<doc.id=2030.a3>
<title> Can a chip replace a parent? </title>
A device called the V chip is about to enter the market. The V chip is a small computer chip, which is designed to lock out programs containing a certain amount of violence. All programs will be coded by a commission, which will probably be appointed by the government, and the chip will be able to read the code and lock out programs which contain too much violence. This chip is supposed to be a solution to the problem concerning children watching too much violence on TV, when their parents are unable to supervise them. It is very intimidating that a chip of this kind is even suggested when it has so many obvious disadvantages, and is clearly a simplified solution to a very complicated problem.

If we let a commission appointed by the government decide what programs that should be locked out, we will have no way of knowing what kind of criteria that will be used when coding programs. It will be up to members of a commission, who might not even have children of their own, to decide what grade of violence a program contains. The fact that the members are likely to be appointed by the government contributes to scepticism concerning the coding of programs. There is in fact no guarantee that this kind of coding won't lead to governmental censorship. How can we be sure that programs containing violence are the only programs that will be locked out? We have to keep our own freedom of choice intact, or we will be facing a governmental censorship which we will find ourselves powerless against. It has been argued that the V chip would be a good solution to parents who can't be at home all the time preventing their children from watching violence on TV. It's up to the parents, not the V chip to raise children. A V chip can't earn children's' respect, but parents can. Those in favour of the V chip have furthermore argued that parents have no way of knowing what their children are doing when the parents leave the room. Parents are obviously taken for fools by those supporting this argument. It is assumed that parents have no control at all over their children, no communication with them what so ever, and they are furthermore considered unable to raise their own children properly. The V chip will cause decreasing parental responsibility which is the reason we are dealing with this problem in the first place. You can't just insert a chip into your TV and expect it to do the full job of a caring parent who actually takes the time to explain why the children aren't allowed to watch violence on TV.

We can't allow our children to be deprived of their right to create their own apprehension of reality, which is exactly what will happen if inserting the V chip. The V chip won't be able to decide what kind of violence that is bad violence and what kind is not. There are both films and programs that would fall under the category of high level violence, but which are not considered to be harmful to children anyhow. Take cartoons for example. There is a lot of violence in cartoons, but should Donald Duck really be seen as dangerous for children to watch? The news programs are another example. The news usually contains as much violence as any violent film or program you may watch. This means that using the V chip might not even give children a chance to watch the news. A V chip locking out all programs containing a certain amount of violence will on that account give children a warped apprehension of reality.Using the V chip means taking authority and responsibility away from the parents and placing it on the commission via the V chip. This will result in a decreasing understanding between children and their parents. The Vchip is therefor not a solution to the problem, but a way of avoiding actually having to deal with the problem at all.
</doc>