ViolenceViolence he First Amendment Center works to preserve and protect First Amendment freedoms through information and education. The center andand thethe T serves as a forum for the study and exploration of free-expression issues, including freedom of speech, of the press and of religion, the right to assemble and to petition the government. Media The First Amendment Center, with offices at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment Tenn., and in New York City and Arlington, Va., is an independent affiliate of The Freedom Forum and the Newseum, the interactive museum of news. The with Joanne Cantor • Henry Jenkins • Debra Niehoff • Joanne Savage Freedom Forum is a nonpartisan, international foundation dedicated to free by Marjorie Heins Robert Corn-Revere • Rodney A. Smolla • Robert M. O’Neil press, free speech and free spirit for all people.
First Amendment Center Board of Trustees
CHARLES L. OVERBY Kenneth A. Paulson EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Chairman John Seigenthaler JIMMY R. ALLEN FOUNDER MICHAEL G. GARTNER 1207 18th Avenue South Nashville, TN 37212 MALCOLM KIRSCHENBAUM
(615) 321-9588 BETTE BAO LORD www.freedomforum.org WILMA P. MANKILLER
BRIAN MULRONEY
JAN NEUHARTH To order additional copies of this report, call 1-800-830-3733. WILL NORTON JR.
PETER S. PRICHARD
JOHN SEIGENTHALER
PAUL SIMON Publication No. 01-F01 No. Publication Violence and theMedia An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment
by Marjorie Heins with Joanne Cantor • Henry Jenkins • Debra Niehoff • Joanne Savage Robert Corn-Revere • Rodney A. Smolla • Robert M. O’Neil Violence and the Media An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment
© 2001 First Amendment Center 1207 18th Avenue South Nashville, TN 37212 (615) 321-9588 www.freedomforum.org Project Coordinator: Paul K. McMasters Editor: Natilee Duning Designer: Kelly Malloy Publication No.: 01-F01 To order: 1-800-830-3733 Contents
FOREWORD by Paul McMasters ...... v
I. VIOLENCE AND THE MEDIA by Marjorie Heins ...... 1
II. FOUR VIEWS Another form of media censorship: Keeping parents in the dark by Joanne Cantor ...... 19
Needed: A meaningful conversation about media violence by Henry Jenkins ...... 22 iii The biology of violence: What brain research tells us by Debra Niehoff ...... 25
A criminologist's perspective on the effects of media violence by Joanne Savage...... 27
III. THE PALADIN CASE AND THE LIMITS OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLENT SPEECH by Robert Corn-Revere and Rodney A. Smolla with Robert M. O'Neil, moderator ...... 33
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 49
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment
Foreword By Paul K. McMasters
series of horrors in the flow of media our schools brings violence. The Senate Athe nation’s general proposed a $900 million anxiety about crime and appropriation for violence into sharp focus. National Institutes of The need for someone or Health research into something to blame youth violence. becomes acute. America • The Federal Trade points an accusing finger at Commission launched an the entertainment media as Paul McMasters is First Amendment inquiry culminating in a the primary reason for ombudsman for The Freedom Forum. report charging that mayhem in our midst. Hollywood has been The grisly shootings at aggressive in marketing Columbine High School in violence to Littleton, Colo., were a young people. galvanizing event in the • Surgeon General David v national quest for an Satcher commissioned a answer to violence, report on strategies for particularly violence that treating violence as affects our children. In the a disease. weeks and months immediately following the • Gloria Tristani, a member tragedy, public-policy of the Federal makers unleashed a barrage Communications of actions designed to quell Commission, delivered a public concern. major speech embracing the theory that violent • President Clinton created expression should be the National Campaign treated the same as Against Youth Violence, obscenity under the law. targeting 13 cities; he also ordered monthly • At a summit organized meetings of the Cabinet- by U.S. Sen. Sam level National Council Brownback, R-Kan., the on Youth Violence American Medical Prevention. Association, the American Academy of • Congress took up dozens Pediatrics, the American of bills designed to curb
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment Psychological policy debate. Nevertheless, manifestations of media Association, and the it is imperative that as violence: a handbook for American Academy of many voices as possible be assassins called Hit Man: A Child & Adolescent heard before minds are Manual for Independent Psychiatry issued a made up and public policies Contractors. Rodney Smolla statement saying that cemented in place. and Robert Corn-Revere, “viewing entertainment both dedicated advocates violence can lead to The goal of this report is to for the First Amendment, increases in aggressive enhance and enliven the disagree on whether such attitudes, values and public discourse by offering speech should be protected. behavior, particularly in voices and perspectives that children.” have not been heretofore It is the goal of “Violence effectively raised on the and the Media: An • The American Bar issue of media violence and exploration of cause, effect Association’s Division for its effects. and the First Amendment” Public Education to inform public debate and announced the Anchoring the publication sharpen the questions we publication of a new is the title essay by well- ask as we seek solutions. guide to help teachers known author, lawyer and The views of these national address violence in scholar Marjorie Heins, who authorities should help television programs, examines the history of divest the debate of easy movies, video games and violence in the media, the assertions and provoke a on the Internet. scholarship involving more considered media effects and the examination of the impact The rationale for all these freedom-of-speech issues that proposed remedies actions and activities raised by the debate. would have on actual appeared to lie with vi violence — not to mention academic studies that The report’s second section on the Constitution itself. suggest a link between consists of edited media and violence. There transcripts of presentations is serious concern by some, by four scholars from however, that the number widely divergent areas of and certainty of such expertise: Joanne Cantor is studies have been one of the nation’s leading overstated. Others note that authorities on the effects of even if a causal link were television on children; satisfactorily demonstrated, Henry Jenkins is an expert it still would not justify on popular culture; Debra restricting or punishing the Niehoff is an expert on the First Amendment rights of biology of expression; and the entertainment media or Joanne Savage is an their consumers. authority in the field of criminology. The fact that incidents of crime and violence have The third section features decreased dramatically in an edited transcript of a recent years has not debate between two diminished the importance prominent lawyers over one or urgency of this public- of the more extreme
Foreword Violence and
theExcerpted from Not in FrontMedia of the Children: “Indecency,” Censorship and the Innocence of Youth by Marjorie Heins. To be published in May 2001 by Hill and Wang, a division of Farrar, Straus and Giroux, LLC. Copyright © 2000 by Marjorie Heins. All rights reserved.
I By Marjorie Heins
n early 1999, two to prohibit the broadcast of students at Colorado’s “any violent video IColumbine High School programming” at times gunned down 13 of their when “children are classmates and then killed reasonably likely to themselves. Like earlier comprise a substantial ghastly and seemingly portion of the audience.”1 inexplicable crimes, this At Senate hearings a few one generated a frenzied days after the disaster, MIT search for explanations. But professor Henry Jenkins instead of talking about the questioned the assumption 1 easy availability of firearms, that TV violence, rock Marjorie Heins is a First Amendment about the mean social lawyer and author. music, video games, or pecking order at Columbine other forms of High School, or about the entertainment were personal demons that drove responsible for the the two young criminals, teenagers’ murderous many political leaders and rampage. Disaffected media pundits focused on young people move violent entertainment. “nomadically across the President Clinton media landscape,” Jenkins immediately summoned said, “cobbling together a entertainment industry personal mythology of executives to a White symbols and stories taken House meeting on youth from many different violence. Rep. Henry Hyde places.” Thus, different proposed a “Children’s individuals make different Defense Act” banning the uses of the messages and distribution to minors of images in popular culture, “sexually explicit or violent depending on their material.” Sen. Ernest upbringing, family Hollings introduced a bill environment, inherited
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment characteristics, and other popular entertainment, and inspiring pity and fear, they aspects of background and games invented by children purged the spectators of character. Jenkins told the at play. From the gory unruly emotions and made senators that the descriptions of wartime it less likely that they “vocabulary of ‘media atrocities in Homer’s Iliad would actually behave effects’” in psychology — and Odyssey to the fantasy violently upon leaving the the idea that violent action in Mortal Kombat theater.4 entertainment has the and “Teenage Mutant Ninja consistent, predictable Turtles,” human culture has Young people have often effect of desensitizing displayed, reflected, been at the center of these viewers or making them embroidered, and debates over the effects of more aggressive — has documented aggression and artistic expression, but they recently been “challenged violence. Debates over the have not always been by numerous American and effects of this violent viewed as particularly vulnerable, innocent, and impressionable. The historian Philippe Ariès, in Violence is an eternal theme in his book Centuries of Childhood, identified the literature, art, popular entertain- end of the 16th century as the time when ideas of childhood innocence and ment, and games invented by vulnerability came into vogue. Before that time, children at play. educators gave youngsters the classics to read 2 international scholars as an entertainment also began (including violent and inadequate and simplistic long ago: the philosopher bawdy ones); but now, Ariès representation of media Plato, writing in the 4th wrote, “certain pedagogues consumption and popular fourth century B.C., took a refused to allow children to culture.”2 highly didactic view, be given indecent books 5 insisting that the any longer.” But Jenkins’s comments government should censor It was not until the 19th were not widely unsavory or unpatriotic century, though, that appreciated. He was the messages. As one critic has censorship in the interest of only scholar appearing at written, “the greatest part protecting youth really the hastily convened of contemporary criticism flourished. Although the hearings who questioned of television depends on a subject deemed most the idea that youngsters moral disapproval which is dangerous tended to be sex directly adopt and imitate identical to Plato’s attack rather than violence, the attitudes and on epic and tragic poetry in Anthony Comstock, behavior they see in the fourth century B.C.”3 director of the New York media entertainment. Plato’s pupil Aristotle, by Society for the Suppression contrast, originated the idea of Vice and a leading arbiter that gruesome deeds of cultural standards in the portrayed in the theater, A BRIEF HISTORY U.S. for 40 years, also instead of inspiring attacked “penny dreadfuls,” Violence is an eternal imitation, had cathartic dime novels, and police theme in literature, art, effects — that is, by
Violence and the Media magazines as perils for youth as well). To school children films of youth. Comstock played Wertham, cowboy and both an adult and a cartoon on fears, especially among jungle stories, science figure hitting a large the upper classes, that fiction, and superhero bouncy “Bobo doll.” The cheap popular literature, adventures were all children were then like sex and gambling, corrupting – Batman frustrated, in order to would corrupt young especially so because of the stimulate aggression, and people and drag the more “subtle atmosphere of finally given the privileged ones down from homoeroticism which opportunity to aggress their social positions.6 pervades the adventures of against actual Bobo dolls. the mature ‘Batman’ and Those who had viewed the In the 1930s, some thought his young friend ‘Robin.’”8 violent films did so in that the new art of movies In 1954, Wertham testified larger numbers than would inspire youngsters to at Senate hearings on children in a control group; fantasies and deeds of juvenile delinquency; but this short-term imitative violence. The Payne by this time, the industry effect was larger for boys Foundation sponsored a had responded to the than girls. Bandura series of studies, the “most pressure by adopting a self- publicized his findings in a conclusive” of which censorship code that largely 1963 magazine article in “showed that the movies eliminated crime and which he argued that few did not have any significant horror comics.9 parents “would deliberately effect in producing select Western gunslingers, delinquency in the crime By the 1960s, TV had hopped-up psychopaths, breeding area in which the largely replaced comic deranged sadists, slapstick study was made,” although books as a source of buffoons, and the like” the author also found that anxiety; and some as role models for 3 some boys and young men, psychologists were their children.10 “when suitably predisposed, conducting studies that, sometimes have utilized they said, scientifically Hitting Bobo dolls, of techniques of crime seen in established a causal course, is a socially the movies” or “idealized relationship between permissible activity, and as themselves imaginatively as violent television and with many laboratory possessing as attractive a aggressive behavior. Many experiments that were to personality, or as engaging of the scholars engaged in follow, the relevance of in as romantic activities as this type of research Bandura’s research to real- gangster screen heroes.”7 subscribed to the “social world aggressive behavior learning” school of over the long term was In the 1950s, crime and psychology, which posits questionable. Seymour horror comic books were that youngsters model their Feshbach, a psychologist attacked for inspiring attitudes and behavior on who believed that violent similar fantasies. The the media’s “symbolic entertainment was more psychiatrist Fredric environment” as well as on likely to defuse than to Wertham led a crusade to observation of real life. stimulate aggression, argued ban them, based on his Albert Bandura, a leading that most children do interviews with troubled theorist of the social understand the difference youth among whom the learning school, conducted between fantasy play and adventures comics were a famous series of anti-social behavior — that popular (as they were laboratory experiments in the results of “playing war among non-delinquent which he showed nursery- or punching a Bobo doll”
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment are quite different from the officials continued to children exposed to results of “kicking one’s sponsor studies, hold violent video mother.” Feshbach hearings, propose programming are prone explained: violence “in the legislation, and attack to assume that acts of guise of dramatic fantasy is media violence, while the violence are acceptable found throughout history complex psychological behavior.14
But Congress did not define what it meant by “violent Different schools of psychology hold video programming,” which could include news, widely varying views about what causes documentaries, cartoons, fictional dramas like The Miracle Worker, educational humans to be violent or aggressive. films about the Holocaust and it seems likely that the mechanisms by which or the Civil War, and vicarious participation in different human beings Shakespearean dramas. Nor these fantasies does satisfy actually process the did it mention that some human needs.”11 enormous range of images different schools of and ideas in popular culture psychology hold widely Social learning experiments tended to be forgotten. varying views about what became popular, however, causes humans to be in large part because of violent or aggressive.15 their political appeal. The THE VARIETIES OF theory gave a scientific What, then, do the MEDIA EFFECTS shine and a feel of psychological studies to 4 quantitative certainty to the By the 1990s, many which Congress referred in common-sense notion that politicians and its v-chip law actually people — especially young psychologists insisted that show? It is useful in ones — do absorb attitudes there was no longer room discussing this literature to and role models from for debate; hundreds of understand at the outset studies, they said, had media entertainment. Even some of the basic proven that media violence characteristics of social though a 1972 government caused aggressive attitudes study found little evidence and behavior, especially in science research that that televised violence has adolescents and children. distinguish it from research “an adverse effect on the Congress’s “findings” in a in the physical sciences. majority of children,”12 its 1996 law that mandated v- First, even those cautious conclusions were chips in most new TV sets psychologists who believe often misrepresented as were typical: that media violence is a “media effects” theories significant influence on Studies have shown that gained popularity. Another youthful attitudes and children exposed to government report 10 years behavior do not agree violent video later claimed a more about which violent images programming at a young definitive causal relation or ideas are harmful. Most age have a higher between media and real- acknowledge that tendency for violent and world violence, but it was contextual factors such as aggressive behavior later criticized for misconstruing humor, plot, and theme in life than children not the data.13 Government (for example, whether the so exposed, and that
Violence and the Media person using violence is those who believe in a effects they are trying to punished) influence the direct causal connection measure, research in this ways that movies or TV between the media and area deals with aspects of shows are perceived. behavior, about the precise human character that are Others think that the nature of the effects. Some inherently difficult to stimulation created by a say the primary effect is quantify. Researchers not “hot” medium like imitation — the only have different television causes excitement “modeling” behavior understandings of what is or aggression regardless of identified by the social meant by aggressive the content of the program. learning school. Others attitudes or behavior, but The philosopher Sissela think that media violence they often have to rely on Bok, in her book, Mayhem - primarily desensitizes inherently subjective “self Violence as Public viewers — that is, makes reports,” or reports from Entertainment, draws a them more callous about parents, teachers, and peers, distinction between high real-world violence. Still in trying to measure it. Or, art, which she believes may others subscribe to the if they are conducting have cathartic and “mean world” syndrome: laboratory experiments, educational functions (for they believe that violent they use artificial example, Picasso’s Guernica entertainment or news substitutes for aggression or Steven Spielberg’s reports cause people to such as hitting Bobo dolls “Schindler’s List”), and “the become unduly fearful and or delivering electric shocks pitilessness that to perceive the real world as in an environment where accompanies much being more brutal than it these acts are permitted and entertainment violence.” actually is.17 Finally, most even encouraged. As one Bok also praises movies in studies in this area try to child psychologist has which terror “blends with measure aggressive attitudes written, it is 5 pity for the victims” or or behavior, not violence — “methodologically almost killing is “a dramatic device and there is a big difference impossible” to prove a or a form of closure rather than something savored for its cruelty.”16 The Not all aggression is socially subjectivity of these distinctions illustrates how difficult it is to generalize disapproved, particularly if it is about large-scale, long-term psychological or behavioral merely verbal. effects. Research in this area starts with a between the two. causal link between media hypothesis and then tries to Aggression is “not a unitary violence and criminal prove it. Different concept,”18 and not all of it behavior because most researchers, depending on is socially disapproved, children in Western their initial hypotheses, particularly if it is merely societies watch large therefore use quite different verbal. Indeed, neither is amounts of TV, so there is examples of violent media all violence. (Self-defense no “control group” of content when they fashion and sports are two children not exposed to their experiments. examples). television with whom to compare them, nor is there There is equally little Even where psychologists a way to separate out all the agreement, even among can agree on what media
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment other social and cultural television, for example — showed precisely the influences on their simply means that the two opposite correlation developing characters.19 are found together too (increased television often to occur purely by viewing and reduced The measurement chance. But the correlation homicide rates in many techniques of media may not be very large; it countries) completely violence studies also have may not exist in most, or undermined limitations. To begin with, even a substantial number, Centerwall’s claims.22 not all studies in of cases.20 More important, psychology aspire to a correlation tells us One last fact about social scientific validity; some are nothing about which science is that studies merely reports of clinical variable caused the other, yielding results that do not cases. Case studies such as or whether in fact some confirm the researchers’ Fredric Wertham’s “common third variable” hypotheses often do not get interviews with troubled was the causative published. Thus, when youngsters were factor that accounts for pundits refer to an unscientific because the the linkage. overwhelming majority of “sample” from which the studies in which a causal conclusions were drawn One of the more famous hypothesis has supposedly was skewed — not examples of the been confirmed (even if representative of the correlational fallacy was a only at a small level of general population —and statistical analysis of statistical significance), they because Wertham did not homicide rates after the are generally not taking use a control group of non- introduction of television account of studies that delinquents who may have in Canada, the U.S., and produced “null” results. been exposed to the same South Africa. Based on Nor, of course, are they 6 violent entertainment correlations, the researcher, considering studies done by without ill effects. Brandon Centerwall, psychologists with different working hypotheses about the sources of human aggression, and attempting Studies yielding results that do not to measure such factors as family background, drug confirm the researchers’ hypotheses and alcohol abuse, or availability of firearms. It was on the basis of studies often do not get published. that started from these other perspectives that the Even where studies do use concluded that television 1993 report of the National scientific methods, such as was responsible for a Research Council, random samples and doubling in the number of Understanding and control groups, positive killings in these countries.21 Preventing Violence, results may be quite small. The flaws in his logic, and concluded that genetic, Finding a “statistically his failure to consider other social, and family significant” correlation factors that might account influences — not media between two “variables” — for the rise in homicides, violence — were the aggressive behavior and led to widespread criticism. primary determinants of preference for violent Indeed, later data that violent behavior.23
Violence and the Media The studies that do focus programming depicting innocent television fare for on media violence, and that violent and nonviolent children are not always on are the basis for claims of activities.”26 target”; often, “it is the definitively proven adverse ‘control’ programs that are effects, are of three main Because it is so difficult to the most problematic.” types. First are laboratory draw conclusions about Forcing “a wholesome experiments of the sort real-world behavior from television diet on children,” conducted by Bandura. It is the short-term effects they said, “may be well-established that produced in lab counterproductive.”27 experimenters can induce short-term behavioral effects in a statistically Sprafkin found that youngsters significant number of subjects in these laboratory settings, but “the very actually became more aggressive artificiality of the circumstances,” and “the after watching ‘pro-social’ programs. brevity of both the TV exposure and the effects experiments, psychologists Finally, there have been being measured,” make it began to conduct field correlational studies that questionable whether the studies, which examine often show a link between experimental results have children’s or adolescents’ aggressive behavior and a “ecologic validity” in the behavior following preference for violent real world.24 Aggression in exposure to violent entertainment. But a laboratory, as a bar entertainment in real-world correlations do not association committee in settings. Field studies have demonstrate causation. A 7 New York explained, “is yielded inconclusive and well-known example comes necessarily only an inconsistent results, from a series of studies that analogue of aggression, however. Psychologists found statistically such as pushing a ‘shock Joyce Sprafkin and significant correlations button’ or hitting a Bobo Jonathan Freedman had between sales of “men’s doll”; it may be perceived believed widely publicized magazines,” such as Playboy as encouraged and claims about the field and Penthouse, and rape approved by the studies until they looked at rates in different states. researchers, “with no the actual write-ups, or, in The correlations, as it possibility of retaliation, Sprafkin’s case, conducted turned out, were explained sanction, or moral experiments of their own. by a third variable, which condemnation.”25 Lab Sprafkin and her colleagues the researchers called the studies are also artificial found that youngsters in “Violence Approval Index” because they are so limited some of their experiments — a measure of in time, and because they actually became more “hypermasculine” attitudes often isolate “selected aggressive after watching that accounted for the high violent programs or “pro-social” programs like magazine sales and the 28 scenes,” both from their “Sesame Street” or “Mr. high rate of assaults. context in the film and Rogers’ Neighborhood.” Similarly, a correlation from the larger world in They concluded that found in one study between which people are exposed “commonsense notions reckless behavior by to “a mixture of about what is harmful or adolescents and their taste
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment for heavy metal music “did the study, there was a who committed violent not demonstrate that correlation between violent crimes and had scored high listening to these types of TV viewing at age 8, at least on age 8 TV violence music causes adolescents to one measure of aggression viewing. … It is enough to behave recklessly. Rather, at age 19, and serious crime make the results significant both reckless behavior and at age 30. The researchers, according to statistical heavy metal or hard rock L. Rowell Huesmann and theory, but if just these music appeal to adolescents Leonard Eron, said the data three boys had behaved who have an especially supported a finding of differently, all the high propensity for “bidirectionality,” meaning significant results could sensation seeking.”29 It is that aggressive tendencies have vanished.”34 likely that some adolescents led to increased viewing of find violent lyrics to be violent television, and Eron and Huesmann later cathartic: as one researcher increased viewing in turn conducted a large-scale said, “heavy metal music, increased aggression.31 But longitudinal study with its angry and other longitudinal studies involving six different aggressive sound, is failed to replicate these countries, with a total of 14 especially useful to findings, and some scholars different groups, but the adolescents in criticized Eron and results were purging anger.”30 Huesmann’s statistical overwhelmingly negative, methods in this and other showing no significant To remedy the correlation experiments; their failure to effect for Australia, Finland, fallacy, some researchers explore other factors the Netherlands, Poland, have conducted associated with violent the U.S., or kibbutz “longitudinal” correlation behavior; their reliance on children in Israel. The only studies — that is, they have dubious parental reporting strongly significant effects 8 observed the relation of children’s aggressiveness; over time were for two between two variables over and their inability to keep groups of Israeli city time and then, through track of many of the dwellers – a score of two sophisticated statistical subjects over the years of positive results out of 14. techniques, tried to see if the Rip Van Winkle study.32 The authors nevertheless the results supported their Another large-scale interpreted the findings in hypothesis that aggressive longitudinal study, which the most positive light that behavior among the followed about 3,200 they could. Dutch youngsters who were youngsters in Midwestern researchers who had subjects of the study cities over a period of three participated in this study increased as a consequence, years, found no evidence of refused to go along with at least in part, of earlier a delayed behavioral effect Eron and Huesmann’s television viewing. One of from watching TV conclusions and ultimately the most famous of these violence.33 Most interesting, published their own report. longitudinal experiments perhaps, was that when They said that the was the so-called “Rip Van journalist Richard Rhodes hypothesis, “formulated on Winkle” study, which questioned Huesmann years the basis of social learning examined TV viewing later about the crime data theory, that television habits and social conduct for the 30-year-olds in his violence viewing leads to among a group of rural study, Huesmann admitted aggressive behavior could 35 New Yorkers at ages 8, 19, that the correlation was not be supported.” and 30. For the males in “entirely due to three boys
Violence and the Media Those who believe that beings respond in varying therapeutic function, psychological studies have ways to new information, allowing viewers to proved media violence to based on “preestablished experience excitement and cause adverse effects schema” that are “built up adventure without running generally adopt a by many previous any real risk of harm.39 “convergence” argument. interactions with the That is, they accept the environment.”37 As the As an expert witness in A.S. deficiencies of the various psychologist Kevin Durkin Byatt’s novel Babel Tower methods and the put it, broad generalizations observes, any mother ambiguities of the results, but say that cumulatively, the studies sufficiently Many psychologists believe that reinforce each other to demonstrate a causal relationship.36 They violent entertainment has a sometimes point to the statistical technique of cathartic or therapeutic function. “meta-analysis” — combining the results of about simple, direct effects “knows that some children many studies to see how of art or entertainment on can take anything and some strongly they converge. But human psyches “do not cry and cry over the death if the underlying studies are carry us very far”; television of a seal or Bambi and 40 flawed, inconsistent, or “may be implicated” in never quite recover.” ambiguous in their results, child development, but “in Another author, Judith Rich it is not clear that blending different ways at different Harris, recently reframed them strengthens the case points in the lifespan.” As the point: children do learn 9 for adverse media effects. much depends “upon what by imitation, but the child brings to TV selectively. Among other None of this means that viewing as upon what things, they learn that for movies, television, books, it extracts.”38 the most part they cannot music, and the Internet simply imitate adults.41 have no influence on the Thus, for some people, in attitudes and behavior of some circumstances, some At bottom, public concern children — or of adults, for movies, TV shows, or video about violent that matter. But the effects games may cause a “copy entertainment probably has vary widely, and are cat” effect. For others, the more to do with widely difficult to quantify, as same entertainment may shared feelings about the many social scientists produce revulsion, fear, kinds of messages and ideas recognize. Even the 1982 indignation, boredom, children should be U.S. government report curiosity, or some receiving than with any noted “a change in combination of these direct cause-and-effect psychology since the 1960s reactions. For still others, relationship that has been, when the stimulus-response the same works simply or likely can be, established models of learning began to provide escapist enjoyment. by social science studies. give way to a broader- Many psychologists believe These concerns about the gauged cognitive that violent entertainment, proper upbringing, or orientation,” which like frightening fairy tales, socialization, of young understands that human has a cathartic or people are important ones.
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment But it is not clear that surely as news reporting “patently offensive” censorship laws, or even and political debate. As the according to local, ratings systems that make Supreme Court put it more “contemporary community violent entertainment than half a century ago, the standards”; (2) must, taken forbidden, and, therefore, First Amendment does not as a whole, predominantly more attractive, are likely apply “only to the appeal to a “prurient” — to reduce anti-social exposition of ideas. The that is, a shameful or behavior. Moreover, the line between the informing morbid — interest in sexual high value that Americans and the entertaining is too or excretory matters; and (3) must, taken as a whole, lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or It is not clear that censorship laws scientific value.”45 There has never been an or ratings systems are likely to analogous exception to the First Amendment for speech or entertainment reduce anti-social behavior. with violent content — unless it rises to the level of place on free expression elusive for the protection of threats, “fighting words,” creates a serious barrier to that basic right.”43 or incitement.46 censorship as a response to media violence. The First Amendment is not The first Supreme Court an absolute — it no more case to address the issue of protects perjury, extortion, violent entertainment was or other types of speech Winters v. New York in 1948. FREEDOM OF 10 that in themselves The State of New York had EXPRESSION constitute crimes than it a law banning publications The First Amendment to prevents Congress or state “principally made up of” the U.S. Constitution legislatures from passing criminal news or police protects “the freedom of laws against invasion of reports, or “pictures or speech,”42 but exactly what privacy, threats, or libel.44 stories of deeds of this Delphic phrase means The Supreme Court has also bloodshed, lust or crime.” has long been a cause for created an exception to the The justices invalidated the debate. Intellectual First Amendment for law because terms like freedom and inquiry, “obscenity.” This has been “bloodshed” and “lust” personal growth, the right defined — after years of were too vague to put to blow off steam, and the judicial struggle and publishers on notice of essential role of public experimentation with what was illegal. Vague discourse in a functioning different formulas — in laws, they said, were democracy have all been terms of a three-part test. particularly dangerous in mentioned as values To be obscene, and the area of free speech and underlying the therefore unprotected by press. And although “we constitutional command. the First Amendment, can see nothing of any The First Amendment material (1) must depict or possible value to society in protects art, literature, TV describe specific sexual or these magazines, they are as sitcoms, action movies, and excretory activities in a much entitled to the Internet chat rooms just as manner that is considered protection of free speech as
Violence and the Media the best of literature.”47 drawn,” with standards For example, in 1992, This vagueness problem “reasonably precise so that Nassau County, N.Y., passed would prove endemic to those who are governed by an ordinance that banned censorship efforts aimed at the law and those that the distribution to minors violent content; the administer it will of trading cards that category is simply too vast understand its meaning and depicted “a heinous crime, and various, and too application.” Following the an element of a heinous important a subject of art logic of Winters, the Court crime, or a heinous and literature as well as ruled that Dallas’ standards criminal.” Eclipse news, sports, and politics, were too vague: what Enterprises, a producer of for legal restrictions to be might encourage trading-card sets with objectively defined. delinquency was left themes like “Crime and totally to “the Punishment,” “Drug Wars,” The Court reiterated the censor’s discretion.”48 and “Friendly Dictators” point 20 years after Winters (describing U.S. support of in a case challenging a More recently, courts faced authoritarian regimes) movie ordinance in the city with laws designed to brought a First Amendment of Dallas, Texas. This was restrict minors’ access to challenge to the law. The not a criminal ban like the violent entertainment have county’s defense relied on New York “bloodshed, lust followed the Dallas and the legal test of “strict or crime” law, but a Winters cases. A few have scrutiny” that the Supreme licensing scheme requiring gone beyond the vagueness Court uses to evaluate exhibitors to submit all issue to rule explicitly that restrictions on speech that films in advance to a art or entertainment with are based on its content. municipal board, then violent content is Under the strict scrutiny abide by the board’s ruling constitutionally protected. test, such “content-based” 11 with respect to each film’s That is, simply plugging the restrictions are “suitability” for minors. obscenity formula of patent presumptively Among the factors the offensiveness, prurience, unconstitutional, but can board considered were whether the film contained “brutality, criminal violence or depravity” in a manner This vagueness problem would prove “likely to incite or encourage crime or endemic to censorship efforts aimed delinquency on the part of young persons.” The Supreme Court rejected at violent content. Dallas’ argument that the be salvaged if the “salutary purpose of and lack of serious value government proves that protecting children” into a censorship law they are necessary to serve justified the ordinance. directed at violence does a “compelling state Laws “aimed at protecting not make the law interest.” Nassau County children from allegedly constitutional, for the argued that its ordinance harmful expression,” it said, obscenity exception to the was “narrowly tailored” to “— no less than legislation First Amendment is limited serve a “compelling interest 49 enacted with respect to to speech about sex. in providing for the well- adults” — must be “clearly being of minors.”50
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment Courts in the past had in children, and no in classic works of literature often assumed that “particular incidents of — Hamlet, Macbeth, Oedipus protecting youth from violent behavior in children Rex, The Iliad, Crime and sexual images or ideas was a that could be attributed to Punishment, War and Peace, compelling state interest, crime trading cards.”51 The and the Bible. As a judge in and had not required the courts therefore ruled that one copycat case explained, government to prove why. the government had not “if the shield of the First In the Eclipse case, the made its case. Indeed, it is Amendment can be county tried to extend this unlikely that evidence eliminated” by proving that assumption of presented in a legal case one individual imitated a psychological harm — from can ever prove that a broad description of a dangerous sexual images and ideas to category of entertainment, activity, then “all free violent ones. The trial whether “violent” or speech becomes judge, however, was not “depicting a heinous threatened.”52 about to accept such a crime,” has predictable claim at face value, and, large-scale imitative effects. Because suppressing or therefore, ordered both punishing violence in sides to present evidence on This problem of defining a literature or entertainment the issue of psychological broad category of is prohibited by the First harm. Eclipse’s lawyers expression for purposes of Amendment, those presented the expert censorship does not arise, concerned about the issue testimony of Joyce Sprafkin though, where a particular have implemented and Jonathan Freedman, book, movie, song, or TV regulatory schemes that who both testified that, show is alleged to have don’t directly ban violent contrary to popular belief, caused harm, usually by content but that require the research on television inspiring an individual labels, ratings, filters, or v- 12 violence has yielded, at reader or viewer to act out chips. These devices are best, inconsistent results, its description of a crime. often described simply as with weak or nonexistent As a result, the aggrieved helpful information, or evidence of actual effects victims of violent crimes forms of “parental on children’s behavior. As have occasionally sued empowerment.” But filter for violent trading cards, producers or publishers of manufacturers and raters, there was not even a body specific works that they not parents or teachers, are of social science research. claim caused an individual the ones who decide what The county, in response, criminal to harm them or material is questionable presented a child their families. But holding under these systems. Thus, psychiatrist, a priest, a publishers, authors, the 1996 law requiring v- rabbi, a victims’ rights producers — or newscasters chips in most new advocate, and a social — liable for the “copycat” television sets preempted worker, all of whom gave crimes of deranged the attitudes and judgments their opinions that some individuals when thousands of a culturally diverse crime trading cards could or millions of others who population of American be harmful. But they were exposed to the same parents when it listed acknowledged that they work were not moved to “sexual, violent, or other knew of no studies violence, has dire indecent material” as the connecting crime trading consequences for free specific categories to be cards or other reading expression. Some of the rated and potentially 53 material to violent behavior goriest crimes are depicted blocked. And this diverse
Violence and the Media population of parents will Frequently, the argument is identify what, if any, not get to decide what made that even if the First depictions of violence are programs receive an adverse Amendment bars actually harmful, it is label. The problem is even censorship of violent doubtful that even a large- more pronounced in the content for adults, children scale program of censorship case of Internet filtering are different; they are would go far toward software, which operates impressionable and reducing anti-social either by mechanically vulnerable, likely to “get behavior and crime among blocking World Wide Web lost in the marketplace of youngsters or adults. The sites based on “keyword” ideas.” Young people are tendency of politicians, identification, or by hastily not without First from the days of Comstock made, subjective judgments Amendment rights, though; to the trauma of about a complex mass of and as they mature, those Columbine, to focus on the material on thousands rights become increasingly essentially symbolic issue of of Web sites. important to their media entertainment intellectual development, obscures the root causes of Whether or not courts their critical thinking skills, violence, and, in the long eventually decide that and their ability to become run, probably inhibits government-prescribed intelligent participants in rather than advances the rating-and-blocking systems the democratic process.54 search for solutions to the restrict expression seriously There is serious doubt, problem of violence in enough to violate the First moreover, that censoring society. Among other, Amendment, they do have violent literature or more productive censorial effects. They entertainment actually approaches would be pressure producers to steer protects youngsters against controlling the availability clear of controversial bad ideas; there are too of firearms, attempting to 13 subjects (particularly in many other, more potent alleviate poverty and family order to avoid the loss of models for them to imitate, dysfunction, improving advertisers), and they if they are disposed to do drug and alcohol treatment, reduce the audience for the so. Measures designed to and teaching youngsters TV shows that receive restrict youthful exposure media literacy, nonviolent ratings, or the Web sites to disturbing stories or dispute resolution, and that are blocked. The images also inevitably critical thinking skills. problems of vagueness, restrict the choices and moreover, are formidable: rights of adults, whether by there is no coherent or prohibiting certain trustworthy way for any communications to minors group of raters to decide in a context, like the what violent content is Internet, where the age of Marjorie Heins is a First harmful or inappropriate; readers cannot be readily Amendment lawyer and and labeling all violence, determined, or by imposing author whose latest book, Not from war movies, cowboy rating systems that pressure in Front of the Children: sagas, biblical epics, and publishers and producers to “Indecency,” Censorship, Shakespearean dramas to self-censor. and the Innocence of Youth space odysseys and cartoon will be published by Hill & fantasies, would target a Beyond the First Wang in 2001. She currently vast amount of Amendment concerns and directs the Free Expression valuable expression. the problems of trying to Policy Project at the National
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment Coalition Against Censorship the National Endowment for Nature of Excellence (Faber and, from 1991-98, directed the Arts consider “general & Faber, 1987). She the Arts Censorship Project of standards of decency and graduated from Harvard Law the ACLU. While at the respect for the diverse beliefs School in 1978. ACLU, she participated in and values of the American Reno v. ACLU, the First public.” Her previous books The author thanks the Open Amendment challenge to the include Sex, Sin, and Society Institute, which 1996 “Communications Blasphemy: A Guide to supported the research and Decency Act,” and NEA v. America’s Censorship Wars writing for Not in Front of Finley, the challenge to (New Press, 1993, 1998), and the Children. Congress’ requirement that in Cutting the Mustard: awarding federal arts grants, Affirmative Action and the
¹See “Children’s Protection From Violent Video Programming Act,” S. 876, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (1999); “Children’s Defense Act of 1999,” H.R. 2036, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (1999); Lawrie Mifflin, “A Media-Violence Link?” Int’l Herald Tribune, May 10, 1999, p. 2; David Von Drehle, “Soul-Searching in School Tragedy Yields Many 14 Warnings but Few Answers,” Int’l Herald Tribune, Apr. 26, 1999, p. 3; Kevin Merida & Richard Leiby, “Out of the Dark, Into the Mainstream: America’s Cult of Violence,” Washington Post, Apr. 30, 1999, p. 1; “The Guns of Littleton,” The Nation, May 17, 1999, p. 4; Michael Janofsky, “The Columbine Killers’ Tapes of Rage,” New York Times, Dec. 14, 1999, p. A22.
²Henry Jenkins, “Professor Jenkins Goes to Washington,” Harper’s, July 1999, p. 19; reworked as “Lessons From Littleton: What Congress Doesn’t Want to Hear About Youth and Media,” http://web.mit. edu/cms/news/nais9912/.
³Alexander Nehamas, “Plato and the Mass Media,” 71 The Monist 222 (1988); see Plato, The Republic and Other Works (Benjamin Jowett, trans.) (New York: Doubleday, 1973), pp. 62-63; The Laws (Trevor Saunders, trans.) (London: Penguin, 1970), pp. 282-92, 300-04. On Plato’s puritanism and distrust for any art “outside the full control of the rational mind,” see Iris Murdoch, The Fire and the Sun: Why Plato Banished the Artists (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1977), pp. 12-13.
4Aristotle, The Poetics, and John Gassner, “Introduction,” in Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Arts (4th ed.) (New York: Dover, 1951); Stephen Halliwell, Aristotle’s Poetics (Chapel Hill: U. of N. Carolina Press, 1986).
5Philippe Ariès, Centuries of Childhood (Robert Baldick, trans.) (New York: Vintage, 1962), pp. 103, 109, 261.
6See Traps for the Young by Anthony Comstock (John Harvard Library ed.) (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1967); Anthony Comstock, Frauds Exposed; or, How the people are deceived and robbed, and youth corrupted (New York: J.H. Brown, 1880); Heywood Broun & Margaret Leech, Anthony Comstock - Roundsman of the Lord (London: Wishart & Co., 1928); Nicola Beisel, Imperiled Innocents - Anthony Comstock and Family Reproduction in Victorian America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 1997).
Violence and the Media 7Frederic Thrasher, “The Comics and Delinquency: Cause or Scapegoat,” 23 J. Educ. Sociol. 195, 199 (1949), citing Paul Cressey, The Role of the Motion Picture in an Interstitial Area (unpublished manuscript on deposit at N.Y.U. library). See also Paul Cressey, “The Motion Picture Experience as Modified by Social Background and Personality,” 3 Am. Sociol. Rev. 516 (1938); Herbert Blumer & Philip Hauser, Movies, Delinquency, and Crime (New York: Arno Press & The New York Times, 1970 reprint ed.) (original, New York: Macmillan, 1933) (both studies sponsored by the Payne Foundation).
8Fredric Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent (London: Museum Press, 1955), pp. vi, 189-90. Wertham attacked those who posited multiple causes for criminal behavior – “unconscious factors, infantile experiences,” and so forth – as “pseudoerudite and utterly false.” Id., p. 115.
9See Juvenile Delinquency (Comic Books), 1954: Hearings on S. 190 Before the Subcomm. to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. (1954), pp. 86, 103; Comic Books and Juvenile Delinquency, Interim Report of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 84th Cong., 1st Sess.; Margaret Blanchard, “The American Urge to Censor: Freedom of Expression Versus the Desire to Sanitize Society,” 33 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 741, 788-95 (1992); John Twomey, “The Citizens’ Committee and Comic Book Control: A Study of Extragovernmental Restraint,” 20 Law & Contemp. Probs. 621, 622, 624 (1955); Lynn Spigel, “Seducing the Innocent: Childhood and Television in Postwar America,” in The Children’s Culture Reader (Henry Jenkins, ed.) (New York: NYU Press, 1998), p. 117.
10Albert Bandura, “What TV Violence Can Do to Your Child,” Look, Oct. 22, 1963, pp. 46-52. For the original experiment, see Albert Bandura, Dorothea Ross, & Sheila Ross, “Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models,” 66 J. Abnormal & Social Psych. 3-11 (1963).
11Seymour Feshbach & Robert Singer, Television and Aggression: An Experimental Study (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971), pp. 1-2, xiv.
12Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior, Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence (Washington, DC: Gov’t Printing Office, 1972), Vol. 1, pp. 4, 7, 67; see also National Research Council, Understanding and Preventing Violence (Albert Reiss, Jr. & Jeffrey Roth, eds.) (Washington, DC: Nat’l Academy Press, 1993), p. xi (noting Surgeon General’s “conflicting evidence and findings of small, if any, impact”).
13Television and Behavior - Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties (Washington, DC: US. Dep’t HHS, 1982): Thomas Cook et al., “The Implicit Assumptions of Television Research: An Analysis of the 1982 15 NIMH Report on Television and Behavior,” 47(2) Pub. Opin. Q. 161, 179-92 (1983); Jonathan Freedman, “Viewing Television Violence Does Not Make People More Aggressive,” 22 Hofstra L. Rev. 833, 836 (1994). Social learning theorists acknowledged that only some violent entertainment teaches bad behavior; and did not argue that the media were the only, or even a primary, cause of social problems. See Albert Bandura, Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973); Albert Bandura, “Social Learning Theory of Aggression,” J. Comm’n (Summer 1978), pp. 12-29; Ted Rosenthal & Barry Zimmerman, Social Learning and Cognition (New York: Academic Press, 1978); Richard Evans, Albert Bandura: The Man and His Ideas – A Dialogue (New York: Praeger, 1989); Kevin Durkin, Television, Sex Roles and Children: A developmental social psychological account (Milton Keynes, UK: Open U. Press, 1985), pp. 42-46; Robert Liebert & Joyce Sprafkin, The Early Window - Effects of Television on Children and Youth (New York: Pergamon, 1988), pp. 65-79.
14Section 551(a), Public Law 104-104 (1996), published in the Historical and Statutory Notes to 47 U.S.C. §303(w). Congressional “findings” are not necessarily based on empirical evidence; and where First Amendment rights are at stake, courts must make their own judgment about the accuracy of the facts on which the government relies. Sable Communications v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 129 (1989).
15See, for example, Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression (New York: Harcourt Brace & World, 1963) (positing that humans, like animals, have an innate aggressive instinct); Erich Fromm, The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (New York: Henry Holt, 1973), p. 98 (describing destruction and cruelty not as “instinctual drives, but passions rooted in the total existence of man”); Debra Niehoff, The Biology of Violence (New York: The Free Press, 1999) (describing sources of aggression in brain chemistry, which in turn is shaped by the environment); Jonathan Kellerman, Savage Spawn - Reflections on Violent Children (New York: Ballantine, 1999) (positing that aggression, like other behaviors, results from the interaction of inborn traits with environmental influences, with media having little direct impact); Committee on Communications & Media Law, “Violence in the Media: A Position Paper,” 52(3) Record of The Ass’n of the Bar of the City of New York 273, 283-86 (1997) (noting that “the subject of violence and aggression in psychology is vast,” with little agreement among experts about its causes).
16Sissela Bok, Mayhem - Violence as Public Entertainment (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1998), pp. 28, 43.
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment 17For descriptions of the various theories, see University of Oxford Programme in Comparative Media Law & Policy, Final Report: Parental Control of Television Broadcasting (1999), ch. 3, “Media Theories Background,” http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg10.; Stacy Smith et al., National Television Violence Study 3 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998), p. 10; see also George Gerbner & Nancy Signorielli, Violence and Terror in the Mass Media (Paris: UNESCO, 1988) (“mean world” theory); Pornography and Sexual Aggression (Neil Malamuth & Edward Donnerstein, eds.) (New York: Academic Press, 1984)(imitation theory).
18Kenneth Gadow & Joyce Sprafkin, “Field Experiments of Television Violence with Children: Evidence for an Environmental Hazard?” 83(3) Pediatrics 399, 401 (1989) (noting also that in some studies, a distinction is made “between playful and hurtful aggression”; in others, “both peer and adult-directed aggression” is studied).
19Kellerman, supra n. 15, p. 72-73.
20The usual measure of statistical significance is .05, meaning that there is only one chance in 20 that the results of the study would have occurred by chance. With large samples, even a very small linkage will be “statistically significant.” See David Moore, Statistics - Concepts and Controversies (4th ed.) (New York: W.H. Freeman, 1997), pp. 404, 486-90; Frederic Schauer, “Causation Theory and the Causes of Sexual Violence,” 4 Am. Bar Fdtn Rsrch Jrnl 737, 752-53 (1987) (claims about causation in social science are “probabilistic,” rather than “determinative”); Eli Rubenstein, “Introductory Comments,” in Television and Behavior, supra n. 13, Vol. 2, p. 2; Jonathan Freedman, “Effect of Television Violence on Aggressiveness,” 96 Psych. Bull. 227 (1984); Kellerman, supra n. 15, pp. 56-57.
21See Brandon Centerwall, “Exposure to Television as Risk Factor for Violence,” 129(4) Am. J. Epidemiology 643-52 (1989); Brandon Centerwall, “Television and Violence: The Scale of the Problem and Where to Go From Here,” 267(22) JAMA 3059-63 (1992).
22See “Violence in the Media,” supra n. 15, at 292-93; Bok, supra n. 16, p. 86; Franklin Zimring & Gordon Hawkins, Crime is Not the Problem - Lethal Violence in America (New York: Oxford U. Press, 1997), pp. 133-34, 239-43.
23Nat’l Research Council, supra n. 12; see also Bok, supra n. 16, pp. 85, 5, 57 (identifying “more direct” causes of violent conduct to include family breakdown, child abuse, firearms availability, and overindulgence in drugs and alcohol); Zimring & Hawkins, supra n. 22 (availability of firearms — not crime rate or media imagery — accounts for high rate of lethal violence in America). 16 24Victor Strasburger, Adolescents and the Media - Medical and Psychological Impact (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995), p. 166.
25“Violence in the Media,” supra n. 15, at 287-88.
26Id. at 288; see also Strasburger, supra n. 24, pp. 161-94; Jonathan Freedman, “Television Violence and Aggression: A Rejoinder,” 100(3) Psych. Bull. 372-78 (1986); Robert Kaplan, “Television Violence and Viewer Aggression: A Reexamination of the Evidence,” 32(4) J. Soc. Issues 35-70 (1976); and “TV Violence and Aggression Revisited Again,” 37(5) Am. Psychol. 589 (1982); Daniel Linz et al, “The Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography: The Gaps Between ‘Findings’ and Facts,” 4 Am. Bar Fdtn Rsrch J. 713, 722 (1987).
27Joyce Sprafkin, Kenneth Gadow & Patricia Grayson, “Effects of Viewing Aggressive Cartoons on the Behavior of Learning Disabled Children,” 28(3) J. Child Psych. & Psychiatry 387, 394 1987); see also Gadow & Sprafkin, supra n. 18, at 403; Freedman, 22 Hofstra L.Rev. at 842; Cook et al., supra n. 13, at 181-82.
28Larry Baron & Murray Straus, Four Theories of Rape in American Society: A State-Level Analysis (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1989); Baron & Straus, “Sexual Stratification, Pornography, and Rape in the United States,” in Pornography and Sexual Aggression, supra n. 17, pp. 186-208; Baron & Straus, “Four Theories of Rape: A Macrosociological Analysis,” 34(5) Social Probs. 467-89 (1987).
29Jeffrey Arnett, “The Soundtrack of Restlessness - Musical Preferences and Reckless Behavior Among Adolescents,” 7(3) J. Adol. Rsrch 313, 325 (1992); Jeffrey Arnett, “Adolescents and heavy metal music: From the mouths of metalheads,” 23 Youth & Society 76-98 (1991).
30Lawrence Kurdek, “Gender differences in the psychological symptomatology and coping strategies of young adolescents,” 7 J. Early Adol. 395-410 (1987).
Violence and the Media 31See L. Rowell Huesmann, et al., “The stability of aggression over time and generations,” 20 Devel. Psych. 1120-34 (1984); Leonard Eron et al., “Does Television Violence Cause Aggression?” 27(4) Am. Psychol. 253-63 (1972); Leonard Eron, “Parent-Child Interaction, Television Violence, and Aggression of Children,” 37(2) Am. Psychol. 197-211 (1982); discussion in Freedman, 96 Psych. Bull. at 239-41; “Violence in the Media,” supra n. 15, at 293- 94. In this and other studies, Huesmann and Eron also found strong correlations between aggressive behavior and non-media-related factors such as low parental education and social status, parents’ aggressiveness and non- nurturant child-rearing practices, poor school performance, and unpopularity with peers. See L. Rowell Huesmann et al., “Intervening Variables in the TV Violence-Aggression Relation: Evidence From Two Countries,” 20 Devel. Psych. 746 (1984); Freedman, “Rejoinder,” supra n. 26, at 376.
32See David Sohn, “Television Violence and Aggression Revisited,” 36(2) Am. Psychol. 229-31 (1981); David Sohn, “On Eron on Television Violence and Aggression,” 37(11) Am. Psychol. 1292-93 (1982); Herbert Kay, “Weaknesses in the Television-Causes-Aggression Analysis by Eron et al.,” 27(10) Am. Psychol. 970-73 (1972); Gilbert Becker, “Causal Analysis in R-R Studies: Television Violence and Aggression,” 27(10) Am. Psych. 967-68 (1972); Thomas Krattenmaker & L.A. Powe, Jr., “Televised Violence: First Amendment Principles and Social Science Theory,” 64 Va.L.Rev. 1123, 1148-49 (1978); Freedman, 96 Psych. Bull. at 235-43 (acknowledging that one of the correlations [for boys in grade three and later in grade 13]) was suggestive of causation but noting that the pattern was not found for girls , and, even for boys, was found using only one of three measures of aggression at grade 13: peer reports. Using other measures of aggression chosen by the researchers [self-reports and personality tests], there were no statistically significant correlations).
33 J. Ronald Milavsky et al., Television and Aggression: A Panel Study (New York: Academic Press, 1982).
34Richard Rhodes, “The Media-Violence Myth,” Rolling Stone, Nov. 23, 2000, p. 55; e-mail from L. Rowell Huesmann to Richard Rhodes, March 13, 2000.
35Oene Wiegman et al., “A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Television Viewing on Aggressive and Prosocial Behaviors,” 31 Brit. J. Social Psych. 147 (1992); see the description of this incident in Freedman, 22 Hofstra L. Rev. at 849-51. The original report is Television and the Aggressive Child: A Cross-national Comparison (L. Rowell Huesmann & Leonard Eron, eds.) (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986).
36See Television and Behavior, supra n. 13, Vol. 1, p. 37.
37Id., pp. 87-91, 20. 17 38Durkin, supra n. 13, p. 3; see also Nat’l Research Council, supra n. 12, pp. 101-02 (media effects theories are overly simplistic because they fail to consider either how different individuals respond to identical stimuli, or how various factors — psychosocial, neurological, and hormonal — interact to produce particular behavior); Zimring & Hawkins, supra n. 22, p. 130 (noting the immense variety of violent media messages, images, and themes, and their widely different effects).
39See Bruno Bettelheim, The Uses of Enchantment - The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales (New York: Penguin, 1975), p. 7; John Sommerville, The Rise and Fall of Childhood (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982), pp. 136-38 (describing psychological value of romances, fairy tales, and nursery rhymes that 16th- and 17th- century pedagogues tried to suppress); Joan Acocella, “The Big Bad Wolf is Back,” The New Yorker, Nov. 30, 1998, p. 112; Henry Jenkins, “Lessons From Littleton,” supra n. 2 (“Bettelheim argues that the violence and darkness of fairy tales is important for children to confront as a means of acknowledging the darker side of their own nature. Without such a depiction, children might take their own transgressive impulses as evidence that they are a ‘monster,’ rather than learning how to recognize and control those aspects of themselves”).
40A.S. Byatt, Babel Tower (New York: Vintage, 1996), p. 581.
41 Judith Rich Harris, The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do (New York: Free Press, 1998), pp. 10-11, 50-70.
42“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to apply to all branches of the federal government, not only Congress, and, through incorporation into the “liberty” guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, to apply to the actions of state and local governments as well.
43Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 510 (1948).
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment 44In many of these instances, the First Amendment does impose limits on the kind of prohibitions the government can enforce. For example, in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that public officials must prove either deliberate falsity or reckless disregard of the truth before they can recover damages under state libel laws.
45Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973). The Supreme Court first articulated an “obscenity” exception to the First Amendment in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), on the theory that obscenity was “no essential part of any exposition of ideas,” and was of such “slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from [it] is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” Id. at 483-85. Justice William Brennan, the architect of the “obscenity” exception, later changed his mind: no definition supplied by judges, he said, could cure the vagueness and subjectivity of such concepts as prurient interest, patent offensiveness, and serious value, which necessarily vary “with the experience, outlook, and even idiosyncrasies of the person defining them.” These concepts are “so elusive,” he said, “that they fail to distinguish clearly between protected and unprotected speech.” Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 79-80, 84 (1973).
46Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), created the exception to the First Amendment for “fighting words,” which are limited to comments likely to provoke violence in a face-to-face confrontation. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), likewise limited “incitement” to speech directed to, and likely to have the effect of, provoking immediate violent behavior; mere advocacy of violence is constitutionally protected.
47Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. at 510.
48Interstate Circuit v. Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 688-89 (1968). The case arose from the city’s classification of Louis Malle’s “Viva Maria” (starring Brigitte Bardot and Jeanne Moreau) as “not suitable for young persons.”
49See Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Webster, 968 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1992) (law borrowing the Miller obscenity formula and ostensibly aimed at “slasher” videos was both overbroad and vague); Sovereign News Co. v. Falke, 448 F.Supp. 306, 399-400 (N.D. Ohio 1977) (law restricting display of “extreme or bizarre violence, cruelty or brutality” was overbroad because it went beyond Miller), vacated on other grounds, 674 F.2d 484 (6th Cir. 1982); Davis-Kidd Booksellers v. McWherter, 886 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn. 1993) (law banning display of materials containing “excess violence” was unconstitutionally vague); Allied Artists v. Alford, 410 F.Supp. 1348 (W.D. Tenn 1976) (same); State v. Johnson, 343 So.2d 705 (La. 1977) (obscenity definition that included “actual or simulated patently offensive acts of violence” went beyond Miller and was therefore unconstitutional).
18 50Eclipse Enterprise v. Gulotta, 134 F.3d 63, 65 (2d Cir. 1997). The ordinance, tracking the Miller v. California formula, banned cards that were “patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors,” that lacked serious value for minors, and that appealed to the “depraved interest of minors in crime.”
51Id. at 65-66.
52Herceg v. Hustler, 814 F.2d 1017, 1024 (5th Cir. 1987) (article on “autoerotic asphyxiation”); see also Olivia N. v. NBC, 126 Cal.App.3d 488 (1981) (TV show about a rape); Zamora v. CBS, 480 F.Supp. 199 (S.D.Fla. 1979) (steady diet of violent television); Waller v. Osbourne, 763 F.Supp. 1144 (M.D. Ga. 1991) (rock music about suicide); Watters v. TSR, Inc., 715 F.Supp. 819 (W.D.Ky. 1989) (fantasy game “Dungeons & Dragons”); Bill v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 1002 (1982) (film about gang violence); DeFilippo v. NBC, 446 A.2d 1036 (R.I. 1982) (dangerous stunt on TV program); Yakubowicz v. Paramount Pictures, 404 Mass. 624 (1989) (gang violence film). In 1997, however, a federal court of appeals did refuse to dismiss claims against the publishers of the book Hit Man for allegedly aiding a hired murderer by describing various methods of killing and avoiding detection. Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, 128 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 1997). The following year, the Louisiana Court of Appeals reinstated a suit that had been dismissed against the director Oliver Stone and Time Warner Entertainment for crimes said to have been inspired by the film “Natural Born Killers.” Byers v. Edmondson, 712 So.2d 681 (La.App. 1998).
53Telecommunications Act of 1996, §551, PL 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, codified in part at 47 U.S.C. §303(w), (x). The law provided that if the TV industry did not, within a year, “voluntarily” develop an “acceptable” ratings system to go along with the chip, the Federal Communications Commission was to “prescribe” one. The industry responded with an age- and content-based rating system designating violence, sex, “coarse language,” and “suggestive dialogue” as the categories to be rated; it did not attempt to distinguish presumably harmful violence on TV from productions with educational value, such as Hamlet or Oedipus Rex.
54The Supreme Court recognized the First Amendment rights of minors in Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969); Board of Ed., Island Trees School Dist. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982); and Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (1975).
Violence and the Media FourThe following essays are adapted Views from the transcription of a panel discussion held during the First Amendment Center’s Dec. 9, 1999, program on “The Media and Violence” at The Freedom Forum World Center in Arlington, Va.
II ANOTHER FORM OF MEDIA CENSORSHIP: KEEPING PARENTS IN THE DARK
By Joanne Cantor
esearch on media other factors — other violence often is healthy and unhealthy Rmisunderstood. behaviors. Then we can find out if smoking contributed This is because we can’t to cancer, over and above randomly assign children at all these other influences. the beginning of their lives to watch varying amounts And since we can’t do 19 of violence on television experiments on people, we Joanne Cantor is an internationally use animal studies. These recognized expert on children and the and then, 20 years later, see mass media. which children committed are artificial, but they tell us violent crimes. something about short-term effects of tobacco that we We also can’t randomly can’t find out from assign groups of people to correlational studies. smoke cigarettes for 20 or Putting the two kinds of 25 years and tell other research together, we get people not to smoke, and powerful data about effects then count the number of of smoking on cancer rates. people who developed cancer later in life. Similarly, we can do longitudinal studies of With tobacco research we children’s television conduct correlational watching and look at the studies, where we look at types of behaviors the how much people smoked children engage in later. during their lives and then We also control for other see the rate at which they factors, such as previous have succumbed to cancer. aggressiveness, family We control statistically for problems and the like.
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment We don’t look at media mayhem continued until see — that violence is easy, violence in a vacuum; we educators offered extensive that it typically has few examine whether there is a counseling to counteract negative consequences, that correlation between the media’s impact. it’s a good way to get what television viewing and you want. violent behavior, Of course the effects of even controlling for media violence vary. The Parents also need help in other influences. way violence is depicted limiting their children’s and the characteristics of exposure to media violence. We also do experiments. the viewer influence Clearly, parents should have Like the animal experiments whether media violence will information about what’s in for cancer, these are not promote violent behavior, a program, movie or video natural situations, but such intense fears and game before they allow experiments fill the gaps we nightmares or will have their children to see it or cannot fill otherwise. They some other effect or no before they buy it. are meant to show short- discernible effect at all. The term effects, such as question should not be: Is Blocking technologies like increases in hostility or TV violence the most the v-chip are a good way to more accepting attitudes important contributor to help. This is not censorship. toward violence — violence? Instead we should It’s telling parents: If you changes that we know ask: Does the addition of already have decided you increase the likelihood of gratuitous violence to don’t want “Jerry Springer” violent actions. children’s media diet make in your home, you can a difficult situation worse? automate that decision — As with tobacco, the two The answer clearly is yes. you can push a button, and types of media research it will be done. 20 form a powerful picture. We have identified Even though there are something that is Parents especially need to many studies that can be potentially unhealthy. It be able to shield young criticized, there are many poses risks to many children from harmful others that are valid. A children. And what do we content. This is far from recent analysis that put all do? We pipe it into our censorship. Parents have a the studies together makes a homes automatically and duty to make the home compelling case that media market it to kids. Not only environment healthy. violence does contribute to that: We make it hard for But censorship is going on antisocial behaviors, parents to screen and in another form. I including violence. control children’s access to participated in the taping of it. Then we criticize parents a “Leeza” show in 1997 It’s misguided to say the for not doing their job. effects of media violence on after the new TV ratings violent behavior are trivial. What solutions do we have? system came out. Many To give an example, when First of all, we need to parents on the show World Wrestling Federation promote media literacy. criticized the new system. shows were introduced to Children need to know And NBC refused to let the Israeli TV in 1994, what the effects of watching program air. Why? NBC was widespread imitation media violence might be. opposed to adding content produced an epidemic of We need to help them be information to the ratings, a playground injuries. The critical of the messages they change parents wanted and
FOUR VIEWS ultimately received (except We can’t force the networks of media violence. We need for shows on NBC). to report anything they to make sure the consumers don’t want to. But networks of media know what the This failure to inform get the airwaves free; they consequences might be parents is happening with use this advantage to and the best ways to the v-chip, too. For the first protect their profits and prevent and reduce the time ever, parents have remain silent about harmful effects. control over their TVs, with information that could help the ability to let some parents and children. shows in while keeping others out. Most parents I know most of this group don’t even know the v-chip is very much against Joanne Cantor, professor is now standard equipment censorship, and so am I. emerita at the University of in all new TV sets 13 inches But I think we really ought Wisconsin-Madison, is an and larger. to press the users of public internationally recognized airwaves to give more expert on children and the The media mostly refuse to coverage to stories that mass media. From 1974 to cover this story. And when might affect their bottom 2000 at Wisconsin, she they do, they usually line in a negative way. I taught courses in mass media suggest that the v-chip is believe the networks do not effects and research methods. only for lazy parents or that adequately cover stories Her research has focused it will never work. The about themselves, especially primarily on the effects of media have offered few stories that may be harmful television on children, with stories about the changes in to their public images. I emphasis on children’s the rating system that think this is particularly emotional reactions to scenes parents demanded. true with regard to coverage involving violence and other 21 Practically no one knows of the harmful effects of disturbing images. Her book, what the content letters media violence. in the amended rating “Mommy, I’m Scared”: How system mean. I agree that media violence TV and Movies Frighten is not the predominant Children and What We Can Unfortunately, the media cause of actual violence. Do To Protect Them are making too much But we have enough (Harcourt, 1998), summarizes money to let parents know information to say that for this research for a general about these developments. already troubled kids, it can audience. Since retiring from We now know tobacco make a bad situation much classroom teaching, she executives had information worse. And we know that devotes her time to research, that smoking was even for healthy kids, a writing, and making public dangerous, but didn’t high level of violence in presentations to groups of release it. The media aren’t their media diet is parents, teachers, mental doing most of the research psychologically harmful. health professionals, and on TV violence, but they do policy groups. She maintains control the airwaves. So The solution is less, not a website to help disseminate they have greater control more censorship. Let’s make her message over whether this message available both to parents (www.joannecantor.com). is disseminated than the and children all the known tobacco industry ever did. information about the risks
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment NEEDED: A MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION ABOUT MEDIA VIOLENCE
By Henry Jenkins
nthropologist Mary industries” — especially the The very nature of our Douglas talks about entertainment industries. relationship to media is Ahow moral panics But the real victims of the undergoing one of its most originate in traditional new culture wars were not radical shifts in the history societies. First, an Hollywood studios but of civilization. It’s unspeakable tragedy occurs American teens. comparable to the — something that shakes Gutenberg revolution or In schools, we have seen an Henry Jenkins is director of the society to its roots. Then to the rise of modern enormous breakdown of Comparative Media Studies Program people begin to ascribe mass media in the late at the Massachusetts Institute of the protections students blame, focusing primarily 19th century. Technology. enjoy in the classroom. on groups or individuals Students have been Young people are on the who already are held suspended for expressing cutting edge of these suspect within the culture. controversial views in their changes, because they are The charges that stick are papers and in class the ones who have adopted those that reaffirm discussions. Whole schools the new technologies first. preexisting biases. have been disconnected They relate to this If you want to understand from the Internet. Kids technology more intensely. why a moral panic occurs, have been profiled as These are young people 22 you have to look at the psychologically unbalanced whose sense of the world anxieties a society is on the basis of the form of has been shaped by going through at a popular culture they new media. particular time. consume and have been put into therapy or isolated We trivialize the Moral panics are an in the classroom. conversations we should be extraordinarily bad basis on having as a culture when which to make social One teacher suspended a we boil them down to just policy. We should not be kid for wearing a Star of one question: Do media making social policy in the David to school, because images produce real-world midst of an emotional crisis she thought it was a gang violence? We need to be in which all views can’t insignia. Another student having a much larger be heard. who wore his ROTC conversation. uniform was sent home for In the wake of the school wearing a black trench coat, What typically happens is shootings in Littleton, which was a mandatory that media activists latch Colo., we have lived part of that uniform. on to research about through a period of moral media’s effects on behavior panic. In Washington (in We’ve got to calm this and then they strip away all U.S. Senate hearings on panic and begin a national the qualifications, all the media violence), we saw an conversation about media reservations that careful attack on the “culture and media change. scholars put on the research findings. What remains is a
FOUR VIEWS cartoon version of media who look at the place of findings show that kids effects that is paraded those activities in people’s made basic distinctions before the hearings in lives. Let’s talk with people between fantasy and reality, Washington or elsewhere. who are concerned with between game play and what these images mean. real-world behavior. In fact, Joanne Cantor suggested Let’s ask cultural and social this study shows that that we can’t ascribe harm historians to help us put interactive technology gave to a particular film, these issues into the young people a clearer television program or video context of play throughout sense of fantasy’s game. Well, that was a history. constructed nature than reservation we certainly did television, because didn’t see coming out of Such a broad-based the kids were consciously Washington when the film conversation hasn’t ever and actively controlling “Basketball Diaries” was taken place in a policy what happened. singled out as a particularly setting in North America. dangerous work, based on In December 1999, the The Australian study didn’t 30 seconds taken out Australian national go as far as I would have of context. government released one of liked toward understanding the largest studies yet done what all this means, but Kids at different ages on video games and researchers were asking respond to media at violence. It was a study that questions we need to ask different levels. But the followed the pattern I am before we set policy. debate in Washington describing and included defined anyone under age both quantitative and Before we can change 18 as a child who needs to qualitative methodologies. behaviors and attitudes, we be protected from the It included analyses by have to understand the media. I heard no people who asked about pleasures and meanings 23 distinctions between a 4- the meaning as well as attached to violent year-old and an 18-year-old. the effects of video entertainment. For game violence. teenagers, violent Whatever influence media entertainment often means violence has on young people is a gradual or residual influence. It’s not Films and video games represent a an immediate catalyst. Kids don’t get pumped up by playing video games and world where teens have control of then grab guns and shoot each other. But these their own lives. distinctions often are lost in congressional hearings or in The study found minimal empowerment. Films and other shorthand analyses. concrete evidence of video games represent a material effects of playing world where teens have We need a conversation video games on actual control of their own lives. that includes cultural violent behavior. The appeal is not the scholars who look at the brutality; it’s not the blood. context in which violent Kids in their teens were the It is the sense of power. media images appear. Let’s study’s primary focus. The hear from anthropologists
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment Second, violent media may I think all those factors culture they consume, what bring a sense of are important. role it plays in their lives, transgression. The youth what values surround it culture often frames itself Now, to solutions. I and what it means to them. in opposition to parental advocate education and We’ve got to reinsert values. Kids’ preferred parental control, not “one- meaning into the entertainment is size-fits-all” governmental conversation about intentionally shocking. It’s solutions. My biggest media violence. “in your face.” Is it any reservation about filters and wonder that after decades v-chips is whether they of attacks on political really empower parents to correctness, teenagers now determine the standards being employed to define their culture in terms Henry Jenkins, director of the block content. of political incorrectness? Comparative Media Studies Program at the Massachusetts Third, violent As a parent, I don’t want to Institute of Technology, has entertainment turn control over my spent his career studying acknowledges a reality for family’s cultural choices to media and the way people young people that is darker an outside agency. I want incorporate it into their lives. than “Barney” or the information I need to He has published articles on a “Teletubbies.” Psychologist make rational choices for diverse range of topics relating Bruno Bettelheim said an myself. (Internet filters, to popular culture, including important function of especially, don’t give me work on “Star Trek,” WWF violence in fairy tales is to information about the Wrestling, Nintendo Games acknowledge that dark criteria they are and Dr. Seuss. He testified feelings are not unusual employing.) I should have before the U.S. Senate during 24 and to offer an opportunity the right to decide what my the hearings on media to work through them. child is exposed to, because I can monitor his or her violence that followed the Fourth, violent video games responses better than Littleton shootings and served and other violent media across-the-board as co-chair of Pop!Tech, the offer a kind of emotional solutions can. 1999 Camden Technology intensification. To be an Conference. His books include adolescent in our culture is What is needed is From Barbie to Mortal to be on a roller-coaster ride education, education, Kombat: Gender and of enormous emotional education. Most important, Computer Games (1999), turmoil. Media that are fast, we need to listen to what The Children’s Culture intense, with loud music teens say about their Reader (1998) and the give a way of escaping culture. We need forums forthcoming The Politics other feelings. where adults and teens talk and Pleasures of to one another about the Popular Culture.
FOUR VIEWS THE BIOLOGY OF VIOLENCE: WHAT BRAIN RESEARCH TELLS US
By Debra Niehoff
any of you series of interactions probably are less between the physical Mfamiliar with the human being and his or biological perspective on her environments, violence than you are with interactions that trigger the social perspective. And an emotional response that’s really a shame, that is recorded by our Debra Niehoff is a research scientist, because in the last 25 years nervous system. science writer and consultant we have learned a specializing in the neurosciences. Brain cells, of course, don’t tremendous amount about talk to each other in words. the neurobiology of They use chemical emotional behavior. What messengers and we now know about the biochemical reactions to relationship between the trade and retain brain and behavior has the information. As a result, potential to transform not interactions between the just how we think about person and the violence, but also what we environment are recorded do about it. in the brain as changes in 25 For those of you who aren’t the chemistry and neuroscientists, here are a physiology of the circuitry few high points from the that governs not just brain’s side of the story — emotion, but also a quick overview of some motivation, cognition of the more important (which is thinking and things brain research tells planning) and our us about violence. reactions to stress.
First and foremost, violent If the dialogue between behavior, like all complex brain and environment has behavior, is the result of a been largely positive, then developmental process. It is we see a human being not programmed into us by developing a nervous genes before we are born; system capable of biology is not a synonym supporting socially for genetics. But neither is acceptable behavior. On the it programmed into us other hand, if the dialogue entirely by culture after we has been predominantly are born. Instead, violent negative, we see changes in behavior grows out of a the nervous system that
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment impair the ability to cope before it. The brain controls Science demonstrates, effectively with the behavior; behavior changes however, that the brain challenges of life — and a the brain. (New imaging remains adaptable gradual deterioration in techniques may eventually throughout our lives and behavior. The person either allow us to do studies in that people can learn to overreacts to threats that human beings similar to compensate for the damage aren’t really there or the ones we have done done by toxic experiences. underreacts to threats that with animals.) Although a person’s past really are, like the threat of informs his or her present, punishment or the threat of Three, violence is a plural biology is not destiny, and getting hurt. Or we see a noun. It is not one the past doesn’t have to person’s judgment behavior; it is a family of control the future. becoming clouded by drugs, behaviors. Each of these alcohol, or collapsing types of violence has its entirely under the burden own unique behavioral of severe mental illness. profile, its own natural history and, surprisingly, its Debra Niehoff has studied the Regardless of the details, own physiology. For biology of aggression for more violence is a process. And example, people who than 20 years. After receiving because it is a process, it overreact, who are her doctoral degree in 1983 doesn’t have one cause, it “hotheads,” tend to from the Johns Hopkins has many causes. overreact physiologically as University Medical School, she well — they show signs of worked as a research scientist Second, interactions increased emotional arousal in both academic and between the brain and the and produce higher levels industrial settings and as a environment and the brain of stress hormones. 26 and behavior are two-way science writer and consultant streets. Your brain colors Multiple violences aren’t specializing in the how you see your world, likely to have a single cause. neurosciences. Her book The and the environment And if there are many kinds Biology of Violence: How continually updates that of violence, we are going to Understanding the Brain, worldview. Similarly, your need more than one kind of Behavior and the brain controls your solution. “One-size-fits-all” Environment Can Break the behavior, but the act of solutions to the problem of Vicious Cycle of Aggression behaving also can change violence are not really offers a unique perspective on the brain. solutions at all. the problem of violence, arguing that violent behavior For example, animal studies Finally, the brain is flexible. is the result of a of the minute-by-minute Our brains are vulnerable. developmental process that changes in brain chemistry What we do to people integrates brain function and before, during and after a matters, not just because it personal experience. conflict show that some of affects their thoughts or the most profound changes their morals, but because it occur after the fight, not affects them physically.
FOUR VIEWS A CRIMINOLOGIST’S PERSPECTIVE ON THE EFFECTS OF MEDIA VIOLENCE
By Joanne Savage
’m going to touch on Generally speaking, when three major issues: First, talking about the roots of II’ll describe academic crime, criminologists criminologists’ view of propose such factors as the current research, so I can lack of social bonds, lack of provide a sense of where self-control due to poor media research fits in. socialization, having Joanne Savage is an assistant Second, I will discuss criminal opportunities, professor in the Department of Justice, stress or “strain” (when Law and Society in the School of methodological issues Public Affairs at American University. related to the research on economically the effects on behavior of disadvantaged people see violent media portrayals. affluence everywhere And finally, I will talk except in their own about policy implications, experience) and associating incorporating some of the with deviant peers. If you things we know about the ask criminologists what are nature and distribution the best predictors of of crime. delinquency, they are likely to say prior delinquency 27 Among academic and the deviance of ones’ criminologists, the major friends are the two theorists do not distinguish strongest predictors of between violent crime and present criminality. other types of crime. Empirical evidence Instead, they focus on a supports this. unidimensional criminality. The biological processes In addition, although many Debra Niehoff described criminologists pay lip are not well integrated into service to the effects of current thinking in media violence on criminal criminology. I would say behavior, they do not really that biological research of integrate those effects into that sort represents a kind their theories of criminality. of specialty field. Media This suggests that they do violence research is not believe the effect is another such specialty large enough to make a field. Criminologists major contribution to our respect this research, crime problems. although most of it has
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment been conducted by persons criminal violence. atmosphere of other than those with permissiveness and expertise in criminology. Typically, the research encourages them to be produces some measure of more aggressive in If asked to describe the aggression — say a paper- subsequent activities. consensus among and-pencil measure of criminologists regarding attitudes about violence or The vast majority of those the effects of media a physiological measure of experiments could never violence on violent arousal. In the more have been done without the experimenters convincing the human- While the measurable effects of subjects committee at their universities that nobody was going to get hurt. media violence on criminal behavior There could be no chance of violence, because may be statistically significant, they ethically we can’t conduct a study if there is even a slight chance our subjects are extremely small. will be harmed. This calls into question the general behavior, I would say most convincing studies, conclusion we often hear think the effects are true, experimenters show that this line of research but very small. subjects violent films. Later, applies to the popular the subjects are given to culture, or that TV violence Typical criticisms of the think they are causes violence. These 28 experimental research say administering electric experiments have never that because so much of shocks to others. The level established that. the research is conducted of shock they are willing in laboratories — not in (or choose) to give is the Second, while the real-world settings — the measure of aggression. measurable effects of media findings aren’t violence on criminal generalizable. And, since Subjects who have seen behavior may be much of the research uses violent material tend to be statistically significant college males as more willing to shock (something that is participants, this further another person at higher important to academics), limits our ability to levels than those who have they are extremely small. generalize the findings to seen neutral material. It is the population as a whole. unclear, though, if For example, in a study willingness to shock that measures With respect to someone in a lab after aggressiveness against a toy methodological issues in being invited to do so is after exposure to media research that seeks to closely connected to real- violence, one study found establish a media-violence world willingness to shoot something like 28% of the connection, I’d like to raise at, beat up or threaten the variance in aggressiveness a few concerns. The first is life of another. It is possible can be explained by that stimuli in laboratory that showing subjects whether or not subjects experiments do not cause violent material creates an watched violent (versus
FOUR VIEWS neutral) material. To “causal” factor) we are of an impact on violent academics, this is measuring. I believe the crime rates in the United absolutely huge. But the size of the effects in States. Remember, serious, variance goes down correlational studies are realistic violent material dramatically — to about inflated and are even only accounts for a small 1% — when the outcome smaller than the 1% to 4% percentage of the violent measure is actual criminal we have seen. If we material offered in the violence. This may be controlled for all the media and probably would statistically significant, but alternative factors, perhaps only be a small piece of a 1% increase in the we wouldn’t find any that 1% of explained accuracy of predictions is effects at all. variance described earlier. not very impressive to most people; it leaves 99% of the Setting aside all the A second finding in some variance to be explained by critiques and taking the studies suggests that TV other factors. findings at face value, I’d violence has more of an like to look at the policy impact on already Another methodological implications of these aggressive people. So what issue that concerns me findings. For example, could we do, from a policy relates to what we call suppose we uncover some standpoint? Make a list of control factors. We might, evidence that more serious aggressive people and not for example, find a violence, more realistically let them watch any violent correlation between portrayed violence, has a TV or movies? You can viewing TV violence and bigger effect on actual imagine that this might be some measure of criminal behavior. difficult to accomplish. aggression, and we might get effect sizes of 16% or In fact, some of the Third, evidence suggests 10%, or something literature refutes this. But that the effect occurs when 29 approaching those for the moment, let’s the audience identifies with percentages.
But often these findings do not control for other I believe the size of the effects in factors that might affect both things. We have correlational studies are inflated and empirical evidence suggesting that aggressive children like to watch are even smaller than the 1% to 4% “aggressive” TV. We could further hypothesize that we have seen. children who are neglected might watch more violent hypothesize that we have the perpetrator. So, for TV and also might be more found statistically sound media portrayals of crime, aggressive. If we don’t evidence. We could push we could insist that people control for such other for a policy that says you who are going to do factors as neglect or have to eliminate serious, something violent should poverty, we won’t know if realistically portrayed only be those with whom the results we find really violence. But it is unlikely the audience will not are due to the variable (the that this would have much identify. In other words,
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment viewers should not see the television and movies. This who, if they didn’t have TV person as a good guy. Put would put a huge dent in as an outlet, might be busy the black hat back on the our violent crime rate. thinking about the many bad guy and make it clear problems in their lives and that this is not a person to There is some evidence that then acting out admire. Do not allow good not just violent TV but any accordingly. guys to fight back or TV produces aggressive and retaliate. This also would criminal after-effects. Part In other words, applying be kind of tricky to do and of the effect may come findings from media is surely likely to meet with from watching nonviolent research to a censorship- resistance by film directors scenes that glorify guns or based policy to prevent and television producers. violence, from becoming crime would be a desensitized to violence complicated enterprise. There’s more: Evidence just by watching the news Most of the policy suggests that the media or from the strain effect, recommendations would violence effect occurs if the described earlier, in which not result in any perpetrator is not punished people who are in poverty meaningful reductions in for committing a violent have affluence waved in crime rates. We’d need act. But if the perpetrator is their faces on TV. If we incredible amounts of punished or if there is could get rid of all TV and censorship to apply that some depiction of suffering movies, we’d add to the research and make any or guilt, the effect doesn’t overall drop in violent kind of change in the crime seem to occur. So we could behavior, because our rate. Clearly, that amount try to influence filmmakers, culture would be less of censorship is not likely encouraging them to accepting of violent crime. to be acceptable in a restrict violent portrayals to modern democracy. 30 those where the perpetrator But before we create new policies, we should think What we know about the nature and distribution of crime is that there are There is some evidence that not just dramatic year-to-year and five-year changes in crime rates. There are dramatic violent TV but any TV produces jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction variations in crime rate. aggressive and criminal after-effects. Violent crime concentrates in urban centers with high is punished or suffers for about potential benefits of rates of poverty, inequality, his or her actions. Again, watching TV, other than single-parent homes and such a policy is unlikely to the obvious one of its distressed schools and put a big dent in our being an important way to neighborhoods. And violent crime rates, and we disseminate information. violent crimes involve would pay dearly for any For example, watching TV guns, to a large degree. tiny effects with losses in occupies the time of people These factors minimize the our storytelling freedom. who might otherwise get into mischief. Violent credibility of any proposal A final thought: We could television shows also might that uses research on media simply eliminate all be entertaining for people violence to try to reduce
FOUR VIEWS violent crime rates. Instead, recommend that we and other forms of crime, they suggest that media address the more proximate violence prevention and violence probably plays a causes of crime instead of integrative and interdisciplinary minor role in U.S. crime giving so much attention theory and methodology. She rates or in urban crime to what is probably a co-authored with Bryan Vila rates. If we lived in a peripheral cause of The Evolutionary Ecology of utopia, we might see a criminality and violence. Crime and Crime Control. closer relationship between Her current research activities media portrayals of crime include “Trends in Crime and and actual criminal Justice in Washington, D.C., behavior. But we don’t live 1960-2000,” a large-scale in utopia — we live in a Joanne Savage is an assistant research project; situation where there are professor in the Department of “Understanding Homicide: An many more proximate and Justice, Law and Society in the Integrative Approach” and evident causes of crime School of Public Affairs at “Theoretical Criminology and that can and should American University. Her the Differential Etiology of be addressed. research themes and interests Violence and Stealing: The include causes of violence and Prediction of Violence Versus I think I speak for most the distinction between violence Theft.” criminologists when I
31
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment 32 The Paladin Case and the Limits of Protection for Violent Speech The following is adapted from the transcription of a discussion held during the First Amendment Center’s Dec. 9, 1999, III program on “The Media and Violence” at The Freedom Forum World Center in Arlington, Va.
PRESENTATION RODNEY A. SMOLLA
et me tell you the named Trevor. Lawrence facts of the murder Horn hit upon the idea that Lthat gave rise to this if he could murder his own dispute. It involves a son and his ex-wife, under successful producer for Maryland law he would Motown Records, someone inherit this pot who helped produce the of money. Motown sound. His name: 33 Rodney A. Smolla is an attorney To carry out that scheme, and professor who writes and Lawrence Horn. He he hooked up with a thug speaks extensively on constitutional produced Smokey named James Perry. Perry law issues. Robinson, Stevie Wonder murdered Horn’s son, and others. Trevor; the mother, Motown moved from Mildred; and the nurse, Detroit to Los Angeles, and Janice Saunders, who Horn hit on hard times. He happened to be there that needed money and came night taking care of the up with a diabolical scheme little boy. for getting it. Back here in The police were able to the suburbs of Washington, connect the murders to he had an estranged family. Horn and Perry. When they He was divorced. He had searched Perry’s apartment, some kids. they found he had One of his children had purchased a book called Hit been rendered paraplegic Man: A Technical Manual for through alleged medical Independent Contractors, malpractice. There was a produced by Paladin Press big pot of money set aside in Colorado. It appeared as to take care of the child, if Perry had followed the
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment book’s detailed instructions Ohio successfully Because of the force of to carry out the hits. prosecuted the Klan leader those arguments, we lost in for that rally. the District Court. The I was hired by the victims’ District Court judge said, in families to file a lawsuit But the Supreme Court essence: You don’t have against Paladin Press on the ruled that the Klan could causation. There is no tort theory that the publisher not be prosecuted in these here. You don’t satisfy the was to some degree liable circumstances, because Brandenburg standard. for civil damages for these there wasn’t a sufficiently murders. close nexus between the We then took the case to Klan’s violent rhetoric and the U.S. Court of Appeals. The case looked like a loser any actual violence. The The federal appeals court for three reasons. First of Supreme Court said there reversed the ruling, sending all, Perry clearly was the could be no liability unless the case back to a jury. person who caused the the speech was directed to murder. The book Hit Man the incitement of imminent We prepared for a jury trial. did not cause the murder, lawless action and likely to On the day before the jury not in the way we normally produce such action. was to try the case, Paladin think of causation. A lawyer Press settled for $5 million is trained to think in what Brandenburg seemed to and agreed to take Hit Man we call “but-for” causation require three things: that off the shelves. That is the — but for what the bad guy you intend to have story of the case, in a did, would the harm have violence, that there is nutshell. taken place? immediacy or imminence to it and that it is likely. Now, what about some of You certainly can’t say, but Paladin Press’s murder the issues I have raised? for the publication of the manual didn’t seem to fall 34 First of all, causation. book, the murders would within that paradigm. The There’s an ancient concept not have taken place. The book didn’t say: “Go out in criminal law that odds are that Horn would and murder somebody right sometimes has been used in have had his kid killed now.” anyway. Perry would have civil tort law, called “aiding figured out some other way Third, there was the and abetting.” to commit the murders. So gigantic problem of what In aiding-and-abetting cases that’s one reason our suit kind of culpability we we don’t require causation looked like a loser. would be talking about. in the normal sense, Second, the most Here’s the problem: If you because there almost never significant Supreme Court impose liability on this is causation. The aider-and- case ever decided on the kind of violent speech, abettor always will be able issue of violence, aren’t you inevitably forced to say, “Somebody else Brandenburg v. Ohio, made to impose liability on would have driven the our suit look like a loser. things like the movie getaway car, had I not done Brandenburg involved a Ku “Natural Born Killers,” on so. Somebody else would Klux Klan rally outside violent video games and so have furnished the gun or Cincinnati in which the on? There was arguably no given the plans to break Klan engaged in cross- principled way to into the bank, had I not burning, racist speech, anti- distinguish our case from done so.” And of course, Semitic speech and so on. those kinds of cases. that’s true.
THE PALADIN CASE AND THE LIMITS OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLENT SPEECH But for moral and social- Our second argument was spillover questions. We policy reasons, the historic that maybe Brandenburg was argued that the book Hit criminal doctrine has been not the right case to apply Man included two things: that if you intentionally at all. Brandenburg is an one, technical instruction assist someone in a crime, enormously important case — engineering formulas, we won’t let you weasel out that arises from a line of chemical formulas, on the theory that there is cases applying the concept photographs, diagrams, no causation. It may of “clear and present checklists and detailed literally be true that the danger.” All the cases in instruction on techniques crime would have that line have involved of killing — and two, happened in any event, but social protest or political psychological training. you are morally culpable for dissent — speeches of the having substantially NAACP, the Klan, abortion If you want to produce assisted and can be held protesters or anti-war assassins, only half your job responsible. We argued that protesters, for example. is technical know-how. Just the aiding-and-abetting as important is putting the theory solved our We argued that the Paladin assassin in the correct causation problem. Press case doesn’t fit that psychological disposition to pattern at all. This was not commit the crime in a cold- Now, what about somebody trying to incite blooded and efficient Brandenburg? We had three someone to engage in manner. That has been a arguments: One was that violence. This was an problem assassin trainers perhaps there was assistant case. This was have understood for imminence. Paladin Press about providing training. thousands of years. admitted for the purposes Aiding-and-abetting of this case that it had concepts presuppose you It’s the lethal combination published the book with are probably going to of detail and psychological 35 the intent that criminals commit the crime. It’s a steeling, we argued, that could use it to plan and different intellectual renders this book unlike a execute murder for hire. problem, a different social movie, novel, real-crime problem; it requires a reporting or other We argued that imminence different test. legitimate forms of public was not the victims’ death, discourse. These don’t have but rather imminence to Our last point was the intent to train and lawless action. The lawless philosophical. We said the rarely include the kind of action included the function of Brandenburg in a detail we are talking about. planning process. Indeed, free society is to allow even the whole idea of a murder the most aggressive, The combination of all manual is this: You do not offensive and violent those things, we argued, simply buy it and then go discourse to be uncensored. merited — in this rare case out and blow somebody But none of that comes — imposing liability for away. You go through all into play with a training what truly was a murder the complicated things the manual that gives technical manual. book tells you to do to and psychological No jury ever determined carefully plan the hit. If instruction as to how to whether we were right or those things themselves are commit crimes. wrong, because the case was lawless actions, then there settled. But keep in mind is an element of Which goes to the very two distinct lines imminence. final issues: the intent and of questioning.
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment First, do I have my facts Second, if I have the facts can prove that he or she in right? Did the publisher right, what should the fact provided substantial really intend all of this? Did social policy be? What assistance, in that unusual this book really assist the should First Amendment circumstance, should or murderer? That’s a question policy be? If a person should not the First on which you may agree or intends to train another in Amendment permit disagree with me. a violent crime and if we liability?
CROSS-EXAMINATION ROBERT CORN-REVERE
Is it your contention that CORN-REVERE: So rather Man is not protected by the certain well-defined than saying this is just First Amendment? categories of speech are not incitement to crime, and SMOLLA: Because of its subject to First Amendment therefore unprotected, it’s a content and the intent with protection and that this less well-defined notion that is very fact-based? which it was published, it is case — the kind of speech not protected. contained in Hit Man — SMOLLA: We offered two falls into one of those alternative arguments. One CORN-REVERE: So you could forbidden categories? For all was that, within the not only win a civil suit intents and purposes, does familiar groove of against it, but you could make it illegal to publish this case fall off the edge of Brandenburg, we had a right Hit Man again, is that the First Amendment earth? to go to a jury. correct? Then we made a creative 36 SMOLLA: No, we didn’t argument. The new SMOLLA: Subject to argue it in those terms. In argument focused on whatever requirements that contrast, we argued that aiding-and-abetting are unique to criminal law, this approach to thinking concepts, which are the answer is yes. If a about free-speech problems traditional, well-known person intentionally assists is obsolete. It no longer is concepts in criminal law. another to commit a crime the method the Supreme We said, “If you satisfy all through the publication of Court uses. What you must the elements of aiding and a book, and all other do instead is look to broad abetting, the fact that the criminal law requirements First Amendment principles aider and abettor uses are satisfied, I see no First and, as needed, apply those language doesn’t immunize Amendment reason why principles to new contexts that person under the First there could not be liability. as they arise. Amendment.” In my view, In the same way, under the Supreme Court has If you look at a free-speech Brandenburg v. Ohio, if the never passed on that casebook used to teach Klan leaders had distributed question. This was the students, you won’t find maps to an African experimental aspect of our five chapters suggesting five American church and case. categories. You will find 25 diagrams on how to make a chapters and an enormous CORN-REVERE: But the pipe bomb, in my view that level of complexity. bottom line is that the would have rendered them speech embodied in Hit potentially criminally liable
THE PALADIN CASE AND THE LIMITS OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLENT SPEECH for solicitation of murder or for all my seriously uses explicit detail, because incitement to murder, had disturbed friends. Could I don’t believe it would be someone in the Klan taken I be criminally liable possible to demonstrate the the pipe-bomb instructions, for that? intent behind the novel. built the bomb, gone out But what if the novelist and bombed the church. SMOLLA: I think if you own wants to put out a murder a copy of Hit Man and you manual and is simply I believe the U.S. Supreme give it to someone who you thinly disguising it as Court, in that fact pattern, know is disturbed, you a novel? would say you could have cannot be held criminally criminal liability. liable. If you own a copy of That would be a loophole Hit Man and you give it to we as a society probably CORN-REVERE: Let’s take a someone knowing and would not be able to plug, different hypothetical. intending that he or she and that’s not uncommon. Suppose I own a copy of Hit will follow the instructions You often can get away Man, and I lend it to a to commit a crime, you with things through friend who I know is may be criminally liable. disguise. The difficulty of disturbed. Could I be That nuance would be proving intent might make criminally liable? Or let’s something the prosecutor it impossible. But to me say Hit Man was written as would have to prove. this doesn’t undercut the a novel. Say it’s The Turner validity of the principle Diaries, and I think it I don’t believe it is possible when it’s not a novel, but should be required reading to prosecute a novelist who a manual.
37 PRESENTATION ROBERT CORN-REVERE
Before discussing the He said we live in a time of quoted one “expert” who Paladin Press case, I want to moral panic. I agree, but I said, “It’s like arguing talk a little bit about the would describe it more as against gravity to suggest way Hit Man relates to the an era of cultural there is any other answer.” earlier panel discussion on McCarthyism. We are media violence, the overall treating aspects of the Despite such a statement, effect of policy in the law culture and violent speech I think there are some and its relationship to the much as our government other answers. debate over media violence. treated discussions of As a matter of fact, in communism in the 1950s. Henry Jenkins provided testimony at one Senate wonderful perspective on This past summer [1999], hearing on a TV violence this issue when he talked the Senate Judiciary bill, I referred to a Robert Corn-Revere is an attorney about how media-effects Committee issued a report wonderful article by Chief who specializes in First Amendment research is taken up by on media violence. It said Judge Harry Edwards of the Internet and communications law. media-effects advocates, there have been numerous U.S. Court of Appeals for and how the reservations studies conducted over the the District of Columbia. In stated in the research are past 40 years and they all this article, Judge Edwards stripped away in the find an adverse effect from analyzed all the major policy debates and media violence on violent research on television never discussed. behavior. The report even violence and tried to
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment explain both its context — adopted, although I doubt thing you hear is that free how the research was done, we have seen the last of speech is not absolute. It’s a what it meant, how it this kind of proposal. It true statement, but fairly related to the law — and would have created meaningless. In a free why it provided a good criminal penalties for society, the more relevant perspective for analyzing distributing sexual or question is, when can you legislative proposals. violent material to minors. turn people into criminals because of their speech? One of the other panelists, The legislation, if adopted, The first time the Supreme a social scientist, said, would have applied to any Court addressed this “Well, that’s just a judge picture, photograph, question had to do with the assessing social science. He’s drawing, sculpture, video Espionage Act passed simply not qualified to talk game, motion picture, during World War I. about these issues.” book, pamphlet, magazine, Basically, the act was Incredible. printed matter or sound intended to prevent speech recording containing sexual that might obstruct the As a result of such attitudes, or violent material or Selective Service System. you see irresponsible claims detailed verbal descriptions by social scientists being or narrative accounts of The first Supreme Court accepted uncritically in the explicit sexual or violent cases interpreting the policy debates. One material. Violent sculpture? Espionage Act provide the researcher has made the Where are we? Go to most well-known language unbelievable claim that Washington. Try to find a from court opinions, at 10% of youth violence is statue that isn’t portraying least among the general the direct result of a hero on a horse riding public, about the First television viewing. Or into war. What is violent Amendment. Justice Oliver 38 another, again quoted in sculpture? I don’t know, Wendell Holmes wrote that the Senate Judiciary but that’s the kind of the “most stringent Committee report, says if proposal we are seeing in protection of free speech television hadn’t been Congress now. does not protect a man in invented, there would be falsely shouting ‘Fire!’ in a 10,000 fewer homicides a In light of these theater and causing a year and our violent crime developments, the question panic.” Now, every time I rate would be cut in half. presented by the Hit Man get into a family discussion Such irresponsible case is, where do you draw about anything involving statements find their way the line? What kind of the First Amendment, the into congressional hearings. speech is permissible under conversation stopper — the They drive legislation. the First Amendment, what final argument I hear from When you add this kind of speech can be my relatives — is, “Hey, you phenomenon to cases like restricted and still be can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a Hit Man, it can lead to consistent with the crowded theater.” seriously adverse effects in principles of free society? the law. My opinion is that the Hit It doesn’t matter what the Man case went too far and argument is about. It could For example, Pat Schroeder opened a dangerous door. be about anti-abortion mentioned the Hyde demonstrators or legislation that was Any time you get into a pornography on TV. It introduced last summer. discussion about First could be anything. The Fortunately, it was not Amendment issues, the first bottom-line argument is:
THE PALADIN CASE AND THE LIMITS OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLENT SPEECH “You can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a The question was whether As our experiences during crowded theater.” Thank or not there was a the McCarthy era you very much. Thanks for likelihood this publication demonstrated, you can’t clearing that up. would lead to violence. The rely on such an approach to court said that, of course, protect free speech. At that A moment ago, I read the document would not time, the Supreme Court Justice Holmes’ exact quote have been sent unless it upheld the convictions of to you. It’s different from had been intended to have members of the Communist the folk-wisdom, “fire-in-a- some effect. It could not see party for distributing books crowded-theater” argument. what effect the pamphlets and advocating the violent It says the most stringent could be expected to have overthrow of the United protections would not on persons subject to the States as soon as possible. It protect a man falsely draft except to influence wasn’t a direct call to shouting “Fire!” in a them to obstruct it. immediate action, yet in crowded theater and causing 1951 the Supreme Court a panic. This statement led This question highlights the said it was. Cases like that to the doctrine of “clear distinction Rod was trying continued until the 1960s. and present danger,” which to make with the Hit Man Finally, at the end of the is an antecedent to the case and why that book ’60s, the Brandenburg case standard of the Brandenburg alone should be penalized, was decided. It created the case that Rod Smolla was as opposed to all that other test for incitement you talking about. advocacy out there. The heard about during Rod’s analysis focuses on the presentation. Justice Holmes wrote that question of intent. The the question in every case is question is, what does it Given our experience whether the words are used take to cross that line before during the McCarthy era, it in such circumstances or you can criminalize speech? is not hard to imagine 39 are of such a nature as to where expanding categories create a clear and present We have had, in the of unprotected speech in danger. Will the words Constitution and the law, the wake of Hit Man is bring about the substantive the designation of certain going to lead. The 4th evils that Congress has a categories of unprotected Circuit Court of Appeals right to prevent? It is a speech. However, when decision in Hit Man devotes question of proximity you expand those two and a half pages to a and degree. categories, whether you discussion about how this make them less well- case isn’t going to lead to In the case I am describing, defined or very fact- its application in other Schenck v. United States, the specific, you open the door cases. The court said it Socialist Party distributed for censorship of all kinds couldn’t imagine how the about 15,000 anti-draft of materials that simply precedent can be applied to pamphlets. They contained weren’t at risk before. In movies or other works. a quote from the Thirteenth other words, if you don’t Amendment prohibiting rely on a firm test or Yet in the brief time since slavery and had this category and you rely the Hit Man case (Rice v. inflammatory rhetoric: “Do instead on case-by-case Paladin Publishing) was not submit to intimidation, analysis, there is a greater handed down, we have assert your rights.” The risk of widespread seen a spate of cases pamphlets contained no censorship. alleging that the producers call to violence. of movies and video games
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment knew or intended that their War. But it showed repackaged, or even in this products would cause atrocities being committed case, the contract killer crimes. People are indeed by British soldiers at a time might have turned to a being forced to go to trial when England was our ally. number of excellent U.S. over these issues. For As a result, the filmmaker government publications if example, Rod mentioned was convicted for he wanted instruction on Oliver Stone’s “Natural distributing the movie. how to commit a crime. Born Killers.” Byers v. Both the District Court and Edmundson is a Louisiana the appeals court said, Significantly, the settlement case where a surviving maybe it’s a good movie in Rice v. Paladin Publishing family alleged that the about historic events and has increased the book’s makers of the movie maybe it’s accurate, but visibility. Hit Man is intended it to incite people during this time and with available online, and it is to go out and commit the possible intent that it more popular now than crimes. This is one of those could obstruct our Selective ever. In the 16 years since it cases the 4th Circuit told us Service System, we have to was published (between would never happen. find it a violation of the 1983 and 1999), 13,000 Espionage Act. I think great copies were in print. There Similarly, after the school damage has been done were about 700 copies still shooting in Paducah, Ky., when you add the available at the time of the two families sued a whole precedent from Hit Man to settlement on May 21, range of defendants, this history of the First 1999. However, in the five including Time Warner for Amendment. It opens the months between May 22 making “The Basketball door for more cases like and mid-October, 6,800 Diaries,” the Persian Kitty “The Spirit of ’76.” copies of Hit Man have Web site, video game been downloaded from 40 makers and a number of More important, no the Internet. other defendants, saying positive good really comes they had defective products out of cases like Hit Man. So even though the and knew they were Certainly, good was done intentions of those who inciting people to for the surviving family argued the Hit Man case commit crimes. members, who collected may have been good, I have millions of dollars as a real questions about By the way, there is a result of the settlement. But whether the precedent it precedent for such as Rod acknowledged, this created is helpful either to allegations. There were wasn’t a cause-and-effect the victims of crimes or to some 2,000 prosecutions case, a “but-for” case. anybody else. And I am under the Espionage Act Lawrence Horn, who absolutely convinced it has during World War I. One perpetrated this crime, still been harmful to the spirit involved a motion picture had a motive to kill his son and future of the First called “The Spirit of ’76.” and still would have found Amendment. This was a patriotic movie a way to do it. Hit Man about the Revolutionary presumably could be
THE PALADIN CASE AND THE LIMITS OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLENT SPEECH CROSS-EXAMINATION RODNEY A. SMOLLA
SMOLLA: Bob, I have two commerce is that you have proven: The publisher questions. Here is what I a specific contact between publishes bomb-making will call Hypothetical No. 1. individuals. This is a material so that novelists Imagine we had the discussion about what a can write thrillers about following conversation on person who is going to bomb incidents with more tape pursuant to a wiretap: commit a crime plans to verisimilitude; so that law- do; that person gets specific enforcement officials can A caller calls a publisher advice about how to do it. learn about bomb-making and says, “I want to bomb a techniques for the purposes federal building and kill the This is not that much of a of investigating explosions; people inside. I need stretch in the law. We have so that people can fantasize technical instruction on conspiracy cases in which about being bombers, how to manufacture a people provide directions to although they have no bomb to accomplish this a person’s house, as intention of ever engaging purpose. Do you have such Lawrence Horn did for the in that kind of violent instruction available?” hit on his family. Or you fantasy; so that people who have a situation where are simply interested in real The operator says, “Yes, we someone gets together in a crime and in the techniques do. We have a variety of cell, as part of a movement, of violence can gather titles” and reads them off. and makes plans for information about it; so building a bomb. The caller says, “I’ll take that people who wish to perpetrate crimes and need How to Manufacture an There is a federal statute expertise can obtain it. Incendiary Bomb Useful for that specifically addresses These are five purposes the 41 Terrorist Purposes, Vol. III.” that. Teaching someone to publisher is proven to have. make explosive devices for The publisher says, “Do you the purposes of causing a have a Visa card?” The publisher never knows civil disturbance is against which customer is calling “Yes.” the law. I don’t think that for which purpose, but creates a First Amendment suspects that one out of The transaction has taken problem. 15,000 is actually place. The caller goes for purchasing the book to the Federal Express option. SMOLLA: The answer to the bomb somebody. If we were Using that material, the first hypothetical is “No, to catch a publisher in that building is bombed. the First Amendment would situation, having sold to a not protect the publisher in real bomber, your answer — In your view, did the First that transaction”? Amendment protect the is it not? — is that the First publisher in that CORN-REVERE: With a fairly Amendment would protect transaction? big caveat. the publisher, that the First Amendment in this CORN-REVERE: The SMOLLA: Here’s situation must protect the difference between that Hypothetical No. 2. publisher because of the transaction and the difference between the first The publisher is not caught situation of simply hypothetical and the in that conversation, but publishing a book that is second hypothetical. instead the following is sent out into the stream of
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment CORN-REVERE: In fact, that as an instructional manual. people for bad ends, as is the scenario presented in opposed to someone who the stipulation of the Their stipulation was, they actually writes a book and defense counsel in Hit Man. intended that the book be intends something to be They essentially admitted used by contract killers for done. But even that is they were aware that instruction to go out and distinct from the situation among these categories of commit murders. There is a in which you supply people who might be vast difference between information to a specific interested in the book, being aware of the person to commit a specific there might be contract possibility that what you crime. That is conspiracy, killers out there who use it publish may be used by and that’s illegal.
DISCUSSION ROBERT M. O’NEIL, moderator
O’NEIL: The subtitle to the MIKE GODWIN (Electronic It seems hard to conceive of book actually says, “How to Frontier Foundation): I anyone reading a book and Carry Out the Perfect agree that if you have all not reflecting before acting. Assassination Without the elements of aiding and Getting Caught.” abetting, including SMOLLA: You are absolutely Unfortunately, Mr. Perry — intentionality after the right. I don’t believe the the assassin — didn’t read specific elements of the decision we got followed that part of the book, or specific crime, there ought automatically from existing 42 something went wrong. So to be tort liability, even if legal principles. my favorite hypothetical all you did was provide Invoking the values that has always been this: Mr. how-to information. underlie aiding-and- Perry gets out of jail and abetting law and applying Robert M. O’Neil is founding decides he is going to But what you don’t have in director of the Thomas Jefferson them to this situation was bring suit against either the facts of this case Center for the Protection of Free the breakthrough aspect of Paladin Press for issuing as we understand it or even Expression and former president of our case. Remember my the University of Virginia. a defective product. in the stipulated version of the facts, is that kind of Hypothetical No. 2 — the And the question is intentionality — specific one in which the publisher whether Professor Smolla intent with regard to aiding offers the book for a variety would then be willing to and abetting. I think what of purposes, but represent Mr. Perry and you have done is actually to understands that whether Mr. Corn-Revere merge incitement and somewhere a customer may would be willing to aiding and abetting in use its information to represent Paladin Press on that discussion. commit a crime? First Amendment grounds. I suggest that it’s first a But that would be unfair, so With regard to imminence moral question; and then a I will forgo that of the lawless action, question of how one is opportunity and turn typically we understand going to construct state instead to your questions. imminence as having no opportunity to reflect. criminal law and tort law; federal criminal law; and
THE PALADIN CASE AND THE LIMITS OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLENT SPEECH then a First Amendment Hit Man really encapsulates CORN-REVERE: The question. the danger I’ve tried to precedent is the extensive describe. It’s certainly true legal discussion by the U.S. In my view, the Court of that in First Amendment Court of Appeals in the 4th Appeals thought the moral cases, just as in any other Circuit that stands as answer was: “You are case, facts are important. binding precedent in this morally culpable. You But this is an area of law circuit and as persuasive should, in this very free where the Supreme Court authority elsewhere. It says society, nevertheless be and lower courts all have you can be subject to civil responsible.” held that strong tests are liability simply by necessary, and that the publishing a book that can If you are not merely aware government must overcome lead someone you don’t that some people will take high hurdles to give the know — whom you have what you offer and commit First Amendment breathing never met and about whose violent acts, but you intend room before you begin circumstances you are to assist them … if you censoring speech wholesale. unfamiliar — to commit could prove that one of the a crime. purposes in putting out a To say we can simply decide training manual is to train certain speech is going to Based on the discussion by real killers, the fact that be considered on the that court and on Rod’s there isn’t the specificity specific facts of a case gives answers today, you also you require shouldn’t too little breathing room could be subject to criminal matter. for the First Amendment. penalties if the legislature This is what happened in criminalizes that kind of Bob Corn-Revere is the 1950s in Dennis v. behavior. As a result, that bothered by the necessity United States, when the legal analysis is being used for case-specificity Supreme Court ruled that in courtrooms across the 43 weighing, because that merely joining the country to go after films often is seen as a threat to Communist party, believing where victims of tragedies First Amendment values. we should overthrow the want to get some kind But I would say there isn’t a government and having of retribution. single area of modern First books about Communist Amendment law in which doctrine was enough to put The argument is being we do not impose case- a person in jail. made that even if the specific weighing. filmmakers didn’t intend to O’NEIL: There is one other cause tragedies, they should Day in and day out, it’s element we ought to have known the films what we do in libel cases, in remember: You have to be would cause them. The commercial-speech cases, in in a jurisdiction where same argument is being obscenity cases. It always something like aiding and used in cases about Web has been thought abetting is recognized. pages protesting abortion permissible to inquire into and naming doctors and so things like intent and the KAY MILLER (Longfellow on. It cuts across a wide causal nexus to determine if Middle School): What spectrum of different cases there is liability. exactly was the precedent and different applications. created by Hit Man if, in CORN-REVERE: The It’s a dangerous fact, the case was settled discussion of how the law development in the law. and did not come to has changed as a result of a conclusion?
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment O’NEIL: The Court of Anthony Kennedy when he be careful that we’re getting Appeals never said the was a judge on the 9th you because of some of plaintiffs prevail on the Circuit before he joined the kind of immediate nexus to merits, only that they have Supreme Court. criminal behavior. a right to go to trial. In a case of this sort, you can An intriguing thing Now this is not entirely imagine how sympathetic happened when we satisfying because there are jurors would likely be once researched our case and going to be close cases, but you got to trial and they looked at lower court it’s a sensible judgment. In heard all the things Rod opinions. We found that your hypothetical, then, I was describing. But it’s the “mother lode” of lower would give the publisher important to understand court opinions was — of all the benefit of Brandenburg. they are not home free. It’s places — in tax cases. For CORN-REVERE: It’s just the first stage in what ideological reasons, tax important to note that in would have been a long protesters often produce most of the tax instruction- process if they had gone material — books, manual cases that arise, you trial. pamphlets and speeches — on how to defraud the IRS. are dealing with a situation RON COLLINS (Center for where people get together Science in the Public There have been quite a few at seminars. There are Interest): One book that federal court cases dealing published materials, but comes to mind when we with whether or not there there also are people who talk about the Hit Man case is a First Amendment will counsel others as to is The Anarchist Cookbook. Brandenburg defense how to get around the tax available in that situation. laws and will help them fill You said the Hit Man Judge Kennedy said if you out their tax forms so as to 44 manual didn’t really fall have, in effect, a tax- defraud the government. into the Brandenburg evasion training manual, scenario for a variety of you are not entitled to a So in most cases, the added reasons, one of which was Brandenburg instruction. dimension you are talking that it wasn’t political. If That’s aiding and abetting about is criminal conduct The Anarchist Cookbook falls tax evasion. When you are that is accompanied by on the political side of the providing this kind of publication. spectrum and there was a detailed information with COLLINS: So, if you have an similar stipulation as to no ideological patina, ideologically motivated act intent, would it be aiding-and-abetting law is to kill somebody in a governed by the all you get. federal government Brandenburg political speech building, Brandenburg; if test, or would it be But, he said, if there is a you have the same act but governed by the law of mixture of ideological not ideologically motivated aiding and abetting? diatribe and detail, you are entitled to the Brandenburg to kill somebody in a SMOLLA: I think the instruction. We want to be federal building, no Brandenburg test ought to careful that we are not Brandenburg. Is that correct? apply to The Anarchist coming after you merely SMOLLA: I think the answer Cookbook. I didn’t come up because you are a tax crazy is yes. This was exactly the with this on my own. It is and we find your ideas colloquy we had in the oral actually well discussed by reprehensible. We want to argument. It seems to me
THE PALADIN CASE AND THE LIMITS OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLENT SPEECH that if you look at the Aren’t we really dealing had intended bad things, philosophy underlying free with a common criterion there was absolutely no speech, of course it ought for distinguishing between obligation to demonstrate to be harder to prosecute lesser- and more-protected any kind of causal people who are engaged in speech that the court has relationship between the what we claim is violent used all the time? crime that occurred — speech for ideological immediate or not — and purposes — which is part of CORN-REVERE Obviously, the publication. public discourse — as the First Amendment isn’t opposed to people who, in an absolute. You can’t pass SKOVER: Isn’t intent being a very cold-blooded way, someone a note that says, used to take the case out of simply are willing to sell “Give me all your money” the Brandenburg category you details on how to kill at the teller’s window at the and into the aiding-and- people or blow up buildings bank and think because you abetting category? Thus, or whatever, for whom used words to commit the immediacy becomes there is not even a pretense crime, that the First irrelevant. of contributing to the Amendment protects you. CORN-REVERE: That’s the marketplace of ideas, it’s You can’t say you’re a problem — creating the purely to assist in reporter for a major aiding-and-abetting hurting others. metropolitan daily, and break into a warehouse for category for a publication. DAVID SKOVER (Seattle a big story, and assume you While it might be argued, University School of Law): are immune from the as the 4th Circuit tried to Unless you espouse a normal laws against do, that this case is unique virtually absolutist position breaking and entering. — that it’s not going to be on the First Amendment — applied to people who write and I don’t understand you First Amendment novels or make films — 45 to be doing that, Mr. Corn- absolutism is a meaningless in fact, that is the Revere — it seems to me concept, and I don’t know development in the law we you’re in a hard place to be anybody who actually are seeing. critiquing the use of intent would fall into the category It is essentially because we as a First Amendment of absolutist. have this new development criterion in the kinds To answer your more that makes this case of cases raised by specific question about the dangerous. This is not the Rodney Smolla. use of intent, it’s true that commonplace application Are these not time-honored intent may figure in as an of aiding-and-abetting criteria for determining element of crimes — and principles used every day in between lesser- and more- often does in crimes that the law. Criminals talk to protected forms of speech? involve communicative each other, and that is How could we distinguish, behavior or speech. The sometimes part of the for example, between difficulty here is that intent crime. But here we are political speech and was used to overcome the talking about a distinctly commercial speech, except obligation to prove different thing. We are by the speaker’s identity immediacy in the talking about applying the and the commercial intent Brandenburg sense. law to a publisher who had or purpose of the speech? no idea who might be Because the defendants in reading the book. this case stipulated they
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment O’NEIL: The Court of O’NEIL: It may not be different and more Appeals understandably entirely clear how “Natural troublesome kind of and properly was not Born Killers” reached the question to be decided in entirely comfortable in same stage. There weren’t litigation, and I think is shifting everything onto any stipulations there, but much more chilling for aiding and abetting. There the plaintiffs alleged the that reason. is a lot of ambivalence in same kind of intent. The the opinion on that issue, defendants, eager to have I think we will see people on the significance of the the case dismissed before it stretching the boundaries. stipulations. At one point went to trial, essentially Not just people who think they say, “Well, the had to concede for purpose they may score big on a stipulations don’t really of argument that those civil case, but I suspect we’ll matter.” And then a few allegations about intent see national policies and pages later they come back could have been proved. So laws being adopted that and talk about the it ends up in a very similar seek to stretch the stipulations again. posture, even though by a boundaries that Paladin different route. I think that Press opened. CORN-REVERE: This opinion distinction may be helpful. has freed up other courts, SAM DINGMAN (T.C. like the one in Louisiana in SMOLLA: New York Times v. Williams High School Byers v. Edmundson Sullivan did not end libel senior): In our government examining whether the litigation; some argue it class at school, we have makers of “Natural Born encouraged protracted been doing a mock Killers” intended the film to litigation. Whatever the Supreme Court trial using incite people to rob result, it still requires you to NEA v. Finley, the case and kill. negate the allegations. about controversial art 46 forms and the validity of I expect we are going to CORN-REVERE: The the decency clause. have a number of cases go difference between New through these kinds of York Times v. Sullivan — One of the arguments made factual analyses to which involved publishing by the student lawyers was determine whether or not an advertisement that was that Ms. Finley didn’t have the publisher knew or later argued to be the right to be funded by should have known or defamatory — and the Hit the NEA for her intended such results. Man case is that in the controversial art, but she former you have a specific did have the right to At least since 1964 and New transaction between specific produce it. York Times v. Sullivan, in individuals where someone My question deals with the developing First alleged he was wronged by boundaries of the Hit Man Amendment law, we’ve the publication, whereas case. It seems like the created high hurdles to here, in Hit Man, the factual publisher who published settle these kinds of allegation goes to more the work was liable, but I’m questions. You don’t want amorphous, more curious as to where the to drag people through intangible issues as to how people who wrote Hit Man years of litigation and someone you don’t know — the people who actually encourage them not to may use your publication created the words — where publish things they once it goes out into the do they fit in? Was there otherwise would stream of commerce. It any suit brought against have published. raises a fundamentally them? Are they protected
THE PALADIN CASE AND THE LIMITS OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLENT SPEECH under the First Amendment questions that 1992) won the William O. Amendment? It seems to exist — funding of the arts Douglas Award as the year’s me they are almost more and offensive speech. So best monograph on freedom of liable than the publishers when you have that one expression. His latest book, are, because they are the figured out, come help the Deliberate Intent (Crown ones who created the ideas. two of us. Publishers), was published in July 1999; it describes the SMOLLA: On the cover of CORN-REVERE: Actually, I successful representation of the book Hit Man, the wanted to add a simple three murder victims in a suit author is listed as Rex Feral. answer to your question: against the publisher of the “Rex” is a pseudonym. A The publisher got sued murder instruction manual woman wrote the book. She because the publisher had Hit Man. submitted the book as a the money. novel, as fiction. The publisher said, “We are not O’NEIL: Should you ever interested in publishing have the misfortune of Robert Corn-Revere is a fiction. But if you will coming home and finding partner in the Washington, rewrite this as a murder your family wiped out by D.C., office of Hogan & manual, a how-to somebody who did it by Hartson L.L.P., specializing in instruction manual, we will the book, or should you First Amendment, Internet publish it.” discover that a close relative and communications law. had published that book, Before joining Hogan & The publisher engaged in a you will now know where Hartson in 1994, he served as contractual negotiation to turn for the best possible chief counsel to Interim with the author in which legal representation. Chairman James H. Quello of the publisher agreed to the Federal Communications hold the author harmless, Commission. From 1990 until 47 to pay for the author’s 1993, he was Commissioner defense and damages in the Quello’s legal adviser. He event that any liability suits Rodney A. Smolla joined regularly advises clients on ever arose out of the the law faculty of the Internet-related issues and has publication of the book. University of Richmond, T.C. served as counsel in First Williams School of Law, in Amendment litigation For that quirky reason, she 1998 as the new George E. involving the became a kind of behind- Allen Professor of Law. He Communications Decency the-scenes player, because was previously the Arthur B. Act, the Child Online both sides realized the Hanson Professor of Law in Protection Act, Internet publisher was the prime the Marshall-Wythe School of content filtering in public mover behind the events. Law, College of William and libraries and export controls But in a different fact Mary. From 1988 to 1996, he on encryption software. In pattern involving a was director of the Institute of 1999, he was listed on a 30th different author/publisher Bill of Rights Law at William Anniversary Roll of Honor by relationship, it might have and Mary. He writes and the American Library turned out differently. speaks extensively on Association’s Office of Intellectual Freedom and It is magnificent that in constitutional law issues and Freedom to Read Foundation your high school you have is also active in litigation for his role as lead counsel in mock Supreme Court matters involving Mainstream Loudoun v. arguments. It’s a great way constitutional law. His book Board of Trustees of the to learn. You have taken on Free Speech in an Open Loudoun County Library. one of the hardest First Society (Alfred A. Knopf,
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment Robert M. O’Neil is free speech and press at the for the Bloomington campus founding director of the universities of California and president of the University Thomas Jefferson Center for (Berkeley), Cincinnati, of Wisconsin. He is the author the Protection of Free Indiana, Wisconsin and of several books, including Expression and the former Virginia. In addition to Free Speech in the College president of the University of teaching, he has had a Community, Free Speech: Virginia. He is a member of distinguished career in higher Responsible the university’s law faculty education administration, Communication Under Law, and teaches courses in serving prior to his move to The Rights of Public constitutional and copyright Virginia as provost of the Employees (second ed., 1993) law. For the past three University of Cincinnati, vice and Classrooms in decades, he has taught about president of Indiana University the Crossfire.
48
THE PALADIN CASE AND THE LIMITS OF PROTECTION FOR VIOLENT SPEECH Bibliography
Bok, Sissela. Mayhem: Violence as Public Entertainment. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1998.
Brooks, Kim, Vincent Schiraldi and Jason Ziedenberg. “School House Hype: Two Years Later.” Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute/Children’s Law Center, 2000.
Cantor, Joanne. “Mommy, I’m Scared:” How TV and Movies Frighten Children and What We Can Do To Protect Them. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1998.
Committee on Communications and Media Law, The Association of the Bar of the City of New York. “Violence in the Media: A Position Paper,” The Record. New York: The Association, April 1997.
Elliott, Delbert S., et al., eds. Violence in American Schools: A New Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Freedman, Jonathan. “Effect of Television Violence on 49 Aggressiveness,” Psychological Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association,1984.
Freedman, Jonathan, “Television Violence and Aggression: What Psychologists Should Tell the Public,” Suedfeld, Peter and Philip Tetlock, ed., Psychology and Social Policy. New York; Hemisphere Publishing Corp., 1992.
Freedman, Jonathan. Testimony. Washington, D.C.: House Bipartisan Task Force on Youth Violence, Oct. 13, 1999.
Freedman, Jonathan. “Viewing Television Violence Does Not Make People More Aggressive,” Hofstra Law Review. Hempstead, N.Y.: Hofstra Law Review Association, 1994.
Gadow, Kenneth and Joyce Sprafkin. “Field Experiments of Television Violence with Children: Evidence for an Environmental Hazard?” Pediatrics. Elk Grove Village, Ill.: The American Academy of Pediatrics, 1989.
Goldstein, Jeffrey. “Video and Computer Games: A Summary of Research on the Attractions, Effects, and Applications of Video and Computer Games.” Washington, D.C.: Interactive Digital Software Assn., 1997.
Violence and the Media: An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment Horn, David M. “Bruised Inside: What Our Children Say About Youth Violence, What Causes It, and What We Need to Do About It.” Washington, D.C.: National Association of Attorneys General, 2000.
Jenkins, Henry and Justine Cassell, eds. From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1999.
Jenkins, Henry. Testimony. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, May 4, 1999.
Kellerman, Jonathan. Savage Spawn: Reflections on Violent Children. New York: Ballantine, 1999.
Kunkel, Dale, et al. “Measuring Television Violence: The Importance of Context,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. Washington, D.C.: Broadcast Education Association, 1995.
Levine, Judith. “Shooting the Messenger: Why Censorship Won’t Stop Violence.” New York: The Media Coalition, 2000.
National Research Council. Understanding and Preventing Violence. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993.
Niehoff, Debra. The Biology of Violence: How Understanding the Brain, Behavior and the Environment Can Break the Vicious Cycle of Aggression. New York: Free Press, 1998.
Rhodes, Richard. Why They Kill: The Discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999. 50 Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior. Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence, Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972.
Withecomb, Julie. “Causes of Violence in Children,” Journal of Mental Health. Abingdon, England: Carfax Pub. Co., 1997.
INTERNET RESOURCES
Federal Trade Commission. “Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children.” http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/09/youthviol.htm. September 2000.
Free Expression Network. “An Appeal to Reason.” http://www.freexpression.org/reason.htm. 2000.
Hatch, Orrin and Senate Judiciary Committee. “Children, Violence, and the Media: A Report for Parents and Policy Makers.” http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/mediavio.htm. 1999.
Jenkins, Henry. “Lessons from Littleton: What Congress Doesn’t Want to Hear About Youth and Media.” http://web.mit.edu/cms/news/nais9912/. 1999
BIBLIOGRAPHY ViolenceViolence
he First Amendment Center works to preserve and protect First Amendment freedoms through information and education. The center andand thethe T serves as a forum for the study and exploration of free-expression issues, including freedom of speech, of the press and of religion, the right to assemble and to petition the government. Media The First Amendment Center, with offices at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, An exploration of cause, effect and the First Amendment Tenn., and in New York City and Arlington, Va., is an independent affiliate of The Freedom Forum and the Newseum, the interactive museum of news. The with Joanne Cantor • Henry Jenkins • Debra Niehoff • Joanne Savage Freedom Forum is a nonpartisan, international foundation dedicated to free by Marjorie Heins Robert Corn-Revere • Rodney A. Smolla • Robert M. O’Neil press, free speech and free spirit for all people.
First Amendment Center Board of Trustees
CHARLES L. OVERBY Kenneth A. Paulson EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Chairman John Seigenthaler JIMMY R. ALLEN FOUNDER MICHAEL G. GARTNER 1207 18th Avenue South Nashville, TN 37212 MALCOLM KIRSCHENBAUM
(615) 321-9588 BETTE BAO LORD www.freedomforum.org WILMA P. MANKILLER
BRIAN MULRONEY
JAN NEUHARTH To order additional copies of this report, call 1-800-830-3733. WILL NORTON JR.
PETER S. PRICHARD
JOHN SEIGENTHALER
PAUL SIMON Publication No. 01-F01