Freedom of Speech in the Home—Is It a Ticking Time Bomb?
WHEN one falsely shouts “Fire!” in a crowded theater and some are trampled to death in the wild stampede to get out, must not the shouter bear the responsibility for the resulting deaths and accidents? When someone says, “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it,” are you given carte blanche, unlimited freedom, to say publicly whatever you wish, regardless of the consequences? There are those who think so.
In France, for example, when rappers advocated the killing of police and police were killed by some who heard the music, should the rappers have been held accountable for their inciting to violence? Or should they be protected under a bill of rights? When radio and television broadcasters and computer networks make graphic scenes of violence and pornography available to children, some of whom act out these scenes to the harm of themselves and others, should the purveyors of such material share the responsibility?
A study by the American Psychological Association “figures that the typical child, watching 27 hours of TV a week, will view 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence from age 3 to age 12,” reported U.S.News & World Report magazine. Can parents rightly pass this off as having little influence on their children? Or may it involve a “clear and present danger”? Is this where a line must be drawn or a limit placed on free speech?
One study conducted by university psychologists revealed that when cartoons of “fist-flying superheroes” were regularly shown to one group of four year olds and “bland fare” to another group, those who saw the action heroes were more likely to hit and throw things afterward. Nor do the effects of TV violence fade after childhood. Another university study, after tracking 650 children from 1960 to 1995 and looking at their viewing habits and behavior, found that those who watched the most violent television as youngsters grew up to engage in the most aggressive behavior as adults, including spouse abuse and drunk driving.
While some children may not admit the effects television and movies have on them, others will. In 1995, Children Now, a California advocacy group, polled 750 children, aged 10 to 16. Six out of ten, the study showed, said that sex on TV sways kids to have sex at too young an age.
Some may argue that television and movie violence may not be taken literally by children and that all those horror movies are having no effect on them. “In that case,” commented a British newspaper, “why did a school authority in America’s mid-west have to tell thousands of children that there were no Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the local storm drains? The tiny Turtle fans had been crawling into the drains to look for them, that’s why.”
Today a heated debate is raging over what some consider a fine line between free speech and the violence caused by antiabortion talk in many places in the United States. Antiabortionists cry out publicly that doctors and clinic staff who perform abortions are murderers and have no right to live themselves. A few zealous ones call for the killing of these doctors and their aides. Spies are planted to get the automobile license-plate numbers of such ones, and their names and addresses are handed out. As a result, doctors and clinic staff members have been gunned down and killed.
“This is not a free speech issue,” cried the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “This is tantamount to shouting, ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater. We have a crowded theater; just look at the spate of murders at clinics in the last few years.” Those who advocate this violence argue that they are only exercising their right as guaranteed in America’s First Amendment—freedom of speech. And so it goes. The battles over this right will continue to be fought in the public forum, and courts will have to settle the issue, not to the satisfaction of all, unfortunately.
What Parents Can Do
Homes should be havens for children, not a place where they can become easy prey to those who would exploit and abuse them or where tranquil personalities can be induced to display violent mood swings. “You may feel assured that your child will never become violent despite a steady diet of TV mayhem,” said a U.S. university professor addressing parents. “But you cannot be assured that your child won’t be murdered or maimed by someone else’s child, reared on a similar diet.” Then he urged: “Limiting children’s exposure to TV violence should become part of the public health agenda, along with safety seats, bicycle helmets, immunisations and good nutrition.”
If you would not allow a stranger to come into your home and use abusive language and talk obscenely to your child about sex and violence, then do not allow radio and television to be that stranger. Know when to turn it off or to change the channel. Know what your child is watching, both on television and on the computer, even in the privacy of his room. If he knows his way around the computer and the networks available to him, you may be shocked to learn what his nightly diet comprises. If you do not approve of what your child is watching, just say no and explain why. He will not die if he is restricted.
Finally, teach your children to live by godly principles and not by the habits of this wicked system of things—with its obscene and violent speech and actions. (Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4) The apostle Paul gave Christians some timely counsel that we should all live by. “Let fornication and uncleanness of every sort or greediness not even be mentioned among you, just as it befits holy people; neither shameful conduct nor foolish talking nor obscene jesting, things which are not becoming, but rather the giving of thanks.”—Ephesians 5:3, 4.
[Pictures on page 10]
Some TV programs may lead to crime and immorality