Violence on TV

The FCC last week moved forward with its hare-brained push to regulate violence on television.

In a report released last Wednesday, the agency not only urged Congress to pass legislation giving bureaucrats the authority to crack down on the broadcast networks, but on cable and satellite broadcasts, as well.

In fact, though, it's doubtful any such effort would survive a legal challenge -- especially if regulators go after satellite and cable, which are available only if willingly purchased.

That fact wasn't lost on FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, who nonetheless supports new content restrictions. "It is not an easy challenge to develop rules that pass constitutional muster, but given what amounts to a public health crisis at hand," he said, "I believe it is a challenge that must be met."

Predictably, the FCC punted on defining precisely what constitutes "violent" programming. That's another tacit admission that the agency realizes the First Amendment problems inherent in its proposal.

The ACLU called the FCC report "political pandering." Said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the organization's Washington legislative office, "There are some things the government does well, but deciding what is aired and when on television is not one of them."

Indeed, parents already have many options when it comes to shielding their children from TV programming they find objectionable, not the least of which is the on-off switch. Whatever happened to the V-chip, anyway?

Congress should ignore the FCC's constitutionally dubious attempt to expand its domain. But don't bet on it.