The LA Times (reg. req.) provides a bit of an update and reminder of the violence study that the FCC launched almost a year ago (Broadcast Violence Gets New Scrutiny). See also, (FCC Launches Inquiry Into Violence on Television). From the LA Times:

FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps, a Democrat who has championed indecency crackdowns, said he believed that some kind of government or industry intervention was needed to control violent programming.

"Like indecency, I think there is a role for all of us to play," Copps said. "We've got 60 years of studies, most of which conclude there is a connection between violent behavior and violence in the media."

Gee, I wonder what is decision regarding the report will be?

But experts say the government faces an uphill battle because violence is difficult to define and because of free speech protections.

Indecency is just as difficult to define, but that hasn't stopped the FCC from doing so. From the FCC: Parent's Place: Obscene and Indecent Broadcasts:

The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities."

Would it really be so difficult to define excessively violent programming at least that vaguely? Here, I'll give it a try: Excessively violent programming is material that, in context, depicts, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, violent force or injury. If the indecency regs aren't vague, I'm not sure why a similar violence reg would be. If that won't work, why not a nuisance rationale, as in the regulations on profane speech:

Profane material is defined as including language that denotes certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.

Some of that violence on the TeeVee is so grossly offensive that I consider it a nuisance. Is that good enough? And the FCC has it on good authority that an appeals court upheld the profane language regulations in the early 1970s (FCC Revives Notion of the Profane).

Back to the LA Times:

The FCC staff has begun drafting a response and is expected to weigh whether to urge the industry to police itself more vigorously, recommend a greater reliance on electronic program blocking technology or seek new authority from Congress to regulate violent content.

Gee, urge the industry to police itself more vigorously? Under this FCC Chairman? Yeah, right. Recommending a greater reliance on electronic program blocking technology would be an interesting approach, too bad it would undermine the FCC's attack on indecent programming. Will they really argue that the technology is sufficient to block out violence in this report and then turn around in court and argue that the technology isn't sufficient to protect against sexual imagery? I, for one, would like to see them try.

As for seeking new authority, doesn't this FCC think they've got all the authority in the world? It would be as easy as defining indecency to include violence. After all, some depictions of violence are indecent and recall that the statute providing the FCC authority regulate indecency was passed in 1934. An originalist understanding would no doubt conclude that some of today's violent programming would have been considered indecent back then.

Of course, one thing they would have to seek new authority for is the ability to regulate cable and satellite. Note that the FCC's study is to look into the violence on other distribution channels as well.

A final report is likely to be delayed several months until new FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin appoints a permanent head of the agency's media bureau.

Someone who, likely, won't shy away from the censor's mantle.