<doc.id=1068.a3>
<title> Violence - Difficult to define and impossible to stop	 </title>
It is difficult to pass judgement on TV violence. What do we mean when we say TV violence? For a long time it has been argued wether or not TV violence should be forbidden to younger people. In Sweden some regulation already exists concerning rental movies and going to cinemas. You have to be fifteen in order to rent movies or go to the cinema and see films that have been deemed inappropriate for children. Should these regulations be extended to TV and what might the dangers of such regulations be? In this essay I will demonstrate the difficulties in defining TV violence and that simple prohibition is often very easily circumvented.

What is TV violence? Is it when any violent act carried out? Is it when the act is only there for entertainment? Must the act itself be carried out or is the mere threat of violence enough? There are, as you see, a multitude of questions and to get anywhere we must prioritize. My view of television is that it is an artform whose meaning is impossible to convey by mere means of physical events. Its message is conveyed through music, the viewers own ideas, experiences of events occurring on the sceen etc. 
The terrifying feeling is not only found in the cracking of bones and the gushing of blood, in fact, quite seldom actually. If we are to censor TV then certain criterias must be followed and I say it is almost impossible to formulate such criterias without destroying the pleasure of TV. I may well see that it is the "meaningless" violence that people want to get rid of but when does violence become meaningful? This distinction can never be objectively defined and is therefore impossible to create rules about.

 Having a microchip installed in the TV so that parents can control what their children cannot see is a suggestion made by politicians in both Europe and USA. This idea is, I fear, quite futile.
 It reminds me of the only time my parents told me not to see a movie. I was told to go to my room and stay there. This being a novel experience to me I did what only seemed sensible to me. I nipped out the window and went over to a friend and saw the movie. I feel that this situation can be implemented on the issue of censoring TV. If just one household doesn't put a microchip in their TV then the whole project might fail. I think I can guarantee that the children living in that home soon would find themselves the most popular kids in school. Another flaw in the tactic of censorship is that of technical knowledge. Let us assume that this microchip is cheap to buy and easy to install. Your ordinary parent is not very knowledgeable in matters concerning electronics and to make the "chip" user friendly would be a key issue. I don't think that any child over the age of, say, eleven would have any problem removing this annoying device at his or hers pleasure.

 On the whole I do not see TV violence as a great threat to our young ones. I think, as long as parents spend time and talk with their children, that the problem is insignificant. My key thoughts are that TV violence can't be excluded from films and television programs without ruining some of the basic entertainment elements. Also that if some sort of prohibition was to take place then the desire towards the "forbidden" would spawn enough creativity to deal with the problem. Violence on TV is fundamentaly accepted by adults and therefore impossible to stop.
</doc>