[How interchangeably you use the words “kids” and “teens”— The world is full of far worse things than anything in Fox’s or any other network’s programming, and if your kids can’t sanely process “edgy” content from the television by the time they’re teenagers, they’re pretty much doomed for handling real life. Maybe if you weren’t so concerned with sheltering your offspring from offensive content in media you wouldn’t have to worry about them being exposed to it. You think exposing them to it is harmful? They’ll be exposed to it as adults, and it may indeed be harmful if that happens all at once rather than gradually as they grow up, with a parent there to discuss it with and put it in the proper context.]

This is an “argument” the PTC hears all the time. “There are worse things in the world than TV! Your kids will experience it when they’re adults! Therefore, you shouldn’t shelter them from it now!”

However, the logic in this “argument” is more than a little shaky. Agreed, there are worse things in life than what’s on TV. But the fact that children may be exposed to something in adulthood in no way justifies exposing them to it before that time.

By this logic, because some people are mugged and suffer from physical assault as adults, should parents stand by and allow bullies to beat their children? Because some adults may be raped, should parents allow their kids to be sexually molested? And certainly, many children will choose on their own to have sex as adults. So why not allow – even encourage — kids to have sex? (This certainly seems to be the view of entertainment industry writers, judging by much of the programming aimed at teens, and which is routinely watched by even younger kids.) Why not hand kids tobacco products, liquor, meth, and cocaine? After all, many children may choose to do drugs as adults. Isn’t preventing your children from beinig sexually or physically assaulted, or smoking, drinking, or using drugs, the height of irresponsible parenting? Aren’t you unrealistically “sheltering” your kids from the “real world”?

These examples may seem ridiculous; but in reality, they only make clear how ridiculous our culture’s double-standard about television and other forms of media really is. Like tobacco companies, the entertainment industry is a vast, multi-billion dollar conglomerate which reaps lavish profits from exploiting children, and getting them hooked on unhealthy patterns and products at a young age. When Big Tobacco pushed Joe Camel at children, people howled in outrage; but somehow, when it’s Big Media, many of the same people shrug, or even vociferously defend the “right” of entertainment companies to corrupt children.

And this ties into another argument we hear frequently: “it’s the parent’s responsibility to control what their kids see.” Especially in an age of smartphones and Internet access nearly everywhere (including schools), saying “Parents should control what their kids are doing every second of every minute of every day” is grossly unrealistic. In previous decades – as today – parents weren’t able to prevent kids from sneaking a cigarette or a drink. How are they supposed to control or even know what media their kids are consuming every second?

However, we recognize that society has a vested interest in keeping tobacco and liquor out of the hands of minors. We don’t allow cigarettes or liquor to be sold to people under 18. We even have banned cigarette advertising on television, because of the unhealthy influence it can have on viewers. Why then is it acceptable for television to bombard kids with adult sex and violence?

Frequently, one of PTC’s opponents will say, “Parents are being unrealistic by sheltering their kids — they’ll be exposed to it as adults anyway,” then in the very next sentence and with no sense of irony, say “It’s the parent’s responsibility to control what their kids watch”—thus simultaneously arguing that parents both SHOULD and SHOULD NOT regulate their children’s media consumption. Generally, though, those making such arguments don’t see that they are contradicting themselves—because the real crux of their argument is, “I should be able to watch anything *I* want! To h*** with the well-being of OTHER PEOPLE’S kids!”

And all teens ARE “kids.” They are all children, under the legal age of majority. Yes, it is their parents’ job to protect them – and one way of doing so is to advocate for measures which will help them do so. But, as with tobacco, liquor, and assault, society has an interest – and should take a role — in protecting children, as well.