Violence in the Media: A Joint Statement
PDF Version of Violence in the Media: A Joint Statement
 |
Click on the button to the left to download the free Adobe Acrobat Reader required to view and print this and other PDF files available on the OIF Web site. |
The undersigned organizations, whose members represent a broad cross-section of the book community in America, believe that concerns being expressed over portrayals of violence in the media, including films, television, music, and video games, as well as communication via the Internet, are generating demands for action that threaten core First Amendment freedoms. The frenetic search for ways to deal with this perceived problem has produced “solutions” that involve either direct government regulation of content or offers to stay the government’s hand if the media “clean up their act,” that is, engage in self-censorship or labeling practices.
However legitimate the concerns, the proposed cures are worse than the illness. They would extract an unacceptably high price in terms of eroding our fundamental guarantees of free expression. The authors, publishers, booksellers, and librarians who have joined in this statement have often faced criticism over the allegedly harmful effects of the books that they write, publish and make available—books that deal with all aspects of human experience. Our consistent response has been to remind our critics—and interested legislators and judges—of the fundamental precepts of free expression that must guide our society’s judgments in these matters.
These first principles, which have allowed the book world to flourish, apply equally to all media of expression. Among them:
- Censorship is not the answer to violence in society. The root causes of violence in society lie beyond violent portrayals by the media. This being so, the search for solutions must go beyond facile censorship initiatives, which inevitably compromise our fundamental freedom of expression, and instead seek out and attack these root causes. The problem is complex; so, too, are its solutions. There is no “quick fix,” and we deceive ourselves if we embrace the view that stifling the media messenger will blot out the sometimes disturbing messages it conveys.
- The First Amendment protects the widest range of expression. The First Amendment, whether embodied in the freedom to speak, to read, or to communicate through electronic media, is grounded in the proposition that the widest possible array of views and expression must be protected. The strength of the First Amendment lies in the diversity it promotes—the freedom to speak one’s mind, to read or watch what one pleases—however out-of-favor, offensive, or irreverent it may be.
- It is not properly the role of the government to evaluate the merits of expression. An underlying premise of free expression is the recognition that no individual or group, let alone a governmental body, possesses the wisdom to separate “good” from “bad” speech (violent or otherwise); to identify valid versus invalid premises in the elusive search for truth; nor to gauge what speech will promote a better body politic or enhance individual self-fulfillment. This enlightenment is, instead, left to the outcome of a cacophony of speech, clashing—often brilliantly, sometimes banally—in the “marketplace of ideas.” It is by exposing, confronting, and addressing controversial speech, not by hiding it beneath a veil of censorship, that the merits of that speech can be tested. In the words of the great Justice Brandeis, the best antidote for false speech is “more speech, not enforced silence.”
- Evaluating the worth of expression is subjective. The controversy over depictions of violence in the media underscores the futility of attempting to define “acceptable” content. Few if any argue that portrayals of violence play no proper role in works of expression. Rather, most critics take issue with certain portrayals of violence in certain works. Every critic, however, has a unique parade of horrors; no two critics’ lists are the same. Indeed, works that some critics deem to be the least “worthy” are deemed by others to be of great value. Judgments as to what constitutes “good” versus “bad” portrayals of violence often tell us more about the sensibilities or politics of the critic than about the “intrinsic worth” of the expression. Experience counsels, moreover, that public tastes and standards of “acceptability” shift dramatically over time. Many books, plays and movies that once were targets of censorship are today revered as classics. If sure-footedness along the path of “desirable” and “undesirable” speech has eluded us for more than 200 years, it is highly improbable that we are now graced with clear vision as to what constitutes desirable and undesirable expression in the form of media portrayals of violence.
- Portrayals of violence in the media reflect a violent world. Book authors, publishers, booksellers and librarians, along with those engaged in creating and distributing other media, strive to enrich the quality and diversity of thought and expression. But it is also evident that authors, composers, and other creators draw centrally on both history and contemporary culture as sources of inspiration. Before we too quickly condemn media portrayals of violence, we must ask ourselves the degree to which they mirror life experience. One need only turn on the nightly news to be reminded of the pervasiveness of violence in our society. Nor are commentaries on and depictions of violence a recent phenomenon. Throughout history, violence has been a matter of public fascination and absorption, as the Bible, The Iliad, and the works of Shakespeare attest. That today’s media continue to reflect this enduring aspect of our culture is neither surprising nor a basis for condemnation.
- Individuals, not the government, bear responsibility for determining what materials are appropriate for themselves and their children. Parents must play the primary role in shaping their children’s media choices, and they must prepare their children for the wide range of material and information to which they will be exposed in a free society. The answer to perceived gratuitous violence or demeaning portrayals in the media is not the heavy hand of government censorship, but the conscious control of one’s (and one’s children’s) consumption and choices. The freedom to read, watch, and listen also entails the privilege not to do any of these and to discourage or prohibit one’s children from reading, watching, or listening to particular materials—at all or in excess. If the media misread the degree of public interest in or tolerance for particular fare—violent or otherwise—surely the swiftest way for the public to get that message across in our free-market economy is at the box office, the book or record store, or via the channel selector of a television set.
The foregoing principles apply with equal force to the Internet. Even in its early development, the Internet offers unique promise as a communication medium. The very novelty of the Internet affords breathtaking new speech vistas; at the same time, its ubiquitousness has fueled rash censorship initiatives that would severely limit, if not block from attainment altogether, those new speech horizons. As with our treatment of the media that preceded it, the Internet must be left to develop with an appreciation that concern for our children and fundamental speech freedoms are not mutually exclusive, and that we do not have to sacrifice one for the other, but can—and must—find ways to nurture both.
American Library Association
American Society of Journalists and Authors
Association of American Publishers, Inc.
Association of American University Presses
The Authors Guild
Freedom to Read Foundation
PEN American Center