On June 17, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property held a hearing on the Family Movie Act (H.R. 4586). Sponsored by Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX), the measure would allow a person watching a DVD or videotape in a private home to use software that filters violent or sexual content.
In his opening remarks, Rep. Smith detailed the legislation for the subcommittee: “If you look at a DVD or a [videotape] before and after technology has been used to mute or fast forward over offensive material, there would be absolutely no difference in the product. It has not been sliced, diced, mutilated, or altered. The director’s work is still intact: no unauthorized copies have been distributed; no copyright has been violated.” Arguing that the bill “is of vital importance to families across America,” Rep. Smith stated, “It is time for this Committee to act and let parents decide what their children watch.”
Ranking Member Howard Berman (D-CA) agreed that parents should be able to shelter their children from violent and sexual programming, but he said that the Family Movie Act would send parents the message that technology could replace their responsibility of parental oversight.
Register of Copyrights at the Library of Congress Marybeth Peters explained that litigation is currently pending before the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to determine if filtering software violates copyright law. She said that “at the moment, providers of such software are free to sell it and consumers are free to use it. If the court ultimately rules that the making or distribution of the software is unlawful a ruling that I believe is unlikely the time may then be opportune to consider legislation. But meanwhile, there is every reason to believe that the proposed Family Movie Act is a solution to a problem that does not exist.” Ms. Peters added, “Despite my misgivings, I believe that on balance parents and other consumers should be able to purchase products that allow them to mute and skip past audio and visual content of motion pictures that they believe is objectionable. While the artistic integrity as well as the continuity of the motion picture may suffer, the person viewing the edited performance is fully aware that he or she is viewing a performance of less than the entire motion picture because that was his or her preference. Because only a private performance is involved, the only changes consist of deletions, and no copies of an edited version of the motion picture are made or further communicated, I do not believe the director or copyright owner should have the power to stop the marketing and use of software that renders such a performance.”
Dr. Amitai Etzioni, a professor at The George Washington University, wrote a legal brief on the effects of violence and pornography on children. He cited a report by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee that concludes: “Watching significant amounts of televised violence negatively affects human character and attitudes; promotes violent behaviors; influences moral and social values about violence in daily life; and often results in a perception of a nastier world and an exaggerated probability of being a victim of violence.” He noted that not much research has been done on the effects of exposure to pornography on minors, but said that studies do exist concerning young, college-aged adults. These studies “show that young adults exposed to pornography that is combined with violence hold more callous views toward rape and sexual coercion than those not exposed.” He argued that the filtering software is “ideal” because “no First Amendment rights are involved,” adding, “When a parent tells a child that he or she is not ready to read Lady Chatterley’s Lover or Mein Kampf, the parent may be ill-advised, but he or she is not violating anyone’s rights. On the contrary, parents and other educators are discharging a duty in this situation that is not subject to First Amendment claims.”
Jack Valenti of the Motion Picture Association of America said that under the Family Movie Act, “Anyone could…go into business to sell abridged versions of movies for any purpose: to skip every part of the movie except the violent scenes; to remove any reference to, say, interracial dating; or simply to offer a one-hour version of a classic movie like ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ eliminating all the parts somebody thought were inessential.” He went on to add, “It is obviously in our companies’ interests to produce movies that appeal to a large number of people of all ages, call them ‘family friendly’ or however you describe them. And we do not, of course, object to people in their homes for [their] own personal tastes fast forwarding through scenes they might not want to watch, or might not want their children to watch. Our objection is simply to Congress providing legal cover to companies that want to make a profit by offering an edited, abridged version of a movie without regard for the wishes of the director who created the movie or the studio that owns the copyright to the movie.” Mr. Valenti explained there are ongoing productive negotiations between individual studios and the editing services to resolve the dispute. “The essence of this solution,” he stated, “ would involve the studios, in consultation with the directors, creating ‘airplane-like’ versions of popular movies. The commercial editing services would use these versions as templates from which to prepare their alternative versions.”
Testifying on behalf of the Kids First Coalition, Penny Young Nance said that because of viewing violence on television or in movies, children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others, may be more fearful of the world around them, and may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others. She also noted, “On the issue of a child’s exposure to the viewing of graphic sex, Donna Rice Hughes’ organization Enough is Enough has found that kids exposed to the viewing of graphic sex scenes begin to view sex without responsibility as acceptable and desirable. No big surprise, these attitudes can often lead to teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.” Although very supportive of the Family Movie Act, Ms. Nance stated, “I always tell parents that they must be the first line of defense and remain vigilant against all threats. ClearPlay or any other technology is simply a tool, not a substitute for parental oversight. If there is a question, I still watch the movie first to make sure the material is age appropriate even with the filter system.”
