In other words, they ought to be free to get an R-rated video from their corner video store. It would appear that the law was not protecting. The issues are really around not whether individual parents can stop as they can children watching R-rated videos in their own home. The frustration of parents is that they see that there is a general freedom for adults to see, hear and read in relation to a home video system but they cannot keep their children away from it. Children go to other people's homes.
Children even go to after school care programs and find unsuitable videos shown.
No one is arguing that introducing children to the unpleasant fact of violence in the world isn't the job of parents. No one is arguing for early evening news services to be censored, just for sensitivity to a vulnerable audience. However, the Senate Committee certainly recommended that the early evening news be censored. It seems to me that the how question could be solved, as it has been in the UK, by having a different news at 6 o clock and having different standards for the 6 o clock news than you have for a later news. It seems to me that there is quite a case to be made for a version of the news at 6 o clock 6.00 to 7.30 which conforms to that time zone classification, and then, perhaps, a more robust, if you like, news service later on at night.