In May, Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman introduced Senate Bill 2497 requiring a uniform ratings system on violent content of all entertainment products. NARM opposes this Bill, and submitted the following letter to Congress.

May 19, 2000

Dear Member of Congress:

On behalf of the National Association of Recording Merchandisers (NARM), I am writing to respectfully register NARM’s strong opposition to Senate Bill 2497. Our members, who primarily include the retailers of music and related home entertainment products and services, know first-hand what customer satisfaction is all about, and we can say, without a doubt, that Senate Bill 2497 is bad for consumers.

This misguided approach would dismantle the media rating systems consumers have learned to rely on over the years, and replace these voluntary and valuable industry programs with a government-imposed single format for all media, enforced with the threat of stiff fines. It would set up "violence" as the single criterion for determining the suitability of content for children, notwithstanding the preferences of millions of American families to consider other content (such as mature sexual content or language) as well.

First of all, this one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Consumers know there is a vastly different experience when listening to music, attending an opera, watching a movie, playing a video game, or reading a book. It simply makes no sense to apply a cookie cutter system to all media. Adult music is a completely different concept than an adult movie. "One size fits all" has never been a very successful approach to customer satisfaction, and particularly not when it comes to taste in art and entertainment. The current voluntary industry rating and labeling systems are unique to each type of media experience.

Second, the preference of the proponents of Senate Bill 2497 for a single ratings approach is at odds with those of millions of Americans who, if given the opportunity to design better media ratings programs, have diverse opinions on what would constitute the best approach. The producers of music, movies and games have worked hard at developing the means of conveying basic content information for given products, but they have never intended that their ratings and labeling systems be relied upon in a vacuum nor hinder the free will of parents to decide otherwise. Consumers can and do look to advice from their friends, their local media critics, and even their respective religious leaders, to help decide what is appropriate for them and their children. There may be significant challenges in providing parents with the best tools for making the most informed decisions concerning their children, but imposing one uniform set of standards upon a very rich and diverse set of family values and a very rich and diverse offering from creative artists is perhaps the worst possible approach.

Third, SB 2497 proposes a giant step backward. The current rating systems take into account many factors, including mature language and sexual content. These other factors are very important to millions of American families, but SB 2497 would replace them all with a single criterion – the amount of violent content. Titles with profane language or sexual content would be deemed by the Government to be suitable for all ages so long as there is no violence.

Fourth, the approach of Senate Bill 2497 is simply un-American. It would subject every movie, sound recording and video game to the censor’s mark before it could be made available to the public. In addition, it would interfere with the fundamental right of parental autonomy to decide what children may purchase. Parents are in the best position to decide whether their 11-year-old child is ready for a particular PG-13 movie, or whether their older teen will be allowed to buy music with a parental advisory label. SB 2497 turns retailers into "one-size-fits all" parents, and punishes them for any deviation.

Fifth, even violence is not a uniformly moral or immoral concept. Its suitability varies tremendously with the context and message. The violence in a Roadrunner cartoon, a song such as Johnny Cash’s Folsom Prison Blues, or a movie such as Schindler's List, all contain different types of violence. Many would argue that depictions of violence are necessary to accurately convey the life stories of pacifist heroes, such as Martin Luther King or Ghandi, and some religions rely upon sacred literature chock full of violent events that could run afoul SB 2497’s standard. They should not be evaluated by some objective government standard based on the amount of violence, but in a way the government never can -- subjectively, taking into account the context, value, message and method of presentation. The current industry systems do this.

NARM’s members voluntarily support the current industry rating and labeling systems not because we are forced to, but because they make good business sense. Moreover, because more information is better than less, we have helped educate our customers on what these ratings mean and how to use the opportunities available to them, whether for themselves or as parents, to act upon these content guides as they see fit.

Retailers are already in heated competition with each other, and need to remain free to compete for customer satisfaction. Children have a constitutional right to the entertainment products which SB 2497 would censor. But without violating the First Amendment, retailers can voluntarily decide whether and how to restrict a minor’s access to lawful materials. It is neither appropriate nor lawful for Congress to impose such restrictions, for when the government does so, it is a clear violation of the constitutional rights of retailers, parents and children.

Our retailers are as different as the values of each American family. Consumers shop in our members’ stores every day, seeking to find the best match between our products and their interests and values. As retailers, we want the privilege of selling to demanding, inquisitive customers with the freedom to choose. A single governmental standard would encourage parents to abdicate such choices to industry rating systems or government censors. We ask that you not restrict our right to satisfy our customers, nor a parent’s right to make their own informed choices. We ask that you oppose government-imposed standard ratings and government-imposed penalties for failing to adhere to them.

Sincerely,

Pamela Horovitz

President