Book community decries effort to rein in media violence as censorship

By Cheryl Arvidson
The Freedom Forum Online

11.30.00

Printer-friendly page

WASHINGTON — A coalition of groups representing journalists, authors, book publishers, booksellers and librarians expressed concern yesterday about growing pressure to censor free speech as a way to deal with violence in society.

In a joint statement, seven groups representing all facets of the book community warned that the various "solutions" being proposed by lawmakers in Washington involve government regulation of content or government pressure to force the media to self-censor. These actions "would extract an unacceptably high price in terms of eroding our fundamental guarantees of free expression," the groups said.

The statement was signed by the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, the Association of American Publishers, the Association of American University Presses, the Authors Guild, the Freedom to Read Foundation and PEN American Center.

However legitimate the concerns are about violence in society, "the proposed cures are worse than the illness," the joint statement said. "Censorship is not the answer to violence in society. The root causes of violence in society lie beyond violent portrayals by the media."

The seven groups said they were issuing the statement because there is growing pressure to impose restrictions on the entertainment media — including films, television, music and video games — and communications on the Internet as a way to deal with an increasingly violent society. Those proposals are based on the "widespread assumption of a causal link between violent media and violent behavior," the statement said.

But that purported link is being "seriously questioned" in a number of circles because existing research does not support that contention, the groups said.

"(T)he search for solutions must go beyond facile censorship initiatives, which inevitably compromise our fundamental freedom of expression, and instead seek out and attack these root causes. The problem is complex; so, too, are its solutions. There is no 'quick fix,' and we deceive ourselves if we embrace the view that stifling the media messenger will blot out the sometimes disturbing messages it conveys," the statement said.

In addition, the groups said, it is not the proper role of government "to evaluate the merits of expression" because no individual or group, "let alone a governmental body, possesses the wisdom to separate 'good' from 'bad' speech."

"Judgments as to what constitutes 'good' versus 'bad' portrayals of violence often tell us more about the sensibilities or politics of the critic than about the 'intrinsic worth' of the expression," the groups said.

"Portrayals of violence in the media reflect a violent world," the statement said. " Before we too quickly condemn media portrayals of violence, we must ask ourselves the degree to which they mirror life experience. One need only turn on the nightly news to be reminded of the pervasiveness of violence in our society."

In the end, the groups said, it falls to individuals, not the government, to determine what materials are appropriate for themselves and their children.

"Parents must play the primary role in shaping their children's media choices, and they must prepare their children for the wide range of material and information to which they will be exposed in a free society," the groups said. "The answer to perceived gratuitous violence or demeaning portrayals in the media is not the heavy hand of government censorship, but the conscious control of one's (and one's children's) consumption and choices.

"The freedom to read, watch and listen also entails the privilege not to do any of these and to discourage or prohibit one's children from reading, watching or listening to particular materials — at all or in excess. If the media misread the degree of public interest in or tolerance for particular fare — violent or otherwise — surely the swiftest way for the public to get that message across in our free-market economy is at the box office, the book or record store or via the channel selector of a television set."

Related

Atmosphere ripe for further regulation of broadcast media, say panelists
Participants say federal government is moving toward content, other restrictions on media in effort to control real-world acts of violence.  10.25.00

FTC to Congress: First Amendment would limit media-violence crackdown
Lawmakers should consider legislative remedies only if entertainment industry fails to step up self-regulation efforts, commission says.  11.22.00

Senate committee passes bill to restrict TV violence
Measure would limit violent programs to times when children do not make up large part of viewing audience.  09.21.00

Movie executive admits 'lapse' in judgment
Angry senators question Mel Harris, president of Sony, other officials about industry marketing practices during committee hearing today.  09.27.00