Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, March 13, 1993 TAG: 9303130217
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
FCC CHIEF: TV VIOLENCE NEEDS LIMIT
Government officials receive more complaints about television violence than indecency, but can do little more than make speeches condemning it, the head of the Federal Communications Commission says.James Quello, the FCC's interim chairman, said that's why he supports a consumer group's push for federal laws that would limit the amount of violence on television, especially during children's viewing hours.
Americans for Responsible Television is launching a letter-writing and petition campaign and plans visits to Capitol Hill to lobby for the legislation.
"Congress and the courts have put restrictions on indecent material on network television and we think the violence is just as obscene," Terry Rakolta, the group's founder and director, said Friday.
Americans for Responsible Television describes itself as a non-profit, citizens advocacy group funded through direct mail. Rakolta said the group is "not religiously oriented" or tied to any political party.
"She's on a kick here," Quello said of Rakolta. "I think she's on a good one." He said the commission is basically powerless to do anything about TV violence:
"All we can do is mention in a speech that Hollywood and cable and the networks are actually flooding the airwaves with too many violent programs and some of these kids are starting to imitate the violence they see on television."
Quello acknowledged that any attempt to regulate TV violence in the public interest could ultimately clash with First Amendment rights.
"How far should First Amendment rights extend if they are actually harming the public interest?" he asked. "There's a conflict there, and I think the public interest has to prevail."
The FCC bars the broadcast of obscene material at all times. The courts have ruled that indecent programming could be restricted to hours when children are usually not watching but that a 24-hour ban violates freedom of expression.