<doc.id=2045.a3>
	In an article written by Ginia Bellafante in Time Magazine1 the proposition of a V chip provision for American families was treated from the point of view of the parties involved. Some legislators and broadcasters opposed to such a provision, but many politicians, among them President Clinton himself, were in favor. Opposing parties called it "censorship" while those in favor called it "parental responsibility". My discussion in this paper questions formulation "parental responsibility" in the context of the V chip debate and the general antiviolence debate in the United States.
The leading country of all the Western civilizations in the world is the United States. Not much more than two hundred years old, but still a model for other countries of an considerably higher age. In many aspects they are superior to countries like for example Sweden, and they deserve all credit for that. However, I am sure we would all agree that there are issues in the U.S. which we rather be spared from. Violence is one of these issues. The latest reports about shootings in schools make you wonder where it all is going to end. We know that the legislators are working on measures, and among these the V chip provision that is supposed to work as a protection for young TV-viewers. The purpose is naturally good; young people should not be overexposed to violence through any medium. So why does this proposition seem wrong for simple Swede like me. The answer is probably that we are still behind the leading Western civilization and thank God for that!

To claim that V chip provision is "parental responsibility" sounds absurd to me. It is like suggesting that you earn money when you are shopping (something they also say in the U.S.). Buying a computer devise for your TV in order to control what your children are watching does not mean that the parents are being responsible, they are simply making it easy. This way they do not have to get involved, after all they have to earn the money to buy this V chip. In the article a democratic representative argues that this is a solution for parents who have to work and can't control what their children are watching when they are home alone. I think that such a solution doesn't target the real problem, namely that the parents do not spend enough time with their children. A responsible mom or dad would get to know their children well enough to either trust them with the TV or simply throw it out. Studies show that violence in media does not affect all children; in fact most children are not affected. It can make already troubled kids more disposed to violence, but then again it is usually the parent's responsibility to make sure their kids aren't troubled in the first place. I am not saying that the V chip provision is an allover bad solution, as I said before the purpose is good and all attempts to measurements against violence are valuable. Nevertheless one cannot help wondering if it really solves anything. I agree with the statement in the article made by Matthew Blank, president of Showtime Networks, "the V chip seems like an overly simple solution to a very complicated problem." 

The escalating violence in the United States and other countries is a very serious matter. It has reached a point where the children are not even safe in their own school. A lot of things have to change in order to stop this horrible progress. It would be unfair to say that the U.S. have a general tradition of violence even though the weapon policy and the use of capital punishment certainly make them stand out among Western countries. The average American is just as urgent as the average Swede to solve the violence issues. With this in mind it is not hard to understand that they are prepared to try any measure to stop the increasing violence, for example the V chip. I agree that it might serve as a necessary precaution for parents but what I am questioning is the actual effect. Furthermore, I question whether it is really parental responsibility and not just another excuse for parents to escape their responsibility. American politicians have to come up with concrete solutions to stop the violence. The issue is serious and so should the measures be.
</doc>