Citing the harmful effects of TV violence on children and a correlation between bloodshed on the screen and in real life, the Federal Communications Commission has concluded that Congress could regulate violence on cable, satellite and broadcast television while upholding the First Amendment.

		On the Net The report, "Violent Television Programming and Its Impact on Children," is available on the FCC Web site in pdf format.

The FCC report, requested by Congress three years ago and released this week, comes at a time of renewed soul-searching about the violent nature of American society in the wake of the April 16 shooting massacre at Virginia Tech.

"Exposure to violent programming can be harmful to children," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said in a statement. "Congress could provide parents more tools to limit their children's exposure to violent programming in a constitutional way."

While leaving the definition of excessive violence to Congress, the report suggests various avenues of government involvement that would not violate freedom of expression.

For example, cable companies -- which have always gotten a free ride on content -- could be required to let consumers pick and choose which channels they subscribe to instead of offering only bundled packages.

Broadcast TV could be made to treat violence as it does sex and profanity, to air only nonviolent programs during the hours when children are likely to watch, or to reinstitute a brutality-free window of family-viewing time.

Reaction to the report yesterday was swift and emphatic.

The Parents Television Council, founded by conservative activist L Brent Bozell, lauded the commission: "The FCC has taken its public interest obligation seriously in addressing the issue and offering a broad range of solutions," said the group's president, Tim Winter, in a statement.

The anti-regulation TV Watch, funded in part by Fox, NBC and CBS, denounced the commission for dismissing existing controls such as the ratings system and V-Chip as inadequate, and for favoring government over parental enforcement.

The American Civil Liberties Union also weighed in with criticism: "There are some things the government does well, but deciding what is aired and when on television is not one of them," legislative director Caroline Fredrickson of the ACLU's Washington office said in a statement.

Parents don't necessarily agree with the report's critics, according to a national survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2004.

The random phone survey of 1,001 households with children under 17 showed that 53 percent were "very concerned" about the amount of violence their children were exposed to on TV. After being read arguments on both sides, 63 percent favored new regulations during the early evening hours. Half said cable TV should adhere to the same standards as broadcast TV.

But TV Watch conducted its own random phone survey in February, sampling 1,000 households with and without children. Some 75 percent overall wanted parents rather than the government to decide what children watch.

Violent crime in the U.S. is on the upswing, according to the FBI. Statistics showed a steady decline from 1996 to 2004, then a 2.3 percent uptick in 2005, with almost 1.4 million violent acts reported. The first six months of 2006 showed another increase, this time of 3.7 percent.

The FCC report does not link these numbers with increased violence on TV. But the commissioners found convincing research indicating exposure to violence in the media can increase aggressive behavior in children, at least in the short term.

The correlation has been amply demonstrated, according to Dr. Dale Kunkel, a professor of communications at the University of Arizona who has been studying the subject for more than 20 years and has been a persistent critic of violence in children's TV.

"There's a compelling body of evidence documenting the risk of harmful effects on children exposed to TV violence," said Dr. Kunkel, citing concurring opinions by the American Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association and the surgeon general.

"A lot of cultural critics and others with popular views claim the effect is much more modest, but the science is quite clear. Children who have heavy exposure to media violence during their youth are significantly more likely to exhibit increased aggression and violence later in life."

Even the fiercest critics of mayhem on TV agree it is only one of many factors that influence violent behavior. Neuropsychological dispositions, parenting or lack thereof, poverty, peer groups, environment and easy access to guns all play a role.

"It's not the only factor," said Dr. Kunkel, "but it's a significant contributor."

Psychologist Edward Mulvey, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School who studies adolescents and violence, said the overall effects of media violence might not be highly evident in the population at large, but are likely to be stronger in certain subsets that are most at risk.

"Whether it's reasonable to regulate something that might have an effect on a susceptible subgroup is a policy question," said Dr. Mulvey.

"You have to ask what we lose in artistic expression by regulating violence in the media. Personally, I don't think we lose that much, but I'm sure artists would feel differently."