Don't Touch That V-Chip: A Constitutional Defense of the Television Program Rating Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996

Georgetown Law Journal

Volumn 87, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 823-

  Ryan, Amy Fitzgerald ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347507617     PISSN: 00168092     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. William J. Clinton, Text of the State of the Union Address, WASH. POST, Jan. 24, 1996, at A13.
2. 47 U.S.C. § 303 (West Supp. 1998).
3. See, e.g., Paul Farhi & John F. Harris, TV Industry Agrees to Use Rating System, WASH. POST, Feb. 29, 1996, at A1 (noting that the industry's development of a rating system was made "[u]nder pressure from Washington").
4. See id.
5. See Lawrie Mifflin, TV Networks Plan Ratings System, ORANGE COUNTY REG., Feb. 15, 1996, at A1 (noting that the television industry adopted the rating system in an effort to preempt the government from adopting such a system). See also Government's Role in Television Programming: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight of Gov't Mgmt., Restructuring and the Dist. of Columbia of the Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs, 105th Cong. 3 (1997) [hereinafter Television Programming Hearings] (statement of Jeffrey I. Cole, Director, UCLA Center for Comm. Policy). Mr. Cole states that rather than have the government intrude, the television industry voluntarily agreed to develop a rating system. See id.
6. See Lawrie Mifflin, TV Networks Plan Ratings System, ORANGE COUNTY REG., Feb. 15, 1996, at A1 (noting that the television industry adopted the rating system in an effort to preempt the government from adopting such a system). See also Government's Role in Television Programming: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight of Gov't Mgmt., Restructuring and the Dist. of Columbia of the Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs, 105th Cong. 3 (1997) [hereinafter Television Programming Hearings] (statement of Jeffrey I. Cole, Director, UCLA Center for Comm. Policy). Mr. Cole states that rather than have the government intrude, the television industry voluntarily agreed to develop a rating system. See id.
7. See, e.g., Lawrie Mifflin, Senator Tells Networks to Revamp New Ratings, N.Y. TIMES, June 4, 1997, at C13. Peggy Binzel, Senior Vice President for Government Relations at the Fox network's parent company, notes that "[s]ome feel . . . this . . . [is] . . . not voluntary and leads down a road to censorship." Id. See also Steven D. Feldman, Essay, The V-Chip: Protecting Children from Violence or Doing Violence to the Constitution?, 39 How. L.J. 587 (1996) (analyzing First Amendment implications of the V-chip legislation, and concluding that it violates the First Amendment because it is not the most narrowly tailored means of achieving a compelling governmental interest).
8. See, e.g., Lawrie Mifflin, Senator Tells Networks to Revamp New Ratings, N.Y. TIMES, June 4, 1997, at C13. Peggy Binzel, Senior Vice President for Government Relations at the Fox network's parent company, notes that "[s]ome feel . . . this . . . [is] . . . not voluntary and leads down a road to censorship." Id. See also Steven D. Feldman, Essay, The V-Chip: Protecting Children from Violence or Doing Violence to the Constitution?, 39 How. L.J. 587 (1996) (analyzing First Amendment implications of the V-chip legislation, and concluding that it violates the First Amendment because it is not the most narrowly tailored means of achieving a compelling governmental interest).