, 

and other trauma symptoms. 

The evidence about these effects of media violence has accumulated over the last few decades. Meta analyses, which statistically 

combine all the findings in a particular area, demonstrate that 

there is a consensus on the negative effects of media violence. They 

also show that the effects are strong, stronger than the well-known 

relationship between children’s exposure to lead and low IQ scores, 

for example. These effects cannot be ignored as inconclusive or inconsequential. Even more alarming, recent research confirms that 

these effects are long lasting. 

The long-term effects of media on fears and anxieties are also 

striking. Research shows that intensely violent images often induce 

anxieties that linger, interfering with both sleeping and waking activity for years. Many young adults report that frightening movie 

images that they saw as children have remained in their minds in 

spite of their repeated attempts to get rid of them. They also report 

feeling intense anxieties in non-threatening situations as a result 

of having been scared by a movie or television program, even 

though they now know that there is nothing to fear. 

For example, you might find it logical that many people who 

have seen the movie ‘‘Jaws’’ as children worry about encountering 

a shark whenever they swim in the ocean, but you would be surprised to learn how many of these people are still uncomfortable 

9

in lakes or pools because of the enduring emotional memory of the 

terror they experienced while viewing this movie as a child. 

Findings are beginning to emerge from research teams mapping 

the areas of the brain that are influenced by violent images and 

these studies may help us understand how media violence promotes aggression and why it has such enduring effects on emotional memory. These effects are hard to undo and media literacy 

often doesn’t work when children have been frightened by something in the media. 

What can Government do for the problem of media violence? Of 

course parents are responsible for their children’s upbringing. However today’s media environment has made parenting an overwhelming challenge. Not only are diverse and potentially 

unhealthy media available to children both inside and outside the 

home around the clock, the media actively market extremely violent and sexual products to children whose parents would never 

dream of bringing them to their children’s attention. Several Federal Trade Commission reports have documented this. 

Parents need all the help they can get to perform their roles as 

arbiters of the activities their children engage in, and yet when 

help is offered, the media typically resists. The television industry 

agreed to implement the V-chip in TV ratings, but they then designed a device that is difficult to use and a rating system that has 

been under-publicized and hard to understand. In fact, each mass 

medium—TV, movies, video games, and music—has its own ratings 

system and the industries resist pressure to get together on one 

system that would be easy to learn and readily understood. 

Other good solutions are attacked head on. Various municipalities have passed laws restricting the access of children to maturerated video games without parental permission, but these have 

been attacked ferociously in the courts and with success. And the 

makers of ClearPlay, which permits parents to filter out certain 

contents in movies without altering the movie itself or limiting 

what others may see, are being sued for copyright infringement. 

Small companies and nonprofit groups that are trying to provide 

helpful tools for parents live under the constant threat of lawsuits 

from powerful companies. A great deal has changed in the past 

generation or two. Our children are spending much more time with 

the media than we did, and what they are exposed to is more violent and more graphic than we ever imagined. 

Our children’s heavy immersion in today’s media culture is a 

large-scale societal experiment with potentially horrifying results. 

That is one reason why I am devoting so much of my time to writing books for parents and children and to getting the message out 

as best I can, and anything that Congress can do to help ease the 

way for those who are trying to help families raise healthy children, without interfering with the rights of others to see what they 

want, will provide a great benefit to society. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Cantor. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cantor follows:]

10

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOANNE CANTOR

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

present my views on the media’s impact on children. Since 1974, I have been a professor at the University of Wisconsin, focusing the greater part of my research on 

the impact of media violence on children’s aggressive behaviors and their emotional 

health. My parenting book, ‘‘Mommy I’m Scared’’: How TV and Movies Frighten 

Children and What We Can Do to Protect Them and my new children’s book, Teddy’s 

TV Troubles, help parents and children cope with the disturbing images that television and movies confront them with on a daily basis. Finally, and not the least 

important, I am the mother of a teenage son. 

I am submitting for the record a paper I wrote on ‘‘The Psychological Effects of 

Media Violence on Children and Adolescents,’’ which is also available on my web 

site (www.tvtroubles.com). Let me summarize the major points here: We now know 

a lot about the effects of media violence. Study after study has found that children 

often behave more violently after watching media violence. The violence they engage 

in ranges from trivial aggressive play to injurious behavior with serious medical 

consequences. Children also show higher levels of hostility after viewing violence, 

and the effects of this hostility range from being in a nasty mood to an increased 

tendency to interpret a neutral comment or action as an attack. In addition, children can be desensitized by media violence, becoming less distressed by real violence and less likely to sympathize with victims. Finally, media violence makes children fearful, and these effects range from a general sense that the world is dangerous, to full-blown anxieties, nightmares, sleep disturbances, and other trauma 

symptoms. 

The evidence about these effects of media violence has accumulated over the last 

few decades. Meta-analyses, which statistically combine all the findings in a particular area, demonstrate that there is a consensus on the negative effects of media 

violence. They also show that the effects are strong—stronger than the well-known 

relationship between children’s exposure to lead and low I.Q. scores, for example. 

These effects cannot be ignored as inconclusive or inconsequential. 

Even more alarming, recent research confirms that these effects are long lasting. 

A study from the University of Michigan shows that TV viewing between the ages 

of 6 and 10 predicts antisocial behavior as a young adult. In this study, both males 

and females who were heavy TV-violence viewers as children were significantly 

more likely to engage in serious physical aggression and criminal behavior later in 

life; in addition, the heavy violence viewers were twice as likely as the others to engage in spousal abuse when they became adults. This analysis controlled for other 

potential contributors to antisocial behavior, including socioeconomic status and parenting practices. 

The long-term effects of media on fears and anxieties are also striking. Research 

shows that intensely violent images often induce anxieties that linger, interfering 

with both sleeping and waking activities for years. Many young adults report that 

frightening movie images that they saw as children have remained on their minds 

in spite of their repeated attempts to get rid of them. They also report feeling intense anxieties in nonthreatening situations as a result of having been scared by 

a movie or television program—even though they now know that there is nothing 

to fear. [For example, you might find it logical that many people who have seen the 

movie Jaws worry about encountering a shark whenever they swim in the ocean. 

But you would be surprised to learn how many of these people are still uncomfortable swimming in lakes or pools because of the enduring emotional memory of the 

terror they experienced viewing this movie as a child.] Findings are beginning to 

emerge from research teams mapping the areas of the brain that are influenced by 

violent images, and these studies promise to help us understand how media violence 

promotes aggression and to help explain why it has such enduring effects on emotional memory. 

I have limited my comments here to the effects of media violence, but there are 

other areas of parental concern (including sex and profanity) that television and 

movies present to children, and I will be happy to comment on these areas as well 

during the question-and-answer period. 

What can government do about the problem of media violence? Isn’t this all the 

parents’ responsibility? Of course parents are responsible for their children’s upbringing. However, today’s media environment has made parenting an overwhelming challenge. Not only are diverse and potentially unhealthy media available 

to children both inside and outside the home around the clock; the media actively 

market extremely violent and sexual products to children whose parents would 

never dream of bringing them to their children’s attention. Several Congressional 

11

hearings regarding the Federal Trade Commission’s studies have made this woefully 

apparent. 

Parents need all the help they can get to perform their roles as arbiters of the 

activities their children engage in. And yet, when help is offered, the media typically 

resist and resist forcefully. The television industry agreed to implement the v-chip 

and TV ratings, but they then designed a device that is difficult to use and a rating 

system has been under-publicized and hard to understand. In fact, each mass medium—TV, movies, music, and video games—has its own rating system, and the industries resist pressure to get together on one system that would be easy to learn 

and readily understood. 

Other good solutions are attacked head-on. Various municipalities have passed 

laws restricting the access of children to mature-rated video games without parental 

permission, but these have been attacked ferociously in the courts, and with success. 

And the makers of a tool like ClearPlay, which permits parents to filter out certain 

contents in movies, without altering the movie itself or infringing the rights of others, are being sued for copyright infringement. Small companies and nonprofit 

groups that are trying to provide helpful tools for parents live under the constant 

risk of lawsuits from powerful corporations. 

Let’s not lose sight of the stakes here. A great deal has changed in the past generation or two. Our children are spending much more time with media than we did, 

and what they are exposed to is more violent and more graphic than we ever imagined. Our children’s heavy immersion in today’s media culture is a large-scale societal experiment with potentially horrifying results (and with hardly a child left behind to serve in the control condition). That is one reason why I’m devoting so much 

of my time to writing books for parents and children and to getting the message 

out as best I can. And anything that Congress can do to help ease the way for those 

who are trying to help families raise healthy children, without interfering with the 

rights of others, will provide great benefit to society. 

Thank you very much. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

RELATED REFERENCES

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and 

prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12,353–359. 

Black, S. L., & Bevan, S. (1992). At the movies with Buss and Durkee: A natural 

experiment on film violence. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 37–45. 

Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: 

Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477–489. 

Cantor, J. (2003, May). I’ll never have a clown in my house’’: Frightening movies 

and enduring emotional memory. Paper accepted for presentation at the Annual 

Conference of the International Communication Association. San Diego. 

Cantor, J. (1998). ‘‘Mommy, I’m scared’’: How TV and movies frighten children and 

what we can do to protect them. San Diego, CA: Harcourt. 

Cantor, J. (2002). Fright reactions to mass media. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann 

(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2d ed., pp. 287–306). 

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Cantor, J. (2002). Whose freedom of speech is it anyway? Remarks at Madison (WI) 

Civics Club, October 12, 2002. http://joannecantor.com/Whosefreedom.html 

Cantor, J. (2004). Teddy’s TV Troubles. Madison, WI: Goblin Fern Press. 

Center for Successful Parenting (2003). Can violent media affect reasoning and logical thinking? http://www.sosparents.org/Brain%20Study.htm 

Harrison, K., & Cantor, J. (1999). Tales from the screen: Enduring fright reactions 

to scary media. Media Psychology, 1 (2), 97–116. 

Huesmann, L. R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C., & Eron, L. (2003). Longitudinal relations between children?s exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent 

behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. Developmental Psychology, 39, 201–221. 

Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Smailes, E. M., Kasen, S., & Brook, J. S. (2002). Television viewing and aggressive behavior during adolescence and adulthood. Science, 

295, 2468–2471. 

Kirsh, S. J. (1998). Seeing the world through Mortal Kombat-colored glasses: Violent 

video games and the development of a short-term hostile attribution bias. Childhood, 5 (2), 177–184. 

Lemish, D. (1997). The school as a wrestling arena: The modeling of a television series. Communication, 22 (4), 395–418. 

[Matthews, V. P.] (2002). Violent video games trigger unusual brain activity in aggressive adolescents. http://jol.rsna.org/pr/target.cfm?ID=94

12

Murray, J. P. (2001). TV violence and brainmapping in children. Psychiatric Times, 

XVIII (10). 

Owens, J., Maxim, R., McGuinn, M., Nobile, C., Msall, M., & Alario, A. (1999). Television-viewing habits and sleep disturbance in school children. Pediatrics, 104 (3), 

552, e 27. 

Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: a meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21, 516–546. 

Simons, D., & Silveira, W. R. (1994). Post-traumatic stress disorder in children after 

television programmes. British Medical Journal, 308, 389–390. 

Singer, M. I., Slovak, K., Frierson, T., & York, P. (1998). Viewing preferences, symptoms of psychological trauma, and violent behaviors among children who watch 

television. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 

37 (10), 1041–1048. 

Twenge, J. M. (2000). The age of anxiety? Birth cohort change in anxiety and neuroticism, 1952–1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1007–1021. 

Zillmann, D., & Weaver, J. B. III (1999). Effects of prolonged exposure to gratuitous 

media violence on provoked and unprovoked hostile behavior. Journal of Applied 

Social Psychology, 29, 145–165. 

ATTACHMENT

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF MEDIA VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS

JOANNE CANTOR, PH.D. 

[Submitted as part of written testimony before the House Judiciary Committee

Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property

on May 20, 2004 at 10:00 a.m., Room 2141 Rayburn Office Building] 

Originally Presented at the 

Colloquium on Television and Violence in Society

Centre d’e ́tudes sur le media

HEC Montre ́al

Montre ́al, Canada 

April 19, 2002

Author Contact Information:

Professor Joanne Cantor 

Mailing Address:

5205 Tonyawatha Trail

Monona, WI 53716

Email: jrcantor@facstaff.wisc.edu 

Web Site: http://www.joannecantor.com 

Phone: 608–221–0593

Fax: 608–221–4548

This article is available on-line at http://joannecantor.com/montrealpap—fin.htm

Research on media violence is often misunderstood by the general public. One reason has to do with research methodology. We can’t randomly assign children early 

in their lives to watch different doses of violence on television and then 15 years 

later see which children committed violent crimes. But the same type of limitation 

also exists for medical research: We can’t randomly assign groups of people to smoke 

differing amounts of cigarettes for 15 years, and then count the number of people 

who developed cancer. 

13

1 Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Smailes, E. M., Kasen, S., & Brook, J. S. (2002). Television viewing and aggressive behavior during adolescence and adulthood. Science, 295, 2468–2471. 2 A web site titled, ‘‘Brutality Isn’t Child’s Play’’ chronicles some of these incidents. Retrieved 

from http://www.bicp.org/wwfdeaths.html on March 20, 2002. 3Lemish, D. (1997). The school as a wrestling arena: The modeling of a television series. Communication, 22 (4), 395–418. 

Tobacco researchers conduct correlational studies in which they look at the 

amount people have smoked during their lives and then chart the rate at which 

they have succumbed to cancer. They control statistically for other factors, of 

course—other healthy and unhealthy behaviors that either reduce or promote the 

tendency to develop cancer. Then they can find out whether smoking contributed to 

cancer, over and above these other influences. And since they can’t do cancer experiments on people, they use animal studies. These are artificial, but they tell us something about the short-term effects of tobacco that can’t be found from correlational 

studies. Putting the two types of research together, we now have powerful data 

about the effects of smoking on the development of cancer. 

Similarly, media violence researchers do longitudinal studies of children’s media 

exposure and look at the types of behaviors they engage in over time. They also control for other factors, such as previous aggressiveness, family problems, and the 

like.1 They don’t look at media violence in a vacuum; they examine whether there 

is a correlation between television viewing and violent behavior, even controlling for 

other influences. They also do experiments. Like the animal experiments for cancer, 

these are not natural situations, but such experiments fill the gaps they cannot fill 

otherwise. Experiments are designed to show short-term effects, like increases in 

hostility or more accepting attitudes toward violence—changes that we know increase the likelihood of violent actions, both in the short term and in the long run. 

A second reason for the misunderstanding of the media-violence work is that most 

public discussions of the problem focus on criminal violence and ignore the other 

unhealthy outcomes that affect many more children. In an attempt to clarify the 

issues, I will first discuss the research consensus about some of the major consequences of exposure to media violence, illustrating the general trends in the data 

with specific studies that make the outcomes more comprehensible. I will then discuss some of the implications of these findings for parents and educators, and for 

society at large. 

Effects of Media Violence on Aggression, Desensitization, and Interpersonal Hostility 

Most of the research and public attention has focused on the important question 

of whether viewing violence in the media makes children and adolescents more violent. The question is not, of course, whether media violence causes violence, but 

whether viewing violence contributes to the likelihood that someone will commit violence or increases the severity of violence when it’s committed. The most direct and 

obvious way in which viewing violence contributes to violent behavior is through 

imitation or social learning. There is a wealth of psychological research demonstrating that learning often occurs through imitation, and, of course, most parents 

know that children imitate televised words and actions from an early age. Media 

apologists, who cannot deny that imitation sometimes happens, try to argue that the 

effects are trivial because children know better than to imitate anything that’s really harmful. We are all familiar with incidents in which criminal and lethal violence 

has had an uncanny resemblance to a scene in a movie. However, any crime is the 

result of many influences acting together, and skeptics and even researchers will 

point out that isolated anecdotes cannot be generalized to society at large. Because 

most children are so fully immersed in our media culture, it is usually difficult to 

link a specific media program to a specific harmful outcome, even though some similarities between media scenarios and subsequent acts seem too close to be considered coincidences.2

Once in a while researchers get the chance to conduct a ‘‘natural experiment’’ that 

makes a vivid and compelling point in a systematic and rigorous fashion. This happened in the mid 1990’s in Israel, shortly after World Wrestling Federation was introduced to Israeli TV. Noting news reports that this program had resulted in a crisis of playground injuries in schools, Dafna Lemish of Tel Aviv University conducted 

a nationwide survey of elementary school principals, with follow-up questionnaires 

of teachers and students in selected schools.3 What Lemish found was that more 

than half of the principals responding to her survey reported that WWF-type fighting had created problems in their schools. The principals had no trouble distinguishing the imitative behavior they were suddenly seeing from the martial-arts 

type behaviors that had occurred prior to the arrival of WWF. The new behaviors 

occurred during re-creations of specific wrestling matches that had aired, and inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:52 Aug 05, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\COURTS\052004\93773.000 HJUD1 PsN: 93773
14

4 ABCNEWS.com (2001). Backyard wrestling: Don’t try these moves at home. Retrieved from 

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/GoodMorningAmerica/GMA010828Backyard—wres- tling.html on March 20, 2002. 5Dube, J. (2000). Wrestling with death: Moves may be faked, but danger isn’t. Retrieved from 

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/wrestlingdanger991007.html on March 20, 

2002. 6 Cline, V.B., Croft, R.G., & Courrier, S. (1973). Desensitization of children to television violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 360–365. 7Molitor, F., & Hirsch, K. W. (1994). Children’s toleration of real-life aggression after exposure to media violence: A replication of the Drabman and Thomas studies. Child Study Journal, 

24, 191–207. 8Mullin, C.R., & Linz, D. (1995). Desensitization and resensitization to violence against 

women: Effects of exposure to sexually violent films on judgments of domestic violence victims. 

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 449–459. 9Goldstein, J., Ed. (1998). Why we watch: The attractions of violent entertainment. New York: 

Oxford University Press. 10 Black, S.L., & Bevan, S. (1992). At the movies with Buss and Durkee: A natural experiment 

on film violence. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 37–45. 

cluded banging heads, throwing opponents to the floor and jumping onto them from 

furniture, poking their eyes with fingers, pulling their hair, and grabbing their genital areas. Almost half of the responding principals reported that these new behaviors had necessitated first aid within the school, and almost one fourth reported injuries (including broken bones, loss of consciousness, and concussions) that required 

emergency room visits or professional medical care. Although most of the children 

involved were old enough to know that the wrestling they were watching was fake, 

this knowledge did not stop many of them from trying out the moves themselves. 

The mayhem continued throughout Israel until programmers agreed to reduce the 

frequency with which WWF appeared, and until schools initiated media literacy programs designed to counteract the program’s effects. During the past few years, there 

have been news reports of groups of children imitating WWF matches in the United 

States,4 and of physicians dealing with the consequences of such imitation on a regular basis.5

Simply copying what is seen in the media is only one means by which viewing 

violence contributes to unhealthy outcomes among youth. Another commonly discussed psychological process is desensitization. Desensitization occurs when an emotional response is repeatedly evoked in situations in which the action tendency that 

is associated with the emotion proves irrelevant or unnecessary. For example, most 

people become emotionally aroused when they see a snake slithering toward them. 

The physiological response they are experiencing is part of what is called the ‘‘flight 

or fight’’ reaction—n innate tendency that prepares an organism to do what it needs 

to do when it’s threatened. But the individual who spends a good deal of time 

around harmless, nonpoisonous snakes, knows there is no need to retreat or attack 

the animal, and over time, the body ‘‘learns’’ not to experience increased heart rated, 

blood pressure, or other physiological concomitants of fear at the sight of snakes. 

In a somewhat analogous fashion, exposure to media violence, particularly that 

which entails bitter hostilities or the graphic display of injuries, initially induces an 

intense emotional reaction in viewers. Over time and with repeated exposure in the 

context of entertainment and relaxation, however, many viewers exhibit decreasing 

emotional responses to the depiction of violence and injury. Studies have documented that desensitization results in reduced arousal and emotional disturbance 

while witnessing violence.6 More disturbingly, studies have reported that desensitization leads children to wait longer to call an adult to intervene in a witnessed 

physical altercation between peers,7 and results in a reduction in sympathy for the 

victims of domestic abuse.8 Few people would argue that these are healthy outcomes. Today’s youth have greater opportunities for desensitization to media violence than ever before. We now have so many television channels, so many movies 

on video, and so many video-, computer-, and Internet-based games available, that 

media-violence aficionados have a virtually limitless supply and can play intensely 

gruesome images over and over, often in the privacy of their own bedrooms. 

A third common outcome of viewing violence is an increase in hostile feelings. 

Some people argue that the well-substantiated correlation between chronic hostility 

and violence viewing simply shows that people who are already hostile are more 

likely to choose violence as entertainment. Well, it’s true that violent, hostile people 

are more attracted to media violence,9 but research shows that the relationship goes 

both ways. A 1992 field investigation10 is a good illustration of this process. Researchers in Quebec went to a theater and asked moviegoers to fill out the BussDurkee hostility inventory either before or after they viewed a film that they themselves had selected. The findings showed that both the male and female viewers who 

had chosen the Chuck Norris action movie, Missing in Action, were initially more 

15

11Kirsh, S. J. (1998). Seeing the world through Mortal Kombat-colored glasses: violent video 

games and the development of a short-term hostile attribution bias. Childhood, 5 (2), 177–184. 12Zillmann, D., & Weaver, J. B. III (1999). Effects of prolonged exposure to gratuitous media 

violence on provoked and unprovoked hostile behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,

145–165. 13Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: 

a meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21, 516–546. 14 Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477–489. 

hostile than the viewers who had selected the nonviolent drama, A Passage to India,

demonstrating that people who were more hostile to begin with were more likely 

to be attracted to a violent than a nonviolent film. Furthermore, viewers’ levels of 

hostility were even higher after viewing the violent movie, but were at the same 

low level after viewing the nonviolent movie. This study once again disproves the 

sometimes-popular notion of ‘‘catharsis,’’ that violence viewing helps purge people of 

their hostile inclinations. To the contrary. 

What are the consequences of this increased hostility after viewing violence? 

Often, it interferes with the ability to interact in interpersonal settings. One aspect 

of this effect has been termed an increased hostile attribution bias. A 1998 study 

illustrated this outcome in an experiment in which 9- to 11-year-old girls and boys 

were asked to play one of two video games.11 One was a nonviolent sports game 

called NBA JAM:TE; the was other a somewhat sanitized version of MORTAL 

KOMBAT II, a highly violent martial arts games. After playing the game, the children were read five stories involving provoking incidents in which the intention of 

the provoker was ambiguous. For example, in one story, a child gets hit in the back 

with a ball, but it is unclear whether the person who threw the ball, always a samesex peer of the research participant, has done this on purpose or by accident. In answering questions after hearing the stories, the children who had just played the 

violent video game were more likely than those who had played the nonviolent game 

to attribute bad motives and negative feelings to the perpetrator, and to anticipate 

that they themselves would retaliate if they were in that situation. Participating in 

violence in fantasy apparently cast a negative cloud over the children’s views of 

interpersonal interactions 

And this increase in hostility is not necessarily short-lived. A 1999 experiment 

looked at the interpersonal consequences of repeated exposure to gratuitous violence 

in movies.12 Researchers randomly assigned both male and female college students 

to view either intensely violent or nonviolent feature films for four days in a row. 

On the fifth day, in a purportedly unrelated study, the participants were put in a 

position to help or hinder another person’s chances of future employment. The surprising results indicated that both the men and the women who had received the 

recent daily dose of movie violence were more willing to undermine that person’s 

job prospects, whether she had treated them well or had behaved in an insulting 

fashion. The repeated violence viewing apparently provided what the researchers 

termed an enduring hostile mental framework that damaged interactions that were 

affectively neutral as well as those that involved provocation. 

These are just a few studies that illustrate some of the unhealthy effects of media 

violence. But how representative are these studies? Although media spokespersons 

argue that the findings are inconsistent, meta-analyses, which statistically combine 

the findings of all the studies on a particular topic, show otherwise. The most widely 

quoted of these meta-analyses was conducted by Paik and Comstock in 1994.13 This 

meta-analysis combined the results of 217 empirical studies appearing between 1957 

and 1990, and included both published and unpublished studies that reported on the 

relationship between viewing violence and a variety of types of antisocial behavior. 

Using the correlation coefficient (r) as a measure of association, Paik and Comstock 

reported an overall r of .31. Although the size of the correlations varied depending 

on the age of the participant and the genre of programming, a significant association was observed for viewers of all ages and for all genres of programming. 

A meta-analysis conducted in 2001 14 confirmed and updated Paik and Comstock’s 

conclusions. Bushman and Anderson’s analysis included studies that appeared between 1956 and 2000. The sample of studies was smaller because it included only 

published studies and only studies involving aggressive behavior (eliminating measures of self-report of aggressive intent and nonviolent antisocial effects). The metaanalysis, which included 202 independent samples, found an overall correlation of 

.20 between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior. Anderson and 

16

15 Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A 

meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353–359. 16 Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477–489. 17Singer, M. I., Slovak, K., Frierson, T., & York, P. (1998). Viewing preferences, symptoms 

of psychological trauma, and violent behaviors among children who watch television. Journal 

of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 1041–1048. 18Owens, J., Maxim, R., McGuinn, M., Nobile, C., Msall, M., & Alario, A. (1999). Televisionviewing habits and sleep disturbance in school children. Pediatrics, 104 (3), 552. 19Gentile, D. A., & Walsh, D. A. (1999). MediaQuotientTM: National survey of family media 

habits, knowledge, and attitudes. Minneapolis, MN: National Institute on Media and the Family. 20 Harrison, K., & Cantor, J. (1999). Tales from the screen: Enduring fright reactions to scary 

media. Media Psychology, 1, 97–116. 21 Hoekstra, S. J., Harris, R. J., & Helmick, A. L. (1999). Autobiographical memories about 

the experience of seeing frightening movies in childhood. Media Psychology, 1, 117–140. 22 Cantor, J. (1998). ‘‘Mommy, I’m scared’’: How TV and movies frighten children and what 

we can do to protect them. San Diego, CA: Harvest/Harcourt. 

Bushman also published a meta-analysis of the effects of violent video games on aggression and found a similar effect size (r = .19, based on 33 independent tests).15

Confronted with the meta-analytic results that the findings on the relationship 

between media violence on aggressive and hostile behaviors consistently show an effect, media apologists often claim that the effects are very small. However, Bushman and Anderson 16 have compared the results of media violence meta-analyses to 

those of well-documented relationships in nine other areas. Their data showed that 

Paik and Comstock’s media-violence effect was second in size only to the association 

between smoking and lung cancer. Even using the smaller effect sizes associated 

with Bushman and Anderson’s own meta-analyses, the media violence effect sizes 

are still among the largest—larger, for example, than the relationship between exposure to lead and low IQ in children, and almost twice as large as the relationship 

between calcium intake and bone density. 

Effects of Media Violence on Fears, Anxieties and Sleep Disturbances 

Although most of researchers’ attention has focused on how media violence affects 

the interpersonal behaviors of children and adolescents, there is growing evidence 

that violence viewing also induces intense fears and anxieties in young viewers. For 

example, a 1998 survey of more than 2,000 third through eighth graders in Ohio 

revealed that as the number of hours of television viewing per day increased, so did 

the prevalence of symptoms of psychological trauma, such as anxiety, depression, 

and posttraumatic stress.17 Similarly, a 1999 survey of the parents of almost 500 

children in kindergarten through fourth grade in Rhode Island revealed that the 

amount of children’s television viewing (especially television viewing at bedtime) 

and having a television in one’s own bedroom, were significantly related to the frequency of sleep disturbances.18 Indeed, 9% of the parents surveyed reported that 

their child experienced TV-induced nightmares at least once a week. Finally a random national survey conducted in 1999 reported that 62% of parents with children 

between the ages of two and seventeen said that their child had been frightened 

by something they saw in a TV program or movie.19

Two independently conducted studies of adults’ retrospective reports of having 

been frightened by a television show or movie demonstrate that the presence of 

vivid, detailed memories of enduring media-induced fear is nearly universal.20, 21 Of 

the students reporting fright reactions in the study we conducted at the Universities 

of Wisconsin and Michigan, 52% reported disturbances in eating or sleeping, 22% 

reported mental preoccupation with the disturbing material, and 35% reported subsequently avoiding or dreading the situation depicted in the program or movie. 

Moreover, more than one-fourth of the respondents said that the impact of the program or movie (viewed an average of six years earlier) was still with them at the 

time of reporting. 

Studies like these and many anecdotal reports reveal that it is not at all unusual 

to give up swimming in the ocean after seeing Jaws—in fact, a surprising number 

of people report giving up swimming altogether after seeing that movie. Many other 

people trace their long-term fears of specific animals, such as dogs, cats, or insects, 

to childhood exposure to cartoon features like Alice in Wonderland or Beauty and 

the Beast or to horror movies.22 Furthermore, the effects of these depictions aren’t 

only ‘‘in the head,’’ so to speak. As disturbing as unnecessary anxieties are by themselves, they can readily lead to physical ailments and interfere with school work and 

other normal activities (especially when they disrupt sleep for long periods of time). 

For the most part, what frightens children in the media involves violence or the 

perceived threat of violence or harm. It is important to note, however, that parents 

17

23 Cantor, J. (1998). ‘‘Mommy, I’m scared’’: How TV and movies frighten children and what 

we can do to protect them. San Diego, CA: Harvest/Harcourt. 24 Cantor, J. (2002). Fright reactions to mass media. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media 

effects: Advances in theory and research. (2d Ed.) (pp. 287–306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 25 Hoffner, C., & Cantor, J. (1985). Developmental differences in responses to a television character’s appearance and behavior. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1065–1074. 26 Cantor, J., & Sparks, G. G. (1984). Children’s fear responses to mass media: Testing some 

Piagetian predictions. Journal of Communication, 34, (2), 90–103. 27 Cantor, J., & Sparks, G. G. (1984). Children’s fear responses to mass media: Testing some 

Piagetian predictions. Journal of Communication, 34, (2), 90–103. 28 Cantor, J., & Nathanson, A. (1996). Children’s fright reactions to television news. Journal 

of Communication, 46 (4), 139–152. 29 Cantor, J., Wilson, B. J., & Hoffner, C. (1986). Emotional responses to a televised nuclear 

holocaust film. Communication Research, 13, 257–277. 30 Cantor, J., Mares, M. L., & Oliver, M. B. (1993). Parents’ and children’s emotional reactions 

to televised coverage of the Gulf War. In B. Greenberg & W. Gantz (Eds.), Desert storm and 

the mass media (pp. 325–340). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 31 Cantor, J. (2001). Helping children cope: Advice in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks 

on America. http://joannecantor.com/terror—adv.htm. 32Federal Trade Commission (2000). Marketing violence to children: A review of self-regulation 

and industry practices in the motion picture, music recording, & electronic game industries. 

Washington, D.C.: Federal Trade Commission. 33 Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477–489. 

often find it hard to predict children’s fright reactions to television and films because a child’s level of cognitive development influences how he or she perceives and 

responds to media stimuli. My associates and I have conducted a program of research to explore developmental differences in media-induced fright reactions based 

on theories and findings in cognitive development.23, 24 This research shows that as 

children mature cognitively, some media images and events become less likely to 

disturb them, whereas other things become potentially more upsetting. 

As a first generalization, the importance of appearance decreases as a child’s age 

increases. Both experimental 25 and our survey 26 research supports the generalization that preschool children (approximately 3 to 5 years old) are more likely to be 

frightened by something that looks scary but is actually harmless (like E.T., the 

kindly but weird-looking extra-terrestrial) than by something that looks attractive 

but is actually harmful; for older elementary school children (approximately 9 to 11 

years), appearance carries much less weight, relative to the behavior or destructive 

potential of a character, animal, or object. A second generalization is that as children mature, they become more disturbed by realistic, and less responsive to fantastic dangers depicted in the media. This change results from developmental trends 

in children’s understanding of the fantasy-reality distinction.27, 28 Because of this, 

older elementary school children begin to be especially susceptible to fear produced 

by the news and other realistic presentations. A third generalization is that as children get older, they become frightened by media depictions involving increasingly 

abstract concepts, such as world problems and invisible environmental threats.29, 30

The media’s constant showing of the events of September 11th and their aftermath 

had something to frighten viewers of all ages, but different-aged children most likely 

responded to different features of the presentations. Prior research suggests that 

preschoolers most likely responded to images of bloodied victims and expressions of 

emotional distress; older elementary school children most likely responded to the 

idea of their own and their family’s vulnerability to attack; teenagers, like adults, 

were able to grasp the enormity of the events and the long-term implications they 

presented for civilized society.31

What Can Be Done and Why It’s So Difficult 

The research I’ve described above provides overwhelming evidence that growing 

up with unrestricted access to media violence is, in the least, very unhealthy for 

young people. Nonetheless, media violence comes into our homes automatically 

through television, and is actively marketed to children and adolescents (even when 

the content is labeled as appropriate only for ‘‘mature’’ audiences).32 Moreover, it 

is extremely difficult to disseminate the message of media violence’s harms. An important component of this difficulty is the fact that violent entertainment is a highly 

lucrative business and the entertainment industry is loath to communicate information suggesting that its products are harmful. An intriguing analysis by Bushman 

and Anderson, comparing the cumulative scientific evidence to the way the issue 

has been reported in the press, revealed that as the evidence for the aggression-promoting effect of media violence has become stronger, news coverage has implied that 

the relationship was weaker and weaker.33 Parents have been given tools, such as 

18

34 Bushman, B. J., & Cantor, J. (2002). Media ratings for violence and sex: Implications for 

policymakers and parents. Manuscript submitted for publication. 35 Cantor, J. (1998). ‘‘Mommy, I’m scared’’: How TV and movies frighten children and what 

we can do to protect them. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace. 36Wilson, B. J., Hoffner, C., & Cantor, J. (1987). Children’s perceptions of the effectiveness 

of techniques to reduce fear from mass media. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8,

39–52. 

37Wilson, B. J. (1989). Desensitizing children’s emotional reactions to the mass media. Communication Research, 16, 723–745. 38 Cantor, J. (2004). Teddy’s TV Troubles. Madison, WI: Goblin Fern Press. 39 Cantor, J., & Wilson, B. J. (1984). Modifying fear responses to mass media in preschool and 

elementary school children. Journal of Broadcasting, 28, 431–443. 40 Cantor, J., & Hoffner, C. (1990). Children’s fear reactions to a televised film as a function 

of perceived immediacy of depicted threat. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, 421– 442. 41 Cantor, J., & Omdahl, B. (1999). Children’s acceptance of safety guidelines after exposure 

to televised dramas depicting accidents. Western Journal of Communication, 63 (1), 1–15. 42 Nathanson A.I., & Cantor, J. (2000). Reducing the aggression-promoting effect of violent 

cartoons by increasing children’s fictional involvement with the victim. Journal of Broadcasting 

& Electronic Media, 44, 125–142. 43 A current campaign asks Toys ‘R’ Us to stop selling WWF-related merchandize. See http:/

/www.bicp.org/bicp1.html 

media ratings and filtering devices like the V-chip, but publicity for these tools has 

been so sporadic that parents have little understanding of what they are or how to 

use them.34 Parents need to receive better information about the effects of media 

violence, and they need more convenient and reliable means of understanding what 

to expect in a television program, movie, or video game. 

Parents also need information on parenting strategies that will help them counteract some of the negative effects of media violence on their children. Research in 

cognitive development, for example, has explored effective ways to reassure children 

who have been frightened by media threats.35 Strategies for coping with media-induced fears need to be tailored to the age of the child. Up to the age of about seven, 

nonverbal coping strategies work the best.36 These include removing children from 

the scary situation, distracting them, giving them attention and warmth, and desensitization.37, 38 Eight-year-olds and older can benefit from hearing logical explanations of why they are safe. If what they saw is fantasy, it helps children in this 

age group to be reminded that what they have seen could never happen.39 If the 

program depicts frightening events that can possibly occur, however, it may help to 

give older children information about why what they have seen cannot happen to 

them 40 or to give them empowering instructions on how to prevent it from occurring.41

As for reducing the aggression-promoting effect of media violence, research is just 

beginning to explore mediation strategies that can be used by parents and teachers. 

In a study published in 2000,42 we tested means of counteracting the effects of classic cartoons, a genre involving nonstop slapstick violence that trivializes the consequences to the victim. This study showed not only that watching a Woody Woodpecker cartoon could increase boys’ endorsement of aggressive solutions to problems, 

but that empathy-promoting instructions could intervene in this effect. Secondthrough sixth-grade boys were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) a nomediation group, who watched the cartoon without instructions; (2) a mediation 

group who were asked, before viewing, to keep in mind the feelings of the man in 

the cartoon (this was the tree surgeon who was the target of Woody’s attacks); and 

(3) a control group, who didn’t see a cartoon. As is usually found in such studies, 

the children who had just seen the violent cartoon without instructions scored higher on pro-violence attitudes than those in the control condition (showing stronger 

agreement with statements like, ‘‘Sometimes fighting is a good way to get what you 

want’’). However, the children who were asked to think about the victim’s feelings 

showed no such increase in pro-violence attitudes. As a side-effect, this empathypromoting intervention reduced the degree to which the children found the cartoon 

funny. An empathy-promoting intervention may therefore have a dual benefit—intervening in the direct effect of viewing and perhaps reducing future choices of similar fare. More research is needed to explore other ways to intervene in the negative 

effects of media violence. 

In conclusion, media violence has many unhealthy effects on children and adolescents. Even though violence has been and will continue to be a staple of our media 

environment, it is appropriate to speak out when especially problematic presentations are aired in contexts in which children are likely to see them and when inappropriate programming is actively marketed to vulnerable young people.43 Although the entertainment industries are mostly concerned with profits, they someVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:52 Aug 05, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\COURTS\052004\93773.000 HJUD1 PsN: 93773
19

times react to large-scale criticism, and sponsors and local television stations prefer 

to avoid public censure. 

Beyond complaining about media practices, researchers and advocates for the welfare of children can work to diminish the negative influence of media violence by 

providing better public education about media effects, by developing and promoting 

more useful content labels and filters, and by exploring effective intervention strategies based on research findings. We also need to expand media literacy education 

for children, including helping them place what they see in perspective, and encouraging them to engage in a critical analysis of their own media choices.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. McIntyre? 

STATEMENT OF JEFF J. McINTYRE, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE AND 

FEDERAL AFFAIRS OFFICER, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. I’m Jeff McIntyre and honored to be here to 

represent the American Psychological Association. 

I have conducted years of research related—or years of work related to children and the media as a negotiator for the development 

of a television rating system, as an advisor to the Federal Communications Commission’s V-Chip Task Force, and as a member of an 

informal White House Task Force on Navigating the New Media, 

as a member of the Steering Committee for the Decade of Behavior 

Conference on Digital Childhood, and most importantly as a representative of the research and concerns of the over 150,000 members and affiliates of the American Psychological Association. 

At the heart of this issue of children and the media is a matter 

long addressed by psychological research, the effects of repeated exposure of children to violence. The media violence issue made its 

official debut on Capitol Hill in 1952 with the first of a series of 

Congressional hearings. That particular hearing was held in the 

House of Representatives before the Commerce Committee. The following year, in 1953, the first major Senate hearing was held before the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, who convened a panel to inquire into the impact of television violence on 

juvenile delinquency. 

There have been many hearings since the 1950’s, but there has 

only been limited change until recently. Media violence reduction 

is fraught with legal complications. Nevertheless, our knowledge 

base has improved over time with the publication of significant and 

landmark reviews, and based on these research findings, several 

concerns emerge when violent material is aggressively marketed to 

children. 

Foremost, the conclusions drawn on the basis of over 30 years of 

research contributed by American Psychological Association members, including the Surgeon General’s report in 1972, the National 

Institute of Mental Health’s report in 1982, and the industry-funded 3-year national television violence study in the 1990’s showed 

that the repeated exposure of violence in the mass media places 

children at risk for increases in aggression, desensitization to acts 

of violence, and unrealistic increases in fear of becoming a victim 

of violence, which results in the development of other negative 

characteristics, such as a mistrust of others. 

20

If this sounds familiar, it is because this is the foundation upon 

which the representatives of the public health community, comprised of the American Psychological Association, the American 

Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association, 

issued a joint consensus statement in 2000 on what we absolutely 

know to be true regarding children’s exposure to violence in the 

media. 

Certain psychological facts remained and are well established in 

this debate. As APA member Dr. Rowell Huesmann stated before 

the Senate Commerce Committee, just as every cigarette you 

smoke increases the chances that some day you will get cancer, 

every exposure to violence increases the chances that someday a 

child will behave more violently than they otherwise would. 

Hundreds of studies have confirmed that exposing our children 

to a steady diet of violence in the media makes our children more 

violence-prone. The psychological processes here are not mysterious. Children learn by observing others. Mass media and the 

advertising world provide a very attractive window for these observations. 

The excellent children’s programming, such as ‘‘Sesame Street,’’ and pro-social marketing, such as that around bicycle helmets, that 

exists is to be commended and supported. Psychological research 

shows that what is responsible for the effectiveness of good children’s programming and pro-social marketing is that children learn 

from their media environment. If kids can learn positive behaviors 

via this medium, they can learn the harmful ones, as well. 

The role of ratings systems in this discussion merits attention. 

There continues to be concern over the ambiguity and implementation of current ratings systems. It appears that ratings systems are 

undermined by the marketing efforts of the very groups responsible 

for their implementation and effectiveness. That, Chairman Smith 

and Members of the Subcommittee, displays a significant lack of 

accountability and should be considered when proposals for industry self-regulation are discussed. 

Also undermined here are parents and American families. As the 

industry has shown a lack of accountability in the implementation 

of the existing ratings system, parents have struggled to manage 

their families’ media diet against misleading and contradictory information, for instance, the marketing of an R-rated film to children under the age of 17. 

While the industry has made some information regarding the 

ratings available, more information regarding content needs to be 

made more available. As with nutritional information, the content 

labeling should be available on the product and not hidden on 

websites or in the occasional pamphlet. 

Generally speaking, most adults see advertising as a relatively 

harmless annoyance. However, advertising directed at children, especially at young children, that features violence generates concern. The average child is exposed to approximately 20,000 commercials per year, and this is only for television. It does not include 

print or the Internet. Much of this is during weekend morning or 

weekday afternoon programming. Most of the concern stems not 

from the sheer number of commercial appeals, but from the inability of some children to appreciate and defend against the persuaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:52 Aug 05, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\COURTS\052004\93773.000 HJUD1 PsN: 93773
21

sive intent of marketing, especially advertising featuring violent 

product. 

The Federal Trade Commission report on the marketing of violence to children heightens these concerns. As a result of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, the Federal Trade Commission has ruled that parents have a right to protect their children’s 

privacy from the unwanted solicitation of their child’s personal information. We would argue that based on the years of psychological 

research on violence prevention and clinical practice and violence 

intervention, parents have the right to protect their children from 

material that puts them at risk of harm. 

With these considerations in place for children’s privacy, the 

precedent is well established about children’s health and safety. 

Decades of psychological research bear witness to the potential 

harmful effects on our children and our nation if these practices 

continue. 

Chairman Smith and Subcommittee Members, thank you for 

your time. Please regard the American Psychological Association as 

a resource to your Committee as you consider this and other issues. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. McIntyre. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntyre follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFF J. MCINTYRE

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee 

on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. I am Jeff McIntyre and am honored to be here to represent the American Psychological Association. 

I have conducted years of work related to children and the media as a negotiator 

for the development of a television ratings system, as an advisor to the Federal 

Communications Commission’s V-Chip Task Force, as a member of an informal 

White House Task Force on Navigating the New Media, as a member of the steering 

committee for the Decade of Behavior Conference on Digital Childhood, and most 

importantly, as a representative of the research and concerns of the over 150,000 

members and affiliates of the American Psychological Association. 

At the heart of the issue of children and the media is a matter long addressed 

by psychological research—the effects of repeated exposure of children to violence. 

The media violence issue made its official debut on Capitol Hill in 1952 with the 

first of a series of congressional hearings. That particular hearing was held in the 

House of Representatives before the Commerce Committee. The following year, in 

1953, the first major Senate hearing was held before the Senate Subcommittee on 

Juvenile Delinquency, then headed by Senator Estes Kefauver, who convened a 

panel to inquire into the impact of television violence on juvenile delinquency. 

There have been many hearings since the 1950’s, but there has been only limited 

change—until recently. Media violence reduction is fraught with legal complications. 

Nevertheless, our knowledge base has improved over time, with the publication of 

significant and landmark reviews. Based on these research findings, several concerns emerge when violent material is aggressively marketed to children. 

Foremost, the conclusions drawn on the basis of over 30 years of research contributed by American Psychological Association members—including the Surgeon General’s report in 1972, the National Institute of Mental Health’s report in 1982, and 

the industry funded, three-year National Television Violence Study in the 1990’s—

show that the repeated exposure to violence in the mass media places children at 

risk for:

• increases in aggression;

• desensitization to acts of violence;

• and unrealistic increases in fear of becoming a victim of violence, which results in the development of other negative characteristics, such as mistrust 

of others.

If this sounds familiar, it is because this is the foundation upon which representatives of the public health community—comprised of the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Medical AssociaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:52 Aug 05, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\COURTS\052004\93773.000 HJUD1 PsN: 93773
22

tion issued a joint consensus statement in 2000 on what we absolutely know to be 

true regarding children’s exposure to violence in the media. 

Certain psychological facts remain are well established in this debate. As APA 

member Dr. Rowell Huesmann stated before the Senate Commerce Committee, just 

as every cigarette you smoke increases the chances that someday you will get cancer, every exposure to violence increases the chances that, some day, a child will 

behave more violently than they otherwise would. 

Hundreds of studies have confirmed that exposing our children to a steady diet 

of violence in the media makes our children more violence prone. The psychological 

processes here are not mysterious. Children learn by observing others. Mass media 

and the advertising world provide a very attractive window for these observations. 

The excellent children’s programming (such as Sesame Street) and pro-social marketing (such as that around bicycle helmets) that exists is to be commended and 

supported. Psychological research shows that what is responsible for the effectiveness of good children’s programming and pro-social marketing is that children learn 

from their media environment. If kids can learn positive behaviors via this medium, 

they can learn the harmful ones as well. 

The role of ratings systems in this discussion merits attention. There continues 

to be concern over the ambiguity and implementation of current ratings systems. 

It appears that ratings systems are undermined by the marketing efforts of the very 

groups responsible for their implementation and effectiveness. That, Chairman 

Smith and members of the Subcommittee, displays a significant lack of accountability and should be considered when proposals for industry self-regulation are discussed. 

Also undermined here are parents and American families. As the industry has 

shown a lack of accountability in the implementation of the existing ratings system, 

parents have struggled to manage their family’s media diet against misleading and 

contradictory information. (For instance, marketing an R rated film to children 

under 17.) While the industry has made some information regarding the ratings 

available, more information regarding content needs to be made more accessible. As 

with nutritional information, the content labeling should be available on the product 

and not hidden on websites or in the occasional pamphlet. 

Generally speaking, most adults see advertising as a relatively harmless annoyance. However, advertising directed at children, especially at young children, that 

features violence generates concern. The average child is exposed to approximately 

20,000 commercials per year. This is only for television and does not include print 

or the Internet. Much of this is during weekend morning or weekday afternoon programming. Most of the concern stems not from the sheer number of commercial appeals but from the inability of some children to appreciate and defend against the 

persuasive intent of marketing, especially advertising featuring violent product. 

A recent Federal Trade Commission report on the Marketing of Violence to Children heightens these concerns. As a result of the ‘‘Children’s On-Line Privacy Protection Act’’ the Federal Trade Commission has ruled that parents have a right to 

protect their children’s privacy from the unwanted solicitation of their children’s personal information. We would argue that, based on the years of psychological research on violence prevention and clinical practice in violence intervention, parents 

also have the right to protect their children from material that puts them at risk 

of harm. With the considerations in place for children’s privacy, the precedent for 

concern about children’s health and safety is well established. 

Decades of psychological research bear witness to the potential harmful effects on 

our children and our nation if these practices continue. Chairman Smith and Subcommittee members, thank you for your time. Please regard the American Psychological Association as a resource to the committee as you consider this and other 

issues.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Aho? 

STATEMENT OF BILL AHO, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

CLEARPLAY, INC. 

Mr. AHO. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking Subcommittee Member Berman, and Members of the Committee. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today on this important issue. 

My name is Bill Aho and I’m the Chief Executive Officer of 

ClearPlay, a small but vibrant business with a positive mission 

and, unfortunate, daunting opposition. ClearPlay is based on the 

belief that families have the right to watch movies in the privacy 

23

of their homes any way they choose. ClearPlay’s technology provides families the choice to watch movies with less graphic violence, nudity, explicit sex, and profanity. 

This is the choice that many families desire. Many see it as a 

useful parenting tool that will be beneficial to their children. We 

believe that it is not in the best interests of society for the movie 

industry, in an effort to extend its artistic control, to take actions 

that would eliminate this choice for families. 

ClearPlay’s parental controls are a feature available for DVD 

players or for any consumer electronics device that plays movies. 

It works with ClearPlay movie filters, which are uniquely created 

for each movie as it is released on DVD. These filters identify or 

tag specific content, such as graphic violence, nudity, or different 

kinds of profanity. The customer then chooses how to watch the 

movie, either with ClearPlay off or using any combination of the 14 

ClearPlay filters, for 16,000 different potential settings. 

ClearPlay’s frame-accurate technology seamlessly skips and 

mutes over objectionable material. It does not add or dub content. 

ClearPlay works with standard studio-issued DVDs which are purchased or rented at normal retail outlets. 

This is a solution that American families want and Americans 

overwhelmingly believe that it should be the right of the family. In 

a 2003 poll of over 17,000 respondents conducted by MSN, 82 percent said that consumers should be able to use products like 

ClearPlay to skip over unwanted scenes or language. Further, 

ClearPlay’s research shows that a majority of U.S. households want 

the option to filter DVD movies of content they might find concerning for their families, especially those with children. 

In late 2002, the Director’s Guild of America, 15 prominent 

movie directors and eight movie studios filed suit against 

ClearPlay, along with other companies with related products in our 

field. And while our opponents like to lump all the companies together, I would like to emphasize the important difference between 

ClearPlay and most of the other companies involved in this sector. 

Most of these companies make copies of DVDs that they resell 

as edited versions. Now, in contrast, ClearPlay neither copies nor 

edits DVDs. ClearPlay’s technology is more like an automated fastforward or mute button on your remote control or the technological 

equivalent of covering your eyes during disturbing scenes, except 

that we do it in a seamless, consumer-friendly manner. 

I would like to leave the Committee with two overriding ideas as 

it considers the potential of this technology and appropriate actions 

for the future. First, ClearPlay’s good for families. I respect and appreciate the testimony of the other witnesses. They echo an overwhelming body of evidence which declares with conviction and concern that the media can have a powerful influence on children’s behavior. But no stack of statistics is more compelling to me than my 

personal feelings as a father, and there’s no doubt in my mind that 

if I can reduce my children’s exposure to graphic violence or explicit sex, that’s a good thing. 

Second, it’s a fundamental matter of rights. Whose right is it to 

decide what I watch in my home with my family? I would respectfully submit to this Committee that that choice is a personal one 

to be made by parents. It’s their right, their choice. It’s not 

24

ClearPlay’s choice. We simply provide the tools and the options. It’s 

not the directors’ choice and it certainly isn’t the movie studios’

choice. It’s the right of the parent, plain and simple, to do what is 

best for their children, and if that means skipping some blood or 

gore in a PG-13 movie, then we are there to help. 

Quite simply, ClearPlay respects and supports the rights of parents. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Aho. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aho follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BILL AHO

ClearPlay is founded on the belief that families have the right to watch movies 

in the privacy of their homes any way they choose. ClearPlay parental controls provide families the choice to filter movies of graphic violence, nudity, explicit sex and 

profanity. This is a choice that many families desire. Many see it as a useful parenting tool that will be beneficial to their children. We believe that it is not in the 

best interest of society for the movie industry, in an effort to extend its artistic control over the experience of viewers, to take actions that would eliminate this choice 

for families. 

ClearPlay parental controls are a feature available on DVD players, or on any 

consumer electronics device that plays movies. They work with ClearPlay Movie Filters, which are uniquely created for each movie as it is released on DVD. These filters identify, or tag, frames that have specific content, such as graphic violence, nudity or different kinds of profanity. The customer chooses how to watch the movieeither with ClearPlay off or with ClearPlay on, using any combination of the 14 

ClearPlay Filters, for over 16,000 different potential settings. ClearPlay’s frame-accurate technology seamlessly skips and mutes over objectionable content. It does not 

dub or add content. ClearPlay parental control works with standard, studio-authorized DVD’s which are purchased or rented at normal retail outlets. 

ClearPlay provides parental controls that American families want. Americans also 

overwhelmingly believe that they should have the right to use these parental controls within their own homes. In a 2003 poll of 17,000 respondents conducted by 

MSN, 82% said that consumers should be able to use products like ClearPlay to skip 

over unwanted scenes or languages. .Further, ClearPlay’s research shows that a majority of U.S. households want the option to filter DVD movies of content they find 

offensive—especially families with children. 

ClearPlay does not violate copyright or trademark laws. Indeed it doesn’t copy or 

alter any of the works themselves, and it doesn’t use anyone else’s ‘‘trademarks’’ or 

distribute anyone else’s products. ClearPlay merely automates certain skipping and 

muting functions of a DVD player, functions that could be performed less conveniently with a conventional remote control. Trademark and copyright laws were 

never intended to deprive families of choices in how they watch, in the privacy of 

their own homes, DVDs they have lawfully bought or rented. 

In late 2002, the Directors Guild of America, 16 prominent movie directors and 

eight movie studios filed suit against ClearPlay, along with other companies that 

either sold edited VHS tapes or DVD’s or claimed technology that would add or dub 

new content onto DVD’s. 

The Directors rely on the Lanham Act to claim trademark infringement to vindicate ‘‘moral rights’’ that are not recognized in the United States or elsewhere. It is 

a relatively weak case, which by the DGA’s own admission is not likely to prevail. 

The studios’ case is more intricate, and is based on what we feel is a substantial 

extension of the copyright law that was never intended by Congress. 

These lawsuits have succeeded in delaying American consumers from having access to advanced parental controls for more than a year. When the lawsuits were 

first filed, a major DVD manufacturer that had already completed integration of 

ClearPlay’s parental controls dropped the feature just weeks before production. They 

told us that they chose to remove ClearPlay parental controls not because they 

feared the eventual outcome of the lawsuits, but rather because they did not want 

to be involved in litigation with the studios. 

These lawsuits have also succeeded in putting an enormous financial burden on 

ClearPlay and making it extremely difficult for our company to generate investment. No one likes to invest money to pay lawyers. As a result, the management 

of the company has had to make substantial personal sacrifices to be able to realize 

our vision and bring this product to market. 

25

Over the past eight months, we have made every effort to find an amicable solution with the DGA and the studios. We have taken the initiative to schedule 25 

meetings—all held at the studio offices in Los Angeles. We have voluntarily explained our business, shared our research, given models of our product and put forth 

multiple proposals for settlement, all in an effort to find a solution where ClearPlay 

can maintain a viable business and satisfy its customers—the American families. 

Despite these efforts, there remains a substantial gap between what we believe 

are the rights of consumers, and what the studios as copyright holders will allow. 

I would like to outline these: 

ISSUE #1: WHAT CONTENT SHOULD FAMILIES BE ALLOWED TO FILTER?

We believe that consumers should have the right to filter any graphic violence, 

disturbing sexual content, or offensive language that they choose for their families 

in their homes. The DGA has suggested that they would only allow ClearPlay parental controls to filter whatever content is altered in airline or TV versions. 

There are several problems with this idea:

a. No written standards exist for airline or TV versions.

b. Airline and TV standards are a moving target, and become more lenient over 

time.

c. Based on our research, airline and TV standards are not consistent with either ClearPlay’s filter categories or the interests of many of our consumers.

We have suggested various compromises. We could make an airline or TV equivalent the default, but allow consumers to override. We could allow directors to review 

the filters and make suggestions. Or we could come up with agreed-to definitions 

of ClearPlay categories, some of which might include content not removed from airline or TV versions. 

ISSUE #2: WHAT MOVIES SHOULD FAMILIES BE ALLOWED TO FILTER?

Again, we believe it is the right of families to watch any movie they choose with 

or without ClearPlay. The DGA has said that they want ClearPlay parental controls 

to work only with movies that have airline or TV versions. Further, the DGA has 

said that ClearPlay would have to get special permission from all ‘‘Final Cut’’ directors—prominent directors that negotiate personal services contracts that may supersede standard DGA contracts. Again, there are significant problems with this:

a. The timing of TV versions really isn’t relevant to DVD consumers. TV 

versions can often lag the release of the DVD by a year or more.

b. Airline versions are limited. It is unclear exactly what movies have airline 

versions. We know that there are numerous prominent films that don’t. 

Many independent films do not. And there are other reasons as well, for instance, if there are integral scenes featuring airplane crises.

c. Final Cut directors are often involved in prominent movies that are highly 

desired by the public and our customers. Despite our requests, we have been 

unable to secure information from all the studios about what movies would 

or would not be available as a result of Final Cut contracts.

d. There appears to be no protection for a proliferation of new special agreement contracts specifically prohibiting ClearPlay parental controls.

We have shown a willingness to be flexible. But we would hope that the industry 

could present a proposal that would guarantee consumers the right to filter most, 

if not all movies. 

ISSUE #3: HOW LONG CAN CLEARPLAY PROVIDE FILTERS TO CONSUMERS?

We believe the rights should be interminable, and not subject to studio contracts 

or collective bargaining timetables. The DGA has suggested that after December 

2005, all rights would expire. In effect, this would give Hollywood the opportunity 

to instigate a new round of litigation in 2006. Naturally, this is unacceptable, and 

we believe at least a 10-year term is reasonable. We have yet to hear a response 

from the industry on this issue. 

Perhaps these issues can be resolved through more settlement discussions. But if 

the committee agrees that families should have the right to filter movies within 

their own homes of unwanted violence or sex, then I think it would be useful at 

these hearings to explore these issues. If it becomes apparent that the movie industry either can not, or is not willing to come to a settlement that is favorable to the 

26

American consumer, then I would respectfully request that we seek a legislative solution as expeditiously as possible. 

Thank you.

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Heins? 

STATEMENT OF MARJORIE HEINS, FELLOW, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, 

AND FOUNDING DIRECTOR, FREE EXPRESSION POLICY 

PROJECT 

Ms. HEINS. Thank you, Mr. Smith and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to 

talk to you today about movie filtering, the first amendment, and 

the whole issue of media effects on young people. 

I first got interested in this subject about a decade ago when I 

was a first amendment attorney at the ACLU and I discovered that 

the most common justification for censoring art is the assumed adverse effect that sexual or violent content will have on impressionable youth. Ultimately, I wrote a book, Not in Front of the Children, which examines the underpinnings of this widespread assumption of harm to minors. The book concludes that not only is 

the harm unproven, but that it is probably unprovable and that, 

ironically, censoring the young may have actually some ill effects 

on their imaginations, their psychological growth, and their ability 

to confront and understand troubling aspects of human life. 

Now, some of you may be troubled by my references to censorship. It’s a kind of hot-button word, so let me explain that I use 

the term simply to describe any effort to suppress expression that 

is considered inappropriate or unacceptable. Some say that filtering 

technologies are simply a way for parents or others who object to 

sex or violence or profane language in movies to control what is 

viewed in their home. That’s fair enough, but it is still a form of 

censorship. 

Now, it’s true that the manufacture and use of this technology 

doesn’t violate the first amendment, which generally only applies 

to the Government. But if Congress were to endorse the technology 

through law, it would create first amendment problems. Singling 

out constitutionally protected expression for adverse treatment 

under the law, in this instance scenes and dialogues from films 

that a private company has decided contain unacceptable levels of 

sex or some other topic, is precisely what the first amendment says 

Congress cannot do. 

Moreover, just as a matter of policy, this technology is a bad idea 

because it reflects a simplistic and erroneous view of how art affects human beings. It suggests that the way to protect our children and adolescents from controversial or troubling media content 

is to censor rather than educate them. But on the contrary, education and media literacy skills is far more likely than filters, Vchips, or censorship laws to produce healthy, non-violent and sexually responsible adults. 

As the National Research Council wrote in a 2002 report on the 

related subject of Internet filters, ‘‘media literacy provides children 

with skills in critically evaluating the content inherent in media 

messages. A child with these skills is less likely to stumble across 

27

inappropriate material and more likely to be better able to put it 

into context if and when he or she does.’’

And they made the analogy to swimming pools. They can be dangerous for children. To protect them, one can install locks, put up 

fences, and deploy pool alarms. All of these measures are helpful, 

but by far, the most important thing one can do for one’s children 

is to teach them how to swim. 

In the time remaining, let me just address the claims that are 

so frequently made and that you’ve heard here today that social 

science research has proved media violence to cause aggressive behavior. I was perfectly willing to accept this conventional wisdom 

when I began research for Not in Front of the Children, but what 

I discovered, like so many independent researchers before me, was 

that, number one, most of the research has actually produced null 

results. 

Number two, claimed positive results are often based on manipulation of statistics or flawed measures of aggression, such as punching a Bobo doll, which is an acceptable form of play aggression, recognizing aggressive words on computer screens, or one of my favorites, popping a balloon. 

There is no uniformity in research results, the first requirement 

for scientific validity. Some studies have found children more aggressive after watching ‘‘Sesame Street’’ or ‘‘Mr. Rogers.’’ Joanne 

Cantor’s book, Mommy, I’m Scared, documents anxiety reactions 

among children exposed to such relatively non-violent fare as ‘‘Little House on the Prairie,’’ ‘‘Sleeping Beauty,’’ and ‘‘Alice in Wonderland.’’ No filter V-chip or censorship law can identify what from the 

vast array of art and literature might frighten a particular child. 

Even correlational research, which can be suggestive but certainly does not show causation, is inconclusive. Violent crime rates, 

as I’m sure you know, for youth have been declining in the last decade, even as media violence has become more intense. In 1986, one 

researcher found negative correlations between exposure to violent 

TV and violent crime in 281 metropolitan areas. He stated, ‘‘the 

data consistently indicate that high levels of exposure to violent 

television content are accompanied by relatively low rates of violent 

crime.’’

Finally, there’s no uniform definition of media violence in either 

experimental or correlational studies. Some researchers use cartoons, some use Batman, Superman, fight scenes in movies. Even 

the American Psychological Association, which speaks usually more 

guardedly than Mr. McIntyre did today, in terms of risks rather 

than proof, acknowledges that ‘‘violence, per se, is not the problem. 

It is the manner in which most violence on television is shown that 

should concern us.’’ Yet social science studies rarely test the context in which violence is shown or the artistic merit of the work. 

Certainly, movie filters don’t make these distinctions. 

We don’t have time to go into much more detail about the media 

violence literature now. I have, however, attached to my testimony 

a brief Friend of the Court brief in a case—one of the cases that 

Professor Cantor referred to, challenging a law restricting minors’

access to video games. The brief from these 33 media scholars explains in detail why, despite decades of studies, there is no credible 

28

evidence of a causative relation between fantasy violence and the 

real thing. 

As our own Federal Trade Commission reported, no firm conclusions about adverse effects can be drawn from media violence research, and similarly, in 1999, the British medical journal the Lancet criticized U.S. medical——

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Heins, are you getting to the end of your testimony? 

Ms. HEINS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Ms. HEINS.—associations for falsely claiming that thousands of 

studies have proven adverse effects. The editors wrote, ‘‘it is inaccurate to imply that the published work strongly indicates a causal 

link between virtual and actual violence.’’

Now, no doubt, there is common sense appeal to the notion that 

impressionable viewers will imitate what they see on screen, and 

I don’t think anybody doubts that media has powerful effects. It’s 

just not clear that scientific studies can ever prove what they are, 

and they tend to vary. 

But to address these concerns, education is far more effective 

than privately manufactured filters which are marketed to families 

on the false premise that a blunt and mechanical censorship tool 

will keep their children safe. Ultimately, filters, like other forms of 

censorship, are a distraction from the more difficult and less sensational work of educating kids and fighting the real causes of violence in society, including poverty, firearms, drugs, alcohol, peer 

pressures, and domestic abuse. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Heins. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Heins follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARJORIE HEINS

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to address you today regarding 

movie filtering, the First Amendment, and the whole issue of ‘‘media effects’’ on 

young people. 

I became intrigued by this subject a decade ago, when, as a First Amendment attorney at the ACLU, I discovered that the most common justification for censoring 

art is the assumed adverse effect that sexual or violent content will have on impressionable youth. Ultimately, I wrote a book, Not in Front of the Children, which examines the cultural and legal underpinnings of this widespread assumption of 

‘‘harm to minors.’’ The book concludes not only that the harm is unproven, but that 

it is probably unprovable, and that, ironically, censoring the young may actually 

have ill effects on their imaginations, their psychological growth, and their ability 

to confront and understand troubling aspects of human life. 

After finishing Not in Front of the Children, I created the Free Expression Policy 

Project—or FEPP, for short—whose goal is to provide research and analysis on difficult censorship issues. Just a few weeks ago, FEPP became part of the Brennan 

Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. 

Some of you may be troubled by my references to ‘‘censorship,’’ so let me explain 

that I use the term simply to describe any effort to suppress expression that is considered inappropriate or unacceptable. Some say that filtering is simply a way for 

parents or others who object to sex, violence, or profane language in movies to control what is viewed in their home. Fair enough; but it is a form of censorship nonetheless. 

It’s true that the manufacture and use of this technology does not violate the First 

Amendment, which generally applies only to the government. (Whether it violates 

copyright law is another matter.) But if Congress were to endorse the technology 

through law, it would create First Amendment problems. Singling out constitutionally protected expression for adverse treatment under the law—in this instance, 

29

1 National Research Council, Youth, Pornography, and the Internet (2002), http://bob.nap.edu/

html/youth—internet, Executive Summary. 2 Available at http://www.fepproject.org/policyreports/medialiteracy.pdf. 

3 Joanne Cantor, Mommy, I’m Scared (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1988). 4Steven Messner, ‘‘Television Violence and Violent Crime,’’ 33(3) Social Problems 218, 228 

(1986).

scenes and dialogue from films that a private company has decided contain unacceptable levels of sex or violence—is precisely what the First Amendment condemns. 

Moreover, this technology is a bad idea, because it reflects a simplistic and erroneous view of how art affects human beings. It suggests that the way to protect our 

children and adolescents from controversial or troubling media content is to censor 

rather than educate them. But on the contrary, education in media literacy skills—

understanding moviemaking methods, identifying racial and gender stereotypes, and 

testing media messages against community values—is far more likely than filters, 

v-chips, or censorship laws to produce healthy, nonviolent, and sexually responsible 

adults. 

As the National Research Council, a part of the National Academies, wrote in a 

2002 report (on the related subject of Internet filters):

‘‘Information and media literacy provide children with skills in . . . critically 

evaluating the content inherent in media messages. A child with these skills is 

less likely to stumble across inappropriate material and more likely to be better 

able to put it into context if and when he or she does....

‘‘Swimming pools can be dangerous for children. To protect them, one can install locks, put up fences, and deploy pool alarms. All of these measures are 

helpful, but by far the most important thing that one can do for one’s children 

is teach them to swim.’’ 1

FEPP’s recent report, Media Literacy: An Alternative to Censorship,2 describes the 

work that has been done in America and elsewhere to advance this productive and 

non-censorial approach to concerns about popular culture. 

In the time remaining, let me address the claims that are so frequently made that 

social science research has proved ‘‘media violence’’ to cause aggressive behavior. I 

was quite willing to accept this conventional wisdom when I began research for Not 

in Front of the Children, but I what discovered, like many independent reviewers 

before me, was that:

(1) Most of the research has actually produced ‘‘null’’ results.

(2) Claimed positive results are often based on manipulation of statistics, or 

flawed measures of aggression, such as punching a Bobo doll (a socially accepted form of play aggression), recognizing ‘‘aggressive words’’ on a computer screen, or popping a balloon.

(3) There is no uniformity in research results—the first requirement for scientific validity. Some studies have found children more aggressive after 

watching Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood. Joanne Cantor’s 

book, Mommy, I’m Scared, documented anxiety reactions among children exposed to such relatively nonviolent TV fare as Little House on the Prairie, 

Sleeping Beauty, and Alice in Wonderland.3 No filter, v-chip, or censorship 

law can identify what, from the vast array of art and literature, might 

frighten a particular child. (When my now-grown son was 6 or 7 years old, 

he became frightened while watching the opening scene of Treasure Island

and hearing the scary music.) 

(4) Even correlational research—which can be suggestive, but does not show 

causation—is inconclusive. Violent crime rates for youth have been declining 

even as media violence has become more intense. In 1986, one researcher 

found negative correlations between exposure to violent TV and violent 

crime in 281 metropolitan areas. He stated: ‘‘The data consistently indicate 

that high levels of exposure to violent television content are accompanied by 

relatively low rates of violent crime.’’ 4

(5) There is no uniform definition of ‘‘media violence’’ in either experimental or 

correlational studies. Some researchers use cartoons; others use Batman, 

Superman, or fight scenes in movies. Indeed, some studies simply look for 

relationships between ‘‘aggressive behavior’’ and general TV viewing, not 

violent viewing. Even the American Psychological Association, which speaks 

guardedly in terms of ‘‘risks’’ rather than proof, acknowledges that ‘‘violence 

per se is not the problem; it is the manner in which most violence on teleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:52 Aug 05, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\COURTS\052004\93773.000 HJUD1 PsN: 93773
30

5 Comments of the American Psychological Association in FCC No. 97–55, Apr. 8, 1997 (proceedings on the v-chip), quoted in Not in Front of the Children, p. 196. 6Federal Trade Comm’n, Marketing Entertainment Violence to Children, Appendix A, ‘‘A Review of Research on the Impact of Violence in Entertainment Media’’ (2000). 7 ‘‘Guns, Lies, and Videotape,’’ 354(9178) The Lancet 525 (1999). 

vision is shown that should concern us.’’ 5 Yet social science studies rarely 

test the context in which violence is shown: Is used by a villain or a hero? 

Is it used in self-defense? Does it have outstanding artistic value? Certainly, 

movie filters do not make these distinctions. 

We do not have time today to go into additional detail about the media effects 

research. I have, however, attached to this testimony a ‘‘friend of the court’’ brief 

on behalf of 33 media scholars in a recent case challenging a law restricting minors’

access to video games containing violence. The brief explains in detail why, despite 

several decades of studies, there is no credible evidence of a causative relation between fantasy violence and the real thing. 

As a 2000 study by our own Federal Trade Commission reported, no firm conclusions about adverse effects can be drawn from media violence research.6 Similarly, 

in 1999, the British medical journal The Lancet criticized U.S. medical associations 

for falsely claiming that thousands of studies had proven adverse effects. The editors wrote: ‘‘it is inaccurate to imply that the published work strongly indicates a 

causal link between virtual and actual violence.’’ 7

No doubt, there is common-sense appeal to the notion that impressionable viewers 

will imitate what they see onscreen. It may be that some forms of media violence 

do have harmful effects, even though social-science studies are unlikely to prove it. 

But to address these concerns, education is far more effective than privately manufactured filters which are marketed to families on the false premise that a blunt 

and mechanical censorship tool will keep their children safe. 

Ultimately, movie filters, like other forms of censorship, are a distraction from the 

more difficult, and less sensational, work of educating kids to be discriminating 

viewers, and fighting the real causes of violence in society, including poverty, firearms, drugs, alcohol, peer pressures, and domestic abuse. 

31

ATTACHMENT


Heins1.eps
32


Heins2.eps
33


Heins3.eps
34


Heins4.eps
35


Heins5.eps
36


Heins6.eps
37


Heins7.eps
38


Heins8.eps
39


Heins9.eps
40


Heins10.eps
41


Heins11.eps
42


Heins12.eps
43


Heins13.eps
44


Heins14.eps
45


Heins15.eps
46


Heins16.eps
47


Heins17.eps
48


Heins18.eps
49


Heins19.eps
50


Heins20.eps
51


Heins21.eps
52


Heins22.eps
53


Heins23.eps
54


Heins24.eps
55


Heins25.eps
56


Heins26.eps
57


Heins27.eps
58


Heins28.eps
59


Heins29.eps
60


Heins30.eps
61


Heins31.eps
62


Heins32.eps
63


Heins33.eps
64


Heins34.eps
65


Heins35.eps
66


Heins36.eps
67


Heins37.eps
68

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Cantor and Mr. McIntyre, let me address my 

first question to you all, and obviously you disagree with Ms. 

Heins’s conclusions. But I want to make the point, and Ms. Cantor, 

you did in your testimony, make a point about the difference between cause and contribute. You made the point that the sex and 

violence and profanity that children hear or see doesn’t necessarily 

cause but often contributes to behavior along the same lines later 

on. Mr. McIntyre, you pointed specifically to studies, current studies that indicate that there are harmful effects on children as a result of seeing and watching the violence and the sex and profanity. 

Is this just a disagreement between current studies? Ms. Heins 

says no study shows that. You all say multiple studies have shown 

it for the last 30 years. What’s the disconnect here? Ms. Cantor? 

Ms. CANTOR. I’m not sure what research Ms. Heins is referring 

to. A lot of the research she has referred to in terms of the Bobo 

doll studies and the popping the balloon, these were done—the very 

first studies done in the ’60’s. I mean, studies now are much more 

sophisticated and they involve a whole range of violent behaviors 

that are encouraged and contributed to by media violence. 

There are many people who have—there are some people who 

have reviewed the literature who have, I would say, a different perspective. One of the most frequently—one of the most frequently 

quoted person on the other side is Jonathan Freedman, who is at 

the University of Toronto. He wrote a book which I reviewed, I 

have reviewed, and the review’s on my website. He was funded by 

the Motion Picture Association of America in writing this book and 

he acknowledges that funding in the preface of the book. 

I mean, there are ways of looking at the research and trying to 

minimize its significance, but the majority of researchers who are 

independent and work at universities have looked at this research 

in a very scientific way and have found overwhelming evidence 

that media violence contributes to all of these negative outcomes. 

Also, if you’re talking about nightmares and anxieties, the causal 

consequences are very direct and immediate and obvious. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Cantor. 

Mr. McIntyre, do you agree with that? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Absolutely, sir. I think it’s roughly analogous to 

the research that’s been done on cigarette smoking and lung cancer, that there’s not a proven direct one-to-one relationship. If I 

smoke a cigarette, I’m not doomed to immediately sprout lung cancer. But we know that the more cigarettes I smoke, the more likely 

I become at risk for lung cancer later on in life. 

We see that with media violence, that certainly watching one 

show may not be causal in the strict definition of that, but for children that have repeated exposure to violence in any capacity, the 

more they have that exposure to violence, the more they learn it. 

It’s really not complicated in terms of the science. Kids learn what 

they see. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. McIntyre. 

Ms. HEINS. Might I add a note? 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Heins, I’m going to recognize you in just a 

minute. I have a question for Mr. Aho first, and that is that I agree 

with what you consider to be the issue at hand and I do, as well. 

I mentioned it in my opening statement, and that is that parents 

69

should be able to choose what their children see and hear, whether 

it’s on a movie, whether it’s on TV or whatever it might be. You 

made the good point that you’re not tampering with the original 

product. You’re skipping over. You’re muting. In my judgment, 

you’re doing it electronically and with high tech what parents did 

manually a generation ago. 

I also want to make the point and make sure that you agree with 

it that whatever skipping over is done, whatever muting is done, 

and whether it’s the violence in ‘‘Saving Private Ryan’’ or the sex 

in another movie or the profanity in another movie, that’s all irrelevant. It’s the right of parents to delete or skip over or mute whatever they want to for what they consider to be the benefit of their 

children, isn’t that the case? 

Mr. AHO. Yes, I think that is the case, Mr. Chairman, and I 

think that’s consistent with first amendment. We certainly think 

that there is a high demand from parents and families to skip over 

content that they might find harmful to their children, but it would 

be their right to skip over the entire movie if they’d prefer. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, good. Ms. Heins, a couple of questions for you. 

Don’t you think that parents should be able to choose what their 

children see on TV? 

Ms. HEINS. Well, they certainly don’t have to rent any movie that 

they don’t want their children to see. 

Mr. SMITH. No, but as I mentioned in my opening statement, you 

can’t monitor a child 24 hours a day. But do you support the use 

of the V-chip, for example? 

Ms. HEINS. Well, no. 

Mr. SMITH. That’s the most minor—— Ms. HEINS. No, and putting aside legalities, the reason is that it 

misleads parents. It is not really helpful to parents. It is a quick 

fix that is not a fix at all. 

Mr. SMITH. But don’t you think it’s——

Ms. HEINS. They’re not really educating their children—— Mr. SMITH. Ms. Heins, don’t you——

Ms. HEINS.—or protecting their children. 

Mr. SMITH. Don’t you think—I appreciate your point about educating children, but don’t you think it’s really up to the parents to 

determine what their children see and hear? 

Ms. HEINS. Yes, although as children mature, obviously parents 

don’t have complete control. 

Mr. SMITH. No, no. Right. 

Ms. HEINS. Adolescents still have first amendment rights——

Mr. SMITH. Would you favor a 5-year-old watching the Playboy 

Channel, for example? 

Ms. HEINS. Personally, I don’t think a 5-year-old would be very 

interested in the Playboy Channel. 

Mr. SMITH. No, but would you——

Ms. HEINS. And I don’t think it will harm them. I don’t favor it, 

but I don’t think that we need legislation——

Mr. SMITH. Do you think a parent should be able to prevent a 

child from watching the Playboy Channel? 

Ms. HEINS. Certainly, but the question becomes what kind of legislation is appropriate, and one thing we have to understand is 

that the tools are very blunt, filtering tools——

70

Mr. SMITH. I understand that, and I’m glad you answered the 

question the way you did. 

One last quick question. This goes to an article you wrote in 1998 

which sounds to me like you didn’t back then, at least, think that 

this technology was bad. You said commercial filtering products, 

they at least have the virtue of being voluntary. That is, the private companies do the classifying. Then you said, technology that 

can accommodate multiple self-ratings or third-party ratings of 

Internet, parents can choose a labeling system that mirrors their 

own views. 

There wasn’t anything negative about that context. Have you 

changed your mind since 1998? 

Ms. HEINS. Boy. What’s the article? [Laughter.] 

Mr. SMITH. I’m happy to. It’s called ‘‘Print Friendly Versions, 

Screening Out Sex,’’ by Marjorie Heins. I assume that that is you. 

Ms. HEINS. That’s me. I’m having trouble placing the context. I 

mean——

Mr. SMITH. Well, my time is up. I’ll give you a copy of the article. 

Ms. HEINS. Yes. Maybe it was the American Prospect article. 

Mr. SMITH. Whatever it was——

Ms. HEINS. Well, the descriptive material you’re quoting sounds 

more or less accurate, but I think if you read the whole article, 

you’ll see that it’s fundamentally——

Mr. SMITH. The rest of the article is about the education, not 

about the technology, but anyway, thank you, Ms. Heins. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman——

Ms. HEINS. If I might just respond to a few points that——

Mr. SMITH. I’ll let Mr. Berman give you that opportunity. 

Ms. HEINS. Okay. Thanks. 

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Aho, I created a Berman filter and I took the 

first and fourth paragraphs of your testimony and I didn’t alter it, 

I just pressed the mute button and I heard you say, ClearPlay controls provide graphic violence, nudity, explicit sex, and profanity. 

This is a choice that many families desire. Many see it as beneficial 

to their children. We believe that it is not in the best interests of 

society to eliminate this choice for parents. 

Words in your fourth paragraph, through the Berman filter, 

came out as, ClearPlay does violate copyright laws. Indeed, it does 

copy or alter the works themselves and it does use trademarks. 

Trademark and copyright laws were intended to deprive families of 

choices. 

I don’t think you like my edits and I don’t think they leave an 

accurate representation of the meaning of your statement. Do 

you—can you understand why directors might likewise oppose letting you alter the message of their movies? If a ClearPlay competitor distributed the document-reading utility specifically designed 

to cause your statement to appear this way on a reader’s computer 

screen, would you consider suing them for trademark infringement, 

libel, or defamation? 

And Mr. Chairman, I would like the edited copies of Mr. Aho’s 

statement to be a part of the record. [Laughter.] 

Mr. AHO. Was that a question, Mr. Congressman? 

Mr. BERMAN. Not particularly. [Laughter.] 

71

But I noticed in one of the press articles that you decided not to 

provide a filter for ‘‘Saving Private Ryan.’’ We know this has very 

vivid, graphic scenes of violence in the opening scenes related to 

the Normandy invasion, and you chose not to market a filter for 

that movie. Did I understand that correctly? 

Mr. AHO. That’s correct. 

Mr. BERMAN. Why? 

Mr. AHO. We make our filters according to consumer demand. 

We have not heard from consumers, nor in our discussions with 

consumers is there a demand to see ‘‘Saving Private Ryan’’ without 

the violence. I think most consumers would, based upon the feedback that we get from them, that wasn’t something they wanted. 

Mr. BERMAN. In other words, your only reason was it didn’t make 

economic sense to spend time on doing that because no one would 

want to utilize filters of violence for that? 

Mr. AHO. The primary driver of what filters we supply is what 

parents want or what families want or what individuals want. 

Mr. BERMAN. Do you think there’s anything wrong with filters 

for—to knock out the violence of that Normandy invasion from ‘‘Saving Private Ryan’’? 

Mr. AHO. Well, no, I don’t think that it violates anybody’s rights. 

I think if somebody wanted to watch a movie in their home any 

way that they wanted to, no, I don’t think that that’s wrong. I 

think that’s within their rights. 

Mr. BERMAN. I noticed in another one of the articles I read that 

you put out a filter for ‘‘As Good As It Gets,’’ and that there’s a, 

I think I recall, there’s a scene in there where two fully-clothed 

males embrace and kiss each other and that you, when called on, 

why did you filter that scene out? You apologized you said you had 

the person who did that no longer works for you and that you 

would no longer market that particular filter. Is that a fair recollection of the article that I read? 

Mr. AHO. Congressman, no, I don’t believe it is. In fact, I think 

quite the opposite. I think that the scene that you’re referring to 

was a scene with the actors, Greg Kinnear and Cuba Gooding, Jr., 

and they embraced and there was an affectionate kiss and that was 

not filtered. I believe that that’s the scene that you’re referring to. 

So no, I—— Mr. BERMAN. Shouldn’t parents have a right to have that filtered 

out? 

Mr. AHO. Well, if they would choose to, they can. Congressman, 

our job is not to provide an unlimited array of filters for whatever 

anybody may prefer. What we try to provide is a set of options that 

are most desired by parents. Now, that may or may not be consistent with someone’s personal interests. 

You make the comment of editing my comments for your own 

personal interest. Well, if you chose to do that in your home, I 

think that that’s your right. And if you chose to read it for whatever purposes in the privacy of your home, that would be your 

right. Now, we would not provide that filter to do that kind of work 

because it’s not our business and we don’t think that there’s a marketplace demand for it. 

Mr. BERMAN. But your competitors might. 

Mr. AHO. I can’t speak for any hypothetical——

72

Mr. BERMAN. No, they might want to filter your comments. 

Mr. AHO. Well, certainly——

Mr. BERMAN. To serve their purposes. 

Mr. AHO. Certainly some of your constituents might, Congressman. 

Mr. BERMAN. I guess my time has expired. I hope we’ll have a 

chance for a second round. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Berman. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller, is recognized. 

Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Heins, all I can say is when I was 12 years old, I wish you 

were my mom. [Laughter.] 

I can watch Playboy as much as I want. You’re one of the cool 

moms, you know. [Laughter.] 

Let me start with Mr. Aho. When Mr. Conyers was here, he was 

saying Mr. Ay-ho. What’s the——

Mr. AHO. It’s Aho. 

Mr. KELLER. Usually when Conyers talks about Ay-ho, I think 

he’s talking about me usually, so I’m—— [Laughter.] 

I want to clarify that. 

Mr. SMITH. We’re going to filter that out. 

Mr. KELLER. Okay. 

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman continues to be recognized. 

Mr. KELLER. Okay. Let me go next, Mr. McIntyre, I’m sympathetic to your concern about seeing these questionable things, especially in the minds of young children, seeing profanity and partial 

nudity and graphic violence. But just to play devil’s advocate, when 

I go to the Blockbuster, and I have a 5-year-old and an 8-year-old, 

I look there and it says PG-13 or it says R and it would say, partial 

nudity or graphic violence. Isn’t that enough for parents to make 

the call? I mean, I can—for example, with my 8-year-old, I can 

pretty well make the decision. I’m not going to let him see any sex 

stuff or nudity, but if it says ‘‘hell’’ or ‘‘damn,’’ you know, maybe 

I might let him see it. I mean, isn’t that enough for parents? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Well, it’s certainly going to depend on the parent 

and it has been our experience that the ratings that have been applied for motion picture films have been, shall I say, a bit fickle in 

their application. What one film may be considered to have violence 

is not consistently applied to a standard over a variety of films. 

Where PG-13 may give you a certain amount of information, as a 

Psychological Association, as a public health association, we want 

to know who’s qualified at that association to make the call that 

that is a picture that is okay for someone that’s at the 13-year-old 

developmental level. 

Mr. KELLER. But, I mean, are there examples like where it 

doesn’t say ‘‘nudity’’ on the voluntary label there and then you 

watch the movie and it, in fact, has nudity? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. I am sure there is. However, I’m unprepared to 

give specific examples. 

Mr. KELLER. All right. Mr. Aho, in terms of—I’m trying to figure 

out what the strike zone of reasonableness is. I mean, I can understand if I was the creator of ‘‘Jaws’’ and I’m the screenwriter or director, I don’t want you taking out the cool ‘‘Jaws’’ scene just beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:52 Aug 05, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\COURTS\052004\93773.000 HJUD1 PsN: 93773
73

cause somebody might think it’s violent. I’m sympathetic to that 

side, and yet I understand the family side, as well. 

In terms of getting this in the strike zone, what if as a reasonable compromise the studios say, well, here are the airline versions 

of our movies, which are relatively clean. Why don’t you just follow 

those prescriptions and just skip over those parts that we have deleted in the airline versions? Why wouldn’t that be a reasonable 

compromise for a company like yours? 

Mr. AHO. I think it’s something that’s worth exploring. One of 

the challenges to really fully evaluate that is that the airline—the 

standards for the airline versions are not published and so it’s difficult to evaluate whether they’re acceptable to a broad array of 

consumers or families or not. Were they to be published and were 

we able to document them, then I think I could better answer that 

question. 

Mr. KELLER. And I wish somebody from the movie industry was 

here—I understand that we did have a chance to have studio folks 

here and the Director’s Guild, but some of them declined—because 

it would seem to me, Mr. Aho, if I’m in the business of making 

money as a big movie studio, maybe I would want a clean version 

out at the Blockbuster so for parents like me who might think the 

movie is great but they don’t want to show their kid an R movie, 

to have a PG version of it. I’d want it out there. I’d want the airline 

version out there, mass distributed. Why isn’t that an industry 

practice? 

Mr. AHO. Well, I think you’d have to speak to the industry and 

ask them about that, but I concur with you, Congressman Keller, 

that ultimately, this kind of benefit is good for the industry. If it 

causes people to watch—more people to watch more movies and 

enjoy them more, it seems to me that that can only be beneficial 

to Hollywood and the studios, both economically but also just from 

a relationship to the American consumer and to families. 

Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Keller. 

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is recognized for 

her questions. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m interested, Mr. Aho, in the technology that ClearPlay utilizes. 

In your testimony, you mention that ClearPlay does not alter the 

underlying DVD. It merely, according to you, skips and mutes over 

objectionable content. Technologically, how does the product do 

that? 

Mr. AHO. Well, we take certain events in the movie and identify 

them and then the consumer chooses how they want to experience 

the movie. Now, when it comes to—so when the DVD is interpreting those bits and bytes and comes to one of those frames, on 

a time-coded basis, it says ‘‘mute from this frame to that frame’’ or 

‘‘skip from this one to that one’’——

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. 

Mr. AHO.—based upon the preferences that you’ve established. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So you don’t have to defeat the encryption that is 

protecting these DVDs, for example, although I guess theoretically 

the movie industry could go to the next phase of encryption, which 

would then require you to defeat that scheme. 

74

Mr. AHO. We have not ever nor ever contemplated any decryption 

measures. That’s not part of our business practice. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I know it isn’t now, but depending on the reaction 

to what you’re doing, it could become necessary for you to look at 

that. 

Mr. AHO. I can’t comment on that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. All right. Okay. You know, I am interested in this. 

The focus of the hearing, I think, has been on the—on children and 

the impact of sex and violence on children, which is obviously of interest and concern to all of us and especially those of us who are 

parents. But I really think there’s a broader issue here, which is 

artists are free to create and express, but consumers who lawfully 

purchase or rent are not required to look at all of it. 

I mean, if you’ve got a DVD, you can’t force the person to not go 

to the kitchen and get a Coke during part of it or not to take a 

trip to the restroom or to cover your eyes. I mean, the fact that you 

have a right to express does not require consumers to accept the 

full panoply of what has been created. 

And it seems to me that the issue is much broader than children. 

The issue is, what rights do consumers have to utilize technology 

to not experience some of what they bought? And it seems to me 

that once you’ve lawfully purchased something, you have a right to 

watch some of it, all of it. It’s your choice. And if you use technology to assist you in making that choice, it’s still fundamentally 

your choice on what to see. The fact that you can produce a book 

doesn’t mean I have to read the book, and it’s the same thing with 

movies. Isn’t that really what ClearPlay is doing here? 

Mr. AHO. Well, I think that’s exactly right, in the same way that 

if you own a CD and you choose to play it back in a different order 

through your device, or if you buy a book and choose to read only 

certain chapters of it. Yes, it is merely a matter of us helping you 

to have a broad array of choices. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now, it seems to me that a distinction could be 

drawn between the agreement that is made—let’s say you make a 

movie and you’re showing that movie at a movie theater and charging admission. I mean, there is an implied, I think, deal between 

the movie that you’re going to show this artistic work for sale and 

that you’re holding it out to be what the artist created. That is a 

little bit different than in the privacy of my own home, I bought 

the book and I’m skipping chapter ten, or I bought the DVD and 

I’m skipping the first 30 minutes. Do you see that distinction? 

Mr. AHO. No, I think it’s a very important distinction. I mean, 

let’s understand what a consumer has to do. They have to buy a 

DVD player with the ClearPlay feature on it and then they have 

to go in and turn ClearPlay on. They have to put in a password 

and turn it on and create their settings. It comes with ClearPlay 

off. So someone has to want to do this and take those overt measures to make the product work. It’s not something that could be 

confused with sort of a public presentation of a movie that I sort 

of stumbled into and misinterpreted. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now, let me ask you just technologically how your 

product differs from, say, TiVo, where you can also zap out stuff 

that you don’t want to see. 

75

Mr. AHO. I’m not an expert on the TiVo technology, but TiVo 

records——

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. AHO.—and I think that’s probably the most fundamental difference, is that as a person with a digital video recorder, it actually 

makes a copy of the presentation or buffers it, then for you to go 

back and make changes and take parts out. Probably the most fundamental difference is that we do not record. We do not make a 

copy. What ClearPlay does is simply skip and mute over parts that 

you decide to omit. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. HEINS. I wonder if I could respond to your question in a 

somewhat more——

Mr. SMITH. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for an 

additional minute, without objection. That will give Ms. Heins a 

chance to respond. 

Ms. HEINS. Since Mr. Aho pretty much agreed with everything 

you said, let me just suggest another response, and preface it by 

saying that, in general, I completely agree with your view that 

copyright law at this point has tipped too far in favor of the copyright holders and legislation like the Digital Millennium Copyright 

Act really does undermine fair use rights of the public. 

But in this instance, I would think—I would suggest that the 

written testimony that’s been submitted by the Director’s Guild, I 

think is very powerful because it gives examples of movies such as 

‘‘Traffic,’’ which is a very powerful movie showing the devastation 

caused by drug addiction and the way in which that movie has 

been distorted and mutilated. ‘‘Schindler’s List’’ is another example, the editing, the creation of essentially a new work which totally undermines and downplays the atrocities of the Nazi era. 

These are very powerful examples of interference with the essence of creative works that I would say, even though we agree 

that copyright balance in general has tipped too far in favor of——

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, let me ask you this——

Ms. HEINS. In this instance, I think——

Ms. LOFGREN. Because I do think if you, and I’m not unsympathetic to the artists. I mean, they have produced a work that is a 

whole in their mind, that is of value because it’s of a whole. But 

you also, I think, as the producer have to understand that if you’re 

going to provide that piece of work and then hand it so that a consumer controls it in the privacy of their own home, you’re going to 

have a different relationship with the viewer than you will in a 

theater. And if you’re that much of an artist, maybe you don’t put 

it out on a DVD. Maybe you show it only the way you want it to 

be held, because you can’t stop people from going to the bathroom 

and skipping over that——

Ms. HEINS. Right, or fast-forwarding through the commercials——

Mr. SMITH. The gentlewoman’s time is expiring and, in fact, has 

expired. 

76

1The questions offered by Mr. Cannon were not submitted to the witnesses as they were answered at another time during the hearing. 

Before I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, without objection, what I’d like to do is submit some written questions 1 to our 

panelists today from Congressman Cannon, who, as I mentioned a 

while ago, has a strong interest in the subject. He’s not a Member 

of the Subcommittee but he is a Member of the full Committee and 

would like for you all to respond to his questions within 2 weeks, 

and we’ll get them to you immediately. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, is recognized for questions. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I wish 

that Mr. Berman could give me the right to keep the media from 

taking my statements out of context or that they would be forced 

to print them in the context in which they were made. But I can 

assure you they do not and they constantly proclaim the right to 

cut and paste however they want. 

It just seems that when we flip that right over to parents, everybody gets excited, and today we’ve heard a debate about whether 

objectionable material is good or bad for children, and that’s a good 

debate to have, but my real concern kind of follows on what the 

gentlewoman from California was raising, and that is what a parent’s right is in their home in determining what they want their 

children to see or not see. 

Ms. Heins, since you seem to take a little different perspective 

than our other witnesses and didn’t have full time to elaborate on 

some of your positions, I just want to see where we draw the line 

in the sand and ask you, if you can, to be concise because I’m limited on my time. But do you believe that as a parent, I have the 

right in my home to skip objectionable material on a DVD or that’s 

coming in on the TV if I feel that I don’t want my children to see 

that? Do I have that right. 

Ms. HEINS. Yes. I think the question here is really to what extent 

can commercial manufacturers of technology distort a work or 

interfere with——

Mr. FORBES. And Ms. Heins, they may be questions——

Ms. HEINS.—intellectual freedom rights in order to——

Mr. FORBES. They may be questions somebody else will want to 

ask, but I want to draw the line and just see where you are on it. 

But you would agree that as a parent, I would have the right to 

skip that objectionable material for my children? 

Ms. HEINS. Sure. 

Mr. FORBES. Suppose that I wasn’t going to be home and I hired 

a 17-year-old babysitter to come over and watch my children but 

I told her, I want you to skip this material when it came on. Would 

I have the right to do that and would she have the right to do that 

at my request? 

Ms. HEINS. I see I’m in the hands of an expert cross-examiner. 

Mr. FORBES. Just asking. 

Ms. HEINS. Yes. 

Mr. FORBES. The third question I would ask is, most of the kids 

that I know that are teenagers know far more about the DVDs and 

the computers than I’ll ever hope to know. Suppose I bring the 

77

same student home and I ask them, will you program my DVD for 

me and my church Sunday School class so that this material will 

not come up? Would they have the right to do that, not changing 

the disk, just programming my DVD. 

Ms. HEINS. For a church Sunday School class? 

Mr. FORBES. For me or the church Sunday School class, the community group, whatever that was there. 

Ms. HEINS. I think it might make a difference whether it’s for 

public or private viewing. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. Tell me why that would make a difference. 

Ms. HEINS. Because when it’s for public viewing, you start to encroach, I think, more on the artistic interests of the creators, and 

so the balance starts to shift a little more——

Mr. FORBES. What if she said, I am——

Ms. HEINS.—away from the privacy rights. 

Mr. FORBES. What if she said, I have programmed this particular 

chip, disk, whatever, so that you can put it in your DVD and it will 

skip those materials automatically and you don’t have to be there 

to do it. Would that be appropriate for her to do? 

Ms. HEINS. I think you get into some very difficult questions of 

whether that is creation of a derivative work in violation of copyright. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Aho, would you respond to that? Is there any 

difference there, if I’m not altering the material in any capacity or 

any way. 

Mr. AHO. Yes, I think there’s a substantial difference. I think the 

fact that a product is not altered has been—and I’m not an expert 

on copyright law, but I think it’s been a fairly fundamental tenet 

of—I think the principle is fixation or something, that to simply 

change your own personal viewing experience, I think strikes me 

and apparently most Americans as a fundamental right, like I 

would be offended if somebody told me I could not do that. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Forbes. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, is recognized 

for questions. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it an interesting discussion, and I think there’s unanimity. We all, I think 

from the panel and I’m sure on this side of this panel sitting at the 

dais, that the parent does have a right. I don’t think there’s any 

contradiction. 

Again, there’s obviously such a thing as the maturing process 

and the acquisition, if you will, of certain rights by individuals as 

they mature. But clearly, for an immature child, I don’t think 

there’s any question. 

But I think what we’re talking about here is, is this a violation 

of trademark/copyright law, and I presume this is what the litigation is about and that a court will make that determination. 

I think the questioning by Mr. Forbes was correct in the sense 

of once the work leaves the home, I would—I can envision a shifting in the balance, if you will, from privacy to a whole different set 

of conditions which create, if you will, a more stronger argument 

that the copyright itself is being encroached. 

78

What’s the status of the litigation at this point in time? I’m sure 

it’s wending its way through the courts. Are you in a circuit court 

of appeals or—— Mr. AHO. Are you asking me, Congressman? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, I am. 

Mr. AHO. We have filed for a, or made a motion for a summary 

judgment. All the briefs from both sides have—— Mr. DELAHUNT. Where is it, anyhow? 

Mr. AHO. It’s in the Tenth Circuit. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. It’s in the circuit court. 

Ms. HEINS. It’s in the district court. 

Mr. AHO. Tenth District, I’m sorry. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. It’s in the Tenth District. So this—I think the 

Committee will find it interesting to observe the progress of the 

litigation, and clearly at some point in time, I would anticipate 

whether it’s you, sir, or the plaintiffs in the case, there would be 

a decision that we can all review. 

Getting back to the technology, maybe I just don’t quite understand it, but it’s ClearChannel that makes the decision as to——

Mr. AHO. ClearPlay. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I’m sorry? 

Mr. AHO. ClearPlay. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. ClearPlay, ClearChannel—— [Laughter.] 

I’m lucky to use the remote control, so, I mean, this is all way 

over my—— Mr. BERMAN. ClearPlay isn’t quite as dominant yet in this market as ClearChannel is in their market. 

Mr. AHO. You’re correct, Congressman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. ClearPlay. You identify those scenes. ClearPlay 

identifies the scenes denoting violence, sex, whatever, am I correct? 

Mr. AHO. Yes, that’s correct. We identify them and then the consumer chooses—— Mr. DELAHUNT. How do you go about identifying them? 

Mr. AHO. I think it would be, Congressman, in the same sort of 

way that when someone approached it to make an airline version 

or a television version would do so. They would sit down and look 

at the film. They would know what standards——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I mean, do you have a team that do this? 

Mr. AHO. Yes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. So two or three people might sit down and 

they—for example, Congressman Lofgren talked, or someone alluded to ‘‘Schindler’s List.’’ Now, there’s nudity in ‘‘Schindler’s 

List,’’ but it’s clearly a very important piece of that movie, not because of the sexual nature of it but because of the degradation of 

humanity there. I mean, how—what’s the conversation? How do 

you make those kinds of decisions? 

Mr. AHO. Well, I can’t comment on ‘‘Schindler’s List.’’ We have 

not done a filter for that movie. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. You’ve seen the movie, though, I presume. 

Mr. AHO. I have seen the movie, yes. But I will tell you that, 

overall, it’s a process that starts, again, like an airline version or 

like a TV version. Somebody sits down—— Mr. DELAHUNT. Is it one person or two people or——

Mr. AHO. Well, we have a team of people and——

79

Mr. DELAHUNT. Who are these people? [Laughter.] 

I mean—— Mr. AHO. I’m not sure if you’re looking for—are you looking for 

their names? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. No. I’m looking for—I mean, are they sociologists? Are they psychologists? Do they have any—or are they just 

citizens like—— Mr. AHO. They’re ClearPlay—— Mr. DELAHUNT.—people sitting on this side of the dais? 

Mr. AHO. They’re ClearPlay employees that are—— Mr. DELAHUNT. But do they have any—so they just operate on 

the basis of their own personal taste, is that—— Mr. AHO. No, not at all. I think that would be a 

mischaracterization. Our standards are published, unlike, I might 

mention, the MPA standards or the airline version standards or 

TV, cable or network. We publish our standards so that consumers 

can look and make the choice for themselves. 

So it’s not arbitrary. It’s not personal. We have standards that 

we attempt to make as specific as possible——

Mr. DELAHUNT. For example, in terms of sexual content, I mean, 

just the display of a woman’s breasts, let’s say. Is that included in 

part of the standard? 

Mr. AHO. That would be in the nudity filter, yes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. And so let me just—can I just have another 

minute, Mr. Chairman? He’s not paying any attention, so we’ll just 

go on. [Laughter.] 

I got the minute. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt. 

The gentleman from—— [Laughter.] 

I’m sorry. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. See? [Laughter.] 

Give me just another minute. 

Mr. SMITH. I was talking to my Ranking Member here. I apologize. What was the question? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I just need another minute. I just want to—— Mr. SMITH. Without objection, the individual is recognized for another minute. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. As a parent, I hear what you’re saying about the 

nudity, for example. But in ‘‘Schindler’s List,’’ if I had a 10- or 11-

year-old, I might reach a different decision as to nudity in a, say, 

in a more risque or less serious movie. This is the problem that I’m 

dealing with in terms of how you make those kind of decisions, or 

is it just simply any kind of nudity? Do you see my—as far as how 

you create your standard? 

Mr. AHO. No, I—but I think those are the same challenges, Congressman, that everyone that creates an airline version creates. I 

think it’s the same challenges that the MPA goes through when 

they try to determine, does this make it an R or a PG-13? It is difficult to specifically define all the points on that line, but you do 

your best based upon your standards. 

Now, I can’t comment on ‘‘Schindler’s List’’ because we don’t—we 

have not created a filter for that movie. But I think that from a 

consumer behavior standpoint, it’s probably the same nature of the 

same decision that a parent might make when they choose not to 

80

see a movie in the theater, but when it comes on on television, they 

may choose to see it. Is it the same experience? No, but it’s an experience that at this point they choose and they find preferable. 

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman’s second time has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Carter, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Aho, as I understand it, you’re producing a 

tool——

Mr. AHO. I’m sorry? 

Mr. CARTER. You’re producing an electronic tool of some sort that 

allows a parent or any person that wants to to insert your tool and, 

without altering the copyrighted material whatsoever, it just allows 

them to stop and start and eliminate certain parts of it that you, 

as a parent or the purchaser, choose to have eliminated in your 

free will of choice, right? 

Mr. AHO. Yes, to skip and mute. 

Mr. CARTER. So if we’re going to say that a person shouldn’t be 

able to be entitled to have those tools, then how far are we going 

to expand this? Does the ‘‘stop’’ button have to go off of my VCR? 

Does the ‘‘fast-forward’’ have to be taken off because I might skip 

some copyrighted material by using some of those things in my 

home because I don’t want my kids to watch it? 

That, to me, I think—I wonder what the argument is here. If I 

choose to make ‘‘Schindler’s List’’ into musical comedy in my own 

home and I have the electronic ability to do so and it’s only for the 

viewing of my family, how have I harmed the copyright if it’s not 

being published to anybody but myself? 

Mr. AHO. I think that that’s a—I think that that’s a good analogy. Another one would be, say, for instance, using the picture-inpicture button on my television. I’ve certainly altered the visual 

representation of what I’m watching, but if I choose to watch the 

NBA playoffs while I’m watching a movie, that would be my right 

and not something the director would have, say, control or jurisdiction or rights. 

Mr. CARTER. We’ve actually seen, at least I think I’ve seen on 

very humorous shows like the old ‘‘Laugh In’’ show and some of 

those shows like that where they’ve actually taken movie clips and 

put them in inappropriately to make them bizarre parts of an overall performance that doesn’t fit the original context of that movie 

and nobody seems to get real upset about that. And yet it seems 

to me people are getting upset what a parent chooses to do in their 

opinion as to what’s good for their child. 

I personally think that I would never take a historical film where 

the violence fit the historical pattern of the history and take the 

violence out because it’s part of the history and I think we ought 

to have accurate history presented. 

An interesting thing happened in our family. My wife is from the 

Netherlands. The first time we went to a movie in the United 

States, we went to see ‘‘The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,’’ and she 

was absolutely appalled that there were children under the age of 

18 watching that movie because of the violence. I’m from Texas. I 

thought, what’s the problem? [Laughter.] 

But the movie ‘‘Ten,’’ which had a lot of sexual—not—in today’s 

standards, very mild, but in those days, pretty sexual content, I 

81

would have thought you wouldn’t bring your child to that movie 

and my wife saw nothing wrong with that at all because Holland 

has a very liberal view of nudity and I was from Texas and we 

didn’t in 1968, okay. 

But that had to be resolved by us as parents when we have children and decide how we would filter out those things, and that’s 

the tools you offer to us as parents, right? 

Mr. AHO. That’s correct. It is a tool and a set of choices that you 

make individually. 

Mr. CARTER. Ms. Heins, let me ask you now. And you think that 

those tools should be eliminated, I shouldn’t have the ability to 

have those tools? 

Ms. HEINS. Well, let me just address the difference between the 

parody example you gave, which would be a fair use because it’s 

transformative, and a filter which is not creative, it’s not transformative, it’s not trying to make a comment on the work. It’s simply distorting and mutilating the work. 

Does it violate copyright law? As Congressman Delahunt indicated, the Federal District Court will soon decide that. Is it good 

as a matter of policy? No. Do parents have the right to do it? Yes. 

Do for-profit corporations have the right to provide a range of technologies to enable parents to not make their own judgments, but 

essentially adopt the judgments of the filtering company? That’s 

the question before the court. 

But what I would say is, should the court decide this is a violation of copyright, that it would not be a great idea for Congress to 

step in and start rewriting copyright law in order to support and 

encourage and legitimize what is a very crude tool, a tool that I 

think is misguided in terms of the education of children. 

Mr. CARTER. As long as it takes your view. Of course, if it takes 

these folks’ view, then you’re opposed to it. But if the tool would 

turn around and take your view, that would be a good tool. 

Ms. HEINS. We’ll, I’m here to try to persuade you. 

Mr. CARTER. And the truth is, what’s the Government’s business 

in going in and getting involved in this thing? The Government 

doesn’t have any business getting involved in this thing. This is between parents and their children and a man offers a tool. 

Ms. HEINS. The case is between the creative community and 

some manufacturers who decided to play on and exacerbate parental concerns and sell them a product which I don’t think is a very 

good product. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, I was in that case business for 20 years and 

there’s a lot more to it than just the case, but I won’t go into that 

today. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Carter. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler, is recognized for questions. 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In listening to the comments as it relates to the notion of parental choice, it seems to me 

to a certain degree that argument is exaggerated in this context in 

that the ultimate choice is for a parent to permit his or her child 

to watch the movie in the first place. What your technology permits 

is not parental choice. It really just provides yet an additional category of choice, which is a parent then has the choice, or greater 

82

choice, to permit their child to view a movie which they otherwise 

would have found objectionable in a different or altered form. 

I’m curious, if we are to assume that third party editing and the 

technology that goes with it is permissible, I assume the ‘‘Nightly 

News,’’ as violent as it is, would be equally subject to such editing, 

wouldn’t it? 

Mr. AHO. Congressman, ClearPlay only works with pre-recorded 

movies, and so the ‘‘Nightly News’’ or really any television broadcasting would not be something that we would deal with. 

Mr. WEXLER. That’s the technology today in terms of pre-recorded. But the principle is the same, is it not? ‘‘Nightly News’’ is 

too violent for my 11-year-old son to watch. Strike it out. 

Mr. AHO. I think if you’re looking for an analogy, I would say 

that it is like at times when I’ve seen the news where there’s been 

a warning and someone has said, we’re going to show something 

very graphic now. You may want to modify your decision because 

of this part of the ‘‘Nightly News.’’ And it seems to me that that’s 

roughly analogous. That’s what we’re doing. We’re saying, there’s 

going to be something in this movie that you may choose not to 

watch. 

Mr. WEXLER. No, actually, though, I think the analogy—that 

analogy applies to the rating that the movie has that warns the 

parent beforehand and says, there is graphic violence or explicit 

sexual behavior in the movie. You may not want your child to 

watch it. 

Now you’re imposing then yet another factor, which is regardless 

of the warning, I’m now going to change the work so as to provide 

it in a different form. 

Today’s Washington Post, above the fold on the front page, has 

a fairly graphic picture of a Palestinian man carrying a Palestinian 

child who is very graphically injured. God knows how many tens 

of thousands of children are going to see that picture today. I presume that as the technology advances, it would be, under the same 

principle, fair to strike out the element of blood or the facial expressions of anger or pain and just have a picture of the Palestinian man carrying a Palestinian child who was unhurt. Why not? 

Mr. AHO. Is that a question for me? 

Mr. WEXLER. I guess so. Please. I mean, isn’t it the same principle? Why is it different? This is your view of what the 8-year-old 

or the 12-year-old should be looking at. 

Mr. AHO. I really think that probably the word ‘‘impose’’ is not 

a good one, because we certainly don’t impose any decisions upon 

anybody, nor, I think, do we—I think it would be incorrect to suggest that we suggest to someone what their world view ought to be 

or what they ought to watch. 

There’s over 16,000 different settings with ClearPlay. You can 

watch it the way that you would like. You can create the setting 

that you’re most comfortable with. Again, I think it’s probably analogous to you may not want to watching something when it came 

out in the movie, or in the theater, but you want to watch it when 

it comes out on television. Why is that? Because it’s more consistent with your standards. 

You’ve made a choice. You’ve been given an option and you’ve 

made a choice. Was it the networks that told you that this was the 

83

way you ought to watch a movie? No. No. But you understand that 

the networks have a different set of standards and you’re more 

comfortable with it and so you make that choice for your family. 

You may say to your kids, I don’t want you to watch ‘‘The Patriot’’ or another movie in the theaters because of some of the, say, particularly violent content, but I’m okay with you watching it, say, on 

television. 

Mr. WEXLER. Under what authority do you argue that you or 

anyone else has the right to take this artistic work and alter it in 

the fashion in which you are altering it? 

Mr. AHO. Well, I don’t think we really alter anything. We never 

change the DVD. We never—we actually never even touch the 

DVD. So I think it would probably not be accurate to say that we 

alter any artistic work at all. 

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Wexler. 

Without objection, the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, 

will be recognized for one additional minute. 

Mr. BERMAN. I have a number of questions and I’d like permission to submit them to the panel, actually all of them. There are 

many interesting issues that we’ve, that I haven’t, at least, had a 

chance to explore the way I’d like to. 

I do want to make just a couple of discombobulated comments. 

There is a real benefit to the technology in facilitating parental 

choice. I see that. The question is to what extent should the creators be involved in the decisions? 

Mr. Wexler, ratings help to promote parental choice. Decisions by 

studios in consultation with the directors and others producing airline versions and television versions help to facilitate parental 

choice. The question is whether you, you and a for-profit company, 

should be able to market things not involving them by getting some 

change in the law. 

And this distinction between we don’t alter the product because 

you have a filtering that comes—that doesn’t touch the film versus 

somebody who is not able to buy the DVD and is still stuck with 

the VHS format, and that somehow that person—the underlying 

principle, if it’s a fair principle, it should apply to all things. It 

shouldn’t just provide the people with the newest technologies. You 

should be able to get into the VHS tape and make the alterations 

to eliminate the offensive scenes. 

I don’t buy your answer that you didn’t do ‘‘Schindler’s List’’ or ‘‘Saving Private Ryan’’ because there’s not a market. I believe there 

was something in your decision making that thought, you know 

something? If they’re going to see that movie, they should see the 

whole thing, or we’re not going to try and sustain the argument 

that that should be—someone else who’s your competitor won’t 

make that decision. 

And if you’re going to push this through legislatively and technology neutral and not—somebody else is going to say, I’m going 

to disrobe the female actresses or make Laura Croft into a topless 

video game or go the other way to give parents the choice of letting 

Rick Keller’s ideal mom show him a different version than the creator actually intended to be shown in that video game. 

84

So yes, working this technology through with the consultations 

and involvement of the people who created the original product to 

facilitate parental choice seems good. Ramming through a piece of 

legislation that says, Steven Spielberg can’t make a decision that 

he wants ‘‘Schindler’s List’’ to be seen, this is what his vision was, 

and if you want to see a movie about the Holocaust or about concentration camps or Nazi war crimes and you don’t like the scenes 

in that, go see ‘‘Judgment at Nuremberg’’ or any of the other movies that don’t portray things so graphically for that teaching lesson. 

But if you’re going to depict somebody else’s creation, get them 

involved in the ways in which you’re going to depict it, the process. 

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We’re going to move on, but I think Mr. Aho has already responded to a couple of points you made, Mr. Berman. They don’t 

change the format. They don’t clothe people who are nude. They 

are simply muting and skipping over, which is an entirely different 

proposition from some of the examples that you gave. We’re not 

going to debate it now——

Mr. BERMAN. Well, let me just say——

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. BERMAN. No, but let me just add, it’s a distinction without 

a difference. In other words—— Mr. SMITH. Mr. Berman, it’s a big difference to me. The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, is recognized for her questions. 

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman one additional minute. 

Mr. BERMAN. My only point is, because you can do what you’re 

doing without touching the DVD or breaking the encryption code, 

as apparently one of your competitors does do, may be a difference 

in terms of copyright law, I don’t know and the courts will determine that. But the underlying philosophical distinction isn’t very 

compelling to me. If you can do this, why shouldn’t they be able 

to do that? And if you can eliminate certain scenes and change the 

method, what’s the distinction really between eliminating those 

scenes or adding your own scenes? 

What’s the underlying philosophical thing that says, in order to 

facilitate parental choice, I can only go this far, but I can’t go this 

far? I just—I’m not sure I see something there that in its——

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Aho, would you like to respond? 

Mr. AHO. Well, I think there’s a big difference both philosophically and legally, probably legally, in subtractive versus additive 

content. I think consumers certainly——

Mr. BERMAN. I totally twisted your statement around by just taking what you said and not adding a word and giving it an opposite 

meaning from what you intended. Was that a big difference? 

Mr. AHO. Congressman, I think there’s a point that needs to be 

made here and that’s that we create these sort of hypotheticals of 

things that could be done to, say, mangle a movie or change its intent. If, in fact, ClearPlay is in the business of destroying movies 

and of changing the experience in such a way so that people are 

baffled by it or that it’s a very different film, I think there won’t 

be a demand for the product. People don’t want that. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay, reclaiming my time—— [Laughter.] 

Mr. SMITH. The gentlewoman reclaims her time. 

85

Ms. WATERS. I’m over in the Financial Services Committee, but 

I was anxious to break away—we have a markup going on—to 

come over because I’m basically torn on this issue and I’m usually 

pretty clear in my defense of freedom of speech and protection of 

intellectual properties, et cetera. 

I’m looking for examples of ways by which we alter products in 

our society that would be the same as or synonymous to what’s 

being described here. I know that we have equipment that we buy 

that we change, we alter to make it more convenient for us to use 

in different ways, but what’s different about this and changes that 

we make in other ways with other products? Is it the altering of 

the intellectual property itself to distort the intent of the producer? 

Is that what the real problem is here? I don’t know who can answer this, anybody. 

Ms. HEINS. I would say yes, that there is a big difference between altering a toaster and altering a work of art. 

Ms. WATERS. Where is Jack Valenti? He could make this plainer. 

Where is Jack? Is he testifying today? [Laughter.] 

No? Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. CANTOR. I was trying to think about that myself earlier and 

I thought, what if somebody is selling art, original works of art, 

and saying this is the frame that was suggested by the artist, but 

here’s an—I think actually you might consider that it looks better 

if the glass is tinted blue. So I’m going to give you a choice of buying it with the original frame or a frame with the glass tinted blue, 

making it clear which one the artist created and which—I don’t 

know, would that violate the artist’s rights? 

Mr. AHO. Can I come up with another example? 

Ms. HEINS. No, but if you started cutting up the picture, it 

would. 

Ms. CANTOR. Well, we’re not cutting up. It’s not analogous to cutting up a picture. 

Ms. HEINS. Well, I—— Ms. CANTOR. Supposing you had a frame that actually came into 

the picture a little bit and cut off a corner and you said, I think 

this——

Ms. WATERS. Once you bought the picture, you could change the 

frame. You could alter the frame—— Ms. CANTOR. Absolutely. 

Ms. WATERS.—you could get a different color frame. We do it all 

the time. 

Ms. CANTOR. Right. 

Mr. AHO. Further, we’re not talking about an original, we’re talking about buying an Andy Warhol poster and maybe resizing it to 

fit the frame that you want. I mean, this is——

Ms. WATERS. No, we’re talking about an original. I buy an original, I can do what I want to do with it, including destroy it. 

Ms. HEINS. There is actually an Artists’ Rights Act. There are 

limited moral rights in this country and they apply to original 

works of visual art. 

Ms. WATERS. I beg your pardon? 

Ms. HEINS. There are some—there is some protection in Federal 

law and in some State law in the United States similar to the European conception of moral rights, where even if you own an origiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:52 Aug 05, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\COURTS\052004\93773.000 HJUD1 PsN: 93773
86

nal work of art, it does not mean you can destroy it or mutilate it, 

unlike—— Ms. WATERS. I’ve not seen that protection in law. 

Ms. CANTOR. But this is a copy we’re talking about here. We’re 

talking about a copy. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. Are you talking about copies? Yes? 

Mr. AHO. I was just going to comment that you may have that 

right on the original, but that would be a significant extension to 

what we’re suggesting here, which is that the original is never altered. Any one of millions of Americans can still see the movie as 

it was released in the theater, as it was released on DVD. This is 

simply an alteration in your viewing experience in your home. 

Ms. WATERS. Why shouldn’t the owner of that art be able to sell 

you altered versions of it just like I think, when I read the information like they do on the airplane, where you get altered versions 

of the original movie, but they are in control of the product. 

Mr. AHO. They do have that right, Congresswoman. I think—I 

believe that—I mean, of course, these are negotiated rights between directors and studios and all movies are different, but certainly the copyright holders would have those rights. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

I thank all the Members for their interest and attendance today 

and thank the panelists for their very informative testimony, as 

well. This has been interesting. 

I would like to insert in the record written statements provided 

by Taylor Hackford on behalf of the Director’s Guild of America; 

the American Medical Association; and Rick Bray, Chief Executive 

Officer, Principle Solutions, Inc. and TVG Vision, LLC. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hackford follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TAYLOR HACKFORD

My name is Taylor Hackford and I am submitting this statement on behalf of the 

Directors Guild of America (DGA), of which I am a National Board member and the 

Co-Chair of the DGA Social Responsibility Task Force. 

Founded in 1936 by the most prominent directors of the period, the Directors 

Guild today represents over 12,800 directors and members of the directorial team 

who work in feature film, television, commercials, documentaries and news. The 

DGA’s mission is to protect the creative and economic rights of directors and the 

directorial team—working to advance our artistic freedom and ensure fair compensation for our work. 

I submit this statement as a filmmaker, a parent, and a representative of the directors who create the movies that many members of this subcommittee have seen 

and I hope enjoyed. We want to share with the subcommittee our great concern 

about giving someone the legal ability to alter, in any way they choose, for any purpose, and for profit, the content of a film that we have made, which carries our 

names, and which is associated with one of us. When this is done without directors’ knowledge or authorization, and without the knowledge or authorizations of the studios that own the copyrights in these films, consumers are misled and the artistic 

and economic rights of directors are harmed. 

Today there are a plethora of companies making multiple unauthorized versions 

of the same motion pictures based on criteria ranging from ‘‘sanitization’’ to thematic mutilation. These companies are in the business of making a profit from marketing these unauthorized, edited versions created by our members. Depending on 

the action of this subcommittee, what is now occurring with respect to motion pictures could be extended to books, music, magazines, newspapers, and all other forms 

of speech. And the unimpeded, unauthorized editing could have consequences far beyond what you envision today. What is at stake is the ability of any author, creator, 

and copyright owner to protect the content associated with their name. Legislation 

simply opens the door to all of this, but it cannot regulate the consequences. 

87

THE ROLE OF THE DIRECTOR IN THE FILMMAKING PROCESS

Film is truly an indigenous American art form, and the work of filmmakers—in 

collaboration with other creative artists in our industry—has documented, reflected 

upon, and portrayed the American experience for almost 100 years. With no disrespect to other great art forms, we think it is fair to say that motion pictures 

played a very unique role in popular culture during the 20th Century, and they continue to be enjoyed daily by billions of people around the world. Those of us who 

work in film feel fortunate and privileged to earn our living contributing our talents 

to a craft we love. 

The films we directors create tell the story of people’s lives, be they in the present 

or the past, in our country or in a foreign culture. In telling our stories—and creating accurate depictions of life on a reel of film—filmmakers seek to capture not 

only who we are, but also who we want to be. Directors may not always hit the 

mark with every film but we try to seek the truth in the story we are telling, whether as a serious drama or a lighthearted comedy. We create pictures to make people 

laugh, cry or be afraid because that is what the audience wants. 

The process that goes into making a film is understandably unknown to those outside our industry. During the making of a film, directors are actually running a 

massive project, involving hundreds of people and a myriad of details and decisions 

that have to be made each day to keep the production on schedule and on budget. 

Whether it is the crafting of a single scene or the visual creation of a character from 

the written page, the director is always working to create a compelling narrative 

that shapes the story. 

Directors have to reflect on the realities of life and determine if, how, and in what 

way they might put them into their film. The director, and his or her collaborators—

the writer, the actor, the cinematographer, the art director, and the film editor—

make these decisions constantly. Choices are made before the production begins, 

during shooting, and in the post-production room where the film is edited. 

Despite this collaborative process, it is the director who is associated with the film 

in the end. The director receives the most prominent, final credit in a film, indicating to the audience that the film was ‘‘Directed By’’ him or her. But, as the members of this Subcommittee are aware, under American law, directors do not have a 

copyright interest in the films they create. The copyright is held by the production 

company or studio, and the director’s contribution is a ‘‘work for hire.’’

Instead, the rights and interests of the director in a film are protected by a collective bargaining agreement between the DGA and the studios and production companies. That collective bargaining agreement—along with the specific director services 

agreement negotiated for each film—protects the creative rights of directors, including the director’s right to make the first edit or ‘‘cut’’ of a film that is delivered to 

the studios:

The Director shall be responsible for the presentation of his or her cut of the 

motion picture (herein referred to as the ‘‘Director’s Cut’’) and it is understood 

that his or her assignment is not complete until he or she has presented the 

Director’s Cut to the Employer....

[N]o one other than the Director may supervise the editing of the first cut of 

the film following completion of the editor’s assembly....

No one shall be allowed to interfere with the Director of the film during the 

period of the Director’s Cut.

(DGA Basic Agreement, §§ 7–501, 7–504).

In addition, many directors receive even greater control over the editing of their 

motion pictures, and earn the much-coveted position of being a ‘‘final cut’’ director. 

These directors, through their creative and commercial success, earn the right to 

have the final say over the form of their film, by making the final edit of their movies. These much sought-after rights are bargained for separately by individual directors who achieve this status. 

Directors specifically plan for the fact that their movies may be shown outside the 

intended theatrical context. Directors shoot and prepare alternate footage and audio 

to create alternative versions which remain true to each director’s vision, but which 

will fit the needs of the particular airline or broadcast network. Directors do this 

because they understand that airline and television versions are often viewed by audiences not originally intended for the theatrical version. 

We want to make sure this Subcommittee understands how motion pictures are 

edited for television or airline viewing. That too is specifically governed by the 

DGA’s collective bargaining agreement, which provides directors with the right to 

edit movies for television and airline versions (when the studio is doing the editing), 

88

and in all other cases, requires that the director be consulted on the editing of films 

for television or airline use. 

Directors put their full vision and often years of hard work into the creation of 

a film. That film is not only their vision, but it carries their name and reflects on 

their reputation. Their ability to have their names used to identify and market their 

films is of great economic consequence. No matter how many warnings or disclaimers someone puts on the film, it still has the director’s name on it. So directors 

have great passion about protecting their work, which is their signature and brand 

identification, against unauthorized editing, and an abiding belief that contracts and 

the law will prevent others from illegally profiting from or altering their work. 

UNAUTHORIZED EDITING OF MOTION PICTURES DOES GREAT DAMAGE TO THE CREATIVE

RIGHTS AND REPUTATIONS OF DIRECTORS

Because directors and their names are inextricably and prominently linked with 

the movies they direct, the conduct of companies that sell unauthorized software filters or edited versions of movies is particularly harmful to directors. These companies are undoing, undermining and superseding the artistic work in which a director 

has invested a great deal of effort, and become closely associated by the public. Removing scenes and dialogue from films interferes with the story a director is trying 

to tell, and in so doing, can take away from the narrative structure and overall vision that audiences associate with a director. This editing can make movies into 

nonsense, completely changing their meaning. The director’s reputation is likely to 

suffer when people viewing the film may believe they are watching a version of the 

film that has been edited and authorized for release by the director. 

Currently there are at least ten companies in this business—three of which are 

electronic editing companies, undoubtedly with more to come. Together they are 

today making thousands of unauthorized versions of movies. So for example, there 

may be multiple unauthorized versions of my 2000 film Proof of Life. 

To illustrate the problem, here are a few concrete examples of what these products have done to directors’ artistic visions and the power of the story directors seek 

to tell. 

Proof of Life, starring Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe, told the story of an American 

oil executive who was kidnapped for ransom by insurgents in a fictional South 

American country. At its core, this movie centered on the kidnapping, the struggles 

of the kidnapped executive, and the impact of the event on his wife (Ryan) and his 

would-be rescuer (Crowe). 

Despite the utter centrality of the kidnapping to the story, I was amazed to learn 

that at least one company, without any authorization or contractual right to alter 

the film, removed the entire kidnapping scene when it created a filter specifically 

designed to alter the viewing of this film. It is important to note that this scene 

was shown on television and airline versions virtually in its entirety, with only eleven seconds removed. These types of minor, authorized edits are acceptable, because, 

as the film’s director, I agreed to them for a particular use. 

In this case, the company had no authorization from the studio or me, yet they 

unilaterally removed the entire kidnapping scene and altered my film in a way that 

was extremely harmful to the basic telling of the story. It also was harmful to the 

way viewers perceive me as a director. This unauthorized version may lead viewers 

to believe Taylor Hackford directs movies that just don’t make sense. Let me explain 

why. 

First, the subject of kidnapping for ransom is pivotal to the film, and as the film’s 

director, I went to great lengths to portray it as realistically as possible. In the theatrical, airline, and television version of the film, the audience sees how the abduction was carried out, and witnesses the organizational skill of the abductors and the 

depth of their cruelty. All of these essential details, and the overall tension and desperation of the scene, have been ripped from the film. 

Second, the kidnapping scene, which takes place early in the movie, establishes 

the foundation for the entire story that follows, and is crucial to the overall dramatic purposes of the film. This scene enables the audience to empathize with an 

ordinary person, who is driving to work thinking about everyday problems on the 

job and at home. This ‘‘everyman’’ suddenly is wrenched from his daily life and 

plunged into a nightmare that he had never imagined possible. Removing this scene 

in its entirety leaves the audience unable to understand the context and meaning 

of the story, and renders the audience unable to connect emotionally to the character’s plight. In short, removing the early kidnapping scene, from a movie about 

a kidnapping, changes the basic nature of the movie. 

One of the film editing parties has created its own version of Steven Soderbergh’s 

Oscar-winning film Traffic. That company has cut a number of scenes that are critVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:52 Aug 05, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\COURTS\052004\93773.000 HJUD1 PsN: 93773
89

ical to this film about the pervasiveness of drugs across our society, and how the 

use and trafficking of drugs cuts through all classes of society. In one pivotal scene, 

the daughter of the White House Drug Czar (played by Michael Douglas) engages 

in drug use with other wealthy teens after school. In particular, her boyfriend exposes her to the smoking or ‘‘freebasing’’ of cocaine. In editing Mr. Soderbergh’s film 

without authorization, the company removed key portions of this scene, which show 

Douglas’s daughter beginning what will become a freefall into the abyss of drug 

abuse. Not only does this render much of the movie unintelligible, it completely undermines one of the key themes of the movie: That the highest-ranking law enforcement official in the war on drugs is wholly unaware that his daughter is becoming 

a drug addict. In addition, the company edits out numerous harsh realities associated with drug use in America; highlighting these realities is key to the heart of 

Mr. Soderbergh’s film about the drug problem in America. The unauthorized editing 

of this movie minimizes the horrors of drug abuse. 

Norman Jewison’s highly acclaimed film The Hurricane is based on the true life 

story of Rubin ‘‘Hurricane’’ Carter, an African-American boxer wrongly imprisoned 

for murder, and his struggle to prove his innocence. The theme of racism and its 

impact on Carter’s life is a core concept in the film, which is made clear in the conclusion of the film when a Federal judge frees Carter after twenty-two years of incarceration on the basis that ‘‘the conviction was predicated on an appeal to racism 

rather than reason...’’ One of the software filtering companies has its own version of The Hurricane,

which skips and mutes core storyline content, presumably because of the strong racial overtones. For example, in an early scene, a scared and stuttering eleven-yearold Rubin Carter is being interrogated by two white police officers who, during the 

process of the interrogation, utter racist remarks toward the young boy. The company removes these lines from the interrogation scene. However, it is through this 

racist and threatening language that the audience connects with the intimidation 

that the young Carter must feel and the racism he is encountering from the law 

enforcement authorities. Moreover, one of these officers is central to the scheme to 

wrongfully convict Carter years later. With the racist and threatening comments of 

the police officer removed, the audience is unable to connect emotionally to Carter’s terrifying encounter with the racist officer and power structure. As such, their role 

in the wrongful conviction and incarceration of Carter is diminished. Much of the 

meaning, and historical accuracy of the film are therefore lost. 

Yet another software filtering company has created an altered version of the 

movie LA. Confidential, which received two Academy Award nominations in 1997: 

Best Picture and Best Director. This edited version of L.A. Confidential is so choppy 

and discontinuous that the movie is virtually unwatchable. In any film, discontinuities of this sort which are created by these unauthorized edits would undermine 

an audience’s ability to suspend disbelief, and suggests incompetence by the filmmaker. In the instance of L.A. Confidential, the damage goes to the core of the film’s 

subject matter. L.A. Confidential is a period piece set in the 1950s that revolves 

around corruption in the Los Angeles Police Department, set against the background of life in classical Hollywood. Because of the period nature of the film and 

the subject matter associated with Hollywood, director Curtis Hanson intentionally 

created a film that was in the spirit of classical Hollywood film—i.e., seamlessly 

edited and stylistically impeccable. The film’s content is embodied in its aesthetic 

and so too is the reputation of its director. The application of the software filter to 

the playback of LA. Confidential creates a continuous series of jittery, strobe-like, 

edits that ruin the dialogue, destroy the credibility of the scenes, undermine the 

film’s content, and mutilate and distort the work of Curtis Hanson. 

These are just a few examples of the effect that unauthorized editing has on directors and their artistic vision for motion pictures. While it is bad enough to have the 

stories severely weakened, it is simply wrong for these companies to profit by removing content from films and thereby changing their meaning without the permission of directors or the studios that are the copyright holders. 

Directors take great care in making motion pictures and are faced with a multitude of creative choices during the filmmaking process. Moreover, for many movies, directors also work hard during production and editing to create alternative 

versions that are suitable for television and airlines. And unlike these companies 

who simply cut, skip, or mute the films, directors have tools at their disposal to add 

alternate scenes, takes, and dialog to the airline and television versions. These tools 

allow directors to create alternate versions of their films that remain true to each 

director’s vision, so that in appropriate circumstances these films can be shown to 

audiences for whom they were not originally intended. 

Sometimes, the director and the studio determine that a movie should not be edited for television or an airline, because of its content and subject matter. As an exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:52 Aug 05, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\COURTS\052004\93773.000 HJUD1 PsN: 93773
90

ample, Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List has never been edited for television or 

airplane exhibition. In fact, Schindler’s List was shown on television in the full, 

uncut theatrical version, and was accompanied by numerous viewer warnings 

throughout the showing regarding the appropriateness of its content for certain 

viewers. 

Despite this fact, I have seen a version of Schindler’s List heavily edited by one 

of the film editing companies. This version edits out much of the Holocaust brutality, profane dialogue, and any scene deemed too disturbing in the judgment of 

the editor. In short, it cuts deeply into the horror the film seeks to document. Deleted are many crucial scenes that directly illustrate the brutality of the Nazis and 

their assault on the Jews of Poland. For example, there is an early scene illustrating 

Goeth’s insanity, where he randomly shoots prisoners from his villa balcony. There 

is another scene in which Goeth berates a line-up of prisoners that again shows his 

imbalance and in turn the depravity of the Nazi leadership. Both scenes are deleted. 

These missing scenes are vital to accurately illustrating the Nazi party and all the 

atrocities its leaders committed and got away with for so long. This version also cuts 

some of the most horrifying camp scenes involving dead bodies. In addition, this 

version substantially removes a critical scene in which Jews disembark from trains 

and are herded into a concentration camp. With Steven Spielberg’s masterful touch, 

these scenes captured the Nazis’ highly regimented approach to their evil deeds. 

With these scenes removed, the edited version leaves viewers with a sanitized, inaccurate view of the worst abuses of Nazism, and stands out as one of the most disturbing examples yet of how much a film, its story, its heart, and indeed its sole 

purpose, can be affected by random edits. 

I am sure the unauthorized editors of this particular scene were not attempting 

to minimize the horrors of Nazism, but another company, in another context, could 

easily do just that to suit their own viewpoint. Amending the copyright law to permit this historical revision would just be wrong. 

Initially, many software filtering and film editing companies claimed that they 

would not market versions of movies that were wholly unsuitable for young or sensitive viewers, such as Saving Private Ryan, The Passion of the Christ, or 

Schindler’s List. Recently however, we have seen certain companies offer these films 

that clearly are intended for adult viewers. If you go to the website of one such company, you can now reserve an edited version of The Passion of the Christ, a film 

with serious subject matter and content that may not be suitable for young viewers. 

LEGISLATION

The DGA understands that some members of this Subcommittee are concerned 

about the current dispute between movie filtering companies and the motion picture 

industry over the legality of altering films. We understand that there is consideration of pursuing legislation that would amend the copyright laws to deal with this. 

At least one draft that has been circulating would permit software that enables unauthorized skipping and muting of any digital version of a copyrighted matter. That 

legislation would enable these companies to do this for their own commercial purposes, without the director’s knowledge, and in a way that interferes with the director’s artistic vision for his or her films. 

This kind of activity is precisely why our founding fathers envisioned copyright 

protection for creative works, and why Congress has created a system that protects 

those works. Amending the copyright laws to authorize these products would allow 

companies to ignore copyright protections created by Congress, and to destroy someone else’s property rights and reputation, all in the name of profit. This is particularly troubling in a digital era, where creative works can so easily be destroyed or 

distorted by others. That is the very reason that copyright protection is fundamental 

to artists and to consumers, who assume when they see a film that it is the one 

the director intended to make and present under his or her name. Never was this 

protection more important that today, when a motion picture can so easily be illegally copied, edited, and transmitted to millions of people through digital means. 

We appreciate the concerns of parents and families about exposing their children 

to unwholesome entertainment. We know that parents face many hurdles in protecting their children. As filmmakers and parents, we know when we make a film 

whether it was intended for children or not. Simply put, we do not expect children 

to see a film that was not made for them, unless their parents want them to. Ultimately consumers and parents have the choice; they can decide whether or not to 

purchase or rent a videotape or DVD of a particular film. That is the purpose of 

the movie rating system; to distinguish the content of films and identify what the 

appropriate audience is for that film. 

91

The DGA’s Social Responsibility Task Force—which I co-chair—has been active in 

promoting the importance of the film rating system, and we work closely with the 

MPAA and the National Organization of Theater Owners to strengthen that system 

by increasing awareness and providing consumers with information about movies. 

We are parents, and we assume that, like us, parents will be guided by the ratings 

system and will make sure that young children are not shown films that are not 

appropriate for them, and which the director did not intend for children to see. 

Amending the copyright laws to permit the use of digital content filters simply 

is not the way to deal with this issue. Such legislation opens the door to many unintended manipulations of movies or other copyrighted material that we all would 

agree are improper. Indeed, this legislation would not, and could not, discriminate 

between editing for benign, ‘‘family friendly,’’ purposes, on the one hand, and other 

more nefarious purposes, on the other hand. For example, we presume that this 

Subcommittee does not intend to authorize people to use filtering technology to 

change the political content of copyrighted works, such as editorial columns or political statements. However, this is precisely one of the unintended effects that this 

legislation would have. 

It could also lead to the development of an industry to market without authorization abridged versions of movies, books, magazine articles, and other copyrighted 

material. 

Nevertheless, and in spite of our overwhelming concern about the protection of 

our work, the DGA has gone to extraordinary lengths to try to resolve this matter. 

The DGA wants to assure this Subcommittee that it takes your concerns very seriously. Our leadership and lawyers have been working with lawyers for the studios 

and some of the parties that make these products. I understand that there has been 

considerable progress towards a resolution. 

As this Subcommittee is aware, directors do not typically own the copyright in 

their motion pictures; our movies generally are works for hire. As a result, the motion picture studios typically have the dominant voice in how motion pictures are 

treated after the director completes and edits the film. 

Because the DGA’s collective bargaining agreement with the studios protects the 

artistic rights of directors, and gives directors a key role in the creation of alternate 

versions of motion pictures for television and airline use, the DGA has worked to 

permit the studios to reach agreements with these companies. While we have, as 

expressed here, strong views about the unauthorized editing of films, we are also 

well aware of the concerns of the members of this subcommittee. We have made 

great effort to seek a solution that would make available versions of movies with 

director and studio involvement.

[The prepared statement of the American Medical Association 

follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

The American Medical Association (AMA) is pleased to submit this statement for 

the record which focuses on the effect of media violence on children’s health. For 

the past several decades, the physician and medical student members of the AMA 

have been increasingly concerned that exposure to violence in media, including television, movies, music and video games, is a significant risk to the physical and mental health of children and adolescents. America’s young people are being exposed to 

ever-increasing levels of media violence, and such violence has become increasingly 

graphic. 

Violence in all forms has become a major medical and public health epidemic in 

this country. The AMA strongly abhors, and has actively condemned and worked to 

reduce, violence in our society, including violence portrayed in entertainment media. 

The AMA has long been concerned about the prevalent depiction of violent behavior 

on television and in movies, especially in terms of its ‘‘role-modeling’’ capacity to potentially promote ‘‘real-world’’ violence. We have actively investigated and analyzed 

the negative effects that the portrayal of such violence has on children, and for almost 30 years, have issued strong policy statements against such depictions of violence. 

Over the past three decades, a growing body of scientific research has documented 

the relationship between the mass media and violent behavior. Over 1000 studies, 

including reports from the Office of the Surgeon General, the National Institute of 

Mental Health, as well as research conducted by leading figures in medical and public health organizations, point overwhelmingly to a causal relationship between 

media violence and aggressive behavior in some children. The research overwhelmingly concludes that viewing ‘‘entertainment’’ violence can lead to increases in agVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:52 Aug 05, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\COURTS\052004\93773.000 HJUD1 PsN: 93773
92

gressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children. Moreover, exposure 

to violent programming is associated with lower levels of pro-social behavior. 

The effect of ‘‘entertainment’’ violence on children is complex and variable, and 

some children will be affected more than others. But while duration, intensity and 

extent of the impact may vary, there are several measurable negative effects of children’s exposure to such violence:

• Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts and assume that acts of violence are acceptable 

behavior.

• Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards violence in 

real life. It can decrease the likelihood that one will take action on behalf of 

a victim when violence occurs.

• ‘‘Entertainment’’ violence feeds a perception that the world is a violent and 

mean place. Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim of violence, 

with a resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and a mistrust of others.

• Viewing violence may lead to real life violence. Children exposed to violent 

programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who are not so exposed.

In July 2000, at a Congressional Public Health Summit, the AMA joined the 

American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent 

Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric 

Association and the American Psychological Association in issuing a ‘‘Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children.’’ The Joint Statement 

acknowledges that television, movies, music and interactive games are powerful 

learning tools and that these media can, and often are, used to instruct, encourage 

and even inspire. The Joint Statement, however, also points out that when these 

entertainment media showcase violence, particularly in a context which glamorizes 

or trivializes it, the lessons learned can be destructive. 

While ‘‘entertainment’’ violence is certainly not the sole factor contributing to 

youth aggression, anti-social attitudes and violence, the entertainment industry 

must assume its share of responsibility for contributing to the epidemic of violence 

in our society. The AMA believes that because violence is a public health threat, 

careful consideration must be given to the content of entertainment media. As part 

of its strategy to reduce violence, the AMA supported past efforts by network broadcasters in adopting advance parental advisories prior to airing programs that are 

unfit for children, strong and effective television and movie ratings systems, and ‘‘V’’

Chips that can screen out violent programming. 

In a free society, there must be a balance between individual rights of expression 

and societal responsibility. We believe that balance can only be achieved if Americans are provided with the tools they need to identify and distinguish those forms 

of entertainment that might be suitable for themselves and those that might be 

suitable for their families. We are not advocating restrictions on creative activity. 

We do believe, however, that parents need and deserve help in supervising their 

children’s viewing behavior and guiding them in the right direction. 

DVD-filtering devices can empower parents with the means to make decisions 

about what entertainment media they want their children to view. It is our understanding that the DVD-filtering technology allows consumers to automatically delete 

profanity, nudity and graphic scenes from DVD movies, but does not permanently 

alter the content of the DVDs. Movies shown on television or airplanes already are 

edited to remove some violence, sexually explicit scenes and profanity. DVD-filtering 

technology would seem to be a logical extension of these efforts to enable parents 

to exercise their appropriate role and responsibility in determining the types of entertainment media to which their children will be exposed. 

The AMA appreciates the opportunity to share its views on a matter of such high 

importance to the health of Americans.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bray follows:]

93


Bray1.eps
94


Bray2.eps
95

Mr. SMITH. Let me say that I do hope that the issues can be negotiated and resolved over the next, say, couple of weeks and that 

it won’t be necessary to introduce legislation, but that, of course, 

is an option that the Chairman of the full Committee and I intend 

to exercise if the resolutions are not forthcoming as I hope that 

they will be. 

This has been very informative and an unusual hearing, I think, 

for us, to be talking about parental rights as well as technology at 

the same time and I thank you all for your contributions. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(97)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HOWARD L. BERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUB- COMMITTEE ON COURTS, THE INTERNET, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Mr. Chairman, 

This hearing certainly delves into a number of interesting issues about artistic 

freedom, the definition of copyright-infringing derivative works, and the extent to 

which the unfair competition provisions of the Lanham Act protect the moral rights 

of creators. 

However, I’m not sure any of these issues are ripe for a congressional hearing. 

The movie studios, directors, and ClearPlay are actively engaged in licensing negotiations to resolve their dispute. As I understand it, those negotiations had been 

close to a mutually acceptable conclusion. The public posturing and adversarial nature inherent in congressional hearings is bound to set back these negotiations, and 

thus thwart the stated purpose of this hearing. 

Furthermore, the problem on which this hearing focuses is hypothetical at best. 

A District Court case addressing these very issues has not yet proceeded past the 

most preliminary stages. It seems a waste of time to discuss statutory amendments 

before any court has interpreted the law in an allegedly undesirable way. 

But despite my misgivings, we are here. So, I might as well use my time to clearly 

state my opposition to the hypothetical legislation that may be forthcoming to address the hypothetical problem before us. I do not believe Congress should give companies the right to alter, distort, and mutilate creative works, or to sell otherwiseinfringing products that do functionally the same thing. I believe such legislation 

would be an affront to the artistic freedom of creators. It would violate fundamental 

principles of copyright and trademark law. And if drafted to avoid violating the 

First Amendment, it would almost surely defeat the apparent purposes of its drafters. Such legislation presents an almost endless variety of complications and conundrums. 

Would legislation attempt to define the types of ‘‘offensive’’ content that could be 

altered or deleted? If such definitions include violence, sexual material, and profanity, the legislation will almost certainly violate the First Amendment. And First 

Amendment concerns aside, attempts to define offensive content will backfire. Legislation that allows deletion of violent scenes from The Last Samurai would also allow 

The Passion of The Christ to be stripped of its graphic violence. Do those who find 

the violence in The Passion so integral to the story think a sanitized version would 

do the story justice? 

Of course, First Amendment concerns could be skirted by granting a content-neutral right to edit content, but that will just create further problems. For every case 

in which ClearPlay sanitizes the kitty litter humor in ‘‘The Cat in the Hat,’’ another 

company will strip The Passion of offensive depictions of Jews. Personally, I might 

not mind the outcome. Someone else might prefer it if scenes depicting interracial 

physical contact were cut from Look Who’s Coming to Dinner or Jungle Fever. But 

I don’t think this is what America is about. Innovation, growth, and progress occur 

through exposure to an unbridled marketplace of ideas, not by ensuring that everything you see, read, and experience fits within your pre-conceived world views. 

Would legislation distinguish between fictional and non-fictional works? I don’t 

see how. For instance, is The Passion of The Christ fictional or historical? What 

about ‘‘The Reagans’’ mini-series? And who would be the arbiter? The Anti-Defamation League in the case of The Passion? The Reagan family in the case of The Reagans? But if the legislation does not make a fiction/non-fiction distinction, it is an 

invitation to rewrite history. For instance, World War II documentaries could be 

98

stripped of concentration camp footage. Fahrenheit 911 could be stripped of scenes 

linking the Houses of Bush and Fahd. 

And on what principled basis would such legislation apply only to motion pictures? If it is really meant to empower consumers to customize their lawfully purchased copyrighted works, then it would apply to all copyrighted works. It would 

legalize the unauthorized software plug-ins that enable you to play the Tomb Raider 

computer game with a topless Lara Croft, and to put the faces of teachers and classmates on the heads of target monsters in certain ‘‘shooter’’ computer games. Would 

the legislation make it legal for someone with digital editing software to doctor a 

30-year-old photograph of a Vietnam War rally so that it appears that John Kerry 

is standing next to Jane Fonda? 

Would the legislation only apply to digital works? If so, what nonsense. It means 

that someone could sell an e-book reader that prevents reading the murder scene 

in an ebook version of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, but can’t sell the hardcopy book with the offending pages ripped out. Why would legislation protect technology that skips the violent scenes in a DVD version of Platoon, but not protect 

a service that cuts the same scenes from the VHS version? If both activities are 

copyright infringement today, why would legislation only immunize the digital infringement? 

As a parent, I am concerned about what my children see and hear in our cacophonous media society. But I believe parenting is the parents’ job, not the government’s. 

I wonder why vocal proponents of personal responsibility and limited government 

readily abandon those principles when presented with the opportunity to place the 

government in loco parentis. If the government should stay out of our gun closets, 

shouldn’t it stay out of our bedrooms and living rooms? If the government should 

let the marketplace develop solutions to environmental pollution, shouldn’t it also 

let the marketplace develop solutions to so-called cultural pollution? 

I yield back the balance of my time.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE

ON THE JUDICIARY

Make no mistake about it, today’s hearing is an abuse of process and is about 

nothing less than censoring the movie industry. 

At the outset, I am embarrassed we are having this hearing. The Republicans 

know full well that the directors and ClearPlay are engaged in settlement negotiations to resolve a lawsuit over copyrights; they are using this hearing to pressure 

the directors and help the other side. In my tenure in Congress, this is the first time 

I can remember having a one-sided hearing involving on-going settlement talks. Our 

hearings should be reserved for public policy debates, not for strong-arming private 

litigants. 

It is more troubling considering that we are here to continue the Republican assault on the First Amendment and media content. In the past few months, we’ve 

seen Republican overreaction to a televised Superbowl stunt and to radio broadcasts. Now the self-proclaimed moral majority is turning to movies. 

Censoring filmmakers would diminish the nature of this medium. Let us not forget that Schindler’s List was on broadcast television completely uncut. The movie 

studio and the broadcasters knew the film could not convey its feeling and authenticity if it was edited. Despite this, the movie has been edited by censors to make 

the Nazis appear merely mischievous. Traffic, an acclaimed anti-drug movie, has 

been edited in a way that makes drug use appear glamorous. 

This is not to say that movie fans should be forced to watch the latest Quentin 

Tarantino movie. People looking for family-friendly fare have countless choices. Parents are inundated with commercials for the latest children’s movies; over the past 

several years, Hollywood has increased its output of G- and PG-rated films. Newspaper reviewers make specific mention of family-friendly films. Finally, organizations like Focus on the Family provide information on movies for parents who seek 

it. In short, there are options. 

There is a simple solution to this problem. It is a market-based solution that conservatives should like. If a family finds a particular DVD offensive, it should not 

buy it. 

I hope this is not the type of democracy, one of strong-arm government and censorship, that our Republican colleagues want to take to Iraq.

99

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD L. BERMAN TO

MARJORIE HEINS


MHQA1.eps
100


MHQA2.eps
101

BOOK REVIEW BY JOANNE CANTOR

Published in Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 2003, 80, p. 468.

Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggression: Assessing the Scientific Evidence, by Jonathan L. Freedman. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002, xiii, 227 pages; $50 hbk., $24.95 pbk.

‘‘In 1999 I was approached by the Motion Picture Association of America [MPAA] 

and asked whether I would consider conducting a comprehensive review of all the 

research on media violence,’’ says Jonathan L. Freedman in the Preface to Media 

Violence and Its Effect on Aggression (p. x). The media’s cultivation of academics 

who disparage research showing that their products are harmful is not new: It goes 

back at least as far as Will Hays’ lavish support of Mortimer Adler in the 1930’s 

(Adler 1977, 193–194; Vaughn, 2003). Freedman, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto who has never conducted his own research on media violence, 

claims that the financial support has not affected his objectivity, although he doesn’t 

hesitate to see ulterior motives in the scientists and professionals who disagree with 

his conclusions. 

Freedman expresses outrage at social scientists and public health organizations 

for wrongly (in his view) concluding that media violence promotes aggressive behavior. His criticism essentially boils down to two arguments. The first is that the professional organizations have exaggerated the number of scientific studies that have 

been conducted on the topic. The second is that a study-by-study analysis reveals 

that there is no consensus in the findings. 

Freedman is correct that the number of studies has sometimes been overstated. 

Although some organizations have cited a number as high as 3,500, recent metaanalyses have placed the number between 200 and 300. Freedman explains that the 

inflated number originally referred to all types of articles about media effects, not 

just scientific studies of media violence. Somehow this number was picked up by others and misapplied. Freedman considers this ‘‘the worst kind of irresponsible behavior,’’ and finds the use of this figure to be as ‘‘sloppy’’ as an economist saying that 

his research was based on data from ‘‘over 150 American states’’ (p. 9)! 

Freedman never says how many more studies he would consider necessary. If we 

look at research findings in other areas, however, 200 would seem quite sufficient. 

For example, the finding that calcium intake increases bone mass is based on 33 

studies (Welten, Kemper, Post, and van Staveren 1995); the conclusion that exposure to lead results in low I.Q. scores is based on 24 studies (Needleman and 

Gatsonis 1990). 

The bulk of the book includes a tedious, close analysis of every published scientific 

study of the effects of media violence on aggression or desensitization that Freedman could find. (See the Reference List for some he missed and more recent compelling evidence). Not surprisingly, Freedman considers many studies unconvincing. Although some of his criticisms of individual studies are justified, he seems strongly 

motivated to find flaws. Moreover, after giving an exhaustive explanation of research methods, he forgets one basic principle—that the lack of a statistically significant difference is not the same as a finding of no effect. In addition, he disputes 

the fact that meta-analysis, which statistically combines all the findings in an area 

and eliminates the subjective interpretation of individual studies (Mann 1994), is an 

appropriate way to discover a research consensus. Freedman discusses two metaanalyses (Paik and Comstock 1994; Wood, Wong, and Chachere 1991) that report 

a clear conclusion that media violence promotes aggression, but dismisses them. 

Two recent meta-analyses (Anderson and Bushman 2001; Bushman and Anderson 

2001) are not included. Freedman also chooses not to cover research on media 

violence’s effect on fear, simply claiming that ‘‘the research has not provided much 

support for it’’ (p. 11). 

Why does Freedman think there so much bias in the interpretation of media violence research? In his view, the health professionals are trying to please the politicians, and the academics are trying to promote their careers. Although Freedman 

claims that he himself is not biased, he seems more concerned with damage to the 

media industries than with harm to children. For example, he decries the fact that 

reliance on what he considers flawed research has ‘‘force[d] television companies to 

rate every single program for violence’’ (p. 4), and he feels sorry for parents, who 

are getting unnecessary advice based on ‘‘pop psychology’’ (p. 12). 

At the end of the book, Freedman makes a strange and ludicrous argument to explain why media violence does not have negative effects. He says that advertisements have effects because they have a ‘‘clear, unmistakable message. . . . The people who see an ad know its purpose; if they do not, . . . [it] will probably have no 

102

1 A shortened version of these remarks appeared in the Wisconsin State Journal, October 17, 

2002. 

effect.’’ In contrast, ‘‘Films and television programs that contain violence . . . are 

just entertainment. . . . So it should not be surprising that they have no effect on 

people’s aggressive behavior’’ (p. 204). This reasoning flies in the face of decades of 

research on persuasion, imitation, and child development. 

Freedman says the book would not have been possible without the MPAA’s support. However, between the tedium of the criticism of each research design and the 

polemical nature of his arguments, I don’t foresee it having much of an impact. 

Joanne Cantor 

University of Wisconsin-Madison 

Reference List 

Adler, Mortimer J. 1977. Philosopher at large: An Intellectual biography. New York: 

MacMillan. 

Anderson, Craig A. and Brad J. Bushman. 2001. ‘‘Effects of violent video games on 

aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, 

and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature.’’ Psychological Science 12: 353–359. 

Bushman, Brad J., and Craig A. Anderson. 2001. ‘‘Media violence and the American 

public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation.’’ American Psychologist 56:

477–489. 

Cantor, Joanne. 1998. ‘‘Mommy, I’m scared:’’ How TV and movies frighten children 

and what we can do to protect them. San Diego: Harcourt. 

Huesmann, L. Rowell, Jessica Moise-Titus, Cheryl-Lynn Podolski, and Leonard D. 

Eron. 2003. ‘‘Longitudinal relations between children’s exposure to TV violence 

and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992.’’ Developmental Psychology 39: 201–221. 

Johnson, Jeffrey G., Patricia Cohen, Elizabeth M. Smailes, Stephanie Kasen, and 

Judith S. Brook. 2002. ‘‘Television viewing and aggressive behavior during adolescence and adulthood.’’ Science 295: 2468–2471. 

Lemish, Dafna. 1997. ‘‘The school as a wrestling arena: The modeling of a television 

series.’’ Communication 22: 395–418. 

Mann, Charles C. 1994. ‘‘Can meta-analysis make policy?’’ Science 266 (5197): 960– 962. 

Needleman, Herbert L., and Constantine A. Gatsonis. 1990. ‘‘Low level lead exposure and the IQ of children.’’ Journal of the American Medical Association 263:

673–678. 

Paik, H., and George Comstock. 1994. ‘‘The effects of television violence on antisocial 

behavior: A meta-analysis.’’ Communication Research, 21: 516–546. 

Vaughn, Stephen L. 2003. Freedom and entertainment: Cinema, censorship and technology in the 20th Century. Unpublished manuscript, submitted for publication. 

Welten, Desiree C., Han C. G. Kemper, G. Bertheke Post and Wija A. van Staveren. 

1995. ‘‘A meta-analysis of the effect of calcium intake on bone mass in young and 

middle aged females and males.’’ Journal of Nutrition 125: 2802–2813. 

Wood, Wendy, Frank F. Wong, and Gregory J. Chachere. 1991. ‘‘Effects of media violence on viewers’ aggression in unconstrained social interaction.’’ Psychological 

Bulletin 109: 371–383.

REMARKS DELIVERED BY JOANNE CANTOR AT THE MADISON CIVICS CLUB

WHOSE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS IT ANYWAY? 1

I’ve been asked to comment on Freedom of Speech issues that are confronting us 

in the U.S. today. Many people have noted that corporate interests control what gets 

discussed in the media, and one place where this is obvious is the controversy over 

the media’s effects on children. Research shows that violent television, movies, 

videogames, and even commercials can produce serious harmful effects on children, 

such as promoting violent behaviors and inducing intense anxieties. Parents need 

this information so they can make informed choices about their children’s viewing, 

but the media use their corporate power to censor information that might damage 

their profits. At the same time, these corporations raise First Amendment concerns 

when solutions that might help parents are proposed. Here are a few recent examples of what I’m talking about: 

ONE. In 1997, I participated in a taping of The Leeza Show. On that show, parents were highly critical of the TV industry’s new age-based rating system that was 

103

supposed to help them block harmful content using a device called the V-chip. NBC, 

which opposed making changes in the rating system, refused to let that program 

air. And five years later, they still have not gone along with the compromise that 

the other stations adopted. 

TWO. After the National Institute on Media and the Family released a list of the 

10 most violent video games, they were sued by the manufacturer of one of the 

games on the list. Although the lawsuit was eventually dropped, the costly process 

caused the organization’s liability insurance to double, and they were subsequently 

lucky to get any insurance at all. 

THREE. The Center for Successful Parenting produced a documentary on the effects of media violence for Court TV, a cable channel that is owned by Time-Warner. 

Before the program could air, the producers were told to remove the mention of 

Time-Warner’s products. They were also required to include remarks by lobbyist 

Jack Valenti, who claimed that the research showing harmful effects was inconclusive. 

These are just a few of many examples of corporate interests using their muscle 

to restrict the free flow of information to parents. They say that it’s up to parents, 

not the media, to raise their children. But they make harmful products, which come 

into our homes automatically through television, they market them to children too 

young to use them safely, and they try to keep parents in the dark about their effects. 

A sensible solution is to require media producers to accurately label their programming. The media interests say that this is the start down a slippery slope toward censorship. But we require food labels so people don’t have to eat something 

to find out they’re allergic to it. We even require clothing manufacturers to label 

their products so our colors won’t run and our garments won’t shrink. 

Because the media are so pervasive and parents can’t be constantly present in 

their children’s lives, parents need tools to help them enact their decisions about 

what’s healthy or unhealthy for their children. The V-chip is one possible solution, 

but it won’t work without accurate, informative ratings, and it can’t be used by the 

majority of parents, who have yet to hear about it because it gets so little publicity. 

Did you know that since January 2000, all new TV’s except very small ones are required by law to have the V-chip? 

Newer tools that might help parents are being fought by the industry. A video 

recorder called Replay TV allows parents to skip commercials—which are becoming 

more violent and edgier all the time. The entertainment industries have sued Replay TV for encouraging what they call copyright infringement. Other new products 

involve software that can create ‘‘tamer’’ versions of movies according to parents’

preferences. Recent news reports suggest that legal action against these products is 

also forthcoming. 

Other attempts at parental empowerment are also being fought. The city of Indianapolis, recognizing that many young people go shopping without their parents, enacted a videogame ordinance. It required the owners of videogame arcades to label 

games featuring graphic violence or strong sexual content and to prohibit children 

under 18 from playing them without parental consent. The videogame industry 

sued, and the Court declared the law an unconstitutional infringement of freedom 

of speech. Similar ordinances in other communities are also facing challenge. 

Censorship is not the answer. But the pattern here is that the First Amendment 

is aggressively used to protect commercial interests at the same time that the free 

speech rights of child advocates are stifled. We are fortunate in Madison to be the 

home of the National Telemedia Council, the nation’s oldest media literacy organization, and I’m optimistic that through parent education and media literacy, we can 

help our children lead healthier lives. However, to do this, we all need equal access 

to freedom of speech. 

See also: 

Cantor, J. (1998). Mommy, I’m Scared: How TV and Movies Frighten Children and 

What We Can Do to Protect Them. San Diego, CA: Harcourt. 

Cantor, J. (forthcoming). Teddy’s TV Troubles. (A children’s book about coping with 

frightening media, illustrated by Tom Lowes.) Madison, WI: Goblin Fern Press. 

www.goblinfernpress.com.

Æ