The association's position on this, Mr. Scott, is that we don't believe it should be the role of the state to regulate what is available for individuals to watch. It should be up to individuals to decide whether they want access to something, whether it's through payment or self-regulation by means of a V-chip. Delegating this regulatory power to non-elected officials actually has great impact on free expression.
As for the concept of “least restrictive means”, if there were a proven link, which we dispute, between violent society and violent content on television, then the next step would be to seek out how to limit the violence by the least restrictive means, the means least apt to compromise the civil liberties of individuals. That's not the case here. There is a presumption in the bill that there is a causal link. That's not proven.