NCJ Number
160249
Date Published
1995
Length
3 pages
Annotation
Many people who assume that television violence causes violence in society favor censoring television, but censorship would be an ineffective and harmful measure that would threaten Americans' right to free speech.
Abstract
Back in the 1950's, Senator Estes Kefauver led a crusade against comic books. He held hearings to bully the comic book industry into "doing something" about the problem of crime comics and comics-inspired juvenile delinquency. Comics, it was argued, were uniquely pervasive and uncontrollable by parents. In response, the industry created the Comics Code, which wiped out all adult comics. An entire genre, the serious graphic novel, was destroyed, the good with the bad. In the name of children, and a small minority of violent children at that, the freedom of nonviolent adults to read, write, draw, and publish was terminated. The critics of television violence have adopted the same strategy. Some, like the National Coalition on Television Violence, are ideological pacifists. Some, like Pat Buchanan or Michael Medved, are conservatives at war with popular culture. Some, like Terry Rakolta of Michigan, are "meddlesome moms." The motives and ideologies of those who advocate censorship are varied, but all seek to use the "official violence" of government power to wipe out ideas and images they do not like. They argue that those ideas and images inspire violence and crimes. So do love and hate, religion and politics, and even national sports championships. We should not sacrifice the artistic and commercial freedom of the many to the violent acts or political posturing of the few.