Controlling Communications That Teach or Demonstrate Violence: “The Movie Made Them Do It”

Lillian R. BeVier

doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2004.tb00448.x

Controlling Communications That Teach or Demonstrate Violence: “The Movie Made Them Do It”

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021

Lillian R. BeVier

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Violence sells, Americans have what sometimes seems to be an insatiable appetite for it. Depictions and descriptions of violence saturate our culture. songs urge us to rape women, kill police officers, and commit suicide. Movies portray-indeed they glorifyviolence as an intrinsic element of every imaginable plot line.

Despite substantial evidence that an individual’s repeated exposure to portrayals of violence is associated with significantly increased likelihood that the individual will commit aggressive acts against others, no legal regime currently regulates such portrayals either on television, in music, in movies, or in video games. Neither Congress, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, nor any state legislature has yet mustered the political will to impose substantial or systematic legal constraints upon producers or purveyors of violent images. Official censorship is rightly to be feared, but unreflective invocations of our commitment to freedom of speech provide incomplete justification for our legal regime’s apparent indifference to the possibility that media-induced violence may impose substantial costs on innocent victims.

Type: Article
Information: Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , Spring 2004 , pp. 47 - 55

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2004.tb00448.x [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Johnson, J.G. Cohen, P. Smailes, E. M. Kasen, S. Brook, J.S., “Television Viewing and Aggressive Behavior During Adolescence and Adulthood,” Science 295 (2002): 2468–2471, at 2470.CrossRef Google Scholar

See, e.g., Elmore v. American Motors Corp., 451 P.2d 84 (Cal. 1969); Codling v. Paglia, 298 N.E.2d 622 (N.Y. 1973).Google Scholar

Rotunda, Ronald D., “Current Proposals for Media Accountability in Light of the First Amendment,” forthcoming, Journal of Social Policy, Philosophy, and Law (2004): 1–74, at 6–7.Google Scholar

128 F.3d 283 (4^th Cir. 1997).Google Scholar

178 Cal. Rptr. 888 (Cal. App. 1981).Google Scholar

536 N.E. 2d 1067 (Mass. 1989).Google Scholar

814 F.2d 1017 (5^th Cir. 1987).Google Scholar

361 So. 2d 776 (Dist. Ct. Fla. 1978).CrossRef Google Scholar

249 Cal. Rptr. 187 (Cal. App. 1988).Google Scholar

Id. at 190.Google Scholar

Brill, L. W., “The First Amendment and the Power of Suggestion: Protecting ‘Negligent’ Speakers in Cases of Imitative Harm,” Columbia Law Review 94 (1994): 984–1044, at 987 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 281, 302–302B (1965)). For a thorough and engaging account, See O’Neil, Robert M., The First Amendment and Civil Liability (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001): 137–62.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sanders v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d 1264 at 1272 (D. Colo. 2002).Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

James v. Meow Media, 300 F. 3d 683, 693 (6^th Cir. 2002).Google Scholar

Id. at 693.Google Scholar

Federman, J., ed. National Television Violence Study, Executive Summary, Volume 3 (Santa Barbara: Center for Communication and Social Policy, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1997); at 5.Google Scholar

Report of the Federal Trade Commission, Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Review of Self-regulation and Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recordings & Electronic Game Industries (FTC, Sept. 2000), Appendix A, “A Review of Research on the Impact of Violence in Entertainment Media,” at 9.Google Scholar

American Booksellers v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 329 n. 2 (1985).Google Scholar

Brill, supra note 11, at 1033.Google Scholar

James v. Meow Media, 300 F. 3d at 699.Google Scholar

Campbell, Christopher, “Murder Media—Does Media Incite Violence and Lose First Amendment Protection?” Chicago-Kent Law Review 76 (2002): 637–69, at 664.In Zamora v. State, 361 So.2d 776 (Dist. Ct. App. Fla. 1978), the defendant attempted to defend a murder conviction based on the allegation that he was insane on account of “involuntary subliminal television intoxication.” The Florida courts rejected the defense.Google Scholar

Restatement (Second) Torts, § 402A.Google Scholar

See, e.g., James v. Meow Media, Inc., 300F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2002)(victims of Paducah school shooting unsuccessfully claimed that the violent content of defendants’ video games, movie, and internet transmissions constituted product defects that caused the shooter to act violently) Wilson v. Midway Games, Inc., 198F. Supp.2d 167 (D. Conn. 2002)(boy stabbed with kitchen knife by a boy who was allegedly obsessed with the video game Mortal Combat unsuccessfully sued for product liability court finds a video game is not a product for purposes of the relevant state statute) Davidson, . Time Warner, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist LEXIS 21559 (S.D. Texas 1997)(victim of shooting by young man who had been listening to a tape of rap songs titled 2PocalypseNow, which contained lyrics that expressed extreme hostility to law enforcement, unsuccessfully claimed that the tape was an inherently dangerous product).See generally O’Neil, , supra note 10, at 107–19.Google Scholar