Survey shows supposed link between sexuality on TV and teen pregnancy

            In a recent study conducted by the Rand Corporation, a correlation was made between teen pregnancy and sexual content in popular TV shows. The study, released in a magazine called “Pediatrics”, involved 2,003 12 to 17-year-old girls and boys nationwide. The survey was first conducted in 2001 and then a follow-up survey was conducted a few years later. Among the girls surveyed, 58 had become pregnant during the time period between surveys, and 33 boys had claimed that they had gotten a girl pregnant (1). Teens were also asked how frequently they watched particular TV programs; 23 shows in particular were evaluated for their sexual content, including “Sex and the City”, “That ‘70’s Show”, and “Friends”. (2). “Shows that highlight only the positive aspects of sexual behavior without the risks can lead teens to have unprotected sex ‘before they're ready to make responsible and informed decisions,’ Anita Chandra, a Rand Corp. behavioral scientist said.” (1). Despite the survey’s results, I believe that TV shows including a considerable amount of sexual content, while a possible influence to sexually active behavior, are merely an example of free ideas and thus cannot be blamed for viewer conduct as a result.

            However, according to another source, the same survey also yielded some results that teens who watch a large amount of television are less likely to become pregnant (3). Sources have predicted that this is possibly because teens who spend a lot of time in front of a TV spend less time socializing, thus, in a way “protecting” them from getting pregnant (3). Many have also argued that it may not be TV programming that influences sexual activity, but home life and demographics. According to a CNN report, Sandy Tomlinson of Glendale, Arizona, who had her son at age 15, said she doesn't think television affects teen pregnancy; rather, that teen pregnancy has to do with the way parents raise their children. (2). "I feel that if my parents would have been more involved in my life that I would have made different choices," said Tomlinson, "It gets old hearing all these studies that blame everything and everybody but the parents." (2).

            I believe that although there may be specific results from the Rand survey that show a correlation among teen pregnancy and these TV shows, TV stations airing these shows as well as their creators do not have responsibility for what a viewer’s conduct is after watching. TV stations have no discretion over the thought process of each viewer, thus, cannot just not air a TV show because of how it might affect some of its viewers. According to the decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, TV and radio stations have a “safe-harbor” provision that allows indecent but not obscene shows between the hours of 10pm and 6am, when most children are not likely to be watching/listening (4). Although these TV programs are not broadcasted during the indecency period, I believe (having watched many of the shows in question myself) that these shows are vastly different than the shows broadcasted at this time of night. For example, “Sex talk with Sue Johanson” on the Oxygen channel, a show geared entirely towards sex and sex tips for women, is vastly different than the brief sexual content in “That ‘70’s Show”.

            In the case Entertainment Software Association, Video Software Dealers Association, and Illinois Retail Merchants Association v. Rod Blagojevich, Lisa Madigan, and Richard A. Devine, the court for the Northern District of Illinois discussed the constitutionality of two laws put into place to prevent the sale of videogames to minors; the Violent Video Games Law (VVGL) and the Sexual Explicit Video Games Law (SEVGL). The defendants claimed a correlation between anti-social/violent behavior in children and children who played violent and/or sexually explicit videogames. However, the court found that “…there is barely any evidence at all, let alone substantial evidence, showing that playing violent video games causes minors to ‘experience a reduction of activity in the frontal lobes of the brain which is responsible for controlling behavior’”. (5). The court also said that “Such a sweeping regulation on speech—even sexually explicit speech—is unconstitutional even if aimed at protecting minors” and “Because SEVGL—particularly its definition of ‘sexually explicit’—is vague and not narrowly tailored, the Court holds that its sale, rental, and check-out provisions are unconstitutional.” (5). Essentially, this was a case of correlation, not causation. Children displaying violent behavior may also like playing violent video games; but home life and demographics were not factored into this supposed “causation”. There is no proof that these video games directly caused this antisocial behavior. Similarly, I believe that while there may be a correlation between sexuality in TV shows and viewer pregnancy, I do not believe that this is causation. The Rand survey did not take into account the home life of each teen surveyed. Perhaps a teen’s parents never talked to him/her about sex; or, perhaps the teen was pressured to have sex by peers or by a boyfriend/girlfriend. TV networks cannot be held responsible for how viewers conduct themselves; TV is a transfer of ideas, thus placing a more strict regulation on this medium will only deprive viewers who want to watch these programs, who may have no intention whatsoever of being sexually active. While yes, I would agree that some content in TV shows today may not be suitable for all audiences, TV stations cannot be held responsible for the actions of adolescent teens from different backgrounds.

 

(1) “Research suggests link between sexy TV, teen pregnancies”, by The Associated Press, 11/03/08

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20834

(2) “Study links sexual content on TV to teen pregnancy”, by Elizabeth Landau, CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/03/teen.pregnancy/index.html

(3) “Behind the Statistics on TV and Teen Pregnancy”, by Tara Parker-Pope, 11/3/08, 3:58pm

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/behind-the-statistics-on-tv-and-teen-pregnancy/

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words

(5) No. 05 C 4265, “Entertainment Software Association, Video Software Dealers Association, and Illinois Retail Merchants Association v. Rod Blagojevich, Lisa Madigan, and Richard A. Devine” (pages 149-158 in book).

 

Campus gossip website raises "juicy" questions

JuicyCampus.com, a website created by Duke graduate Matt Ivester, serves essentially as an online source for students of various college campuses to anonymously post gossip about their fellow peers. The site includes all the “juicy” details of life on college campuses. Students included in the “gossip” are also often mentioned by name, causing many to be outraged and concerned as to how this will affect their future job searching. JuicyCampus also prohibits students’ ability to delete posts; Ivester claimed that this is because “We’re not in the business of censorship. We want to create a free, open forum where college students can discuss the topics that interest them most in the manner they deem appropriate.” (2). However, the site clearly spells out its rules for privacy and hate speech. Ivester continued that “What we will do is if we’re notified that someone’s contact information has been posted such as an e-mail address or a phone number, we’ll delete that. If there is a rampant hate speech and it’s not saying anything, that’s not what Juicycampus is all about, so we’ll delete that.” (2). Although I think that this website is completely childish and immature (college is NOT high school), I believe that the existence of sites such as these that promote free speech are essential to the existence of first amendment rights within our nation.

            The popularity of this site has risen incredibly fast on college campuses; what began as a seven-campus website has grown into a site with pages of over 500 colleges and universities throughout the country. (2). Students, in addition to being offended as to what is posted about them, have also developed concerns of how the site will affect their future careers. Yet Ivester claims that the site material is blocked from appearing in Google searches (1). “I think they’re going to have to start developing a sense of humor,” Ivester said, according to The Post, when he was pressed about the potential of a more intensive employer background-checking. “It’s not going to work if they start taking unsubstantiated, ridiculous gossip as the truth.” (1). These may not be the most comforting answers, however, I believe that the site is no different than Facebook. While yes, at least on Facebook one can delete things or pictures tagged of themselves, nothing that is said is completely private. Yet people still have Facebook accounts.

            JuicyCampus was recently subpoenaed by the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General and the Divison of Consumer Affairs in relation to the site’s operations. The subpoena was also issued to Lime Blue, L.L.C., the owner of the site, concerning how the company selects the campuses identified on the site and how the potential anonymous posters’ school affiliations are verified. (3). This also extended to how non-18 posters are differentiated from actual college student posters (3). While these all seem to be relevant questions in the ability to identify the truth in what and who posts what is posted, I find that it is nearly impossible to have the ability to truly identify anyone who posts something on the Internet. While yes, many posts have included hate speech which has brought this website to the attention of many federal officials, the site does in fact make users agree not to post content that is “abusive, obscene, or that might invade privacy rights. JuicyCampus.com informs the public that such offensive content may be removed.” (3).

            I believe that while this website does evolve around the existence of immature gossip, it is indeed an example of free speech, thus, not allowing it would be in violation of the first amendment. According to an article mentioning the case Reno v, ACLU, “…Justice Stevens had never explicitly relied on the ‘scarcity rationale’ in Pacifica, he noted in Reno how the rationale did not apply to the Internet. The Red Lion Court had noted that the limited availability of broadcast frequencies justified the government regulation of those frequencies, and the FCC had used scarcity among other rationales in its administrative ruling in Pacifica. But Justice Stevens emphasized that no such scarcity occurred in cyberspace. Everybody was their own publisher and web surfers had as much access to any blogger as they had to the New York Times online.” (4). The case, which examined the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), found that the CDA’s regulation of speech on the Internet, while in the interest of protecting children, infringed upon adults’ rights to access information. Justice Stevens wrote that “The CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. Although the Government has an interest in protecting children from potentially harmful materials, see, e.g., Ginsberg, 390 U. S., at 639, the CDA pursues that interest by suppressing a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to send and receive,” (5). The Internet is too vast a medium to governed like other mediums. The existence of websites such as these, although the cause of much social controversy, is an essential test as to whether we still live in a society that accepts the first amendment. Of course I don’t agree with the content of the website; who would like to be mentioned in a campus-wide gossip site? But the idea of giving students an outlet to post what they want without limitation (except for hate speech of course) is a great privilege. Offense is the price of having free speech and an open marketplace of ideas.

 

(1) “College gossip site creator unapologetic at student Q&A”, Washington D.C., October 30, 2008

http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=7100

(2)  “JuicyCampus Creator, Matt Ivester”, by Jillian Gordon, Saturday Night Magazine

http://www.snmag.com/MAGAZINE/Destination-Success/JuicyCampus-Creator-Matt-Ivester.html

(3)  “JuicyCampus.com Under Investigation”, by Eric Sinrod, FindLaw

http://technology.findlaw.com/articles/00006/011151.html

(4) “Applying the Models to Sexually Themed Expression”, pages 69-81 in Jour 199 book

(5) Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)