STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. MCDOWELL
Re: In the Matter of Violent Television Programming and Its Impact on Children, 
Report to Congress
As the father of three young children, I am deeply concerned about the coarsening 
of television content and the effects of television violence on children.  As a society, we 
should do all that the law allows to help shield our children from harmful television 
content.  Today’s Report is a response to Congress’ 2004 request that the FCC provide a 
comprehensive summary and analysis of the factual and legal landscape surrounding this 
issue.  Although I would have preferred a more thorough study, I support this Report as a
well-intentioned, if not complete, first step toward launching a new national dialogue on 
this important matter.  The Report provides a helpful summary of the social science 
research regarding the effects of exposure to violence in the media on the behavior of 
children.  It provides a preliminary discussion of the effectiveness of the TV ratings 
system and blocking technologies and of the issues regarding how government may 
define violence for regulatory purposes.  
Congress may wish to build upon what the Commission has started by digging 
deeper into the issues we raise today.  For instance, further discussion should probe into 
many areas by better researching the answers to many important questions, including: 
· What additional actions can parents take to protect their children?
· How can industry and government help educate parents regarding their 
options?
· How effective are screening and content selection technologies that are 
currently available to families? and 
· What constitutional challenges lie ahead should Congress and the 
Commission decide to enact and implement a new anti-violence regime?
In my view, the next step should be to review fully the screening and content 
selection tools parents currently have and find ways that industry and government can 
help educate parents regarding those options.  Parents should be the first and last line of 
defense in protecting their children from excessively violent content, or any other content 
that may cause harm to children.  Unfortunately, today’s Report does not sufficiently 
brief Congress on the full range of tools available or what can be done to mobilize 
parents in this pursuit. I hope that our Report does not lull some into thinking that 
government action alone is the answer to the television violence pandemic. By itself, 
government action would be an insufficient cure.  Even if Congress were able to enact 
flawlessly worded legislation that enjoyed perfect enforcement, parents play the most 
important role in deciding what is appropriate for their families.  While government can 
and should do all that it can to protect children, parents should not shirk their primary 
responsibility to be actively engaged in their upbringing.
2
Fortunately, today’s parents have at their disposal more choices in parental 
controls and blocking technologies than ever before.  Never have parents been more 
empowered to choose what their children should and should not watch.  Since January 
2000, as required by Congress, all TV sets with screens 13 inches or larger come 
equipped with the V-chip, which allows parents to block programs based on the TV 
rating assigned to those programs.  Cable operators provide parental controls in both their 
analog and digital set-top boxes, with more advanced controls in the digital boxes.  DBS 
subscribers have access to parental controls that allow blocking by channel, by program, 
by time and/or by TV rating.  Tivo offers KidsZone, a tool that combines editorial 
recommendations from experts with technology for parents to select the shows they want 
their children to watch.  Moreover, all consumers have an unprecedented amount of 
control over what they watch and when they watch it through DVDs, programs that are 
downloadable from websites and through time-shifting technologies such as digital video 
recorders. 
As discussed in the Report, however, research has shown that while the vast 
majority of parents are concerned about violent content on TV, very few of them use 
most parental controls.  It seems that many parents do not have sufficient knowledge 
about these technologies, and about the TV ratings system, to use parental controls 
effectively.  Industry and government should encourage additional consumer education 
so that parents can learn about the tools available to them.  Campaigns aimed at educating 
parents, such as thetvboss.org and pauseparentplay.org, are a great start.  Their websites 
provide detailed practical information about the V-chip, cable and satellite controls and 
TV ratings, among other things.  Also, groups like Common Sense Media and the Parents 
Television Council offer reviews of TV shows and movies to help provide guidance to 
parents.  More needs to be done, however, to make a connection between parental 
concerns about content inappropriate for their children and parental use of tools that will 
help them make and enforce their programming choices.  I strongly encourage the private 
sector and public interest groups to continue their work in this pursuit. 
Meanwhile, even though the market is developing and promoting technological 
solutions that may help parents control the television content that their children view, 
Congress still may deem it necessary to place statutory restrictions on the broadcast of 
excessively violent content.  The Commission would be remiss if it did not underscore to 
Congress that such a voyage, although noble in its goal, will lead us through uncharted 
constitutional waters.  I am disappointed that this Report does not provide more than a 
cursory mention of these important legal issues.  It fails to illuminate a path for Congress 
to follow in order to safely avoid what legal pitfalls may lie ahead.  Should Congress
pursue the laudable endeavor of protecting America’s children from excessive television 
violence through new statutory mandates, it should first take the step of seeking 
additional constitutional legal advice.  Any action should be conducted in a prudent 
manner that withstands constitutional muster.  The 39 House members who directed us to 
conduct our inquiry demanded as much when they asked the Commission specifically to 
address in this Report the “constitutional limitations” in defining “excessively violent 
programming that is harmful to children” or in “constraining or prohibiting broadcast of 
3
such material during hours when children are likely to be a significant or part of the 
broadcast viewing audience.” I fear that our Report may fall short of their request.
Additionally, this Report briefly outlines court decisions upholding the 
Commission’s authority to regulate the broadcast of indecent content by restricting the 
airing of such content during certain hours.  I note that the brief constitutional discussion
in the Report focuses solely on the regulation of broadcast television.  Other possible 
mandates mentioned in the Report, such as requiring MVPDs to provide channels on 
family tiers or on an à la carte basis, would require the regulation of non-broadcast 
entities, possibly cable operators, DBS providers and other MVPDs.  Accordingly, before 
Congress adopts any of these possible mandates, I suggest that Congress seek analysis of 
such regulation under the applicable constitutional standard. Potential Congressional 
action against television violence based upon our Report should only be considered in the
limited context of broadcasting because the Commission has not offered sufficient legal 
analysis to support broader regulation.
In sum, I support this Report and hope that it is helpful to Congress.  This is only 
the first step in what I hope will be a comprehensive study of governmental options to 
inform the national debate over television violence.  The governmental interest at stake –
protecting children from excessively violent television programming – is powerful, of 
course.  Nonetheless, historically, courts have balanced similar interests against the First 
Amendment rights of broadcasters with mixed results.  As our experience with the
indecency laws has shown, enforcement of such regulations involves the difficult task of 
defining the inappropriate content and then applying that definition in the context of 
specific programming.  Defining excessive violence in a legally sustainable way and 
applying that definition will be at least as difficult.  As recent tragedies have reminded us, 
we live in an often violent world.  News reports, documentaries and other television 
programs must address violent topics, almost by necessity, which makes defining 
excessive violence that much more difficult.  While we should encourage Congress’ 
further examination of this issue, having a new statutory regime regulating television 
violence overturned by the courts on constitutional grounds only would undermine the 
very crusade against television violence that any prospective legislation may intend to 
address.  Such a defeat could set back the cause for years.  In the meantime, as a society,
we should do all that we can to achieve our goal through all available means.  Our 
children deserve no less.