Violence in the Media

Violence in the Media
Over the last 4 decades, it has been observed that violence found in media and electronic entertainment have a direct relation to aggressions found in children and in society. In February 2009, Paul Boxer, a Rutgers University researcher published a study that showed interesting evidence to support the theory. The difference with Boxer’s study and studies done previously was that Boxer and his colleagues took into account the external factors that may cause aggression within society. After collecting data in the field, he (and his colleagues) determined that “Even in conjunction with other factors, our research shows that media violence does enhance violent behavior,” Boxer states. “On average, adolescents who were not exposed to violent media are not as prone to violent behavior.” (Capizzi, 2008).

But what does this mean? If studies determine that there is a definite correlation, what is the solution? Well, this is where the problem really arises. Who determines what inappropriate media is? As an educator my job is to protect children in every aspect, every day. When thinking about violence and the role that it plays in my students’ lives, it is very hard to think objectively!

The Federal Communication Commission is the government agency that oversees broadcasted media. Responding to the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show “accident” Commissioner Michael Copps writes, “In the past, the Commission too often addressed indecency complaints with little discussion or analysis, relying instead on generalized pronouncements… (However) The U.S. Surgeon General, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and countless other medical and scientific organizations that have studied this issue have reached the same conclusion: exposure to graphic and excessive media violence has harmful effects on the physical and mental health of our children. We need to complete this proceeding” (FCC, 2006).

The American Library Association and other similar organizations look at the situation in a different light. In a document entitled “Violence in the Media: A Joint Statement” they write: The undersigned organizations, whose members represent a broad cross-section of the book community in America, believe that concerns being expressed over portrayals of violence in the media, including films, television, music, and video games, as well as communication via the Internet, are generating demands for action that threaten core First Amendment freedoms (ALA, 2009). Although the document does not deny that there is a possible problem with violence directly related to media, it does state that the solutions are worse than the problem itself. The statement makes the following points:
· Censorship is not the answer to violence in society.
· The First Amendment protects the widest range of expression.
· It is not properly the role of the government to evaluate merits of expression.
· Evaluating the worth of expression is subjective.
· Portrayals of violence in the media reflect a violent world. Book authors, publishers, booksellers and librarians, along with those engaged in creating and distributing other media, strive to enrich the quality and diversity of thought and expression.
· Individuals, not the government, bear responsibility for determining what materials are appropriate for themselves and their children (ALA, 2009).

So if the government of the United States should not be involved, then who? Should significant research be ignored? If government is infringing on first amendment rights to stop the production of media containing violent images and language, should they still be able to publicly oppose the media… and more importantly, counsel citizens on determining what is appropriate for children? Because there is no clear cut answer, the logical thing to do is to use good judgment.

References:

"ALA International Sustainable Library Development Interest Group," American Library
Association,.http://www.ala.org/template.cfm?section=endorsements&template=/contentmanagement/contentdisplay.cfm&contentid=32051 (Accessed June 08, 2009)

Capizzi, C. (2008). Rutgers Researcher’s Study Cites Media Violence as ‘Critical Risk Factor’
for Aggression. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from Rutgers Media Relations Web site http://news.rutgers.edu/medrel/news-releases/2008/11/rutgers-researcher20-20081118

Federal Communication Commission (2006, February). Complaints Against Various Television
Licenses Concerning Their February 1, 2004 Broadcast of the Super Bowl XXXVIII Halftime Show (File No. EB-04-IH-0011). Retrieved June 7, 2009, from Web site http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-17A3.pdf

Intellectual Freedom: Schools and the Children's Internet Protection Act

The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was passed by Congress in 2000 to “protect” minors from certain objectionable material available on the internet. Under its mandates, schools and libraries that receive E-rate funding, LSTA grants, and ESEA Title III funds must establish filtering technology on their computers. Considering the amount of inappropriate information accessible on the internet, CIPA appears to be a law that is necessary and useful in keeping children safe.

The technology protection is intended to block or filter only material that visually depicts obscene material that can be harmful to children. However, there is currently no filtering technology that will block out only illegal content, and it is instead blocking out access to constitutionally protected materials. In fact, in my own public school, students recent research based searches blocked articles lending information on “steroid use”, “medical marijuana,” and even “Madonna.” Obviously these are topics that are not harmful. Hence, the ALA and many other vigilante groups are challenging CIPA as unconstitutional.

Not only does CIPA deny our first amendment rights, it also seems to be in direct conflict with the Library Bill of Rights, which allows free access to resources and services in school libraries. The ALA interprets Article V of the Library Bill of Rights to say; “The 'right to use a library' includes free access to, and unrestricted use of, all the services, materials, and facilities the library has to offer. Every restriction on access to, and use of, library resources, based solely on the chronological age, educational level, literacy skills, or legal emancipation of users violates Article V.” Libraries, both public and school, have a duty to provide and allow, not deny, their patrons access to information.

CIPA leaves librarians no choice but to defy their own bill of rights, while at the same time denying their patrons their rights as American citizens. A casual study conducted by Julia Aiken (2007) reported that over 50% of libraries are not conforming to Article 5. One cannot help but ask if perhaps this Library Bill of Rights is non-applicable to our internet –based society. However, to allow librarians to control information presented to children gives them parental responsibilities that they are not inclined to hold. Even in the situation we are in now, where most parents are working and cannot monitor their children’s computer use, it should not fall in the librarians hands.

School libraries follow a separate set of circumstances. Children are entrusted to staff daily, and are expected to receive a full, appropriate education while at school. Therefore teachers and school librarians may hold more responsibility in the decisions of students. However, denying information is still unacceptable. Why can't teachers and librarians simply monitor student computer use? I would hope that any good educator knows what their students are doing in their classrooms. If the student is not acting appropriately (which in this case means going to non-approved websites) they would receive the same reprimand as if they were writing a note to a friend in class.

Although the idea behind it – to protect children – is clearly one that is held in high esteem, it is undemocratic. The freedom to access information is covered by freedom of expression, one of our basic human rights. These constitutional rights are not dismissed when students enter a school, regardless of school board decisions. The fourteenth amendment protects citizens from the state when a decision clearly denies guaranteed rights. A situation denying freedom of expression should easily be decided in this manner. However, our national government is contradicting itself with CIPA. It’s a mess of stipulations; of course keeping children safe is important, but so are our freedoms.


Aiken, J. (Sept. 2007). Outdated and irrelevant? Rethinking the Library Bill of Rights. Does it work in the real world? . American Libraries, 38(8), 3.
"ALA Intellectual Freedom Issues," American Library Association, .http://www.ala.org. (Accessed June 07, 2009)
"ALA Interpretations," American Library Association, .http://www.ala.org. (Accessed June 07, 2009)
Children's Internet Protection Act (10/27/2008). Federal Communications Commission Retrieved June 6, 2009.
Dobija, J. (Sept 2007). The First Amerndment Needs NEW Clothes. American Libraries, 38(8), 50.
Internet Blocking in Public Schools (June 26, 2003). A Study on Internet Access in Public Institutions (Vol. Version 1.1). San Francisco: Online Policy Group.