I
105TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1510
To exempt agreements relating to voluntary guidelines governing telecast
material from the applicability of the antitrust laws.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 1, 1997
Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts, Mr.
GREENWOOD, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. DELLUMS, Mr. FORD,
Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Mrs. MALONEY of
New York, Mr. LAFALCE, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. CLEM-
ENT, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. BRADY, Mr. SESSIONS, Ms. GRANG-
ER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. BONILLA, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr.
PAUL, and Mr. ARCHER) introduced the following bill; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To exempt agreements relating to voluntary guidelines gov-
erning telecast material from the applicability of the
antitrust laws.
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 ‘‘Television Improve-
ment Act of 1997’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Television is seen and heard in nearly every
American home and is a uniquely pervasive presence
in the daily lives of Americans. The average Amer-
ican home has 2.5 televisions, and a television is
turned on in the average American home 7 hours
every day.
(2) Television plays a particularly significant
role in the lives of children. Recent figures provided
by Nielsen Research show that children between the
ages of 2 years and 11 years spend an average of
21 hours in front of a television each week.
(3) Television has an enormous capability to in-
fluence perceptions, especially those of children, of
the values and behaviors that are common and ac-
ceptable in society.
(4) The influence of television is so great that
its images and messages often can be harmful to the
development of children. Social science research
amply documents a strong correlation between the
exposure of children to televised violence and a num-
ber of behavioral and psychological problems.
(5) Hundreds of studies have proven conclu-
sively that children who are consistently exposed to
violence on television have a higher tendency to ex-
hibit violent and aggressive behavior, both as chil-
dren and later in life.
(6) Such studies also show that repeated expo-
sure to violent programming causes children to be-
come desensitized to and more accepting of real-life
violence and to grow more fearful and less trusting
of their surroundings.
(7) A growing body of social science research
indicates that sexual content on television can also
have a significant influence on the attitudes and be-
haviors of young viewers. This research suggests
that heavy exposure to programming with strong
sexual content contributes to the early commence-
ment of sexual activity among teenagers.
(8) Members of the National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB) adhered for many years to a
comprehensive code of conduct that was based on an
understanding of the influence exerted by television
and on a widely held sense of responsibility for using
that influence carefully.
(9) This code of conduct, the Television Code of
the National Association of Broadcasters, articulated
this sense of responsibility as follows:
(A) ‘‘In selecting program subjects and
themes, great care must be exercised to be sure
that the treatment and presentation are made
in good faith and not for the purpose of sensa-
tionalism or to shock or exploit the audience or
appeal to prurient interests or morbid curiosity.
(B) ‘‘Broadcasters have a special respon-
sibility toward children. Programs designed pri-
marily for children should take into account the
range of interests and needs of children, from
instructional and cultural material to a wide va-
riety of entertainment material. In their total-
ity, programs should contribute to the sound,
balanced development of children to help them
achieve a sense of the world at large and in-
formed adjustments to their society.
(C) ‘‘Violence, physical or psychological,
may only be projected in responsibly handled
contexts, not used exploitatively. Programs in-
volving violence present the consequences of it
to its victims and perpetrators. Presentation of
the details of violence should avoid the exces-
sive, the gratuitous and the instructional.
(D) ‘‘The presentation of marriage, family,
and similarly important human relationships,
and material with sexual connotations, shall not
be treated exploitatively or irresponsibly, but
with sensitivity.
(E) ‘‘Above and beyond the requirements
of the law, broadcasters must consider the fam-
ily atmosphere in which many of their programs
are viewed. There shall be no graphic portrayal
of sexual acts by sight or sound. The portrayal
of implied sexual acts must be essential to the
plot and presented in a responsible and tasteful
manner.’’.
(10) The NAB abandoned the code of conduct
in 1983 after three provisions of the code restricting
the sale of advertising were challenged by the De-
partment of Justice on antitrust grounds and a Fed-
eral district court issued a summary judgment
against the NAB regarding one of the provisions on
those grounds. However, none of the programming
standards of the code were challenged.
(11) While the code of conduct was in effect, its
programming standards were never found to have
violated any antitrust law.
(12) Since the NAB abandoned the code of con-
duct, programming standards on broadcast and
cable television have deteriorated dramatically. Lurid
and sensational talk shows are aired regularly
throughout the day and profanities have become
commonplace during the early hours of prime time,
when millions of young children are watching.
(13) In the absence of effective programming
standards, public concern about the impact of tele-
vision on children, and on society as a whole, has
risen substantially. Polls routinely show that more
than 80 percent of Americans are worried by the in-
creasingly graphic nature of sex, violence, and vul-
garity on television and by the amount of program-
ming that openly sanctions or glorifies criminal,
antisocial, and degrading behavior.
(14) At the urging of Congress, the television
industry has taken some steps to respond to public
concerns about programming standards and content.
The broadcast television industry agreed in 1992 to
adopt a set of voluntary guidelines designed to ‘‘pro-
scribe gratuitous or excessive portrayals of violence’’.
Shortly thereafter, both the broadcast and cable tele-
vision industries agreed to conduct independent
studies of the violent content in their programming
and make those reports public.
(15) In 1996, the television industry as a whole
made a commitment to develop a comprehensive rat-
ing system to label programming that may be harm-
ful or inappropriate for children. That system was
implemented at the beginning of this year.
(16) Despite these recent efforts to respond to
public concern about the impact of television on chil-
dren, millions of Americans, especially parents with
young children, remain angry and frustrated at the
sinking standards of television programming, the re-
luctance of the industry to police itself, and the
harmful influence of television on the well-being of
the children and the values of the United States.
(17) The Department of Justice issued a ruling
in 1993 indicating that additional efforts by the tele-
vision industry to develop and implement voluntary
programming guidelines would not violate the anti-
trust laws. The ruling states that ‘‘such activities
may be likened to traditional standard setting efforts
that do not necessarily restrain competition and may
have significant procompetitive benefits. . . . Such
guidelines could serve to disseminate valuable infor-
mation on program content to both advertisers and
television viewers. Accurate information can enhance
the demand for, and increase the output of, an in-
dustry’s products or services.’’.
(18) The Children’s Television Act of 1990
(Public Law 101–437) states that television broad-
casters in the United States have a clear obligation
to meet the educational and informational needs of
children.
(19) Several independent analyses have dem-
onstrated that the television broadcasters in the
United States have not fulfilled their obligations
under the Children’s Television Act of 1990 and
have not noticeably expanded the amount of edu-
cational and informational programming directed at
young viewers since the enactment of that Act.
SEC. 3. PURPOSE.
(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to permit
the broadcast and cable television industry—
(1) to work collaboratively to respond to grow-
ing public concern about the current content of tele-
vision programming and the harmful influence of
such programming on children;
(2) to develop a set of voluntary programming
guidelines similar to those contained in the Tele-
vision Code of the National Association of Broad-
casters; and
(3) to implement the guidelines in a manner
that alleviates the negative impact of television pro-
gramming on the development of children in the
United States and stimulates the development and
broadcast of educational and informational program-
ming for such children.
(b) CONSTRUCTION.—This Act may not be construed
as—
(1) providing the Federal Government with any
authority to restrict the content of television pro-
gramming that is in addition to the authority to re-
strict such programming under law as of the date of
enactment of this Act; or
(2) approving any action of the Federal Govern-
ment to restrict the content of such programming
that is in addition to any actions undertaken for
that purpose by the Federal Government under law
as of such date.
SEC. 4. EXEMPTION OF VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS ON
GUIDELINES 
FOR 
TELECAST 
MATERIAL
FROM APPLICABILITY OF ANTITRUST LAWS.
(a) EXEMPTION.—Subject to subsection (b), the anti-
trust laws shall not apply to any joint discussion, consider-
ation, review, action, or agreement by or among persons
in the television industry for the purpose of developing and
disseminating voluntary guidelines designed—
(1) to alleviate the negative impact of telecast
material such as, but not limited to, violence, sexual
content, criminal behavior, or profane language; or
(2) to promote telecast material that is edu-
cational, informational, or otherwise beneficial to the
development of children.
(b) LIMITATION.—The exemption provided in sub-
section (a) shall not apply to any joint discussion, consid-
eration, review, action, or agreement which—
(1) results in a boycott of any person; or
(2) concerns the purchase or sale of advertising,
including (without limitation) restrictions on the
number of products that may be advertised in a
commercial, the number of times a program may be
interrupted for commercials, and the number of con-
secutive commercials permitted within each interrup-
tion.
(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) ANTITRUST
LAWS.—The term ‘‘antitrust
laws’’ has the meaning given such term in the first
section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12) and in-
cludes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
(2) PERSON IN THE TELEVISION INDUSTRY.—
The term ‘‘person in the television industry’’ means
a television network, any entity which produces pro-
gramming for television distribution (including the-
atrical motion pictures), the National Cable Tele-
vision Association, the Association of Independent
Television Stations, Inc., the National Association of
Broadcasters, the Motion Picture Association of
America, and each of the affiliate organizations of
the television networks, and includes any individual
acting on behalf of such person.
(3) TELECAST.—The term ‘‘telecast’’ means
any program broadcast by a television broadcast sta-
tion or transmitted by a cable television system.
Æ