-
Conclusion
- NYU Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Conclusion The entertainment industry is not likely to greet the arguments presented here with anything close to enthusiasm. There are certain to be invocations of the importance of the freedom of expression, not only for political advocates but for artists, writers, singers and filmmakers. Such freedom of expression is important. Indeed, it is vital in a democratic society , at least as far as political speech is concerned, and it is vital for a vibrant culture, even when the expression has no political content. The imposition of socialist-realist standards in the art of communist countries was as stifling, although in a different way, as the imposition of limitations on political speech. That being said, the freedom of expression does not include the right to whatever audience one may wish. Admittedly, the freedom of expression may be an empty right, if one is denied an audience. A totalitarian government could well tolerate a right to express one’s opinions, however contrary to those acceptable to the government, so long as they were expressed with no one else present. It might even be questioned whether such vocal activity can count as expression . Solitary vocalization amounts to nothing of consequence beyond thinking the politically disagreeable thoughts. A true freedom of expression includes the right to present that expression to an audience. While the freedom of expression includes the right not to be interfered with in addressing a willing, and in some cases less than willing, audience, the audience to which one has that right does not include other people’s children. Children are not full players in the political arena, and they do not enjoy the greater autonomy reserved for adults. They are protected by their parents and by the state. Their parents, and to a lesser degree the state, make the decisions for them as to the material that is appropriate for their age and stage of psychological development. Any claims by the media that they have constitutionally protected rights to access audiences of children are in conflict with the rights of parents and of the state and 256 should give way to them. Any separate claims by children that they should have access to materials that their parents believe to be inappropriate are issues to be resolved by the parent and child. The recognized right of parents to make child-rearing decisions should not give way to childhood attractions to pornography, violence or hate-filled music. Children will soon be adults who are able to make their own decisions, and access to these negative influences can wait until after their parents and the schools have finished trying to instill the values they deem important in the next generation of adults. Reasonable restrictions on the access of children to negative media influences should be recognized as constitutional. The government should be allowed to restrict the direct sale or rental of sexually indecent material to children, as it already can. The same sorts of restrictions should be allowed for violent materials and for materials that foster hatred on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion or handicap . While parents may choose to make such materials available to their own children, the children should not have a right to obtain the material contrary to their parents’ wishes, and distributors should have no right to sell directly to other people’s children. Regulation may also address access other than through sales. Government should be allowed to impose restrictions, similar to those currently voluntarily in place, on the admission of minors to sexually indecent films. Further, similar restrictions based on violence or hate speech should be allowed. Restrictions should also be acceptable when applied to video games, with both sales and play in video arcades limited, if there is no parental permission. The broadcast media may face channeling requirements , limiting offensive material to hours when children are less likely to be in the audience.1 Cable broadcasters might even be required to include signals that activate the v-chip contained in newer televisions, when they distribute material that would come within the scope of limits on admission to theaters.2 Similarly, Internet software should be modified to allow people to conform to requirements that material not suitable for children include a signal that activates filtering software. Finally, reasonable restrictions on advertising to children should be allowed. The word “reasonable” is important here. If the dual approach argued for here is to have any meaning, that meaning is that...