Try the On/Off switch

Los Angeles Times: The federal Communications Commission tipped a boulder downhill last week by declaring that violence on TV is bad for children and requires congressional intervention.
In a report that examines the effects of televised mayhem on young viewers, the FCC proposed limiting kids' exposure to violence not only on over-the-air stations but also on pay TV -- a venue not covered by the commission's limits on indecency. The proposal may be politically irresistible, particularly during a protracted presidential campaign, but it's also an unjustifiable government intrusion into the creation and consumption of television. And even if the restrictions were upheld by the courts, they would likely make little difference.
For example, the report says Congress could mandate a family viewing period that would be free of graphic violence. But with more than one in six homes now having a digital video recorder, and networks making shows available online, the time a program first airs is becomingirrelevant.
It's a free country
A bigger problem is that "excessive violence" is hard to regulate in a way that doesn't trample on the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court has given TV programs less First Amendment protection than books or movies, it still requires that any limits be drawn narrowly to achieve a specific, compelling interest. That's almost impossible to do, given the inherent difficulties in defining excessive violence in the first place.
The report also recommends that cable and satellite TV services be forced to break up their current bundles of offerings so that customers can buy individual channels or limited tiers of family-friendly broadcasts. But Washington isn't the place to decide media business models. Besides that, many of the most graphic shows are on networks that practically every customer would order -- CBS (home of the grisly hit "CSI" franchise), NBC ("Law & amp; Order"), ABC ("Grey's Anatomy") and Fox ("24").
The commission is on its firmest footing when it complains that the networks' voluntary ratings system is ineffective. Cable set-top boxes, satellite receivers, TiVo and new TVs all offer tools (such as the V-chip) to block unwanted programs, but these all rely to some degree on the rating attached to each show.
The bigger issue, though, is that few parents bother using such tools. The ultimate filter is the on/off switch, which not only shields children from violent programming but tells networks and advertisers to offer different fare. If the report's findings about the effects of TV violence on children are true, then the biggest wake-up call should be to parents, not regulators.