Imagine coming in after a long day of class and not being able to watch your favorite show because the words are considered “violent,” or not being able to catch up on the news because the images and stories presented are considered “excessively violent.”  That is what will happen if the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) receives the authority from Congress to put a censor on cable and broadcast TV, but the problem goes deeper than not being able to watch a favorite show. If given the power this could threaten the freedom of speech within the First Amendment’s one of the most meaningful documents this country was built on: The Bill of Rights. It appears that violence on TV may result in violence in children, but there is no scientific evidence to prove this theory. The FCC has already effected measures that help monitor content on TV, but to completely eradicate “excessive violence,” whatever that may be, on TV could hinder the First Amendment-guaranteed right for free speech.The three main issues presented in this case are, “whether TV violence causes harm, how to define it and how to regulate it without violating the First Amendment,” according to Marjorie Heins, founder of the Free Expression Policy Project, in the article “Politics of TV Violence Returns to Center Stage.”Without a clear definition of what the FCC considers “excessively violent,” broadcasters would have no way of knowing what is “excessively violent.” This would be unfair and mean that all speech would have to be tailored.In order for this censorship to stand a chance, it would have to be content neutral instead of content based. This means that instead of putting a censor on all violent showings, a definition of violence would have to be created and from that, cable or broadcast networks could decide which programs to regulate. Congress gave the FCC that chance and allowed for a definition of violence to be proposed, in which the possibility for censoring violence would remain after creating requirements, such as the indecency requirement, and having the program air after a certain time.Even when provided with the chance, the FCC has failed to develop a clear definition.According to an FCC report, “The Commission has not been able to formulate and recommend a definition of violence that would cover the majority of the violent content that is inappropriate to children, provide fair guidance to programmers and stand a decent chance of withstanding constitutional scrutiny.”  In defense of the FCC, one of its main concerns is that violence on TV emulates real violence in children. The decline of putting a censor on “excessive violence” frustrated many people on the commission because they are parents themselves.”As a father of three young children, I am deeply concerned about the effects of television violence on children. As a society, we should do all that the law allows to help shield our children from harmful television content,” Commissioner Robert M. Mcdowell stated in the FCC report.As a parent, Judge Harry T. Edwards of the U.S. Circuit court of Appeals for the District of Columbia gave his opinion that violence on TV is becoming a major problem.”Like many other parents of my vintage, I believe in my gut, that there is no doubt that the trash that our children see as ‘entertainment’ adversely affects their future, wither because they mimic what they see or become the potential victims in a society littered with immorality and too much callous disregard for human life,” Judge Harry T. Edwards said.While it seems easy to attribute violence seen on TV to increased violence seen in children, there is no actual scientific evidence proving this assumption. The FCC cites the Surgeon Generals 2001 report on youth violence to support their view that TV violence causes aggression, but it does not accept the Surgeon Generals conclusion that exposure to media violence is not a risk factor for real violence. Also, to have aggression is different than actually going out and participating in real violence. The FCC also failed to conduct heavy research; they based their findings on intuition, not scientific fact. They relied on what experts told them about research conduct and did not sort through which statements were opinions of the research and which were not.”Scientific evidence does not prove the theory that exposure to media violence causes people to be aggressive,” said Jonathan Freedman, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, in the article “No real evidence for TV violence causing real violence.”Lawmakers asked the FCC to once again define exceedingly violent programming that is harmful to children. It failed to do so. Congress could also step in and create a definition of excessively violent programming, but that definition has to be narrowly tailored.”Congress could require cable companies to sell their programming on a per-channel or family tier basis, rather than only in pre-bundled packages,” said FCC Chairman Kevin Martin in the FCC report.Other mediums have been created, like the V-chip and TV Rating Systems, as a way for parents to monitor their children’s viewings without eliminating the display of all violent conduct on TV The V-chip allows all 13-inch TV sets to be equipped with features to block the display based upon its ratings. TV Parental Guidelines display a rating system like “TVF-PG” and “TV-MA” at the bottom of the screen to warn parents of the type of content that will be displayed on the show. While these two methods are a good attempt at monitoring what children watch on TV, the FCC still sees the need for a further step to be taken to end all TV violenc.. “Technology intended to help parents shield their children from objectionable programming such as the V-chip is inadequate,” stated the FCC report. “The V-chip [has] limited effectiveness because many do not know they have it.”