Media Coalition and Government Regulation

FCC PROPOSAL TO REGULATE VIOLENT CONTENT

NEW YORK, NY, April 26, 2007 -- Media Coalition, a trade association representing producers and retailers of First Amendment-protected material, today criticized the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) unprecedented effort to expand government control over depictions of violence on television, an area it has never before been authorized to regulate.  The courts have never permitted regulation of violent content for adults or minors. (Click here to see the rest of Media Coalition's press release)

FCC COMMENT ON VIOLENT TELEVISION PROGRAMMING

Washington, DC, October 15, 2004 -- The Media Coalition filed a comment with the Federal Communications Commission in response to its Notice of Inquiry on the matter of violent television programming and its impact on children (click here to see the complete comment).  In the comment, the Media Coalition stated why federal restrictions on broadcast, cable, and satellite television with violent content would violate the First Amendment.  

In addition the statement questioned contemporary social science research that suggests a link between media with violent content and actual violence.  Three documents were submitted to support the concerns voiced about the research: "The Media Violence Scam" by Richard Rhodes, an amicus brief filed on behalf of thirty-three academics and Media scholars in Interactive Digital Software Association v. St. Louis County, and Shooting the Messenger by Judith Levine.

§ 2257 RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

Documents:

1. September 2007 Letter in response to new proposed 2257 regulations
2. August 2004 letter in response to proposed changes
 

In September 2007, Media Coalition members submitted a letter of comments in response to the new proposed 2257 regulations.  The letter said that first, a proposed change in the statement that is required to be affixed to materials is unduly and unnecessarily burdensome; second, that neither the statute nor the proposed revised regulations define what is considered to be a website; and last, that no regulations have been proposed under section 2257A, the new section which would create a safe harbor for certain producers, but the requirements in 2257 are in effect.

In 2004, Congress and the Department of Justice proposed expanding the existing §2257 law and regulations.  Proposed changes would have:

• Expanded which images were subject to recordkeeping requirements to include images of simulated sex or lascivious display.
• Broadened the definition of “produces” to potentially include distributors and retailers who had no contact with models or subjects, and thereby

• required them to keep records subject to inspection at anytime, and

• forced those who suddenly found themselves within the scope of the law to purge their material of older images (because of the retroactive nature of the law) or become susceptible to criminal charges.

• Added additional requirements to disclaimer labels to be in compliance with §2257. 

In August 2004, Media Coalition filed a comment in response to the Department of Justice’s proposed changes.  The Department of Justice finalized changes to §2257 in June 2005, accepting some of Media Coalition’s comment.  In October 2005, Media Coalition members joined a broad group in opposition to proposed amendments to §2257.  The group, representing a wide range of interests, sent letters to legislators in both the House and Senate.  The negotiations resulted in improved language that mitigated the effect of the changes.

This page was last updated 2/20/08