# MARKETING VIOLENT ENTERTAINMENT

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aftc%3A1887752586949803

## Record

- **Collection:** Agency decision
- **Document type:** Agency decision

## Text

MARKETING VIOLENT ENTERTAINMENT
TO CHILDREN:
A REVIEW OF SELF-REGULATION AND
INDUSTRY PRACTICES IN THE MOTION PICTURE,
MUSIC RECORDING & ELECTRONIC GAME INDUSTRIES

APPENDICES A - K
REPORT OF THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 2000

Federal Trade Commission
Robert Pitofsky,
Sheila F. Anthony
Mozelle W. Thompson
Orson Swindle
Thomas B. Leary

Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner

Appendix A
A REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON
THE IMPACT OF VIOLENCE IN ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA
This Appendix reviews scientific research on the effects of entertainment media violence
on children. The research on this topic is extensive, yielding a large number of articles that
describe the results of various studies. The great majority of these studies focus on the effects of
television, which has been the dominant form of media entertainment over the past 50 years.
Relatively few have looked directly at the effects of the products at issue in the Commission’s
study: motion pictures, music recordings, and electronic games – though, as described below, the
body of research on electronic games is growing. Similarities in program format suggest that the
television research results are most relevant to movies, while their relevance to music and
electronic games is less clear.
A majority of the investigations into the impact of media violence on children find that
there is a high correlation between exposure to media violence and aggressive and at times
violent behavior.1 In addition, a number of research efforts report that exposure to media
violence is correlated with increased acceptance of violent behavior in others, as well as an
exaggerated perception of the amount of violence in society.2 Regarding causation, however, the
studies appear to be less conclusive.3 Most researchers and investigators agree that exposure to
media violence alone does not cause a child to commit a violent act, and that it is not the sole, or
even necessarily the most important, factor contributing to youth aggression, anti-social attitudes,
and violence.4 Although a consensus among researchers exists regarding the empirical
relationships, significant differences remain over the interpretation of these associations and their
implications for public policy.5 This review does not attempt to resolve those issues or to
provide an independent evaluation of the merits of particular studies; rather, this review seeks to
provide background information and a current survey of the principal research findings regarding
the impact of media violence.
The review proceeds in four parts. Section I provides background information useful for
understanding the empirical literature and the relevant policy issues. Section II surveys research
into the impact of televised violence. Section III examines the results of more directed research
on how different kinds of programming content can influence the aggressive tendencies of
youthful viewers. Section IV reviews studies dealing with the impact of electronic games that
contain violent content.
The study of media violence is necessarily intertwined with more general research on the
causes of violent behavior. The Surgeon General is preparing a report, to be completed by the

end of 2000, on the various risk factors and developmental markers that have been connected
through epidemiological research with youths who commit violent acts.6
I.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.

Definitions of Media Violence Used by Researchers

Both “media” and “violence” are defined by researchers dealing with the entertainment
media in a variety of ways.7 Most of the studies concentrate on either television or movies,
although an increasing amount of research attention is being directed toward the impact of
violent content in music and electronic games.
Researchers differ significantly in the kinds of violent content they employ in their study
of media effects. Experimental studies allow for the greatest control over media content.
Investigators have much less leeway for studies based on surveys of individual characteristics,
because “exposure” is defined in terms of a subject’s past viewing preferences, as revealed by the
survey.8 When relevant, this Appendix provides the particular definitions used in the research
being discussed.
B.

Theoretical Pathways from Media Violence to Real World Violence in Youth

Social learning theory has guided a great deal of research on social behavior. Huesmann
and Eron (1986) identify three psychological processes through which exposing a child to
excessive media violence can encourage aggressive behavior: 1) observational learning:
children learn to behave aggressively by imitating violent actors on TV, just as they learn
cognitive and social skills by imitating parents, siblings, peers, and others; 2) attitude change:
the more TV a child watches, the more accepting the child becomes of aggressive behavior; and
3) scripts: social behavior is controlled to a great extent by cognitive scripts and strategies that
have been stored in memory and are used as guides for behavior.9 Television shows can be a
source of such scripts. A child who repeatedly watches TV characters behaving in a violent way
may store this as “script” to be used when facing similar situations.10 These same linkages, of
course, also describe the ways in which media can encourage pro-social behavior. 11
C.

Types of Studies Conducted by Researchers12

In general, researchers employ three different techniques to study the impact of media
violence on children. They are as follows:
Experimental Studies: Subjects in experimental studies are randomly assigned to exposed and
2

control groups. Children in the exposed group are shown violent television programs or movies,
while the control group is shown nonviolent programming or no programming at all.
Investigators then observe the level of aggression exhibited by children in each group after
exposure to the selected media. Effects of the violent media are estimated as the increase in
aggression exhibited by the group watching the violent program compared to those who did not.
Indices of aggression are limited by practical and ethical constraints. One frequent approach is to
place both groups of children in a room with a Bobo Doll, a large inflated plastic figure.
Aggression is measured by the degree to which the children hit the Bobo Doll.
Correlational Analysis: In correlational analysis, investigators obtain information from
questionnaires administered to youthful subjects regarding their television watching activities
and various self-reports of aggressive behavior, sometimes including criminal histories. They
also typically collect additional background information on the subjects that also may be linked
to aggressive activity. Researchers then use statistical analysis to identify relationships between a
subject’s preference for violent programming and his or her aggressive tendencies. These kinds
of investigations are called “correlational” because of the difficulty in discerning the direction of
the relation between media violence and aggressive behavior: does the watching of violent
programming lead to aggressive behavior, or does aggressive behavior lead one to seek out media
with violent content?
Event Studies: The third major class of empirical research attempts to combine the strengths of
both experiments and surveys by analyzing the impact of an outside event that leads to greater
exposure of violent programming – typically, the introduction of television into an area – on
various indices of aggression and violence in that community. Ideally, this approach takes the
form of a “natural experiment” where real world indices of violence in the community into which
television is introduced are compared to control communities where television had already been
available.

3

II.

RESEARCH FINDINGS: TELEVISION
This section outlines the key research findings regarding the general impact of televised

violence on young viewers and how these results have been interpreted.
A.

Results of the Empirical Research
1.

Experimental studies

A majority of experimental investigations undertaken in the laboratory report that
exposure to violent programming leads children to act more aggressively.13 This is true for a
wide variety of settings and outcomes. Violent television programming has been found to
increase a child’s tendency to fight with playmates, and to hit inanimate objects such as a Bobo
Doll.14 One study reported that exposure to violent films led to an increase in blood pressure
levels among college students.15 The kinds of violent media used in the tests vary widely, from
naturalistic horror to fantasy cartoons.
The strength of the experimental method lies in its ability to attribute causality more
unequivocally than other research methods where subjects cannot be assigned randomly to
exposed and control groups. As a result, most researchers conclude that violent programming
does, in a variety of experimental settings in the laboratory, lead children to act more
aggressively.16 At issue, however, is the applicability of these results to more realistic settings.
Comstock and Paik (1991) remark:
The experimental setting for teenagers and young adults departs from the
everyday in the perceptions of the subjects, in the brevity of the television
exposure, in the absence of the possibility of retaliation for aggression, in the
exclusion of competing and countervailing communications, and in the criterion
of immediacy of the measure of effects.17
Also, critics point to a variety of potential biases stemming from the way most
experiments are conducted. Freedman (1994), for example, hypothesizes two alternative
explanations for the finding that violent programming tends to stimulate aggressive behavior in
youthful subjects: First, violent programs will tend to get subjects more excited than a quiet
neutral film, so subjects will respond aggressively in either a pro- or an anti-social way.18
Second, youthful subjects tend to respond to what the researcher wants them to do.19 Therefore,
Freedman does not find it surprising that subjects will, after watching a film where the actors hit
each other, go into the test room and hit their playmates or the Bobo Doll.20 Similar concerns
have been registered by Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) and by Krattenmaker and Powe (1996).21

4

Despite the concerns raised by Freedman and others, it appears that most researchers
believe that the almost uniform results generated by the laboratory experiments serve as an
important complement to what they view as largely similar results obtained from other
investigational approaches.22
2.

Correlational studies

The most frequent type of correlational study is the “one shot” model that uses a single
questionnaire to ask subjects about their television viewing preferences and a variety of
behavioral traits. One of the most extensive survey research efforts of this type was performed
by Belson (1978), who investigated the behavior and viewing habits of over 1,500 adolescent
males in London in the early 1970’s.23 In addition to finding a moderate correlation between
high exposure to television violence and violent behavior, Belson also identified a dose-response
relationship: the more exposure to television violence, the greater the reported actual violent
activity of the subjects – holding constant the impact of other influences on violent behavior such
as family background, cognitive ability, etc.24 Other survey investigations report results similar
to Belson’s findings, although there is considerable variation in the strength of the relationship
between media violence and aggressive behavior, as well as in the sophistication of the statistical
techniques employed.25
Longitudinal studies, where the same subjects are surveyed at different points in time,
represent a potentially more informative approach because researchers can investigate the
relation between early exposure to violent media and subsequent aggressive tendencies. One
important study of this type is the investigation by Lefkowitz, Huesmann, Eron, and their
associates into the television viewing habits and behavior of 875 third-grade children in a semirural county in upstate New York during the 1960’s.26 The researchers report that children with a
preference for violent programs at age eight were more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior at
age 19.27 Also, preference for violent television viewing at age eight was a predictor of serious
crimes engaged in by subjects when they were 30 years old.28 In a similar analysis based on
surveys conducted in five countries in the late 1970’s, Huesmann and Eron (1986) conclude that
their findings suggest a bidirectional relationship between exposure to media violence and
violent behavior: the child learns to be violent from violent media which, in turn, induce the
desire to watch more violent media.29
Another important longitudinal study was published in 1982 by Milavsky and associates,
who followed several hundred children in two Midwestern cities for three years in the 1970's.30
5

For the analysis of young boys and girls, the authors report that initial correlations between
exposure to violent media at the beginning of the period and later aggressiveness turned small
and statistically insignificant after controlling for social and familial factors, as well as past levels
of aggressive behavior.31 Milavsky et al. conclude that their results fail to support the hypothesis
that exposure to media violence causes aggression in children.32 Huesmann et al. (1997) view
the Milavsky et al. results in a somewhat different light by focusing on the predominance of
positive (albeit insignificant) statistical relationships between exposure to media violence and
subsequent aggression as being at least consistent with the causal hypothesis.33 Huesmann et al.
argue that closer inspection of Milavsky et al. and other studies purporting to contradict the
causal hypothesis reveals “that their results are not discrepant, but simply not strongly supportive
of the [causal hypothesis].”34
Survey research also has been used to investigate the extent to which televised violence
creates desensitization and “mean world” effects among youthful viewers. In regard to the latter,
Gerbner and his associates report that “long-term exposure to television, in which frequent
violence is virtually inescapable, tends to cultivate the image of a relatively mean and dangerous
world.”35 They further describe an approximate dose-response relationship in which “heavy
viewers,” those who watch television more than three hours a day, are more likely than “light
viewers,” those who watch two hours or less, to provide responses characteristic of the mean
world syndrome.36 Bok (1998) and Gunter (1994) discuss further research on the Gerbner
hypothesis, some of which is supportive and some of which is not.37
Alternatively, some researchers report that the cumulative exposure to media violence has
a numbing effect on heavy viewers, making them less sensitive to subsequent acts of violence –
both in the media and in real life. Such a desensitization effect may “shrink empathy for
suffering in real life and diminish the readiness to go to the help of persons in need.”38 Support
for this view comes from Huston et al. (1992) who report on research showing that children and
adults who are exposed to televised violence “are less likely than unexposed individuals to seek
help for victims of violence.”39 Huesmann et al. note, however, that the link between
desensitization and aggressive behavior is not clear-cut: “It should not be surprising that
emotional and physiological responses to scenes of violence habituate as do responses to other
stimuli. It is more difficult to make the case that such habituation would influence the future
probability of aggressive behavior.”40
The above review suggests that there is a fair amount of uniformity among researchers in
finding a correlation between media violence and indices of aggression and violence in children
6

(with more variable results for desensitization and “mean world” effects). There remains,
however, the question of whether these empirical patterns suggest a causal chain going from
exposure to the media violence to aggressive and violent acts in the real world. Because of the
difficulty in assigning causality from correlational studies, a number of researchers have
employed inventive ways of assessing the impact of events that created large changes in a
community’s exposure to television.
3.

Event studies

A major event study analyzed effects on children from the introduction of television in a
rural Canadian community during the 1950’s.41 The researchers in this project compared
children before and after the introduction of television in one town (Notel) with their peers in two
comparable towns where television was already well established: Unitel (receiving the
government-owned channel, CBC) and Multitel (receiving both CBC and U.S. stations).42 They
measured aggression based on observations of children’s interactions in the schoolyard during
free play, by teacher ratings, and by peer ratings.43 Longitudinal observations of 45 children first
observed in grades one and two and re-evaluated two years later indicated that both verbal and
physical aggression increased over this two-year period for children in Notel after the
introduction of television, but not for children in the two control communities where television
was already available.44 Accordingly, the researchers conclude that their study demonstrates the
potential of television to increase aggressive behavior among children.45
The Canadian investigation is considered the best controlled study of its type, and
provides some of the most persuasive evidence in support of the hypothesis that violent media
content stimulates aggressive behavior in children. Nevertheless, additional results from the
study suggest a somewhat equivocal role for media violence as a cause of aggressive behavior.
Ledingham et al. (1993) note that Unitel received only the public television channel (CBC), yet
its children exhibited aggression levels similar to the Multitel community, which received U.S.
channels (and their greater level of media violence) as well.46 They suggest that these results
indicate that “the absolute number or type of channels available is relatively unimportant.”47
Also, the Canadian investigation failed to replicate the above-noted Eron and Huesmann finding
that initial viewing of violent programming predicts future aggression levels: “[T]he amount of
television watched at the initial time of testing by the children of Unitel and Multitel did not
significantly predict the amount of aggression seen two years later (although aggression assessed
in the follow up period was predicted by television viewing assessed at the same time).”48
7

A more recent study by Centerwall (1992) compares changes in violence rates among the
U.S., Canada, and South Africa before and after the introduction of television in South Africa.49
Because television was introduced in South Africa only in 1976 although it had been available
since the 1950’s in Canada and the U.S., Centerwall uses the latter to control for the nontelevision impact on violence rates. He reports that violence rates in South Africa remained
constant during the 1960’s while increasing at a rapid rate in the U.S. and Canada during the
same period.50 After the introduction of television, South Africa experienced significant
increases in violence rates. Centerwall concludes that the introduction of television, with its
associated frequent portrayal of violent acts, results in a significant rise in interpersonal violent
acts in a society.51
The Centerwall study has been criticized on a number of grounds. Bok (1998) and
Krattenmaker and Powe (1996) note the potential distorting effect on Centerwall’s results of his
not taking into account the social changes taking place in South Africa during the time period of
the study.52 On a more general level, Donnerstein and Linz (1998) point out that Centerwall’s
focus on television in general makes it difficult to isolate the impact of violence in the
entertainment media versus the violent content shown on televised news accounts.53 This is a
potentially important distinction because studies show that the extensive reporting of violent
events in the news media can result in at least a short-term increase in crime rates.54
Furthermore, other researchers suggest that excessive time spent by children watching television,
regardless of content, may be a more important predictor of aggressive behavior and other
antisocial acts.55
B.

Third-Party Assessments of the Research

This summary provides a snapshot of the very large volume of basic research that exists
on the general impact of televised media violence on youth. Comprehensive reviews have been
conducted over the past 40 years by various commissions, as well as by individual researchers.
Most of these reviews note the general uniformity of empirical findings – in particular, a robust
correlation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior among youth. There
remain, however, appreciable differences in how these empirical results are interpreted.
Five principal commissions and review boards have assessed the overall research record
regarding media violence: the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence
(1969);56 the Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social
Behavior (1972);57 the National Institute of Mental Health (“NIMH”) Television and Behavior
8

Project (1982);58 the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry Child and Television Drama
Review (1982);59 and the American Psychological Association Task Force on Television and
Society (1992).60 The first three commissions were sponsored by the U.S. federal government
and included representatives from the government, industry, and academia. The last two
commissions were sponsored by independent practitioner groups: the Group for the
Advancement of Psychiatry (“GAP”) and the American Psychological Association (“APA”).
All five reviews note the existence of a significant empirical association between
exposure to television violence and aggressive behavior among youthful viewers.61 Although
they each chose different ways of characterizing the relationship, all imply that exposure to
violent television programming is more likely than not to increase aggressive behavior among
certain parts of the population. The NIMH study, for example, noted that “the consensus among
most of the research community is that violence on television does lead to aggressive behavior by
children and teenagers who watch the programs.”62 The APA task force concluded: “There is
clear evidence that television violence can cause aggressive behavior and can cultivate values
favoring the use of aggression to resolve conflicts.”63
Surveys of the media violence literature by individual researchers reveal a much greater
range of opinion on the impact of televised media violence. The majority of reviewers conclude
that research has persuasively documented a causal link between media violence and aggression,
and that this effect is significant.64 Other commentators take the opposite position that the
various methodological and data problems in the media violence research preclude the finding of
any such link.65 Finally, a number of reviewers adopt an intermediate position, viewing the
evidence as suggestive, but not of a quality that persuasively documents a significant causal
relationship.66
There does appear to be general agreement among researchers that whatever the impact of
media violence, it likely explains a relatively small amount of the total variation in youthful
violent behavior. As Huesmann et al. (1997) point out: “What is important for the investigation
of the role of media violence is that no one should expect the learning of aggression from
exposure to media violence to explain more than a small percentage of the individual variation in
aggressive behavior.”67
Another important area of apparent agreement among diverse groups of observers is an
increasing recognition that the media-aggression relationship is a complex one that involves a
number of mediating influences. Broader research into the causes of youth violence has
identified interacting risk factors, such as genetic, psychological, familial, and socioeconomic
9

characteristics.68 Severe antisocial aggressive behavior appears to occur most often when more
than one of these factors is present.69 The typical profile of a violent youth is one who comes
from a troubled home, has poor cognitive skills, and exhibits psychological disorders such as
anxiety, depression, and attention deficit hyperactivity.70 This configuration of risk factors makes
attempts to isolate the independent effect of media violence difficult, because media violence can
operate through many of the risk factors described above. As Huesmann and Eron remark:
“[T]o understand the development of aggression, one must examine simultaneously a multiplicity
of interrelated social, cultural, familial, and cognitive factors, each of which adds only a small
increment to the totality of causation.”71
Finally, there appears to be increasing recognition that future research needs to focus
more on the kinds of media content most likely to result in aggressive behavior, rather than
emphasizing general levels of violence in the media. The final report of the National Television
Violence Study (“NTVS”), a three-year effort to assess violence on television, acknowledged this
trend:
Indeed, over the past decade, researchers have shifted attention away from
investigating whether TV violence poses a problem, to focus on exploring
conditions under which different kinds of negative consequences are more or less
likely to occur. We now realize a need to look more closely at the nature of
television content, asking not just how much violence occurs, but more important,
how the medium portrays the motives and consequences of violence, its
associated moods, its realism and so on – the context in which television portrays
violence.72
III.

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF TELEVISED VIOLENCE
Theoretical analyses of media violence have led researchers to recognize the importance

of contextual clues in determining how an audience will react. The NTVS attempted to classify
the contextual impacts of media violence by reviewing the relevant empirical research
literature.73 The NTVS staff found 80 experiments where some contextual feature of media
violence was manipulated to see how it affected outcomes.74 Based on these studies, the NTVS
staff identified the following contextual features in violent media that can affect young viewers:
1) the attractiveness of the perpetrator;
2) the attractiveness of the victim;
3) whether the violence is justified;
4) the presence of weapons;
5) the extent and graphic quality of the violence;
6) the punishment and rewards from the violence;
7) pain/harm cues; and
10

8) humor.75
In particular, the shows deemed to pose the greatest risk for learning aggression were those
where the perpetrator is attractive, there are morally justified reasons for the violence, the
violence is realistic, is rewarded or goes unpunished, and the violence is presented in a humorous
context.76 Table 1 lists these characteristics and their predicted effects on aggression, fear, and
desensitization.
Although the NTVS literature review represents an ambitious attempt to understand the
way in which content and context can influence the impact of media violence, the authors of the
study recognize that predicting the influence of particular kinds of media on behavior is far from
an exact science:
[T]elevised violence does not have a uniform effect on viewers. The relationship
between viewing violence and subsequent behavior depends both on the nature of
the depiction and the makeup of the audience. In some cases, the same portrayal
of violence may have different effects on different audiences. For example,
graphically portrayed violence may elicit fear in some viewers and aggression in
others. Peer influence, family role models, social and economic status,
educational level and the availability of weapons can each significantly alter the
likelihood of a particular reaction to viewing violence on television.77
This uncertainty over effect is reflected in variations in the definition of violence used in studies
attempting to monitor the degree of violence in television and how that definition has changed
over time. In their review of the NTVS and other content-based analyses of violence on
television, Potter et al. (1998) show that counts of violent episodes on television vary from 5.4
acts per hour to 38 per hour.78 They note that the inclusion of acts of verbal aggression, accidents
as well as intentional acts of violence, threats as well as acts involving actual harm, broaden the
definition of violence.79 Due to such disparities, some outside the scientific community, such as
Edwards and Berman (1995), conclude that “the available research does not supply a basis upon
which one could determine with adequate certainty whether a particular ‘violent’ program will
cause harmful behavior.”80

IV.

ELECTRONIC GAMES
The bulk of research on media violence has focused on the content of television shows or

movies. But the last 10 years have seen an important shift among young viewers toward

11

alternative media formats, including electronic games, music videos, and the Internet. This
section reviews research into electronic games, the most analyzed of these alternative media.
Much of the theory regarding the effects of electronic games follows from the analyses of
violent media in general. Dill and Dill (1998), for example, hypothesize that aggressive traits
generated from exposure to violent media are basically a learned behavior.81 Because interactive
games have been shown to be an especially effective learning medium, they deduce that the
effects of game violence will tend to be even greater than similar content shown on a static
medium such as television.82
Recent empirical investigations into the impact of violent electronic games include Funk
(2000) and Anderson and Dill (2000).83 Funk describes an extensive research program designed
to assess the links between a child’s preference for violent games and various sociological and
psychological traits. Her empirical analysis so far has found that a preference for violent games
is correlated with adjustment problems and negative self-perceptions in some groups of
children.84 Funk concedes that her research approach “cannot determine causal relationships.
However, finding only negative associations suggest that a strong preference for violent games
may at least be an indicator of adjustment issues for some children.”85
Anderson and Dill (2000) use both correlational and experimental techniques to study the
impact of electronic games on a sample of college students.86 In the correlational phase, they
report that real-life violent video game play is positively related to aggressive behavior and
delinquency.87 The relationship is stronger for persons with aggressive personalities and more
pronounced for men.88 In the experimental phase of the project, Anderson and Dill report that
laboratory exposure to graphically violent video games increased aggressive thoughts and
behavior in both males and females.89 The convergence of findings from both the experimental
and correlational stages of their study leads Anderson and Dill to conclude that their results lend
“considerable strength to the main hypothesis that exposure to violent video games can increase
aggressive behavior.”90
Goldstein (2000) raises questions about both the experimental and correlational evidence
in the violent game research.91 He argues that a common flaw in most of the experimental
studies is the failure to distinguish between aggressive play and aggressive behavior. According
to Goldstein, most of the experiments measure only aggressive play, which can be viewed as a
natural extension of the game. He contrasts this to the psychological definition of aggressive
12

behavior which involves an intent to harm someone.92 Goldstein states that studies
distinguishing between the two concepts of aggression find that violent games stimulate
aggressive play but not aggressive behavior.93 In regard to correlational studies, Goldstein (2000)
and Griffiths (1999) state the familiar criticism that observed associations between violent games
and negative outcomes do not necessarily demonstrate that electronic games cause aggression:
Goldstein explains that “[c]orrelation is not causality, no matter how tempted one may be to
argue otherwise.”94 Anderson and Dill (2000) concur. Referring to their own correlational study,
they caution that “causal statements are risky at best. It could be that the obtained video game
violence links to aggressive and nonaggressive delinquency are wholly due to the fact that highly
aggressive individuals are especially attracted to violent video games.”95 Anderson and Dill do,
however, assert that the consistency in the results of their different types of experiments provides
strong evidence for the hypothesis that exposure to violent video games can increase aggressive
behavior.96
To conclude, most researchers are reluctant to make definitive judgments at this point in
time about the impact of violent electronic games on youth because of the limited amount of
empirical analysis that has so far taken place. Although some surveys of the literature lean
toward seeing a detrimental effect from playing violent video games, others are more skeptical.97
As additional research becomes available, these technical assessments may change.

13

TABLE 1
PREDICTED EFFECTS OF HOW CONTEXTUAL FEATURES CAN AFFECT THE
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO TV VIOLENCE
HARMFUL EFFECTS OF TV VIOLENCE
LEARNING
AGGRESSION

FEAR

DESENSITIZATION

CONTEXTUAL FEATURES
Attractive Perpetrator

ù
ù

Attractive Victim
Justified Violence

ù

Unjustified Violence

ï

Conventional Weapons

ù

Extensive/Graphic Violence

ù

ù

Realistic Violence

ù

ù

Rewards

ù

ù

Punishments

ï

ï

Pain/Harm Cues

ï

Humor

ù

ù

ù

ù

Note: Predicted effects are based on review of social science research by NTVS staff on the
different contextual features of violence. Blank spaces indicate NTVS staff’s view that there
is no relationship or inadequate research to make a prediction.
ù = likely to increase the outcome
ï = likely to decrease the outcome
source: National Television Violence Study 3, infra note 73, at 13 (table 1).

14

ENDNOTES
1. See, e.g., L. Rowell Huesmann et al., The Effects of Media Violence on the Development of
Antisocial Behavior, in Handbook of Antisocial Behavior 181 (David Stoff et al. eds., 1997)
[hereinafter Huesmann et al., Media Violence & Antisocial Behavior]. See also Donald E. Cook,
M.D., President, Am. Academy of Pediatrics; Clarice Kestenbaum, M.D., President, Am.
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry; L. Michael Honaker, Ph.D., Deputy Chief Executive
Officer, Am. Psychological Ass’n; & E. Ratcliffe Anderson, Jr., Am. Medical Ass’n, Joint
Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children (July 26, 2000) (released at
Congressional Public Health Summit), www.aap.org/advocacy/release/jstmtevc.htm (visited
Aug. 1, 2000) [hereinafter Joint Impact Statement].
2. See, e.g., Sissela Bok, Mayhem: Violence As Public Entertainment 61-81 (1998).
3. See Jonathan L. Freedman, Viewing Television Violence Does Not Make People More
Aggressive, 22 Hofstra L. Rev. 833 (1994) [hereinafter Freedman, Television Violence].
4. See, e.g., Huesmann et al., Media Violence & Antisocial Behavior, supra note 1, at 183; Joint
Impact Statement, supra note 1; National Institute of Mental Health, Child and Adolescent
Violence Research at the NIMH (2000), www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/violenceresfact.cfm (visited
Aug. 14, 2000) [hereinafter NIMH, Children and Adolescent Violence Research].
5. Compare Freedman, Television Violence, supra note 3 with Huesmann et al., Media Violence
& Antisocial Behavior, supra note 1.
6. As part of the Clinton Administration’s initiative against youth violence, the President
requested that the Surgeon General prepare a report on the causes of youth violence. See
Opening Remarks by the President in White House Strategy Meeting on Children, Violence, and
Responsibility (May 10, 1999),
www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1999/5/17/5.text.1 (visited Aug.
14, 2000).
7. See James Potter et al. Content Analysis of Entertainment Television: New Methodological
Developments, in Television Violence and Public Policy 55, 57 (James T. Hamilton ed., 1998).
8. See Barrie Gunter, The Question of Media Violence, in Media Effects: Advances in Theory
and Research 163, 169-76 (Jennings Bryant & Dolf Zillmann eds., 1994).
9. L. Rowell Huesmann & Leonard D. Eron, The Development of Aggression in Children of
Different Cultures: Psychological Processes and Exposure to Violence, in Television and the
Aggressive Child: A Cross-National Comparison 1, 14-16 (L. Rowell Huesmann & Leonard D.
Eron eds., 1986) [hereinafter Cross-National Comparison].
10. Id. at 16.
11. See generally Marie-Louise Mares, Positive Effects of Television on Social Behavior: A
Meta-Analysis (Annenberg Pub. Pol’y Ctr. U. Penn. Report No. 3 1996).
15

12. See generally Gunter, supra note 8.
13. See, e.g., Huesmann et al., Media Violence & Antisocial Behavior, supra note 1, at 184;
Haejung Paik & George Comstock, The Effects of Television Violence on Antisocial Behavior: A
Meta-Analysis, 21 Comm. Res. 516, 518-19, 536-38 (1994); Russell G. Geen, Television and
Aggression: Recent Developments in Research and Theory, in Media, Children, and the Family:
Social, Scientific, Psychodynamic, and Clinical Perspectives 151, 152 (Dolf Zillmann et al. eds.,
1994).
14. See, e.g., Gunter, supra note 8, at 170-71.
15. Huesmann et al., Media Violence & Antisocial Behavior, supra note 1, at 184 (citation
omitted).
16. Id. at 185.
17. Haejung Paik & George Comstock, Television and the American Child 241 (1991).
18. Freedman, Television Violence, supra note 3, at 840-41.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. See James Q. Wilson & Richard J. Herrnstein, Crime and Human Nature 346-48 (1985); see
also Thomas G. Krattenmaker & Lucas A. Powe, Jr., Regulating Broadcast Programming 12728 (1996).
22. See, e.g., Huesmann et al., Media Violence & Antisocial Behavior, supra note 1, at 184.
23. William A. Belson, Television Violence and the Adolescent Boy (1978). The Belson study,
although conducted at one point in time, asked questions relating to different periods in the past.
24. Id. at 15.
25. See, e.g., Gunter, supra note 8, at 173-87; Huesmann et al., Media Violence & Antisocial
Behavior, supra note 1, at 184-85; Paik & Comstock, supra note 17, at 242-54.
26. See Monroe M. Lefkowitz et al., Television Violence and Child Aggression: A Followup
Study, in Report of the Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and
Behavior: Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness (Reports and Papers Vol. 3) 35 (George A.
Comstock & Eli A. Rubenstein eds., 1972); see also L. Rowell Huesmann et al., Stability of
Aggression over Time and Generations, 20 Developmental Psychol. 1120 (1984) [hereinafter
Stability of Aggression].
27. See Lefkowitz et al., supra note 26, at 71.
28. See Huesmann et al., Stability of Aggression, supra note 26, at 1125-26.
16

29. L. Rowell Huesmann, Cross-National Communalities in the Learning of Aggression from
Media Violence, in Cross-National Comparison, supra note 9, at 239, 254-55. These
conclusions were challenged by Dutch researchers who were originally part of the international
study. Publishing their own analysis of the international data, the Dutch researchers concluded
that “there is almost no evidence for the hypothesis that television violence viewing leads to
aggressive behavior or vice versa.” O. Wiegman et al., A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of
Television Viewing on Aggressive and Prosocial Behaviors, 31 Brit. J. of Soc. Psychol. 147, 159,
161 (1992). Wiegman et al.’s contrary findings are based on the use of statistical techniques that
attempt to correct for the impact of violence risk factors, such as a child’s intelligence, as well as
preexisting levels of aggression.
30. J. Ronald Milavsky et al., Television and Aggression: A Panel Study (1982).
31. The tendency for other factors to be related both to exposure to media violence and to violent
behavior was especially important in the analysis of boys. Id. at 483. Milavsky et al. report that
the study “showed that many of the factors which were more strongly related than television
exposure to the aggression of elementary school boys are also similarly related to teen
aggression: living in neighborhoods and families where aggression occurs often, and being
rejected by their mothers. In addition, the aggressive teen accepts aggression as a proper form of
behavior and feels no regret when he is aggressive. He uses alcohol and has friends who use
drugs. Most of these factors are predictors of his becoming more aggressive over time relative to
teens who do not share such circumstances.” Id. at 486.
32. Id. at 487.
33. Huesmann et al., Media Violence & Antisocial Behavior, supra note 1, at 185.
34. Id.
35. George Gerbner et al., Growing up with Television: The Cultivation Perspective, in Media
Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, supra note 8, at 30.
36. Id.
37. See Bok, supra note 2, at 62; Gunter, supra note 8, at 183-86.
38. Bok, supra note 2, at 69.
39. Aletha C. Huston et al., Big World, Small Screen: The Role of Television in American
Society 57 (1992) [hereinafter Big World, Small Screen]. For a fuller review of the evidence,
some of which is not supportive of the desensitization theory, see Bok, supra note 2, at 67-76.
40. Huesmann & Eron, in Cross-National Comparison, supra note 9, at 14. The authors briefly
note the existence of studies that “seem to support” the desensitization hypothesis, but they do
not evaluate the studies’ ability to identify a causal link. Id.
41. See The Impact of Television: A Natural Experiment in Three Communities (Tannis
MacBeth Williams ed., 1986).
17

42. Id. at 312.
43. Id. at 314-18.
44. Id. at 319-20.
45. Id. at 401.
46. Jane E. Ledingham, et al., The Effects of Media Violence on Children 5 (Nat’l Clearinghouse
on Fam. Violence, Canada, 1993), www.hcsc.gc.ca/hppb/familyviolence/html/mediaviolence.htm (visited Aug. 14, 2000).
47. Id.
48. Id.
49. Brandon S. Centerwall, Television Violence: The Scale of the Problem and Where to Go
from Here, 267 JAMA 3059 (1992).
50. Id. at 3060-61.
51. Id. at 3061.
52. See Bok, supra note 2, at 86; Krattenmaker & Powe, supra note 21, at 125.
53. See Edward Donnerstein & Daniel Linz, The Media, in Crime 237, 252 (James Q. Wilson &
Joan Petersilia, eds., 1995).
54. See Wilson & Herrnstein, supra note 21, at 342-43.
55. See, e.g., Wiegman, supra note 29.
56. Robert K. Baker & Sandra J. Ball, Mass Media and Violence: A Staff Report to the
National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence (1969).
57. Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior,
Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence (1972).
58. 1 National Institute of Mental Health, Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific
Progress and Implications for the Eighties (David Pearl et al. eds., 1982).
59. Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, The Child and Television Drama: The
Psychosocial Impact of Cumulative Viewing (1982).
60. 1 American Psychological Association, Violence & Youth: Psychology’s Response –
Summary Report on the American Psychological Association Commission on Violence and Youth
(1993).

18

61. See generally John P. Murray, The Impact of Televised Violence,
www.ksu.edu/humec/impact.htm (visited Aug. 14, 2000).
62. 1 NIMH, supra note 58, at 6. Subsequently, the National Research Council (“NRC”), a
quasi-governmental agency, convened a panel of experts to review the NIMH study. The NRC
concluded that televised violence “may be related” to aggression, but that the magnitude of the
relationship is small and the meaning of aggression is unclear. National Academy of
Sciences/National Research Council, Children and TV Violence: Where Do We Go from Here?,
News Report 8 (March 1983).
63. Huston, Big World, Small Screen, supra note 39, at 136.
64. See, e.g., Donnerstein & Linz, supra note 53, at 237 (“Media violence is also a causal factor
in the stimulation of violent behavior including crime.”); Huesmann et al., Media Violence &
Antisocial Behavior, supra note 1, at 190 (“viewing media violence stimulates aggressive
behavior in children”); Donald F. Roberts, Media Content Labeling Systems, in A
Communications Cornucopia: Markle Foundation Essays on Information Policy 350, 354
(Roger G. Noll & Monroe E. Price eds., 1998) (noting “unequivocal conclusion that exposure to
mass media portrayals of violence contributes to aggressive attitudes and behavior in children,
adolescents, and adults”).
65. See, e.g., Jonathan L. Freedman, Remarks Before the House Bipartisan Task Force on Youth
Violence 1 (Oct. 1, 1999) (“The available studies provide no convincing evidence that viewing
violence on television or in the movies causes aggression or crime and quite of bit of evidence
that it does not.”) (on file with the Commission); Jonathan Kellerman, Savage Spawn:
Reflections on Violent Children 72 (1999) (stating that “not a single causal link between media
violence and criminality has ever been produced”).
66. See, e.g., Dora Black & Martin Newman, Television Violence and Children, 310 Brit. Med.
J. 273, 273; Bok, supra note 2, at 87; Gunter, supra note 8, at 201-02.
67. Huesmann et al., Media Violence & Antisocial Behavior, supra note 1, at 183. A prominent
exception to this view is Centerwall (1992), who believes that television is a major reason for
increased crime rates in Western society. But Centerwall’s evidence relates to all television
content, not just the entertainment component that is the focus of this review. Centerwall, supra
note 49.
68. See generally National Research Council, Perspectives On Violence, in Understanding and
Preventing Violence: Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior 101 (Albert
Reiss, Jr. & Jeffrey Roth eds., 1993); Huesmann & Eron, in Cross-National Comparison, supra
note 9, at 1-27; NIMH, Children and Adolescent Violence Research, supra note 4.
69. Huesmann et al., Media Violence & Antisocial Behavior, supra note 1, at 183.
70. See generally note 68, supra.
71. Huesmann & Eron, in Cross-National Comparison, supra note 9, at 4.
19

72. 3 University of California, Santa Barbara et al., National Television Violence Study:
Executive Summary 13 (Joel Federman ed., 1998) [hereinafter NTVS Executive Summary].
73. The NTVS, initiated in 1994, was a three-year effort to assess violence in television
programming. The project was funded by the National Cable Television Association, and
involved media researchers from four universities, as well as representatives from various policy
and advocacy organizations. The results from the NTVS are set forth in three volumes. See
NTVS Executive Summary, supra note 72; University of California, Santa Barbara et al., National
Television Violence Study 3 (Center for Communications and Social Policy, University of
California, Santa Barbara eds.,1988) [hereinafter NTVS Report]; University of California, Santa
Barbara et al., National Television Violence Study: Scientific Papers 1994-95 (Mediascope, Inc.
ed., 1996) [hereinafter NTVS Scientific Papers].
74. NTVS Scientific Papers, supra note 73, at I-15.
75. NTVS Report, supra note 73, at 11-19.
76. Id.
77. Id. at 3.
78. Potter, supra note 7, at 57.
79. Id. at 58. The authors also note that differences in the definition of media violence also
influence researchers’ selection of a unit of analysis (e.g., each violent act in a narrative scene
versus average numbers of acts per program) and their sample of television programs. Id. at 5761.
80. Harry T. Edwards & Mitchell N. Berman, Regulating Violence on Television, 89 Nw. U. L.
Rev. 1487, 1533 (1995).
81. Karen E. Dill & Jody C. Dill, Video Game Violence: A Review of the Empirical Literature,
3 Aggression and Violent Behavior 407, 409-14 (1998).
82. Id. at 411-14.
83. See Craig A. Anderson & Karen E. Dill, Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings,
and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life, 78 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 772 (2000); The
Impact of Interactive Violence on Children: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on Commerce,
Science and Transp., 106th Cong. (2000) (written testimony of Jeanne B. Funk, Ph.D.), reprinted
at 2000 WL 11070123.
84. Funk, supra note 83, 2000 WL 11070123, at *4-5.
85. Id. at *5.
86. Anderson & Dill, supra note 83.

20

87. Id. at 778-82.
88. Id. at 782.
89. Id. at 785-87.
90. Id. at 787.
91. See The Impact of Interactive Violence on Children: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on
Commerce, Science and Transp., 106th Cong. (2000) (written testimony of Jeffrey Goldstein,
Ph.D.), reprinted at 2000 WL 11069631.
92. Id. at 11069631, at *5-6.
93. Id. at *7 (citing Joel Cooper & Diane Mackie, Video Games and Aggression in Children, 16
J. Applied Soc. Psychol. 726 (1986), and Joop Hellendoorn & Frits J.H. Harinck, War Toy Play
and Aggression in Dutch Kindergarten Children, 6 Soc. Dev. 340 (1997)).
94. Id. at *4; accord Mark Griffiths, Violent Video Games and Aggression: A Review of the
Literature, 4 Aggression & Violent Behavior 203, 206 (1999).
95. Anderson & Dill, supra note 83, at 782.
96. Id. at 787.
97. Compare Dill & Dill, supra note 81, at 424 (“short term exposure to video-game and virtual
reality violence engenders increase in aggressive behavior, affect, and cognitions and decreases
in pro-social behavior”) with Griffiths, supra note 94, at 211 (“[T]he question of whether video
games promote aggressiveness cannot be answered at present because the available literature is
relatively sparse and conflicting, and there are many different types of video games which
probably have different effects.”).

21

Appendix B
CHILDREN AS CONSUMERS OF ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA:
MEDIA USAGE, MARKETING BEHAVIOR AND INFLUENCES,
AND RATINGS EFFECTS
I.

INTRODUCTION: YOUTH AS A CONSUMER MARKET
American children’s unprecedented spending power holds considerable appeal for

marketers. Older children, ages 12 to 19, spent more than $94 billion of their own money in
1998.1 Younger children, ages 8 to 12, spent $11.9 billion of their own money in 1997, an
increase of 300% since 1989.2 In addition, children spend money they receive from their parents
or other adults. Including these funds, Teen Research Unlimited (“TRU”) estimated in its semiannual Teenage Marketing and Lifestyle Survey that children ages 12 to 19 spent more than $153
billion in 1999, up from $140 billion in 1998.3 The average teen spends $56 of his or her own
money and $28 of his or her parents’ money per week.4 Teens also influence substantial
additional family spending by expressing their preferences for certain products or brands that
their parents then purchase.
Apart from their spending power, teens are an important market for other reasons. Teens
set trends, both for their peers and for younger children who emulate them. Teens are a “future
market”: by winning the business of a teen, a company may be able to create a lifelong loyal
customer. They are an attractive market for entertainment companies, in particular, due to their
heavy usage of entertainment media.5 The 1999 Roper Youth Report confirmed that teens, in
contrast to adults, are able to spend much of their money on discretionary purchases like movies,
CDs, and electronic games.6 Of the $140 billion teenagers spent in 1998, $22 billion was spent
on entertainment products.7
This Appendix addresses the relationship of children, especially teenagers, to the world of
entertainment and entertainment marketing: (a) their use of entertainment media; (b) the
influence of parents, peers, and advertising and marketing in shaping children’s media exposure
and consumption; (c) the specific techniques used by industry to promote its products to children;
and (d) the potential influence of entertainment ratings on children’s purchasing decisions.

II.

CHILDREN’S ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA USAGE
Children today face an entertainment media environment that has changed significantly

over the last three decades, when network television, radio, and the record album were the

dominant forces. Since then, new media have emerged to compete for audience share: cable and
satellite television; videotapes; cable radio; cassette tapes, CDs, and mini-disk or MP3 players;
video games; computers; and the Internet.
Children are avid consumers in this rich media environment, spending significant time
with both old and new media. Data about children’s movie watching, game playing, and music
listening habits illustrate the ubiquity of these media and their importance in the lives of
American children. The 1999 Kaiser Family Foundation’s Kids & Media @ the New Millennium
Survey found that 97% of homes
with children have a VCR, 90% have
The Kaiser Family Foundation’s Kids &
Media @ the New Millennium Survey
Percent of Homes with Children Surveyed

player, 69% have a computer, and
45% have Internet access.8

100%
80%

a CD player, 70% have a video game

97%

60%

Moreover, results of the Annenberg

90%
70%

69%

Public Policy Center’s Media in the

40%
45%

Home 2000: The Fifth Annual

20%

Survey of Parents and Children,

0%
Type of Media Present in the Home

show that 78% of homes with
VCR

CD P layer

Video Game P layer

Computer

Internet Acces s

children have basic cable and 31%
have premium cable.9

A.

Entertainment Media Usage: Movies

Seeing movies at the theater is a favorite social activity among teens. The Motion
Picture Association of America (“MPAA”) estimates that although 12- to 17-year-olds make
up less than 10% of the population, they purchase 17% of movie tickets.10 Roper Youth
Report data indicate that almost one third of 13- to 17-year-olds report seeing movies in
theaters a couple of times each month.11 A majority (63%) of 9- to 17-year-olds find it
“important” to see the latest movies.12 “Tweens” (8- to 13-year-olds) spend the most time at
the theater, on average, spending three hours per week.13 Action films are the most popular
genre at the theater among youngsters, with comedy second.14
Home video watching is even more popular among children. Although nearly 18% of
8- to 17-year-olds reported that they had seen a movie on the previous day, 56% reported that
2

they had viewed a videotape the previous day.15 Three in five (62%) children ages 9 to 17
report that they watch a video once a week or more.16 Children ages 2 to 17 spent an average
of 52 minutes per day watching videotapes.17 Action and comedy films are at the top of the
older children’s preference lists.18

B.

Entertainment Media Usage: Music

Music provides the “soundtrack to teens’ lifestyles,” vying with television as a focal
point of teens’ interest.19 At times, children listen to music as a primary, or exclusive,
activity. They also read, do homework, talk with friends, and engage in other activities while
music plays in the background. It is not surprising, then, that the time children spend
listening to music nearly rivals the time they spend watching television. Youth between the
ages of 2 and 18 spend an average of one hour and 27 minutes listening to music each day.20
This average increases significantly with age: teens 14 to 18 listen to music almost twice as
much as younger children, 2 1/2 hours per day on average.21
Children, especially teens, are active
music consumers. One study reported that

Teen Music Purchases
Percentage of Teens Surveyed

71% of teens had purchased at least one full-

100%

length CD, 33% had bought a CD single,

80%
60%

71%

and 35% had bought a full-length cassette in

40%
20%

33%

the three-month period preceding the

35%

study.22 The most popular purchase for

0%
T een P urchas es in P rior T hree Months

CD

CD Single

teens on the Internet is music.23 Aside from

Cassette

listening to music they have purchased,
youth listen to music by watching music
videos or by listening to the radio. The data show that youth use radio primarily to listen to
music rather than news, sports, or other formats: regardless of age, music exposure time is
always more than double the exposure to all other radio formats combined.24 Music videos
are another key avenue of exposure: more than half of children aged 9 to 17 watch music
videos.25 Whatever the format, rap/hip-hop and alternative rock are the two types of music
that currently dominate among teens, with R&B close behind.26

3

C.

Entertainment Media Usage: Electronic Games

Despite their relative newness, electronic games, whether played on a personal
computer (“computer games”) or on a hand-held machine or game console (“video games”),
have achieved substantial penetration. Almost nine in ten homes with children (88.7%) have
either a personal computer or video
game equipment.27 Slightly less than
Annenberg Survey

half (46.3%) of homes with children

Percent of Homes with Children Surveyed

own a TV, VCR, video game
equipment, and a computer; an

100%

additional 19.5% of the homes have

80%

88.7%

60%

a TV, VCR, and video game

40%

equipment but no computer.28

46.3%

20%
19.5%

Though having a computer does not

0%
M edia P r es ent in t he H o me

necessarily equate to playing

Computer or Video Game E quipment
T V, VCR , Video Game AND Computer

computer games, gaming is the most

T V, VCR , Video Game AND NO Computer

popular way in which youngsters use
computers, comprising the majority
of recreational computer use.29
The National Public Radio/Kaiser Family Foundation/John F. Kennedy School of
Government Kids and Technology
Survey indicated that 82% of the
82% of children
play video
games...

and 77% play daily
or weekly

children surveyed play video
games.30 Of those, more than two in
five (42%) play almost every day,

42%
18%

while 35% play about once a week.31

82%
5%

35%

Children on average spend 33

42% Daily
35% Weekly
5% Other

minutes per day playing video games;
however, this figure does not include
time spent on the computer (34
minutes per day), part of which is

spent playing computer games.32 Many surveys have shown that electronic games are more
4

popular with boys than girls, with the difference in time spent playing games most
pronounced for video games.33 Action games are the most popular genre among youths,
closely followed by sports-related games and adventure games.34

III.

INFLUENCES ON CHILDREN’S MEDIA EXPOSURE
A.

Parents’ Influence and Concerns

Parents have a substantial impact on their children’s media exposure (as do other
adults such as teachers and relatives). Parents may exert influence by restricting a child’s
access or exposure to some media depending on its content, limiting the time spent with
media, discussing media with children to help them understand and interpret it, or providing
supplementary sources of information.35
Parents’ attitudes toward the media are by no means uniform: research suggests that
parents have different “styles,” from “neglectful” to “permissive” to “authoritarian,” that
affect the extent and nature of their involvement in their children’s media use.36 Despite
varying parental styles, the Media in the Home 2000 study indicates two factors affecting
parental concerns about media influences upon their children: the child’s age and the
medium.37 As to age differences, parents of younger children (ages 6-11) spent more time
supervising their children’s video game playing, music listening, and television watching.38
Similarly, the 1999 Roper Youth Report found that parents had more rules for younger versus
older youth regarding television shows viewed, movies watched on the VCR, music listened
to, and time spent playing video games.39 The Internet was the only entertainment medium
for which parents more closely supervised teenagers than younger children.40
One survey by Christenson (1997)41
asked youth which medium was of most

Youth’s View of
Media of Most Concern to Parents

concern to their parents. Only 9% of youth
9%

said video games, compared to 17% who

17%

74%

said music and 74% who said television.
According to Christenson, certain media are
more visible to parents than others, because

Video Games

of where or how they are used, or because
parents are detached or alienated from other
5

Music

Television

media’s content and form. He explains that music and video games are less “visible” to
parents than movies and television, and demonstrates that parents regulate television and
movies more than video games and music.
Parental concerns about media exposure do not always translate into action. A
significant percentage of children report that they pick out music (42%), video games (32%),
movies (26%), and rental movies (30%) without needing to ask a parent before choosing.42
Few adolescents report that their parents accompany them to music stores, cull through their
CD collections, or otherwise interfere with their freedom to select and listen to “whatever
music suits them.”43 Likewise, 49% of children with video game equipment say that their
parents do not have rules about the content of the video games they play.44 And, again, age is
a key factor: the number of children who usually are able to make purchases without
consulting their parents is significantly higher for older versus younger children.45
Parental concern also does not necessarily lead parents to use media alongside their
children. Only 11% of 7th through 12th
graders go to the movies with their
Teens Social Preferences
at the Movies

parents – compared to 60% who attend
with siblings or peers.46 In fact, two

Percentage of 7-12 Graders Surveyed
100%

thirds of teens in the TRU study named

80%

movie-going as something they

60%
60%

40%

explicitly do not like to do with their

20%

parents.47 Teens are more open to

11%

0%
Choice of Movie Companion

watching videos with their parents: A

Go w ith Parents

quarter indicated that they sometimes

Go w ith Siblings & Peers

watch videos with their parents.48 Only
31% of teens in the TRU study noted watching videos at home as something they explicitly
do not like to do with their parents.49
The same holds true for electronic games. Despite the popularity of multiplayer
gaming on the Internet – sites that allow a number of users to log in and compete against
other players over the modem – playing electronic games is a relatively solitary activity for
most children. In the Kids & Media @ the New Millennium study, 55% of children surveyed
reported that they play video games mainly alone (64% play computer games mainly alone),
6

while only 36% reported that they play video games in the presence of peers and/or siblings
(only 13% play computer games with peers and/or siblings).50 Further, 63% of teens noted
game playing as something they do not like to do with their parents.51
One phenomenon that might decrease parental supervision of media usage is that the
media are no longer enjoyed principally in the family living room or other shared space.
Given the popularity of portable personal devices, such as handheld video game players and
portable CD players, and the substantial number of children who have entertainment media
such as video game equipment in their own bedrooms, the fact that many children use
entertainment media without parental supervision should come as no surprise. According to
the Kids & Media @ the New Millennium survey, about two in three children (70%) have a
radio and nearly as many (64%) have a tape player in their room; more than half (51%) a CD
player; one third (33%) a video game player; 29% a VCR; and 16% a computer (7% with
Internet access) in their bedroom.52

B.

Peer Influence

As noted above, parental involvement, monitoring, and influence decrease as children
age. At the same time, teens begin to rely more on other information sources including, in
particular, their peers.53 As children approach adulthood, they become uncertain about the
self, and the need to belong and to find one’s unique identity as a person becomes very
important. In fact, conformity to peer pressure is considered to be one of the hallmarks of
adolescent behavior.54
Fifty-one percent of teens ages 12 to 17 cite their friends as the biggest influence on
how they spend their money.55 Further,
teens cite friends as the top influence on the

Peer Influences on Media Choices
Percentage of Teens Saying Friends Are
Their Top Influence on Entertainment Choice

music they listen to (71%) and the movies
they see in the theater (53%) or on video

100%

(48%).56 With some variation, peer effects

80%
60%

71%

40%

53%

may enhance or detract from parental

48%

20%

effects.57 After all, as the media usage data

0%
Product
Music

Movies

indicate, it is often a child’s peers, not his or
Video

her parents, who engage the media with the
7

child. For example, far fewer older children go to the movies with their parents than with
siblings or peers.58

C.

Advertising and Marketing Influence

Although parents and peers are key sources of information and influence,59
advertising and other marketing efforts also influence children’s behavior as consumers of
movies, music, and games. Parents and peers are themselves influenced by marketing, and
marketing messages may reinforce or undermine parent and peer messages. Marketing
efforts are thus part of an ongoing and dynamic social process that shapes teen consumer
behavior.
Advertising is a prime influence on how children spend their money and children’s
consumption of entertainment media. In one study, researchers asked children ages 8 to 17
whether, in the last 30 days, they had purchased or asked their parents to purchase a particular
item for them after seeing it advertised. More than one in four (29%) of the children
surveyed reported that they had purchased or asked a parent to purchase a particular CD or
cassette after seeing the ad, and the data for movie video rentals (28%) and video games
(25%) were comparable.60 More teens reported that they rely on advertising when making
purchasing decisions than did younger children.61 Moreover, 20% of teenagers selected
advertising as one of the factors that influenced their spending, along with such factors as
parents, siblings, friends, teachers, and television.62
Aside from influencing the decision to purchase a product, advertising has other
effects. According to some researchers, as children become adolescents, advertising serves
as a basis for social interaction, providing a topic of conversations with peers, a means of
belonging and group membership, and a way of conveying meaning in their daily lives.63
Some of the advertising and marketing techniques the entertainment industry uses to reach
children are set out below.

IV.

ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY MARKETING TECHNIQUES
Given the importance of the teen market, entertainment marketers work hard to influence

teens’ consumer attitudes and behaviors. They employ research to understand teens’ attitudes,
beliefs, habits, and practices in order to develop effective marketing strategies. Entertainment
8

companies use a variety of methods ranging from qualitative (e.g., focus group discussions,
participant observation) to more quantitative approaches (e.g., surveys, experiments) to research
the young consumer at every stage of the marketing process. Although the marketing strategies
for the movie, music, and electronic game industries each differ somewhat, based on the nature
of the product and industry structure, similarities exist across the industries. In implementing the
marketing strategy, marketers in each of the industries use two broad approaches to target teens:
(i) persuasive techniques (talking to teens in a way that resonates) and (ii) media placement
(going where teens are).

A.

Persuasive Techniques

The development of persuasive marketing communications, such as advertising, is
based on the psychology of how people respond to marketing efforts. Marketers recognize
that youth are different from adults based on such psychological factors as cognitive
development levels, knowledge, and experience that have been identified in the academic
literature. For example, a recent review of how children are socialized into consumers
characterizes three broad stages of development, corresponding to the ages 3 to 7 (perceptual
stage), 7 to 11 (analytical stage), and 11 to 16 (reflective stage).64 Each stage captures shifts
in youths’ knowledge, development, decision-making skills, and purchase influence
strategies. Older children are often divided into two segments based on lifestyle stages:
“tweens” and teens. Tweens (also called “young teens”) encompass those youths who are no
longer “children,” but not yet “teenagers.”65 The precise age cut-offs between tweens and
teens vary: tween is more of a state of mind than a specific age, when youths are caught
developmentally between childhood and adolescence.66
Marketers take advantage of children’s “age aspiration” behavior to link their
strategies for marketing to the teen and tween cohorts. Generally, youth “aspire up” in their
consumer behavior, trying to “live a step or two ahead of where they really are.”67 Children
watch their older siblings, those ahead of them in school, older children in the neighborhood,
and older teens in the media, and desire aspects of their lifestyles and behaviors. The gap in
teens’ actual age and aspired age shrinks as they get older. One study found that while
younger teens (12- to 15-year-olds) aspire to be three to five years older than they are, older
teens are more content enjoying the activities (like driving) that younger teens yearn to do.68
9

Further, there is a general belief that children are maturing more quickly than in past
generations, which affects the type of marketing efforts directed towards them.69
Entertainment industry marketers employ a wide range of traditional advertising and
promotional techniques to reach teens, often changing the focus to be more relevant to teens.
For example, to reach 12- to 15-year-olds, advertisers might use 17-year-old actors, who will
appeal to children their own age as well as to younger children, given age aspirations.70
Teen-targeted promotions may include sweepstakes, games, in-store rebates, contests,
sampling, and point-of-purchase materials. Because teens do not receive the volume of mail
that adults do, they may be more attentive to direct marketing offers.71
Teens, in particular, are seen as a unique target market with particular characteristics
that dictate the types of strategies needed to communicate effectively with them. Marketers
view teens as savvy about marketing and likely to reject messages perceived as patronizing or
trying too hard to be “cool,” so that marketing to teens calls for more subtle methods.72
Advertisers have found that teens have little patience for hype or pretentious ads and prefer
ads that talk to them in realistic ways and focus on their actual lifestyles.73

B.

Media Placement

The second key way marketers target youth is to “go where they are.” There are a
multitude of media and vehicles targeted at youth, such as cable music networks, teenoriented magazines, teen-oriented Web sites, and lifestyle special events, that make the
elusive teen easier to reach.74 Marketers also recognize that substantial numbers of youth
comprise the audience of media intended for a general audience, such as general circulation
magazines or television shows that are popular with both adults and children.75
Entertainment marketers look not only to reach teens but to be pervasive in the market
throughout the day, whether at home, school, or out and about.76
Marketers also use a variety of less traditional techniques to communicate to teens.
Recently, a small industry of companies that market to youth in educational settings has
grown up. One example is Channel One, which provides schools with a brief 12-minute
news program that incorporates two minutes of advertising, including ads for entertainment
products.77 Another company, Backstage Pass, introduces students to recording artists by
means of CD giveaways and posters in school cafeterias.78 ZapMe! Corp. provides schools
10

with Internet access, computers, tech support, and maintenance; in exchange, the schools
must promise that a student will use each computer for at least four hours daily while a twoinch by four-inch banner ad appears constantly on the screen.79
Another technique that is less well known outside the marketing world is street or
lifestyle marketing. Street marketing involves making a product a “natural” part of teens’
lifestyles and is a key technique used in the music industry.80 The goal is to reach teens
where they “hang out” – at concerts, coffee shops, arcades, and other gathering spots.
Specific tactics include hanging posters, giving away CDs or T-shirts, distributing flyers or
postcards with the marketing message, generating word of mouth, and encouraging DJs to
play records.81 The entertainment industry has brought street marketing to the Internet as
well, offering free T-shirts and CDs to teens who spread the word about music or movies on
fan site postings or through email.82
Entertainment companies are also creative in joining together to produce marketing
synergies, employing a range of options including partnerships, licensing agreements, or joint
promotions. An electronic game company might license a game character to a toy company to
make an action figure, or to a movie studio to make a film. Companies selling different types of
products ally to cross-market. For example, in the film industry, cross-marketing and product
placements give additional exposure to products or music featured in a film.83 Audience
members may not be consciously aware of these in-film marketing efforts, and such techniques
may prompt inferences that the product is a part of the movie character’s lifestyle.84 The ads
reach a captive audience, and may have higher recall than some other advertising techniques.85
Finally, the emergence of the Internet as a focus for teens has led companies to advertise
online, where the interactive nature of the medium carries the additional promise to marketers of
obtaining consumer feedback while promoting their products. One recent survey indicates that
two thirds of teenagers have either researched products or purchased products online.86

V.

DOES RATING INFORMATION AFFECT CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOR?
The entertainment industry developed the movie and game ratings and music advisory

label to inform parents about the product’s content. In some but not all instances, these ratings
and labels may also be communicated to children through advertising, marketing, and product
packaging, raising the question whether this information directly affects children’s behavior. A
11

number of academic studies suggest that this rating/labeling information does affect children’s
behavior, although its precise effects are uncertain.
A child might respond to information restricting access to material as if the restricted
material were “forbidden fruit,” leading the child to resist the restriction and seek out the
restricted material.87 By contrast, children might view restricted material as if it were “tainted
fruit,” leading them to avoid content with which they might not be comfortable.88 In that case, a
rating restriction or advisory would directly dampen a child’s interest in the material, apart from
the indirect role the information might play in facilitating parents’ efforts to reduce the child’s
exposure to restricted material.
Studies on the impact of rating information on children’s attraction to restricted
entertainment media products suggest that both of these phenomena may occur, depending on
such factors as the age and gender of the child and the format of the rating itself. For example,
Morkes, Chen, and Roberts (1997)89 tested middle school students’ responses to MPAA movie
ratings, Recreational Software Advisory Council (“RSAC”) electronic game advisories, and
television ratings. The students read brief descriptions of a film, a television program, and a
game, each randomly labeled with one of the ratings appropriate to the medium, and graded the
attractiveness of each. For the movie ratings, children’s desire to view the film increased as the
MPAA age restriction increased: students preferred PG-13- and R-rated films to both G- and PGrated films. This result was driven primarily by boys’ responses. For games, while the RSAC
rating information had no effect on girls, boys preferred games rated with the level 3 advisory
(“Blood and Gore”) significantly more than games with the lower ratings. By contrast, analysis
of the responses regarding television ratings found no ratings effects.90
There are also some studies suggesting the existence of a tainted fruit effect, at least with
younger children. For example, in an experiment by Christenson (1992) that tested the effects of
the parental advisory label used by the Recording Industry Association of America, middle
school students who listened to music while viewing an album’s cover gave lower evaluations to
the music when the album cover had an advisory label than when the album cover had no label.91
Youth in the study also reported less interest in buying explicit-content labeled albums.
Though some studies show little or no effect of rating or labeling information on children,
at least for certain rating or advisory formats,92 the research taken as a whole suggests that
entertainment media ratings do have some impact on children’s media choices, impact that may
12

depend on factors such as age, gender, the format and type of rating information, and the medium
involved.93 The clear message of this research is that ratings or advisory labels may have not
only intended, but also unintended, effects on youth that should be considered in determining
how best to communicate this type of information.

13

ENDNOTES
1. Peter Zollo, Wise Up to Teens: Insights into Marketing and Advertising to Teenagers 9 (1999)
[hereinafter Wise Up to Teens]. Wise Up to Teens is based on Teen Research Unlimited’s
syndicated, semi-annual Teenage Marketing and Lifestyle Study, which surveys more than 2000
youth ages 12-19. Marketers use the study, conducted since 1983, to help make their products,
marketing, and advertising efforts compelling and relevant to teens.
2. Barbara Kantrowitz & Pat Wingert, It’s Their World: A Guide to Who’s Hot, Newsweek, Oct.
18, 1999, at 62.
3. Teenage Research Unlimited, Teens Spend $153 Billion in 1999,
www.teenresearch.com/news/bodynews.html (visited June 16, 2000).
4. Wise Up to Teens, supra note 1, at 7-8.
5. For data on media usage, see infra Section II.
6. Wise Up to Teens, supra note 1, at 50-51; Roper Starch Worldwide, 1999 Roper Youth Report
201-03 (1999) [hereinafter 1999 Roper Youth Report].
7. Rachel McLauglin, Targeting Teens, 23 Target Marketing 84 (2000).
8. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Kids & Media @ the New Millennium 9 (1999)
[hereinafter Kids & Media @ the New Millennium]. Data released in June 2000 by the
Annenberg Public Policy Center essentially track these results, with the exception that the more
recent data reflect the speed with which American families have adopted the Internet: 52% of
homes with children had Internet access in the later survey, up from 32% in 1998. Emory H.
Woodard, IV & Natalia Gridina, Media in the Home 2000: The Fifth Annual Survey of Parents
and Children 8 (Annenberg Pub. Policy Ctr. U. Pennsylvania 2000) [hereinafter Media in the
Home 2000]. The Annenberg Center’s 1999 survey of media in the home, Jeffrey D. Stanger &
Natalia Gridina, Media in the Home 1999: The Fourth Annual Survey of Parents and Children
11 (Annenberg Pub. Policy Ctr. U. Pennsylvania 1999) [hereinafter Media in the Home 1999]
also contains relevant information.
9. Media in the Home 2000, supra note 8, at 8.
10. NATO 1999-2000 Encyclopedia of Exhibition at 362, 364 (citing MPAA estimates for 1998);
see also Robin Rauzi, The Teen Factor: Today’s Media-Savvy Youths Influence What Others
Are Seeing and Hearing, L.A. Times, June 9, 1998, at F1 [hereinafter The Teen Factor].
11. 1999 Roper Youth Report, supra note 6, at 109.
12. Yankelovich Partners, Nickelodeon/Yankelovich Youth Monitor (1997) (cited in Issue Brief
Series, Popular Culture & the American Child (1999)).
13. Kids & Media @ the New Millennium, supra note 8, at 21.

14

14. Id. at 50.
15. 1999 Roper Youth Report, supra note 6, at 65.
16. The 1998 Yankelovich/VSDA Home Entertainment Study (cited in Issue Brief Series, Media
Use in America (1999)).
17. Media in the Home 2000, supra note 8, at 19.
18. Kids & Media @ the New Millennium, supra note 8, at 50.
19. Peter G. Christenson & Donald F. Roberts, It’s Not Only Rock and Roll: Popular Music in
the Lives of Adolescents 33-39 (1998) [hereinafter It’s Not Only Rock and Roll].
20. Kids & Media @ the New Millennium, supra note 8, at 37-39 (compared to 2 hours 46
minutes per day watching television).
21. Id.
22. The Teen Factor, supra note 10.
23. Michiyo Yamada, Market Spotlight: Today’s Teens, Tomorrow’s Net Consumers, The
Standard (June 14, 1999), www.thestandard.com.
24. Kids & Media @ the New Millennium, supra note 8, at 37, 39.
25. Peter G. Christenson & Donald F. Roberts, Popular Music in Early Adolescence, Carnegie
Council on Adolescent Development Working Papers 1990 (cited in Issue Brief Series, Popular
Culture & the American Child (1999)). Christenson and Roberts found that more than three
quarters of children aged 9 to 17 (75% of 9- to 12-year-olds, and 80% of 12- to 14-year-olds)
watched music videos. Id. Annenberg reported that over 50% of youth ages 10 to 17 watched
MTV each year from 1996 to 1999. Media in the Home 1999, supra note 8, at 11.
26. Wise Up to Teens, supra note 1, at 71.
27. Media in the Home 1999, supra note 8, at 7.
28. Id. at 7. According to Media in the Home 2000, supra note 8, at 7, 48% of homes have all
four media hardware, an increase from 40% in 1998 and 34% in 1997.
29. Kids & Media @ the New Millennium, supra note 8, at 32-33.
30. National Public Radio, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Kennedy School of
Government, Kids & Technology Survey (Feb. 2000),
www.npr.org/programs/specials/poll/technology/technology.kids.html (visited Sept. 1, 2000).
31. Id.
32. Media in the Home 2000, supra note 8, at 19.
15

33. 1999 Roper Youth Report, supra note 6, at 165; Kids & Media @ the New Millennium, supra
note 8, at 40.
34. Kids & Media @ the New Millennium, supra note 8, at 55.
35. See, e.g., Media in the Home 2000, supra note 8, at 41 (reporting data on parental use of
supervision techniques such as forbidding particular content, restricting time spent with the
medium, and talking about content with the child).
36. Ann D. Walsh et al., Mothers’ Preferences for Regulating Children’s Television, 27 J.
Advertising 23 (1998). Other researchers characterize three dimensions of parental guidance:
restrictive, evaluative, and unfocused. Kelly L. Schmitt, Public Policy, Family Rules and
Children’s Media Use in the Home 25 (Annenberg Pub. Policy Ctr. U. Pennsylvania 2000)
(citing Carl Bybee et al., Determinants of Parental Guidance of Children’s Television for a
Special Subgroup: Mass Media Scholars, 26 J. Broadcasting 697 (1982)) [hereinafter Family
Rules and Children’s Media Use in the Home]. Restrictive guidance includes limiting viewing
hours, forbidding children from watching certain programs while specifying acceptable
programs, changing the channel upon seeing objectionable content, or having prerequisites for
viewing. Evaluative guidance occurs when parents explain the meaning of program content,
discuss characters’ motivations, or note the characters’ good and bad acts. Lastly, parents
provide unfocused guidance by watching with their children, encouraging certain programs, or
talking about a particular show.
37. Media in the Home 2000, supra note 8, at 41.
38. Id. at 41.
39. 1999 Roper Youth Report, supra note 6, at 47. Parents had more rules for younger versus
older youth regarding television shows viewed (56% vs. 23%), movies watched on the VCR
(44% vs. 25%), music listened to (29% vs. 23%), and time spent playing video games (26% vs.
12%).
40. Media in the Home 2000, supra note 8, at 41; see also 1999 Roper Youth Report, supra note
6, at 47.
41. Peter G. Christenson, The Impact of Video Game Ratings: Is There a Boomerang Effect?
(1997) (unpublished manuscript, presented at the International Communication Association
Conference) (on file with the Commission) [hereinafter The Impact of Video Game Ratings].
42. 1999 Roper Youth Report, supra note 6, at 181.
43. It’s Not Only Rock and Roll, supra note 19, at 9.
44. Media in the Home 2000, supra note 8, at 17-18. These findings are consistent with the
Survey of Parents and Children Regarding Self-Regulated Product Rating Systems conducted by
the Commission: 45% of children who play electronic games reported that their parents
restricted the video games the child may play. See Appendix F (Mystery Shopper Survey and
Parent-Child Survey).
16

45. 1999 Roper Youth Report, supra note 6, at 181 (CDs 72% vs. 27%; video games 52% vs.
23%; movie rentals 54% vs. 16%, respectively, for older and younger children, were usually
allowed to make these purchases without consulting their parents).
46. Kids & Media @ the New Millennium, supra note 8, at 64.
47. Wise Up to Teens, supra note 1, at 275.
48. Kids & Media @ the New Millennium, supra note 8, at 64.
49. Wise Up to Teens, supra note 1, at 275.
50. Kids & Media @ the New Millennium, supra note 8, at 64.
51. Wise Up to Teens, supra note 1, at 275.
52. Kids & Media @ the New Millennium, supra note 8, at 13. More recent statistics show that
these percentages are increasing. According to the most recent Annenberg survey, 77% of
children ages 8-16 have a stereo or CD player in their rooms, 39% a video game player, 30% a
VCR, 20% a computer, and 11% online access. Media in the Home 2000, supra note 8, at 17.
53. See, e.g., George P. Moschis & Roy L. Moore, Decision Making Among the Young: A
Socialization Perspective, 6 J. Consumer Res. 101 (1979); Oswald A. J. Mascarenhas & Mary A.
Higby, Peer, Parent, and Media Influences in Teen Apparel Shopping, 21 J. Acad. Marketing
Sci. 53 (1993).
54. See, e.g., B. Bradford Brown et al., Perceptions of Peer Pressure Conformity, Dispositions
and Self-Reported Behaviors Among Adolescents, 22 Developmental Psychol. 521 (1986).
55. 1999 Roper Youth Report, supra note 6, at 54.
56. Id. at 54.
57. See, e.g., Judith S. Brook, et al., Stages of Drug Use in Adolescence: Personality, Peer, and
Family Correlates, 19 Developmental Psychol. 269 (1983).
58. Kids & Media @ the New Millennium, supra note 8, at 64.
59. See, e.g., George P. Moschis & Gilbert A. Churchill, Consumer Socialization: A Theoretical
and Empirical Analysis, 15 J. Marketing Res. 599 (1978); Scott Ward, Consumer Socialization, 1
J. Consumer Res. 1 (1974).
60. 1999 Roper Youth Report, supra note 6, at 187.
61. Id. at 55-57, 190.
62. Id. at 57 (multiple response question).

17

63. E.g., Mark Ritson & Richard Elliot, The Social Uses of Advertising: An Ethnographic Study
of Adolescent Advertising Audiences, 26 J. Consumer Res. 260 (1999).
64. Deborah Roedder John, Consumer Socialization of Children: A Retrospective Look at
Twenty-five Years of Research, 26 J. Consumer Res. 183 (1999).
65. Jura Koncius, Targeting Tweens: Retailers Are Homing in on the Next Generation, Wash.
Post, March 23, 2000, at G1.
66. Id.
67. Wise Up to Teens, supra note 1, at 204.
68. Id. at 206.
69. For example, the publisher of Sixteen magazine said that the magazine’s target audience 20
years ago was actually 16 years of age, but that now the magazine caters to 11- and 12-year-olds.
The Teen Factor, supra note 10. See also Chris Reidy, Toy Industry Tries to Reinvent Itself,
Boston Globe, Dec. 15, 1998, at C8, (“Today’s computer-savvy children quickly tire of rag dolls
and toy soldiers. . . . ‘Kids are going on the computer in kindergarten,’ said editor Chris Byrne of
Playthings Marketplace, an industry newsletter. ‘Kids are giving up traditional toys by 6 or 7.’”).
70. Wise Up to Teens, supra note 1, at 206-07.
71. Id. at 90.
72. Id. at 292.
73. Yankelovich Clancy Shulman, Getting Hip to Free-Spending Teens, Adweek, June 15, 1992,
at 70.
74. See Wise Up to Teens, supra note 1, at 296.
75. See generally Kids & Media @ the New Millennium, supra note 8, at 45-60; Media in the
Home 2000, supra note 8, at 39; Family Rules and Children’s Media Use in the Home, supra
note 36, at 36-37 (2000).
76. See Wise Up to Teens, supra note 1, at 90-93.
77. See Primedia, Inc., 1998 10-K Report, at 5 (accessible through Primedia’s Web site
www.primedia.com).
78. See Wise Up to Teens, supra note 1, at 170.
79. Daniel Golden, ZapMe Is Targeted over Student Data Collected on Web, Wall Street J., Jan.
19, 2000, at B6; Nancy Willard, Capturing the “Eyeballs” and “E-wallets” of Captive Kids in
School: Dot.com Invades Dot.edu, http://netizen.uoregon.edu/documents/eyeballs.html (visited
July 18, 2000).
18

80. See Report Part V.B.5.
81. Id.; see generally Wise Up to Teens, supra note 1, at 91.
82. Wayne Friedman, Street Marketing Hits the Internet, Advertising Age, May 1, 2000, at 32.
83. See, e.g., Michael Colton, Welcome to My Hype-Industrial Complex, Baby!, Brill’s Content
(Sept. 1999) (noting product placements), www.brillscontent.com/features/austin_0999.html
(visited Sept. 1, 2000).
84. Denise E. DeLorme & Leonard N. Reid, Moviegoers’ Experiences and Interpretations of
Brands in Films Revisited, 28:2 J. Advertising 71 (Summer 1999).
85. Dade Hayes, The Preshow Must Go on … and on…, Variety, Nov. 8, 1999, at 9.
86. Margaret Littman, How Marketers Track Underage Consumers, Marketing News, May 8,
2000, at 4.
87. The forbidden fruit thesis is based on psychological theories including reactance theory and
commodity theory. Reactance theory suggests that when an individual’s freedom to engage in a
particular behavior is threatened or eliminated, the individual will experience an unpleasant
motivational state that consists of pressures to re-establish the threatened or lost freedom.
Commodity theory suggests that any commodity that is perceived as unavailable or that can only
be obtained with effort will be more valued than a commodity that can be obtained freely. See
Brad J. Bushman & Angela D. Stack, Forbidden Fruit Versus Tainted Fruit: Effects of Warning
Labels for an Attraction to Television Violence, 2 J. Applied Experimental Psychol. 207 (1996).
88. See Peter G. Christenson, The Effects of Parental Advisory Labels on Adolescent Music
Preferences,” 42 J. Comm. 106 (1992) [hereinafter The Effects of Parental Advisory Labels].
89. John Morkes & Helen L. Chen et al., Young Adolescents’ Responses to Movie, Television,
and Computer Game Ratings and Advisories (May 1997) (unpublished paper presented at the
International Communication Association Conference) (on file with the Commission)
[hereinafter Young Adolescents’ Responses].
90. Id. For other studies showing a forbidden fruit effect, see, e.g., Joanne Cantor & Kristen
Harrison, Ratings and Advisories for Television Programming: University of Wisconsin,
Madison Study, in National Television Violence Study: Vol. I III-1, III-14 (1994) (not one boy
age 10-14 opted to watch a movie he believed had been rated G over others rated PG, but 50% of
boys age 10-14 presented with the same options elected to watch that movie when they believed
it was rated PG-13 or R); The Impact of Video Game Ratings, supra note 41 (students in grades 4
through 12 selected video games assigned “13 and older” rating as more “fun” than games
assigned a “suitable-for-all-ages” rating).
91. The Effects of Parental Advisory Labels, supra note 88.
92. See, e.g., Bruce A. Austin, The Influence of the MPAA’s Film-Rating System on Motion
Picture Attendance: A Pilot Study, 106 J. Psychol. 91 (1980) (different MPAA ratings assigned
19

to films had no significant impact on high school students’ desire to see the films); Joanne
Cantor et al., Ratings and Advisories for Television Programming, in National Television
Violence Study: Vol. II (1997) (the MPAA ratings were the only one of the eight rating systems
tested that significantly affected older (age 10 to 15) children’s desire to see the programs, with
the results reflecting a forbidden fruit effect).
93. The Effects of Parental Advisory Labels, supra note 88; Young Adolescents’ Responses,
supra note 89.

20

Appendix C
FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES IN PUBLIC
DEBATE OVER GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION OF
ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA PRODUCTS WITH VIOLENT CONTENT
This Appendix addresses First Amendment concerns that have been raised in the public
debate regarding the marketing of entertainment media products with violent content to children.1
It discusses the relevance of the First Amendment to the Commission’s role in undertaking its
study and issuing this Report, and to private sector restrictions on advertising and marketing. It
also discusses the First Amendment standards and considerations that would most likely be used
to evaluate proposals for government restrictions on the advertising and marketing of
entertainment media products with violent content.
I.

BACKGROUND
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution limits the government from

making any law or regulation that would ban or indirectly tend to suppress – that is, “chill” –
speech or expression.2 Historically, the First Amendment has been interpreted broadly to protect
individuals from government attempts to suppress political, ideological, or scientific ideas or
information, and to defend against government incursions on freedom of expression in art,
literature, movies, and music.3 By contrast, the First Amendment has been interpreted to provide
more narrow protection for commercial expression such as advertising.4 The Supreme Court also
has placed outside the protections of the First Amendment certain limited classes of speech that
are viewed as having little or no value at all because they do not promote democratic ideals:
incitement,5 fighting words,6 and obscenity.7
II.

THE FTC’S STUDY, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND SELF-REGULATION
In general, the First Amendment applies only to government’s attempts to restrict speech

and expression through legislation, regulation, and enforcement actions. Such restriction
includes the passage of legislation by the United States Congress or state or local legislatures and
the promulgation of implementing regulations by federal agencies such as the Federal Trade
Commission and their state and local counterparts. It does not generally apply to a study or
investigation by a governmental agency or commission “in the absence of some actual or
threatened imposition of government power or sanction.”8 The FTC’s objective in undertaking
this Report was to study whether the entertainment industries are marketing media products with
violent content to children, and to analyze the industries’ advertising and promotional activities

in light of the existing self-regulatory systems. Its objective was not to recommend legislation or
any government action.
Nor does the First Amendment generally apply to private activity such as industry selfregulation. The exception is when a private party’s actions are attributable to the government,
either when: (i) the private party exercises a public function that is traditionally exclusively
reserved to the State,9 or (ii) the government has exercised coercive power or provided such
significant encouragement that the challenged action can fairly be attributed to the government.10
Therefore, the Constitution would not preclude the entertainment media industries themselves
from taking steps to restrict or limit advertising and marketing of media products with violent
content to children, as such conduct is private activity beyond the reach of the First Amendment.
III.

THE COMMERCIAL/NON-COMMERCIAL SPEECH DISTINCTION
A.

General Principles

The First Amendment’s protection of speech and expression is broad but not absolute.11
In certain cases, the courts have upheld restrictions on speech when the government’s
justification for restricting the speech outweighs the First Amendment values at issue.12 In
analyzing governmental restrictions on speech, the Supreme Court traditionally has divided
speech into two categories – commercial speech and “fully protected,” non-commercial speech.13
Although the Supreme Court has struggled to define the differences between these two
categories, there are some clear general rules. Non-commercial speech is generally viewed as
political, ideological, artistic, or scientific expression. Commercial speech has been defined
broadly as speech “related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience,”14
and described more narrowly as speech that does “no more than propose a commercial
transaction.”15
Whether speech is categorized as commercial or non-commercial is critical because the
degree of First Amendment protection varies depending on the category of speech.
Traditionally, the Supreme Court has applied a “strict scrutiny” standard to non-commercial
speech, while analyzing commercial speech under an “intermediate scrutiny” test.16 In practice,
to restrict non-commercial speech, the government must prove that the restriction promotes a
compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to promote that interest.17 If a less
restrictive alternative would serve the government’s purpose, the government must use that
alternative.18 By contrast, to restrict commercial speech that concerns lawful activity and is not
misleading, the government must prove that its interest is substantial, that the regulation directly
2

advances the governmental interest asserted, and that it is not more extensive than is necessary to
serve that interest.19
B.

Advertisements and Promotions for Entertainment Media Products

The Supreme Court generally has viewed advertising for particular specified commercial
products or professional services as commercial speech. Under this approach, it has upheld
limitations on speech such as restrictions on targeted direct mail solicitations by lawyers to
families of accident or disaster victims20 and bans on solicitations by commercial enterprises on
public university premises.21 The categorization of advertising for entertainment media products
as commercial or non-commercial speech is not as settled. Although some observers argue that
advertisements for movies, music recordings, and electronic games should be viewed as
commercial speech because they are merely advertising products that have been placed in the
stream of commerce for profit,22 industry members and some First Amendment advocates assert
that such advertisements should be analyzed as protected, non-commercial speech because:
(i) they promote a product that itself is entitled to protection; and (ii) they often incorporate or
summarize parts of the underlying non-commercial expression, and therefore are, in substance,
nothing more than a particular subset of the content of the non-commercial expression.23
The Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on this issue, and the existing federal and
state court opinions are not uniform.24 At least one state court has held that an advertisement for
a movie “goes beyond proposal of a commercial transaction and encompasses the ideas
expressed in the motion picture which it promotes; thus it is afforded the same First Amendment
protections as the motion picture . . . .”25 State courts in New York and California have reached
opposite conclusions regarding whether promotional statements on a book cover and flyleaf
constitute commercial or non-commercial speech.26 Given that the law in this area is still
developing, this Appendix will set forth the applicable standards both for commercial and noncommercial speech and review current proposals under both paradigms.
IV.

THE STANDARD FOR REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL SPEECH
Since 1980, the courts have analyzed regulations affecting advertising for commercial

products or professional services under the four-part test set forth for assessing commercial
speech restrictions by the Supreme Court in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public
Service Commission of New York.27 The Central Hudson test asks:
(1) whether the speech at issue concerns lawful activity and is not misleading;
3

(2) whether the asserted government interest is substantial; and, if so,
(3) whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted; and
(4) whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.28
In this analysis, the government bears the burden of identifying a substantial interest and
justifying the challenged restriction: “The government is not required to employ the least
restrictive means conceivable, but it must demonstrate narrow tailoring of the challenged
regulation to the asserted interest – a fit that is not necessarily perfect but reasonable; that
represents not necessarily the single best disposition but one whose scope is in proportion to the
interest served.”29 Moreover, “the four parts of the Central Hudson test are not entirely discrete.
All are important and, to a certain extent, interrelated: Each raises a relevant question that may
not be dispositive to the First Amendment inquiry, but the answer to which may inform a
judgment concerning the other three.”30
V.

STANDARDS FOR REGULATION OF NON-COMMERCIAL SPEECH
Non-commercial speech receives the highest degree of constitutional protection. But, the

government may still regulate certain aspects of that speech provided it meets certain
requirements. In evaluating non-commercial speech, the courts distinguish between contentbased restrictions and content-neutral restrictions. As with the distinction between commercial
and non-commercial speech, “[d]eciding whether a particular regulation is content-based or
content-neutral is not always a simple task.”31
A.

Content-Neutral Restrictions

Content-neutral restrictions regulate speech without regard to its subject matter or the
viewpoint conveyed.32 The Supreme Court has held that the “government may impose
reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the
restrictions ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are
narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and that they leave open ample
alternative channels for communication of the information.’”33 Such content-neutral regulations
may be permissible even when they incidentally affect the content of speech to some degree
because, in most cases, such regulations “pose a less substantial risk of excising certain ideas or
viewpoints from the public dialogue.”34 Examples of content-neutral restrictions that have been
held to be constitutional include laws that restrict the distribution of printed materials to prevent
litter in a public space35 or laws that prohibit the use of loudspeakers in order to reduce noise.36
4

Facially neutral regulations, however, can be invalid if they have a disproportionate effect on a
particular type of speech or expression.37
B.

Content-Based Restrictions

Content-based regulations regulate speech based on its subject matter or viewpoint. They
seek to “suppress, disadvantage, or impose differential burdens upon speech because of its
content.”38 Such regulations are subject to the strictest constitutional scrutiny, meaning that the
government must prove that: (i) the regulation serves a compelling governmental interest;
(ii) the means chosen to achieve that interest are narrowly tailored; and (iii) it has chosen the
“least restrictive means” of accomplishing the government’s objective.39 The operative
distinctions between a court’s review of a content-based regulation and a content-neutral
regulation is that in the former case, the government must meet the “compelling interest” and
“least restrictive means” standards, while in the latter situation the government need only prove a
“significant interest” and the availability of “ample alternative channels for communication of
the information.”
Constitutional scholars generally agree that governmental regulation of media products
with violent content, “whether in the form of banning, rating, or channeling of violent media
content, necessarily requires the government to make a judgment as to what content lies within
the ambit of the statute and what content does not,” thereby triggering content-based strict
scrutiny review.40 Although content-based regulations are considered presumptively invalid,
such a regulation may withstand First Amendment analysis if: (i) it falls within certain
categories in which the Supreme Court has permitted a more liberal standard of review, as
described below, or (ii) the government is able to establish that the regulation meets the strict
scrutiny test.
1. Exceptions to strict scrutiny for content-based restrictions on noncommercial speech relevant to entertainment media context
a.
Obscenity
The Supreme Court has carved out an exception to the First Amendment for obscenity of
a sexual nature, holding that it is simply “not within the area of constitutionally protected speech
or press.”41 In Miller v. California,42 the Court held that speech is obscene and subject to full
regulation when: “(a) ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would
find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts
or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable
5

state law; and (c) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value.”43 Under the Miller test, many courts have upheld state restrictions on obscene
materials.44
b.

Protection of minors

The Supreme Court has long recognized that the “well-being of its children is of course a
subject within the State’s constitutional power to regulate” and upheld content-based restrictions
on speech – including complete bans on children’s access to certain material – that would not
survive constitutional scrutiny if applied to adults.45 These content-based restrictions are
primarily aimed at constitutionally protected “indecent” material.46 In such cases, the courts have
not required the government to demonstrate to a scientific certainty that the speech at issue
causes harm to minors.47
Nonetheless, the government’s interest in protecting children does not always outweigh
the First Amendment considerations involved. The Supreme Court has struck down a regulation
requiring cable operators either to scramble sexually explicit channels in full or to limit
programming on such channels to certain hours, as well as a statute criminalizing the knowing
transmission of obscene or indecent messages to minors over the Internet, on “overbreadth”
grounds because they infringed on adults’ First Amendment rights.48 The Supreme Court has
repeatedly emphasized that regardless of the government’s interest in protecting children, it may
not “reduce the adult population . . . to . . . only what is fit for children.”49 “‘Regardless of the
government’s interest’ in protecting children, ‘the level of discourse reaching a mailbox cannot
be limited simply to that which would be suitable for a sandbox.’”50
c.

Television and radio broadcasting

To a large degree, the higher level of governmental regulation that the Supreme Court has
permitted in the area of broadcast television and radio corresponds to that permitted for obscenity
and the protection of minors.51 The Supreme Court has declined to apply the strict scrutiny test
to content-based regulations of these broadcast media for three reasons: (i) the “scarcity” of
airwaves available to the broadcast media;52 (ii) the “uniquely pervasive” presence of the
broadcast media in the lives of all Americans coupled with an individual’s right to be left alone
in the privacy of the home;53 and (iii) the fact that broadcasting is easily accessible to even very
young children.54 Essentially, the Court has been concerned that a child could simply turn on the
television and, without more, be subjected to indecent material. Under this rationale, the Court
6

has upheld certain content-based restrictions on broadcasting.55 To date, however, the Supreme
Court has not addressed the constitutionality of content-based restrictions on violent content in
broadcast television or radio.
VI.

REGULATORY PROPOSALS AND FIRST AMENDMENT ANALYSIS
This section explores First Amendment issues likely to arise if laws were enacted to

restrict the advertising and marketing of entertainment media products with violent content to
children. As noted earlier,56 this area of First Amendment law is still unsettled.
A.

Mandatory Rating or Labeling Systems

Some advocates have proposed a government-imposed parental advisory system – either a
separate rating or labeling system for each industry or one uniform system for all or most of the
entertainment industries.57 Most commentators agree that any law requiring the rating or labeling
of entertainment media products would raise the issue of “compelled speech” (because such a
law or regulation would require a private party to express or endorse a particular message),
thereby subjecting such a system to First Amendment review.58
The First Amendment analysis of such a law would turn on whether the court viewed
government-imposed mandatory ratings or labels as affecting non-commercial or commercial
speech. If viewed as affecting non-commercial speech, the court would first determine whether
the labeling scheme is content-based or content-neutral. Although there has been some debate on
this issue, many First Amendment scholars have argued that, were the government to mandate
that media producers identify or label particular programs on the basis of the violence that they
contain, courts would view the regulation as content-based, and therefore subject to the highest
form of strict scrutiny and not as a consumer education label subject to a more lenient standard of
review.59 If viewed as affecting only commercial speech, the court would apply the Central
Hudson test set forth above. Thus, the constitutionality of the law or regulation would depend in
large part on whether the government could establish a: (i) “compelling” (non-commercial
speech) or “substantial” (commercial speech) interest in providing children and their parents with
information necessary to make judgments about the appropriateness of particular entertainment
products with violent content; (ii) whether the government could establish that such a
rating/warning system either is “narrowly tailored” to achieve (non-commercial speech) or
“directly advances” (commercial speech) that objective; and (iii) whether such a ratings/warning
system is either the “least restrictive means” of accomplishing (non-commercial speech) or a
7

“reasonable fit” with (commercial speech) the government’s objectives given that such a system
might impinge on the creativity of media producers and artists.60
B.

Restrictions on Advertising and Marketing Targeting and Placement

Some advocates have proposed regulating advertising for entertainment media products
with violent content to children by limiting advertisements and promotions for these products to
certain types of media or venues that are not likely to have a large number of children in the
audience.61 Such regulations might include restrictions limiting advertisements for R-rated films,
M-rated electronic games, or explicit-content labeled recordings to television or radio programs
with a high percentage of over-16 audience members and prohibitions against advertising these
media products in school-based media or on school property, such as cafeteria bulletin boards
and athletic scoreboards.
Again, the level of First Amendment scrutiny that would likely apply to governmentimposed restrictions of this type would turn on whether the advertisements for these products are
classified as commercial speech or non-commercial speech. If classified as commercial speech,
the court would apply the four-part Central Hudson test. If viewed as non-commercial speech,
the court would first determine whether the restriction is content-based or content-neutral and
then apply the applicable constitutional tests. In this context, because the restriction is premised
on protecting minors from advertising for violent content and not on merely providing consumers
with information, it is likely to be viewed as content-based.
A court’s approach to such restrictions would depend in large part on three issues relevant
to judicial analysis in non-commercial and commercial speech cases: (i) whether the government
could, on the basis of the scientific, psychological, and empirical research establish a
“compelling” (non-commercial speech) or “substantial” (commercial speech) “reason to protect
minors from advertisements for entertainment products with violent content by restricting
advertisements for such products to media and venues without substantial numbers of children;
(ii) whether the regulation is “narrowly tailored” to achieve (non-commercial speech) or “directly
advances” (commercial speech) that interest; and (iii) whether the government could establish
that such restrictions are either the “least restrictive means” of accomplishing (non-commercial
speech) or a “reasonable fit” with (commercial speech) the government’s objectives given that
such restrictions might inevitably affect adults as well as children. Under either standard, a court
would also need to consider whether the challenged regulation would meet the constitutional
standards for vagueness (i.e., whether the regulatory definition of what constitutes violence is
8

sufficiently precise “so that those who are governed by the law and those that administer it will
understand its meaning and application”62) or overbroad (i.e., whether it would affect adults as
well as children and whether it would also affect socially valuable and educational media that
contain violence).63
C.

Regulation of Violent Content in Advertising for Movies, Music, and Electronic
Games
Regulations aimed at limiting violent content in the advertising of media products would
be subject to largely the same First Amendment analysis described above. Accordingly, if
advertisements for media products were considered non-commercial speech, any regulation
affecting the content of these advertisements clearly would be content-based and subject to strict
scrutiny. Given the courts’ general aversion to content-based restrictions, the government’s
burden of proof to establish the constitutionality of such restrictions would be quite high.
Some commentators have approached the issue of violent content by calling for courts to
treat violence like obscenity – essentially taking it out of the realm of constitutionally protected
speech, and thereby permitting increased regulation.64 They assert that depictions of violence
that go beyond acceptable limits, like obscenity, can be differentiated from depictions of violence
that have artistic or literary merit.65 To date, however, those courts that have considered the issue
have held that violent speech or expression cannot be treated like obscenity unless the work also
contains material that is (sexually) obscene.66 Many of those courts – and First Amendment
scholars – note that it would be difficult to create a workable definition of violence that would
not be overbroad or vague.67 They argue that definitions that attempt to define violence by
describing it either in terms of the Miller test or in terms of specific violent crimes (e.g., murder,
rape, aggravated assault, mayhem, and torture) would be overbroad because they would apply to
large categories of valuable speech protected by the First Amendment or they would be too vague
to give sufficient notice to product developers as to what would be considered obscene
violence.68

Should federal or state legislatures adopt laws treating violence like obscenity, it

may fall to the courts to interpret precisely what constitutes violence that is equivalent to
obscenity.69

9

ENDNOTES
1. Trade associations representing members of the movie and music industries submitted “white
papers” to the Commission arguing vigorously that advertisements for movies and music are
entitled to full First Amendment protection. See Memorandum from the Recording Industry
Association of America (“RIAA”), BMG, EMI, Sony Music, Universal, and Warner Music
Group to Federal Trade Commission, First Amendment Issues Relevant to Federal Trade
Commission Study on Marketing Practices of Recording Industry (Feb. 14, 2000) [hereinafter
Recording Industry Memorandum]; Walter E. Dellinger & Charles Fried, A Paper Presented to
the Federal Trade Commission on behalf of Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., Metro-GoldwynMayer Studios, Inc., Miramax Films, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Twentieth Century Fox
Film Corporation, Universal City Studios, Inc., Warner Bros., and Walt Disney Pictures and
Television, First Amendment Implications of the Federal Trade Commission’s Inquiry into the
Marketing to Minors of Motion Pictures That Depict Violence (Jan. 19, 2000) [hereinafter
Motion Pictures Industry Paper].
2. U.S. Const. amend. I.
3. The Supreme Court has expressly stated that movies and music fall within the First
Amendment. See, e.g., Schad v. Borough of Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 65 (1981) (declaring, in
case striking down municipal ordinance prohibiting nude dancing, that “[e]ntertainment, as well
as political and ideological speech, is protected; motion pictures, programs broadcast by radio
and television, and live entertainment, such as musical and dramatic works fall within the First
Amendment guarantee.”). Several federal courts have debated whether electronic games should
receive the same First Amendment protections as the other entertainment media but have not yet
decided the issue conclusively. Compare Rothner v. City of Chicago, 929 F.2d 297 (7th Cir.
1991) (indicating that First Amendment protection of electronic games may depend on creative
content), with Malden Amusement Co. v. City of Malden, 582 F. Supp. 297 (D. Mass. 1983)
(holding that video games are not entitled to First Amendment protection because they do not
contain expressive or informational content), and America’s Best Family Showplace Corp. v.
City of New York, 536 F. Supp. 170 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) (same). In deciding an appeal of a motion
to dismiss, the Seventh Circuit in Rothner developed an approach that considers the extent to
which the electronic game at issue contains artistic content:
On the basis of the complaint alone, we cannot tell whether the video games at
issue here are simply modern day pinball machines or whether they are more
sophisticated presentations involving storyline and plot that convey to the user a
significant artistic message protected by the first amendment. Nor is it clear
whether these games may be considered works of art. To hold on th

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aftc%3A1887752586949803. Public record. Not legal advice.