The Television Is Coming For Your Children!

Senator Jay Rockefeller, hailing from the peace-loving state of West Virginia, believes that the programming on your television is too violent. And nothing– not even the first amendment– will stop him from trying to protect you from that television.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said he will push legislation in the coming weeks to limit violent content in the media.

“I fear that graphic violent programming has become so pervasive and has been shown to be so harmful, we are left with no choice but to have the government step in,” Rockefeller said at a meeting of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

“To be blunt, the big media companies have placed a greater emphasis on their corporate short-term profits than on the long-term health and well-being of our children,” Rockefeller said.

If Jay Rockefeller really wants to help the long-term health and well-being of the child my wife is expecting in two months, he’ll lower my taxes enough to make it possible for me to afford to keep that child out of the public education system. I’d prefer he leave the choices of what to watch on TV to me. I’ll take care of my children, I don’t need to government to do it for me. I’ve got enough problems paying for and dealing with the government’s current intrusions into my life, the last thing I need is a new one.

Ted Stevens, who’s never met an unconstitutional federal dollar he didn’t try to shove in his pocket and take to Alaska, somehow decided today was the day to fight for free speech. My guess is that he’d be right on board if Rockefeller had an R after his name instead of a D.

“I think we have to tread a lot softer than you indicate,” Stevens said. He said he was concerned about First Amendment implications of any legislation and the possibility that Congress might overreach and pass a law that would be invalidated in court.

One of the heads of Fox came out to do some damage control. He knew that he was in a room full of people who don’t care about the Constitution, so he tried to play the spin game. I’d hate to remind him that they don’t care about results or causal links either, it’s all about political pandering anyway:

Witnesses at the hearing included Peter Liguori, president of entertainment for Fox Broadcasting Co., which produces the show “24.”

Liguori said that there was “no causal link” between television violence and violence in young people, an issue that has been hotly debated. “Without a causal link, we cannot justify imposing content limits on our media,” he said.

Personally, I’d say that without a Constitutional amendment, we can’t justify it… But that’s just me.

Instead, if this passes, we’ll have a blatantly unconstitutional law. And like many laws passed purely to placate sensibilities, it’s about as clear as mud.

One thing the FCC did not do in its report was define the meaning of “excessively violent programming that is harmful to children” which would be at the core of any legislative initiative.

Ahh, I love it when they talk vaguely. It makes me never know whether I’m breaking the law… That gets the adrenaline flowing!

  • Radical Times

    I agree, congrats Brad!