Violence in Mass Media Timeline

ProQuest Staff. "Violence in Mass Media Timeline." Leading Issues Timelines. 28 Jul 2010: n.p. SIRS Researcher. Web. 13 Oct 2010.

This is a timeline about violence in mass media, as well as censorship. What I found interesting was that Chicago was the first city to have a motion-picture censorship board. 

  Background

Janet Leigh Screams In Shower from 'Psycho' American actor Janet Leigh screams in the shower in the famous scene from the film, 'Psycho,' directed by Alfred Hitchcock, 1960. (Photo by Paramount Pictures/Courtesy of Getty Images)

Violence in mass media has been a controversial social and political issue since the popularization of motion pictures in the 1900s. Censorship boards were created and censorship laws were enacted throughout the United States to control motion-picture content, including excessive gunfire and criminal activities. The popularization of television in the 1940s and 1950s provoked so much public outrage over content that, in 1952, the U.S. Senate conducted the first of many investigations into television and radio programming.

1907

Chicago is the first American city to implement a motion-picture censorship board. Censorship boards across the country are established over the next decade.

1908

December 24: New York City enacts a motion-picture censorship law stating that nickelodeons showing “immoral” films will not be licensed. Five hundred and fifty venues’ entertainment licenses are revoked.

1909

March: The New York-based People’s Institute funds and creates a National Board of Censorship of Moving Pictures (renamed the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures in 1916) to defend films while censoring them for inappropriate content. Within the first month, the board destroys $12,000 in film and threatens to blacklist producers not willing to submit films for approval. Motion-picture producers begin to forbid scenes of murder and burglary in screenplays, instead seeking biblical and classical-literature stories for production.

1911

Pennsylvania becomes the first state to pass a statewide film censorship law. The Pennsylvania State Board of Censors is created to censor and approve all motion pictures.

1914

The Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) demands federal regulation of motion pictures.

1915

February 23: In Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that motion-picture content is not protected by the First Amendment, allowing state and local film-censorship boards to censor and supervise films.

1916

The Motion Picture Board of Trade and the National Exhibitor’s League merge to create the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry, the American film industry’s response to increasing motion-picture censorship across the nation.

1918

The National Association of the Motion Picture Industry implements a code of content standards specifying unacceptable film subjects and themes.

1921

President of the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry William A. Brady visits cities around the nation protesting film censorship.

New York State passes a film censorship law.

1922

The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), renamed the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) in 1945, is created by the film industry to self-regulate its content and avoid censorship from outside sources. Former Postmaster General William H. Hays is named head of the new organization.

The radio industry is criticized for inappropriate content in its programming. In response, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) is founded to represent radio broadcasters.

1924

Some European countries , including England, Italy and France, denounce violent content in American films, notably westerns, gangster films and thrillers. Upon learning of international sentiment regarding U.S. motion pictures, American producers limit violence and other controversial content in films submitted to these countries, according to a report issued by president of the British Board of Film Censors, T.P. O’Connor.

1925

The Women's Christian Temperance Union decides that motion pictures are the most important cultural influence on youth and that the MPPDA is not doing enough to regulate their content. It forms a Motion Picture Department to support government regulation.

January 17: County judges in Brooklyn, New York, declare that motion pictures and stage productions are responsible for increases in crime and immorality.

1929

March: The NAB adopts a code of ethics to prevent radio stations from broadcasting offensive content and to protect listeners from fraudulent advertisers.

1930

The MPPDA adopts the Production Code, introducing more rigorous motion-picture guidelines that prohibits themes such as illegal drug trafficking and liquor use.
Out of the 2,022 American films submitted to Canada’s Ontario Board of Censors, 65 films are rejected and 486 others are demanded to be revised.

1931

Film censorship standards vary considerably by state, and motion-picture producers struggle to meet content expectation.

1934

April: The Roman Catholic Legion of Decency is formed in an attempt to halt immorality in motion pictures.
July 13: The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America vote to unite with the Roman Catholic Legion of Decency in its crusade for decency in motion pictures.

1945

The Motion Picture Export Association of America (renamed Motion Picture Association in 1994) is founded to help reestablish American films in the international market in the wake of World War II.

1947

September: The National Broadcasting Company (NBC) bans the broadcasting of crime, horror and mystery radio programs before 9:30 at night to help prevent children from listening to such programs. The ban becomes formally effective on January 1, 1948.

Schoolboy Reads Comic Book 17th May 1952: A schoolboy avidly reading the American comic 'Roy Carson', just one of the US publications which some people feel are detrimental to the minds of young children. (Photo by Thurston Hopkins/Picture Post/Getty Images)

1950

November 11: Following a survey inquiring whether crime comic books contribute to juvenile delinquency, Senator Estes Kefauver (D-Tenn.) and his Senate crime committee announce that their effects are negligible.

1951

The National Association of Broadcasters adopts a code for television content, prohibiting certain depictions of crime, sexual intimacy, addiction, cruelty and horror.

1952

January: New York-based National Association of Educational Broadcasters completes its analysis of New York City television programming content. Nearly 15 percent of broadcasted presentations are crime dramas, while Western-themed shows make up more than 8 percent.
February 19: The Gesell Institute, established in 1950 to study the stages of child development, publishes the opinion that children have a genuine need for excitement and adventure, and this may account for the popularity of scary and violent films and radio and television programs.
March 1: The National Association of Radio & Television Broadcasters’ Television Code, establishing content guidelines for television programming, goes into effect.
May 26: Following months of appeals, the Supreme Court rules on Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, finding that motion pictures are entitled to the same free speech constitutional rights as the press.
December 15: Following a Senate investigation into television and radio programming, the subcommittee announces its findings. Although the group concludes that crime is featured too prominently and that myriad comedic scenes are objectionable, it opposes the institution of government control and censorship of media and praises the television and radio industries’ efforts to self-regulate and self-censor.

1953

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) considers Otto Preminger’s The Moon Is Blue in violation of the Production Code. The film is released without an MPAA certificate of approval.

June 1: The Senate establishes a subcommittee to examine causes of and contributors to juvenile delinquency. Television, although not initially cited by the resolution, becomes one of the investigation’s twelve focus areas the following year.

1954

June and October: The Senate’s Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, chaired by Senator Robert Hendrickson (R-N.J.), holds public hearings on televised violence. Television industry executives defend their content, citing First Amendment protections, lack of research on television’s harmful effects, and the quantity of beneficial children’s programming. The subcommittee concludes that more research is necessary and that governmental censorship should be avoided.
November: A Gallup poll finds that 70 percent of people surveyed believe that comic books and television programs contribute to juvenile delinquency.

1955

"The Man with the Golden Arm" Film Poster Frank Sinatra, Kim Novak and Eleanor Parker starred in the 1955 Otto Preminger film "The Man with the Golden Arm." Sinatra was nominated for an Academy Award for his controversial role as a drug addict.

The MPAA considers Otto Preminger's The Man with the Golden Arm in violation of the Production Code. The film is released without an MPAA certificate of approval. The following year, The Man with the Golden Arm is nominated for three Oscars and the Production Code is updated to allow drugs, kidnapping, abortion and prostitution in motion pictures.
August 25: Following hearings to determine televised violence’s effects on juvenile delinquency, the Senate’s Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency announces that it has found no proof that television crime and violent images contribute to criminal behavior.

1956

In a study, 12 children watched a violent Woody Woodpecker cartoon and 12 children watched the nonviolent The Little Red Hen cartoon. The children who viewed Woody Woodpecker were more likely to be aggressive later during play.

1960

The MPAA considers Alfred Hitchcock’s [[ITAL]]Psycho[[/ITAL]] in violation of the Production Code. The film is released without an MPAA certificate of approval.

1961

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) publishes the annotated international bibliography “The Influence of the Cinema on Children and Adolescents.” Four hundred writers from nearly thirty countries, although contradictory in their opinions regarding the influence of motion pictures on juveniles, are effectively unanimous on the necessity of producing films specifically for children.
In published studies of controlled laboratory experiments conducted in 1961 and 1963, researchers report that children who view a televised scene of a person hitting a doll are more likely to imitate the behavior later during play.
May 9: The newly appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Newton Minow, condemns the television industry and its programming content during a speech at a National Association of Broadcasters convention.

1964

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) publishes the study “The Effects of Television on Children and Adolescents.” The study finds that television may contribute to juvenile delinquency and also concludes that aggressive children could be adversely affected by television violence.

1968

June 10: Following the April 4 assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the June 5 assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, violence in television programming comes under increased scrutiny. President Lyndon Johnson establishes the U.S. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence to investigate the causes and possible prevention of violence in American society. In a speech during the signing ceremony, Johnson suggests that mass media’s violent programming and broadcasts may be partially accountable.
June 12: The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) announces it will take steps to reduce violent content in its broadcasts.
October: The MPAA discontinues the Production Code and creates a ratings system, to go into effect November 1.

1969

The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence releases a report stating that “Violence on television encourages violent forms of behavior.” The report goes on to suggest that television is a “contributing factor” to violence in American society.
March: Senator John O. Pastore (D-R.I.), chairman of the Senate Communications Subcommittee, requests that the Surgeon General conduct a study on the effects of televised violence on children. He also demands that network broadcasting executives regulate televised violence according to the National Association of Broadcasters code.

1972

In a published field study, researchers report that children who regularly viewed Batman and Spiderman cartoons over several weeks were more likely to become aggressive during play, while children who regularly viewed Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood over several weeks were more cooperative during play.
January 17: The U.S. Surgeon General office’s “Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence,” a 300-page report on the effects of televised violence on children, is released. While the report’s conclusions are considered ambivalent, Surgeon General Jesse L. Steinfeld affirms that the study does reveal a link between television violence and children’s behavior.

March 21: The Senate Communications Subcommittee, led by Senator John O. Pastore (D-R.I.), begins hearings on the effects of televised violence on children. Surgeon General Jesse L. Steinfeld testifies, recommending immediate action to curtail televised violence, urging broadcasters to self-regulate their content and advising against government censorship. He also proposes a violence-ratings system.

'A Clockwork Orange' Promotional Poster Promotional poster for the film 'A Clockwork Orange,' directed and produced by American director Stanley Kubrick (1928 - 1999) and released in 1971. Featured prominently in the poster is British actor Malcolm McDowell (as Alexander 'Alex' de Large), who leers menicingly and wields a large knife. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

1973

The MPAA gives Stanley Kubrick’s violent A Clockwork Orange an X rating. Kubrick cuts 30 seconds from the film to receive an R rating.

1974

April: The three major television broadcast networks, CBS, NBC and ABC, announce changes to their weekend children’s programming, including the additions of educational and social themes and the elimination of violence.
April: Days after the networks’ announcement to change weekend children's programming, Senate hearings on televised violence begin, led by Senator John O. Pastore (D-R.I.). At the hearings conclusion, the subcommittee orders that the FCC, chaired by Richard E. Wiley, report to Congress on television executives’ efforts to protect young viewers.

1975

January: FCC Chairman Richard C. Wiley meets with presidents of the three major television broadcast networks, NBC, CBS and ABC, to discuss their new policy of airing family shows during the networks’ first hour of nightly programming.

February 19: The FCC releases its “Report on the Broadcast of Violent, Indecent, and Obscene Material,” which acknowledges substantial evidence about television violence and its harmful effects on children. The report states that self-regulation is preferable to government censorship.
April: The National Association of Broadcasters and the three major television broadcast networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, formally adopt the “family viewing” hour to decrease the amount of televised violence and sexual content.

1976

A California federal court rules that the three major television broadcast networks’ family viewing hour, instituted in 1975, is unconstitutional, citing unlawful pressure from the FCC.
The Motion Picture Association of America recommends that Martin Scorsese remove color from Taxi Driver’s violent shootout scene. The change earns the film an R rating.

1977

Robert De Niro in 1975 Film "Taxi Driver"

October 6: Fifteen-year-old Ronny Zamora is charged with first-degree murder. His lawyer, Ellis Rubin, uses the insanity defense for his client, contending that Zamora was so addicted to violent television programs that he was not responsible for his actions. Zamora’s insanity defense fails and he is convicted of first-degree murder.

1981

Following the 1978 Academy Award-winning film The Deer Hunter airing on cable television, the National Coalition on Television Violence reports that 25 people subsequently killed themselves in an apparent imitation of the film’s “Russian roulette” scene.
June 18: Two major television broadcast networks, ABC and NBC, release separate studies asserting that the majority of television viewers do not consider television content too violent or offensive and oppose censorship of programs.
October: Television broadcast officials, researchers and consumer advocates testify before the Congressional subcommittee on the social and behavioral effects of televised violence on children.
December 7: The California District Court of Appeals rules on Olivia N. v. NBC, a 1978 case in which a young girl’s family sued NBC for damages after she was raped with a bottle. Her lawyers allege that her attackers were influenced by a scene in the network’s television film “Born Innocent.” The court’s decision upholds a previous dismissal of the case, finding that the movie does not encourage violent acts.

1982

The National Institute of Mental Health publishes a review of the effects of mass media violence, citing the organization’s concerns for its effects on children's psychological health. It concludes that a correlation exists between exposure to televised violence and children’s aggressive behavior.
NBC’s Department of Social Research publishes its findings from a longitudinal research study into television and aggression, asserting that the study’s results could not confirm that media violence influences behavior.

1984

Toronto’s Action Group on Media Pornography holds a Symposium on Media Violence and Pornography at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. The conference, spurred by concern about violent American television programming available in Canada, explores the link between violence and pornography.
The MPAA introduces the PG-13 rating after some scenes in the PG-rated Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom are criticized for being too gruesome.
The findings of a 20-year longitudinal study are published. Researchers conclude that children who viewed more violent television programming during the 1960s were more likely to be aggressive as teenagers and adults.

1985

The American Psychological Association (APA) recommends that parents restrict their children’s viewing of violent television programs and asks that broadcasters reduce such shows’ violent content.
April 26: In an open letter observing the Roman Catholic Church’s 19th World Communications Day, Pope John Paul II warns of the dangers of sex and violence in film, on television and in the news.

1987

September: Pope John Paul II meets with actors, directors, producers and other entertainment-industry professionals in Los Angeles during his 10-day tour of the United States. He advises that they utilize mass media to promote “great good” rather than sex and violence.

1989

May 16: The Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Social Communications publishes “Pornography and Violence in the Communications Media: A Pastoral Response,” declaring that pornography and violence are corruptive and calling for international laws to prevent this type of content in mass media.

1990

In response to "An Open Letter to Jack Valenti,” a letter to the MPAA president from directors discussing their concerns with X ratings, the MPAA creates the NC-17 rating, which would distinguish between pornographic and nonpornographic films.
December 1: The Television Program Improvement Act is passed, offering exemption from antitrust laws to television broadcasting networks who attempt to lessen the harmful effects of televised violence by December 1, 1993.

1992

The television broadcasting networks inform Senator Paul Simon (D-Ill.), promoter of the Television Program Improvement Act, that they will adhere to standardized content guidelines on violence and will organize a conference to discuss the issue.
June: Federal legislation bans violent and other indecent television and radio daytime and primetime programming.

1993

The video game Doom, a first-person shooting game, is released and immediately criticized for its depictions of violence.
The Center for Media Literacy is established to educate the public about mass media and its content.
The APA publishes its “Report of the American Psychological Association Commission on Violence and Youth.” The report asserts that watching televised violent programming is linked to increased aggression and increased acceptance of others’ aggression.
University of Washington epidemiologist Brandon S. Centerwall publishes findings from his study of homicide rates, comparing those of Canada and the United States to that of South Africa, a country without television until 1975. U.S. homicide rates nearly doubled between mid-century, when television was introduced, and 1975. In South Africa, homicide rates were stable between 1950 and 1975, but by 1987, that country’s homicide rates had doubled.
June 30: During congressional hearings on televised violence, television network executives propose parental-discretion warnings for programs considered too violent for children.
December: Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) begins a campaign against violent video games, supporting a bill that would require the gaming industry to rate its games. A Senate subcommittee is formed to investigate video-game violence. Sega and Nintendo executives announce that they will develop a ratings system for buyers.
December: In response to customer complaints about violence in the video game Night Trap, the chain toy stores Toys 'R' Us and Kay-Bee stop carrying the video game.

1994

Impact of Television Violence Some popular television programs, such as "Rug Rats," were cited by researchers as encouraging children to behave aggressively. Cartoons such as "The Simpsons" and "Pokemon" and the show "Power Rangers" were also cited, as were evening news broadcasts, which tend to emphasize violent incidents.

The National Cable Television Association hires the nonprofit media education organization Mediascope to conduct a three-year study of violence on cable television and its effects. The study is called the “National Television Violence Study.”
“The Effects of Television Violence on Antisocial Behavior: A Meta-Analysis,” which examined 217 studies on television violence conducted between 1957 and 1990, concludes that watching television violence causes aggressive and otherwise antisocial behaviors, most notably in children.
March: The Senate subcommittee investigating video-game violence holds another round of hearings. Seven top companies in the gaming industry pledge to create a ratings system by the holiday season.
June: Senator Paul Simon (D-Ill.) and the broadcast television networks enlist the UCLA Center for Communication Policy to conduct a three-year study of broadcast television violence and its effects. The study is called the “UCLA Television Violence Monitoring Report.”
July 31: The Interactive Digital Software Association, the gaming industry’s trade association (renamed the Entertainment Software Association in 2003) announces a video-game ratings system for violent and sexual content and offensive language.

1995

The Parents Television Council, a nonprofit organization opposing sex, violence and offensive language in mass media, is founded.
The Lion & Lamb Project is created to reduce violence in mass media.

1996

January 8: The Supreme Court upholds June 1992 federal legislation banning violent and other indecent television and radio daytime and primetime programming.
February 8: The Telecommunications Act is signed into law, calling for the television broadcasting industry to create a ratings system to identify violent and other content unsuitable for children. It also mandates the installation of V-chip technology, which would allow parents to block rated television programs, by January 1, 2000.
September 19: The first volume of the “National Television Violence Study,” a three-year study assessing the effects of televised violence on children, is published.

1997

The CBS News and History Channel documentary, The 20th Century with Mike Wallace: Violence in the Media, which provides a history of violence in mass media and considers the validity of protecting children from such violence, is broadcasted.
January 1: The television broadcasting industry introduces the “TV Parental Guidelines,” a ratings system based on programs’ age-appropriateness.
February 19: A fatal shooting occurs at a high school in Bethel, Alaska. Violent video and computer games are implicated as influencing the violent behavior.

March 18: The final report of the “UCLA Television Violence Monitoring Report,” which monitored broadcast television programming from 1994 through 1997, is announced. Among its findings are that violent prime-time series had decreased over three years and that violence was prevalent in Saturday morning children’s television programming.
December 1: A fatal shooting occurs at Heath High School in West Paducah, Kentucky. Violent video and computer games are implicated as influencing the violent behavior.

1998

March 24: A fatal shooting occurs at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Violent video and computer games are implicated as influencing the violent behavior.
April 3: The final report of the “National Television Violence Study” is published, concluding that television violence has increased since 1994, nearly 2 out of 3 programs contain violence, violent content is found more often in children’s programming than in adult programming, and certain violent plot elements are more harmful than others.

1999

President Bill Clinton Discusses Kids and Violence WASHINGTON: US President Bill Clinton speaks about a public service announcement campaign to get kids to talk about violence 17 August, 1999 at the White House in Washington, DC. The television ads will begin to air 17 August. (Credit: LUKE FRAZZA/AFP/Getty Images)

Media scholar Jib Fowles publishes The Case for Television Violence. He asserts that violent television does not cause aggression; rather, it provides an outlet for aggressive urges.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) reports that there is an act of serious violence on television every four minutes.
April 20: A fatal school shooting occurs at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. The violent video game Doom is implicated, as one of the perpetrators was a dedicated player.
April 21: A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows the majority of those polled believe that gun availability, negligent parents and violence in mass media are at least partially to blame for the school shootings in Littleton, Colorado.
April-May: Following the school shooting in Littleton, Colorado, television executives either pull or rework television programming deemed too violent. Several television networks reject television series that are considered too violent.
June 1: President Bill Clinton announces that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Justice Department will lead a study into the marketing practices of the television, film, video-game and other entertainment industries to ensure they are not marketing adult-rated material to children.
June 8: In light of the Clinton administration’s focus on violent media, the majority of movie theaters pledge to require photo identification from teenagers who try to purchase tickets for movies rated “R” or higher.
August: A Senate Judiciary Committee’s report states that violence in mass media inspires real-world violence.
August: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) proposes that pediatric physicians include questions regarding children’s media consumption as part of their routine health exams.
September 14: The Senate Judiciary Committee publishes “Children, Violence, and the Media: A Report for Parents and Policy Makers,” identifying violence in mass media as a major cause of youth violence.

2000

Kids Playing Violent Video Games A young boy watches a Pokemon video in his parent's home July 20, 2001, in Des Plaines, IL home. (Photo by Tim Boyle/Getty Images)

April: In two studies conducted by the APA, researchers conclude that violent video games may lead to increased aggression.
July: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Psychiatric Association release a joint statement asserting that more than 1,000 studies confirm a link between violence in mass media and some children’s aggression.
September: Close to a dozen Japanese anime programs are part of major television networks’ cartoon programming. Many of the shows are criticized for their violent content.
September 11: The FTC releases its report “Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Review of Self-Regulation and Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording and Electronic Game Industries,” which examines myriad entertainment industries’ rating systems and marketing practices. Among other findings, the report concludes that industries market violent and otherwise inappropriate entertainment products to children.

2001

“Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General” states that violence in mass media may temporarily increase aggressive behavior in children.
April 24: The FTC releases its follow-up report to its initial “Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children.” This second study determines that the film and video-game industries have improved in their self-regulation, while the recording industry has not.
November: The American Academy of Pediatrics publishes its policy on media violence and its effects on children, maintaining that children’s exposure to violence in mass media significantly impacts their health.
December 5: The FTC releases its second follow-up report to its initial “Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children.” This third study praises the film and video-game industries for continued improvements in self-regulation and notes that the music industry has made slight improvements.

2002

A study commissioned by the MPAA and conducted by media expert Jonathan Freedman, in which Freedman analyzes decades of research on media violence and its effects, finds that the scientific evidence does not sustain the argument that media violence can be linked to children’s aggression.
March 29: Results of a 17-year longitudinal study, published in  Science magazine, show that teenagers whose television consumption exceeds one hour a day are almost four times as likely as other teenagers to commit aggressive acts as an adult.
May 14: CBS News broadcasts 15 seconds of Daniel Pearl alive from the video showing the reporter’s murder at the hands of an Islamic militant group. The State Department, Justice Department and Pearl’s family criticize the network.
June 28: The FTC releases its third follow-up report to its initial “Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children.” This fourth study shows continued progress in the film and video-game industries and notes the music industry’s inclusion of ratings in advertisements.
September: In a published cross-sectional study, researchers report a link between a child’s bullying and his or her exposure to television violence.

2003

March 9: The APA publishes its 15-year study on mass media violence’s effects on children. The study, one of the few following children into adulthood, concludes that children’s exposure to and perceptions of violent content correlates with their aggressive behavior as adults.
May: The Washington State House of Representatives pass legislation that would make selling violent video games to minors a finable offense.
May 5: Researchers at Iowa State University publish a study on violent imagery in music. Findings show that listening to music with violent lyrics increases aggressive moods and thoughts.
June 3: The United States Court of Appeals for St. Louis, Missouri, reverses a 2002 decision that criminalized the selling, renting or showing of graphically violent video games to minors. This 2003 decision establishes video games as protected by the First Amendment.
July 10: A federal judge rules that the Washington State law that would fine retailers for selling violent video games to minors is in violation of the First Amendment.
December: Citing escalating video-game violence and children’s access to violent video games, the American National Institute on Media and the Family’s 7th Media Wise Video Game Report Card gives the gaming industry its first overall “F” evaluation.

2004

March 5: Thirty-nine members of the House of Representatives send a letter to Michael Powell, FCC chairman, demanding a “notice of inquiry” on televised violence and its effects on children.
July 8: The FTC releases its fourth follow-up report to its initial “Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children.” This fifth study notes improvement in entertainment industries’ utilization of ratings information in advertisements.

2005

Video Game Still, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

Two pieces of legislation are introduced in the Senate, the Family Entertainment Protection Act and the Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act. Both are referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and do not become law.
July 25: Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich signs a law banning the sale of violent video games to minors, making the state the only one in the nation with such restrictions. Video-game industry organizations file a federal lawsuit challenging the new law.
August 9: Devin Moore is convicted of the 2003 triple homicide of three police officers. Moore’s defense was based on two factors, his being abused as a child and his addiction to violent video games, most notably Grand Theft Auto. He is sentenced to death by lethal injection on October 7.
August 12: Attorney Jack Thompson files a lawsuit against Sony on behalf of the families of two of Devin Moore’s victims. The civil suit, Strickland v. Sony, alleges that the video game Grand Theft Auto trained Moore how to kill. The third victim’s family eventually joins the case.
August 17: The American Psychological Association releases a statement recommending that violence be eliminated from video games.
October: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signs the Violent Video Game Bill into law, prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors.
December 21: U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte rules that California’s law prohibiting minors from buying violent video games is unconstitutional.

2006

A number of bills and laws that prohibit minors from purchasing violent video games are declared unconstitutional by federal courts, including in the states of Louisiana and Michigan.

2007

January 10: The Parents Television Council publishes “Dying to Entertain,” a report on television violence. The eight-year study concludes that television violence continues to increase and is harmful to children.

April 25: The FCC releases its report, “In the Matter of Violent Television and Its Impact on Children,” confirming previous studies’ findings that violence in mass media contributes to children’s aggressive behavior and noting that the ratings system and V-chip technology do not protect children from violent programming. The report recommends establishing regulations that do not violate the First Amendment.
June 26: The Senate Commerce Committee addresses issues raised by the April FCC report in a hearing on violent programming’s effects on children.
August 6: A California state law that would prohibit minors from purchasing or renting violent video games is declared unconstitutional by a federal judge.
September 5: The Parents Television Council declares that television’s “family hour” contains unsuitable content for children, including sex and violence.

2008

March 17: A Minnesota state law that would prohibit minors from purchasing or renting violent video games is declared unconstitutional by a federal judge.
August: In a study published in Pediatrics, Dartmouth College researchers report that, on average, 12.5 percent of 10- through 14-year-old children have viewed films rated R for violence.

2009

October: Venezuelan National Assembly passes legislation to prohibit violent video games and toys. The ban comes as a response to unabated high rates of violent crime, which added up to nearly 8,000 homicides in 2008.
December: An FTC report on the marketing of violent entertainment to children finds that marketers of violent, music, and video games can do more to restrict the promotion of their products to children.

2010

          May: A study conducted by the Children and Families Research Centre at Macquarie University in Australia finds that songs with violent lyrics make people who hear them up to four times more aggressive.

have never seen the movie "Animal House." I blame the Catholic church for this cultural deficiency.

Schlumpf, H.. "Please don't censor this column. " National Catholic Reporter  20 Aug. 2010: Platinum Periodicals, ProQuest. Web.  12 Oct. 2010.

This is a personal column about a woman who grew up in a strict Catholic family, and how censorship basically ruled her life. 

I  have never seen the movie "Animal House." I blame the Catholic church for this cultural deficiency.

You see, while all my high school friends were enjoying John Belushi's antics in National Lampoon's classic tale of fraternity hijinks, I had to stay home. In our house, before my sister and I were allowed to see any movie, my parents consulted the U.S. Catholic Conference list of movie ratings dutifully clipped from our diocesan newspaper and posted on the refrigerator.

The "Animal House" rating of "O" (morally offensive) meant no toga party for me.

The U.S. bishops' conference, at usccb.org/movies, still rates movies and television shows based on their moral and entertainment values, giving special attention to human sexuality, depictions of the church and clergy, and the film's overriding philosophy.

"Our classifications have always been intended as a guide for parents," the office's mission statement says. "Parents must be the ultimate arbiters in evaluating their child's emotional, spiritual and moral development, and the appropriateness of any given film. Thoughtful adults are the best judges of their own tastes and values."

It wasn't always merely "advisory."

Back in the 1930s, the explosion of moving pictures' popularity had many religious folks, Catholics included, nervous about the moral and political threat immoral films surely posed to unsuspecting moviegoers. City censorship boards sprang up, Hollywood responded with its own self-censoring organization and Catholics formed the Legion of Decency, whose members took an oath to avoid and to.protest immoral movies.

The fear was that movies would "corrupt and impair good morals," as Pope Pius XI put it in his 1936 encyclical Vigilanti Cura. Not only did they present life in a "false light," immoral movies seduced the young by inciting lust, providing occasions of sin and destroying the sanctity of marriage, according to the pope.

Since the very souls of the young - and not-so-young - were at stake, a little censorship seemed like a small price to pay.

Of course, the church also had a long history of censoring written and printed material via its infamous Index of Prohibited Books, which banned nearly 4,000 writings from 1564 until it was abolished in 1966. Among those labeled as heretical, superstitious and immoral or obscene were scientists Copernicus and Galileo, philosophers Sartre and Kant, poets Milton and Hugo, and theologians Luther and Calvin. Interestingly, so was St. Faustina Kowalska, the Polish mystic who founded the Divine Mercy devotion. Her writings spent 20 years on the Index before they were removed.

Though the Index is no more, the church still attempts to control the publication of books about scripture, theology, church history or morality through the imprimatur ("let it be printed") process, though in practice only a minority of books apply for that designation.

And, sadly, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith still condemns or "admonishes" (less severe) theologians it deems erroneous, such as Anthony de Mello and Jon Sobrino, or bans writers from teaching as Catholic theologians, such as Charles Curran and Roger Haight.

An investigation and ban can mean a lot of headaches, especially when the authors are priests or religious, but it also guarantees plenty of free publicity. Really, who had heard of Tissa Balasuriya before his Mary and Human Liberation was investigated in 1996?

Such offenses against freedom of the press today seem, well, medieval. To democratic societies, censorship is seen as a human rights issue, and those who practice it, such as radical Muslims or the Chinese government, are seen as oppressors. Not the best company for church authorities, who are supposed to be on the side of human rights victims.

Not only is censorship wrong, it's practically impossible in today's wired world, where someone is sure to post on the Web whatever is being suppressed. Then comes the inevitable bad press when the attempted censorship is exposed. Witness recent attempts to keep certain bishops' statements and speeches from the public. Or attempts to prevent certain speakers from appearing at Catholic parishes, universities and other institutions. Those speakers' views only get a wider hearing, thanks to the attempts to censor.

Of course, no freedom is absolute, and even censorship-free societies do not allow printed or broadcast information that is slanderous or libelous. And censorship by the church originally had the noble goal of safeguarding the faith and morals of the institution and its members.

But censorship is too often about abuse of power, not paternal protection. And even when motives are pure, what happens when censored material turns out to be correct? There are those who still mock the church for opposing the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. Who knows, maybe Sobrino is right about liberation theology and Balasuriya is dead on about original sin. We'll never know if we can't read and discuss their ideas openly.

As a mom to two preschoolers, I am very careful about what my children read and see on TV, because I want to protect themtrom things that would harm them. I may even consult the bishops' conference or other guides for advice about movies.

Too bad the church treats adult Catholics as if we were preschoolers.

World News: Thai Groups Denounce Website Censorship --- Government Blocks Thousands of Pages Following Clashes

Patrick Barta.  "World News: Thai Groups Denounce Website Censorship --- Government Blocks Thousands of Pages Following Clashes. " Wall Street Journal  18  Aug. 2010, Eastern edition: Wall Street Journal, ProQuest. Web.  12 Oct. 2010.

This article talks about how Thailand has censored and restricted thousands of web pages that criticize Thailand's government. Many citizens of Thailand believe that the country's censorship has reached an unprecedented level.  

BANGKOK -- Criticism over Thailand's efforts to curb political debate online is mounting as the government restricts thousands of websites following deadly protest clashes earlier this year.

Thai authorities say they have blocked at least 40,000 Web pages this year, according to the government's Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, which monitors the Internet. Free-speech activists say authorities are blocking at least 110,000 sites, based on government disclosures and spot checks online.

Many of the sites feature criticism of the government or debates about Thailand's revered monarchy, a taboo subject here. As a result, some advocates say Thailand -- long seen as a relative haven of free speech in Asia -- is becoming one of the least-free states in a region that includes China and Myanmar, when it comes to discourse online.

Censorship of the media has reached "an unprecedented level" in Thailand, says Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a Thailand expert at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.

He says his research, which includes discussions with government officials, supports the 110,000 figure for blocked sites. "The government has been using this partly to defend national security but also to protect its own regime," he says.

Human Rights Watch has called Thailand's censorship a "broad-brush clampdown" that "violated Thailand's obligations to respect media freedom and freedom of expression."

Thai officials say the country remains open to public debate and that the curbs are in place to prevent antigovernment groups from inciting violence or threatening the nation's stability.

Political analysts note that previous administrations -- including one supported by Thailand's current crop of antigovernment protesters -- moved to clamp down on the media.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal this month that protesters have their voices heard. "You might be under the impression that somehow the opposition is not getting any space in the media," but the views of antigovernment groups figure prominently in local news reports, he said.

The Internet restrictions are generating new controversy in a country that is only starting to stabilize after clashes between antigovernment protesters and authorities left 91 people dead in April and May. Several multinationals, including Ford Motor Co., have recently announced plans to expand Thai operations.

The government imposed a state of emergency in April that gave it expanded powers, including the ability to block sites quickly. A 2007 Computer Crimes Act imposes penalties for illegal activities online; it was also designed to target fraud. Thai authorities also rely on a strict lse-majest rule that limits discussion of the royal family. Authorities recently expanded a team tracking inappropriate discussion of the monarchy.

Mr. Abhisit says Thailand needs a period of stability before new elections can be held -- a sentiment endorsed by many Bangkokians who view some protesters as terrorists. Several small bombs have exploded in the capital, and the government maintains a state of emergency in Bangkok and other areas.

The demonstrations were led by so-called Red Shirt protesters who say Mr. Abhisit's government is illegitimate because it didn't spring from fresh national elections. Mr. Abhisit became prime minister in a 2008 parliamentary vote with backing from military and royalist groups after rival protesters took over Thailand's main airport, triggering the collapse of a Red Shirt-allied administration.

The government accuses Red Shirt leaders of wanting to dismantle the monarchy, whose official powers are largely ceremonial but which has wielded significant influence over the years, at times helping to mediate political squabbles. Red Shirt leaders deny antiroyal schemes.

Free-speech advocates contend the government is exaggerating threats as an excuse to shut down sites critical of the government. They cite one prominent site called Prachatai that describes itself as an "independent" news source and has included links to articles and reports from other sources questioning government policy.

Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the site's director, says Prachatai is exposing readers to "voices that people can't get from the mainstream media" and that it tries to include views on all sides.

The site was blocked in April, but staff have switched domain names multiple times and taken other steps to keep it operational. "I think they are afraid" of open debate online, Ms. Chiranuch says of the government.

Efforts to get government comment on the case were unsuccessful.

In his interview, Mr. Abhisit said authorities were "mindful" that "there could be abuses" in deciding which sites to block. But the gradual removal of emergency powers should help ease those concerns, he added.

Credit: By Patrick Barta

A History of Censorship

Charnow, S.. "The Frightful Stage: Political Censorship of the Theater in Nineteenth-Century Europe. " Rev. of: ***[insert title of work reviewed in italics]***, ***[insert clarifying information]***. History  38.4 (2010): 141-141. Platinum Periodicals, ProQuest. Web.  7 Oct. 2010.

Goldstein, Robert Justin, ed. The Frightful Stage: Political Censorship of the Theater in Nineteenth-Century Europe New York: Berghahn Books 310 pp., $95.00, ISBN 978-1-84545-459-3 Publication Date: March 2009

This article goes in-depth into how censoring plays and operas in Europe during the 19th century took extreme amounts of energy and time. 

The hero of Beaumarchais's Marriage of Figaro sarcastically explains, "They tell me that if in my writing I mention neither the government, nor public worship, nor politics, nor morals, nor people in office, nor influential corporations, nor the opera, nor the other theatres, nor any one who has aught to do with anything, I may print everything freely, subject to the approval of two or three censors" (quoted in Goldstein, 276). Granting a degree of theatrical exaggeration, these restrictions describe the constraints to which play texts were subject across continental Europe during most of the nineteenth century according to Robert J. Goldstein, editor of The Frightful Stage. This volume includes individual essays on censorship of the theater in Germany (Gary D. Stark), France (Robert J. Goldstein), Russia (Anthony Swift), Spain (David T. Gies), Italy (John A. Davis), and the Habsburg monarchy (Norbert Bachleitner), as well as an introductory chapter and a concluding summary by Goldstein. This volume, Goldstein suggests, offers "reliable and comprehensive summaries, for an English-language audience, of the latest research available from the most important countries of nineteenth-century Europe" (viii). Individual chapters stand alone and include extensive bibliographical essays. The Frightful Stage provides a valuable contribution to the growing literature on European cultural history that focuses on theater, performance, and spectacle.

As Goldstein explains, ruling elites sawthe theater as a form of communication that could potentially threaten the existing political, legal, and social order. Given the "especial fear of the poor and the illiterate," who had "far greater access. . . to the stage as compared with print media" (1), censoring play and opera texts occupied a great deal of official time and energy across Europe in the wake of the French Revolution. In each nation, there were also periods of little or no censorship. As Goldstein argues for France, censorship reflected broader political currents and provides "invaluable information about the fears and concerns of political authorities in the nineteenth century"(117).

What is striking is the overwhelming similarity of theater censorship policies across state borders. In each state, some form of preventive or preperformance censorship required theater directors to submit play texts to some form of regulatory body for approval. The question of social class-"of determining what types of material should be permitted for which social groups-was of fundamental concern" to the censors (77). Performances geared toward the popular classes were more tightly controlled than those aimed at the more "elite, educated, and upper class audience" (ibid.). Censors forbade images and characters, including heads of state, and stories that suggested revolution; critical representations of clergy and other church-related persons; and, of course, scenarios depicting questionable morals. Writers also practiced self-censorship. As the well-known Spanish critic of censorship Mariano José de Larra stated, "If I don't write it, they can't ban it" (171). He argued that the laws of censorship turned writers into "self-censoring cowards" (ibid.).

Directors and actors also subverted censorship laws in similar ways across the continent. Directors organized performances in private clubs to avoid submitting texts to the authorities, and actors reinstated text that had been censored and used physical gestures to communicate their intended meaning to the audience, who seemed to know how to read between the lines.

Therewere, of course, significant differences among states. In preunification Germany and Italy, theater censorship policies and licensing were not centralized as in France but differed from state to state and frequently from city to city. Local censorship policies also prevailed in the multinational and multilingual Habsburg monarchy, as did censorship that focused primarily on suppressing nationalist ideology that threatened the dual monarchical system (230). In Spain, there was continued support for ecclesiastical censorship, which could "trump civil law when necessary" (169).

What makes the discussion of censorship so fascinating is not that theater censorship substantially impoverished the nineteenth-century European stage and culture more generally, as Goldstein suggests for the French case (117). After all, we do not know what might have happened with no censorship. Rather, it seems remarkable that talented writers and ingenious directors created lively, if often predictable, theater during periods of censorship. As Anthony Swift argues for the Russian case, "Censorship, however, did not stifle the innovations of Stanislavsky, Meyerhold, Evreinov. . .. To be sure, censorship did have a negative impact on Russian theater, as it did elsewhere in Europe, but that impact should not be overstated. Tsarist Russia's theatrical culture was innovative, and left behind a vital legacy" (155). Despite the extensive blue pencil marks on play scripts throughout the nineteenth century, the chapters in this volume attest to that vital legacy.

Cartoon Censorship?

"When Cultures Collide: Observers around the world tell TIME how they view the cartoons--and the controversy they've sparked." Time 13 Feb. 2006: 48. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 6 Oct. 2010.

Document URL
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/MagazinesDetailsPage/MagazinesDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Magazines&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CA141687244&mode=view&userGroupName=chsd&jsid=75272541a9451396166ca124933981a8

This article is about a series of cartoons that were published in Denmark that many people found extremely offensive to Muslims. The article addresses both sides of the argument about whether or not these cartoons should have been censored. People from all over the world share their opinion on the cartoons and freedom of speech, as well as censorship in media. 

FLEMMING ROSE Culture editor of Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, who commissioned the drawings

In mid-September a Danish author went on the record as saying he had problems finding illustrators for a book about the life of the Prophet Muhammad. The [eventual] illustrator insisted on anonymity. Translators of a book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali Dutch politician who has been critical of Islam, also insisted on anonymity. Then the Tate Britain in London removed an installation called God Is Great, which shows the Talmud, the Koran and the Bible embedded in a piece of glass. To me, all those spoke to the problems of self-censorship and freedom of speech, and that's why I wrote to 40 Danish cartoonists asking them to depict Muhammad as they see him.
Some of the cartoons turned out to be caricatures because this is just in the Danish tradition. We make fun of the Queen, we make fun of politicians, we make fun of more or less everything. Of course, we didn't expect this kind of reaction, but I am sorry if some Muslims feel insulted. This was not directed at Muslims. I wanted to put this issue of self-censorship on the agenda and have a debate about it.

SAMIA AL-DUAIJ Kuwaiti oil executive living in Belgium after two years in Denmark
These pictures aren't blasphemous, they're racist. I'm a very liberal Kuwaiti woman who cracks the odd joke about Islam, but I was extremely offended by these cartoons because I know what kind of society produced them. I am well educated and had a high-paying corporate job in Denmark, but I was still subjected to derogatory comments all the time because I look Middle Eastern. Every single second-generation Muslim Dane I met wanted to get the hell out. Why? They say, "We grew up here, but we feel unwelcome. We can't get jobs." Perhaps it's the same feeling that Jews felt at the time of the Nazis or black people in the U.S. in the '50s. It's just not funny. And I'm not even remotely religious.
But I have one question for the thousands of outraged Muslims. America kills thousands of Muslims, and you lose your head and withdraw ambassadors over a bunch of cartoons printed in a second-rate paper in a Nordic country with a population of 5 million? That's the true outrage.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ Harvard law professor
The U.S. news media, by refusing to run these cartoons, are giving in to intellectual and religious terrorism. A separate standard is being applied here out of fear of physical retaliation. Whatever is fair to say about one group must be fair to say about another. The European papers are doing the right thing. They're being courageous. It is in the public's interest to see these cartoons that are causing so much outrage. When you see them, you see the extent of the overreaction. They are not nearly as bad as cartoons that routinely run in the Muslim media against Jews, Christians, the U.S. and Israel.

HABIB DRIOUCH Network engineer and second-generation French citizen of Moroccan origin
I consider myself 100% French. I believe in freedom of speech. The newspapers had the right to do what they did, but that does not mean they were right to do it. I would never go into a church or synagogue and start blasting music or yelling. It would be an insult. This is the same thing. The cartoons are dangerous in that they portray all Muslims as terrorists. One bad apple does not ruin the bunch. Extremists from both sides are going to use this to push their own agendas. With all the tension in the world right now, I really don't see why these journalists had to behave this way. What have they gained from this? Nothing.

JACK SHAFER Media critic, Slate
I've seen evangelical comics in the U.S. that make the minor blasphemy of the cartoon in Denmark seem like nothing. They ridicule the Prophet and all Muslim beliefs. But I defend the rights of the cartoonist. I think that if there's a free press, there's a right to commit blasphemy. If you cannot criticize or express an opinion about a religion in the modern era, we're in serious trouble.

ABOUBAKR JAMAI Editor of the Moroccan weeklies Assahifa al-Ousbouia and Le Journal Hebdomadaire
People are really hurt. You cannot analyze what is unfolding without putting the cartoons in the context of Iraq and Palestine. The cartoons are adding insult to injury. Not only are you invading and robbing our lands, you are insulting our faith. But let me say this and repeat it again and again: I am completely against banning these newspapers. People have the right not to read the newspapers. We don't need to shut them down, and we certainly don't need to kill people. Some people are reacting as if the way to protect Islam is to ban these things--like if you are exposed to too many cartoons, you'll become a Christian or an atheist. But faith is something you renew every day. You are exposed to things you do not like and keep your faith.

YASMIN ALIBHAI-BROWN Ugandan-born liberal Muslim columnist based in London
If they wanted to provoke a reaction, that reaction has been provoked. But when you're free, you have to live with the consequences of your words. The other European papers that reprinted the cartoons have the right to do so, but it's adolescent, like picking a fight in a pub.
I am deeply affronted by the link made between Muslims' faith and violence. If the cartoonists had shown a real terrorist with a bomb on his head, I wouldn't care less, but why should my faith be portrayed in this way? More Muslims' deaths are caused by the violence of Western politics than Muslims are responsible for causing. Using the freedom-of-expression argument, Europe has found yet another way of telling us we are not wanted, we do not belong. And I hate it.

ANDREI SIMANTJUNTAK Member of Indonesia's centrist Islamic Prosperous Justice Party
Why do you have to insult somebody to assert freedom of the press? Even if the Prophet were portrayed in a glorious light, it would still be insulting. Reprinting the cartoons is even more reprehensible. This is pushing moderate Muslims to the fringes and is like pouring alcohol on a wound. It shows there is some serious resentment out there toward Muslims.

TARIQ RAMADAN Swiss Muslim scholar and visiting fellow at Oxford University
Both sides are exaggerating. While it's true that the picture of the Prophet is strictly forbidden, Muslims have to understand that there is an old tradition in secular Western society to make fun of everything. To react emotionally is excessive. It is no longer a debate; it is a power struggle. We have to calm down. We don't want laws preventing people from being free to speak. But we should also not forget wisdom and decency when we are dealing with people. Democracy isn't just a legal framework. It is about respecting one another

 

 

Government Censorship Would Be Harmful

Source Citation:

"Government Censorship Would Be Harmful." Censorship. Ed. Kate Burns. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Contemporary Issues Companion. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 5 Oct. 2010.

Document URL
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010266217&mode=view&userGroupName=chsd&jsid=9b7842212188b074eb14a3bc507d40d4

Gale Document Number: GALE|EJ3010266217

 

This article is about how government censorship should not be allowed. It goes in-depth with explaining how there is no correlation between violence shown on tv and how it affects its viewers. It also analyzes how the first amendment affects censorship and what living in a free society really means. 

 

Government Censorship Would Be Harmful

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a national organization that works to defend and preserve the individual rights guaranteed to all Americans by the U.S. Constitution. In the following selection, the ACLU argues that government censorship poses a much greater threat to society than any controversial images of sex or violence in art and entertainment. According to the organization, studies conducted on the potentially harmful effects of sex and violence in the media have produced no conclusive evidence. Furthermore, the authors warn, once the government is given the power to censor some types of entertainment, it will become increasingly difficult to determine where such censorship should stop. The appropriate way to handle offensive material in a democracy is to exercise the right to freedom of speech to explain why the material is objectionable, the ACLU contends.

In the late 1980s, state prosecutors brought a criminal obscenity charge against the owner of a record store for selling an album by the rap group, 2 Live Crew. Although this was the first time that obscenity charges had ever been brought against song lyrics, the 2 Live Crew case focused the nation's attention on an old question: should the government ever have the authority to dictate to its citizens what they may or may not listen to, read, or watch?

To Censor, or Not to Censor?

American society has always been deeply ambivalent about this question. On the one hand, our history is filled with examples of overt government censorship, from the 1873 Comstock Law to the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Anthony Comstock, head of the Society for the Suppression of Vice, boasted 194,000 "questionable pictures" and 134,000 pounds of books of "improper character" were destroyed under the Comstock Law—in the first year alone. The Communications Decency Act imposed an unconstitutional censorship scheme on the Internet, accurately described by a federal judge as "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed."
On the other hand, the commitment to freedom of imagination and expression is deeply embedded in our national psyche, buttressed by the First Amendment, and supported by a long line of Supreme Court decisions.
Provocative and controversial art and in-your-face entertainment put our commitment to free speech to the test. Why should we oppose censorship when scenes of murder and mayhem dominate the TV screen, when works of art can be seen as a direct insult to people's religious beliefs, and when much sexually explicit material can be seen as degrading to women? Why not let the majority's morality and taste dictate what others can look at or listen to?
The answer is simple, and timeless: a free society is based on the principle that each and every individual has the right to decide what art or entertainment he or she wants—or does not want—to receive or create. Once you allow the government to censor someone else, you cede to it the power to censor you, or something you like. Censorship is like poison gas: a powerful weapon that can harm you when the wind shifts.
Freedom of expression for ourselves requires freedom of expression for others. It is at the very heart of our democracy.

Sexual Speech

Sex in art and entertainment is the most frequent target of censorship crusades. Many examples come to mind. A painting of the classical statue of Venus de Milo was removed from a store because the managers of the shopping mall found its semi-nudity "too shocking." Hundreds of works of literature, from Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings to John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, have been banned from public schools based on their sexual content.
A museum director was charged with a crime for including sexually explicit photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe in an art exhibit.
American law is, on the whole, the most speech-protective in the world—but sexual expression is treated as a second-class citizen. No causal link between exposure to sexually explicit material and anti-social or violent behavior has ever been scientifically established, in spite of many efforts to do so. Rather, the Supreme Court has allowed censorship of sexual speech on moral grounds—a remnant of our nation's Puritan heritage.
This does not mean that all sexual expression can be censored, however. Only a narrow range of "obscene" material can be suppressed; a term like "pornography" has no legal meaning. Nevertheless, even the relatively narrow obscenity exception serves as a vehicle for abuse by government authorities as well as pressure groups who want to impose their personal moral views on other people.

Media Violence

Today's calls for censorship are not motivated solely by morality and taste, but also by the widespread belief that exposure to images of violence causes people to act in destructive ways. Pro-censorship forces, including many politicians, often cite a multitude of "scientific studies" that allegedly prove fictional violence leads to real-life violence.
There is, in fact, virtually no evidence that fictional violence causes otherwise stable people to become violent. And if we suppressed material based on the actions of unstable people, no work of fiction or art would be safe from censorship. Serial killer Theodore Bundy collected cheerleading magazines. And the work most often cited by psychopaths as justification for their acts of violence is the Bible.
But what about the rest of us? Does exposure to media violence actually lead to criminal or anti-social conduct by otherwise stable people, including children, who spend an average of 28 hours watching television each week? These are important questions. If there really were a clear cause-and-effect relationship between what normal children see on TV and harmful actions, then limits on such expression might arguably be warranted.
Studies on the relationship between media violence and real violence are the subject of considerable debate. Children have been shown TV programs with violent episodes in a laboratory setting and then tested for "aggressive" behavior. Some of these studies suggest that watching TV violence may temporarily induce "object aggression" in some children (such as popping balloons or hitting dolls or playing sports more aggressively) but not actual criminal violence against another person.
Correlational studies that seek to explain why some aggressive people have a history of watching a lot of violent TV suffer from the chicken-and-egg dilemma: does violent TV cause such people to behave aggressively, or do aggressive people simply prefer more violent entertainment? There is no definitive answer. But all scientists agree that statistical correlations between two phenomena do not mean that one causes the other.
International comparisons are no more helpful. Japanese TV and movies are famous for their extreme, graphic violence, but Japan has a very low crime rate—much lower than many societies in which television watching is relatively rare. What the studies reveal on the issue of fictional violence and real world aggression is—not much.
The only clear assertion that can be made is that the relationship between art and human behavior is a very complex one. Violent and sexually explicit art and entertainment have been a staple of human cultures from time immemorial. Many human behavioralists believe that these themes have a useful and constructive societal role, serving as a vicarious outlet for individual aggression.

What Does Artistic Freedom Include?

The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment's protection of artistic expression very broadly. It extends not only to books, theatrical works and paintings, but also to posters, television, music videos and comic books—whatever the human creative impulse produces.
Two fundamental principles come into play whenever a court must decide a case involving freedom of expression. The first is "content neutrality"—the government cannot limit expression just because any listener, or even the majority of a community, is offended by its content. In the context of art and entertainment, this means tolerating some works that we might find offensive, insulting, outrageous—or just plain bad.
The second principle is that expression may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest. The classic example is falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede. Even then, the speech may be silenced or punished only if there is no other way to avert the harm.
Whatever influence fictional violence has on behavior, most experts believe its effects are marginal compared to other factors. Even small children know the difference between fiction and reality, and their attitudes and behavior are shaped more by their life circumstances than by the books they read or the TV they watch. In 1972, the U.S. Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior released a 200-page report, "Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence," which concluded, "The effect [of television] is small compared with many other possible causes, such as parental attitudes or knowledge of and experience with the real violence of our society." Twenty-one years later, the American Psychological Association published its 1993 report, "Violence & Youth," and concluded, "The greatest predictor of future violent behavior is a previous history of violence." In 1995, the Center for Communication Policy at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) which monitors TV violence, came to a similar conclusion in its yearly report: "It is known that television does not have a simple, direct stimulus-response effect on its audiences."
Blaming the media does not get us very far, and, to the extent that diverts the public's attention from the real causes of violence in society, it may do more harm than good.
A pro-censorship member of Congress once attacked the following shows for being too violent: The Miracle Worker, Civil War Journal, Star Trek 9, The Untouchables, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. What would be left if all these kinds of programs were purged from the airwaves? Is there good violence and bad violence? If so, who decides? Sports and the news are at least as violent as fiction, from the fights that erupt during every televised hockey game, to the videotaped beating of Rodney King by the LA Police Department, shown over and over again on prime time TV. If we accept censorship of violence in the media, we will have to censor sports and news programs.

Individual Rights, Individual Decisions

The First Amendment is based upon the belief that in a free and democratic society, individual adults must be free to decide for themselves what to read, write, paint, draw, see and hear. If we are disturbed by images of violence or sex, we can change the channel, turn off the TV, and decline to go to certain movies or museum exhibits.
We can also exercise our own free speech rights by voicing our objections to forms of expression that we don't like. Justice Louis Brandeis' advice that the remedy for messages we disagree with or dislike in art, entertainment or politics is "more speech, not enforced silence," is as true today as it was when given in 1927.
Further, we can exercise our prerogative as parents without resorting to censorship. Devices now exist that make it possible to block access to specific TV programs and internet sites. Periodicals that review books, recordings, and films can help parents determine what they feel is appropriate for their youngsters. Viewing decisions can, and should, be made at home, without government interference.