I
107TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1005
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require that violent video
programming is limited to broadcast after the hours when children are
reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the audience, unless
it is specifically rated on the basis of its violent content so that it
is blockable by electronic means specifically on the basis of that content.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 13, 2001
Mr. SHOWS (for himself, Mr. BLAGOJEVICH, Mr. CRAMER, Ms. SANCHEZ, Ms.
HART, Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky, and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey) intro-
duced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce
A BILL
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require that
violent video programming is limited to broadcast after
the hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise
a substantial portion of the audience, unless it is specifi-
cally rated on the basis of its violent content so that
it is blockable by electronic means specifically on the
basis of that content.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Children’s Protection
from Violent Programming Act’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Television influences children’s perception
of the values and behavior that are common and ac-
ceptable in society.
(2) Broadcast television, cable television, and
video programming are—
(A) uniquely pervasive presences in the
lives of all American children; and
(B) readily accessible to all American chil-
dren.
(3) Violent video programming influences chil-
dren, as does indecent programming.
(4) There is empirical evidence that children ex-
posed to violent video programming at a young age
have a higher tendency to engage in violent and ag-
gressive behavior later in life than those children not
so exposed.
(5) There is empirical evidence that children ex-
posed to violent video programming have a greater
tendency to assume that acts of violence are accept-
able behavior and therefore to imitate such behavior.
(6) There is empirical evidence that children ex-
posed to violent video programming have an in-
creased fear of becoming a victim of violence, result-
ing in increased self-protective behaviors and in-
creased mistrust of others.
(7) There is a compelling governmental interest
in limiting the negative influences of violent video
programming on children.
(8) There is a compelling governmental interest
in channeling programming with violent content to
periods of the day when children are not likely to
comprise a substantial portion of the television audi-
ence.
(9) A significant amount of violent program-
ming that is readily accessible to minors remains
unrated specifically for violence and therefore cannot
be blocked solely on the basis of its violent content.
(10) Age-based ratings that do not include con-
tent rating for violence do not allow parents to block
programming based solely on violent content thereby
rendering ineffective any technology-based blocking
mechanism designed to limit violent video program-
ming.
(11) The most recent study of the television
ratings system by the Kaiser Family Foundation
concludes that 79 percent of violent programming is
not specifically rated for violence.
(12) Technology-based solutions, such as the V-
chip, may be helpful in protecting some children, but
cannot achieve the compelling governmental interest
in protecting all children from violent programming
when parents are only able to block programming
that has, in fact, been rated for violence.
(13) Restricting the hours when violent pro-
gramming can be shown protects the interests of
children whose parents are unavailable, unable to su-
pervise their children’s viewing behavior, do not have
the benefit of technology-based solutions, are unable
to afford the costs of technology-based solutions, or
are unable to determine the content of those shows
that are only subject to age-based ratings.
(14) After further study, pursuant to a rule-
making, the Federal Communications Commission
may conclude that content-based ratings and block-
ing technology do not effectively protect children
from the harm of violent video programming.
(15) If the Federal Communications Commis-
sion reaches the conclusion described in paragraph
(14), the channeling of violent video programming
will be the least restrictive means of limiting the ex-
posure of children to the harmful influences of vio-
lent video programming.
SEC. 3. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS OF CURRENT
RATING SYSTEM FOR VIOLENCE AND EFFEC-
TIVENESS OF V-CHIP IN BLOCKING VIOLENT
PROGRAMMING.
(a) REPORT.—The Federal Communications Com-
mission shall—
(1) assess the effectiveness of measures to re-
quire television broadcasters and multichannel video
programming distributors (as defined in section
602(13) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 522(13)) to rate and encode programming
that could be blocked by parents using the V-chip
undertaken under section 715 of the Communica-
tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 715) and under sub-
sections (w) and (x) of section 303 of that Act (47
U.S.C. 303(w) and (x)) in accomplishing the pur-
poses for which they were enacted; and
(2) report its findings to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
United States Senate and the Committee on Com-
merce of the United States House of Representa-
tives, within 12 months after the date of enactment
of this Act, and annually thereafter.
(b) ACTION.—If the Commission finds at any time,
as a result of its ongoing assessment under subsection (a),
that the measures referred to in subsection (a)(1) are in-
sufficiently effective, then the Commission shall complete
a rulemaking within 270 days after the date on which the
Commission makes that finding to prohibit the distribu-
tion of violent video programming during the hours when
children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial
portion of the audience.
(c) DEFINITIONS.—Any term used in this section
that is defined in section 715 of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 715), or in regulations under that sec-
tion, has the same meaning as when used in that section
or in those regulations.
SEC. 4. UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF VIOLENT VIDEO PRO-
GRAMMING 
THAT 
IS 
NOT 
SPECIFICALLY
RATED FOR VIOLENCE AND THEREFORE IS
NOT BLOCKABLE.
Title VII of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 701 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following: