| This dissertation traces the arguments made in favor of content regulation of motion pictures in the 1930s, comic books in the 1950s, and television in the 1990s. The basic research question in this dissertation is, “What arguments have remained constant from the motion picture conflict through the current v-chip debate?” The goal of this dissertation is to compare the arguments concerning the protection of children used in favor of content regulation and to identify the central themes consistently utilized. Specifically, this dissertation focuses on key popular documents that aided in conditioning public sentiment in social movements arguing for some form of content regulation.; The arguments examined are framed within their greater social movements, using a social movement rhetoric approach adapted primarily from the efforts of Leland M. Griffin and Charles J. Stewart. The documents examined are three articles written by Henry James Forman for McCall's Magazine summarizing the Payne Fund Studies, two articles in Readers Digest and Ladies Home Journal written by Fredric Wertham pushing for legislation banning the sale of crime comic books to children, and three articles from Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report written by various journalists introducing the concept of the v-chip.; Five trends were identified that clarify the differences between the movements and illuminate possibilities for the future of media regulation. First, legal and social acceptance for content regulation has declined in the past century, replaced by program ratings systems. Second, while legal and social perceptions have changed, the arguments for the regulation of media have remained constant, focusing on protecting children from potentially harmful material and only recently shifting to parental empowerment. Third, scientific research has played an important role in the persuasion of both the public and government, yet scientific research alone has not proven to be the deciding factor in media regulation or self-regulation. Fourth, changes in media and the press have changed the role of advocacy groups from active participants to a more supporting role. Fifth, though arguments for content regulation have been diluted to conform to legal and societal changes, governmental involvement has increased. |
