Ban on Sale of Violent Material to Minors Fails

The House delivered a victory to the entertainment industry Wednesday, rejecting a broad measure designed to keep excessively violent books, movies and other media out of the reach of minors.

The proposal, defeated by an unexpectedly wide margin of 282 to 146, would have banned the sale to children under 17 of materials containing “explicit violent material,” such as depictions of sadism, torture and rape.

Its defeat was a blow to a strategic effort by House Republican leaders to shift the focus away from gun control as a means of curbing youth violence. GOP leaders instead argued that the roots of crimes such as the April high school massacre in Littleton, Colo., that took 15 lives are largely cultural.

“It damages that argument,” Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), sponsor of the failed measure, conceded after the vote. “But there is so much more to these kids’ empty spirits. A couple more gun laws are not going to get it.”

The measure was offered as an amendment to a juvenile justice bill that has become the vehicle for Congress’ response to the Littleton shootings, which focused public concerns about a spate of school shootings by children.

Hyde’s amendment met strong opposition from entertainment industry officials, who said that it violated the 1st Amendment. It also was opposed by retailers and other business groups whose members would have had to comply with the sales ban. And on the House floor it was ridiculed by members of both parties, who claimed that its wording could justify denying children access to a range of material, including classics such as Homer’s “Odyssey” and popular movies like “Home Alone.”

“It’s a fundamental 1st Amendment fight,” said Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), who led the GOP opposition to Hyde’s proposal. “While we agree there is too much violence, the federal government can’t be the nanny.”

The defeat of Hyde’s amendment does not necessarily mean that movie makers, recording artists and video game manufacturers are off the hook. The House was still scheduled to consider other entertainment-related amendments later this week, including one that would require makers of compact discs, video games, movies and videos to place warning labels on their packages and ads similar to those now mandated for cigarettes.

Also, the entertainment industry already has come under increasing scrutiny in Washington in the wake of the Colorado shootings. Earlier this month, President Clinton set in motion an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department into the industry’s marketing of violent material.

The vote on Hyde’s amendment provided a vivid reminder that, while party leaders have often tried to cast the debates on guns and cultural influences now consuming the House as a purely partisan matter, the issues have opened deep divisions among both Republicans and Democrats.

In the final vote on the Hyde provision, 92 Republicans joined 189 Democrats and one independent to defeat it. And today, when the House turns to gun control proposals, a senior House Democrat, Rep. John D. Dingell of Michigan, will be leading the charge for watering down a key amendment to regulate sales at gun shows.

Clinton and many other Democrats spent considerable energy behind the scenes Wednesday trying to kill the Dingell amendment. Clinton sent a letter to 46 House Republicans who have voted for past gun control measures and urged them to support stronger gun show requirements than the one Dingell is pushing, with the backing of the National Rifle Assn.

At the center of House debate--but overshadowed by arguments about guns and violent entertainment--is a juvenile justice bill that would provide money to states to help combat youth crime. The Senate last month approved a companion bill that included an array of amendments to increase gun regulation and tame violent images in the entertainment industry.

On the latter issue, Hyde tried to go significantly beyond the Senate measures. His proposal would have outlawed the sale to minors of any book, magazine, video or other matter that includes explicit sexual or violent material, specifically depictions of sadism, masochism, torture, mutilation and rape.

Proponents said that the measure simply would extend to violent images the same restrictions that now keep sexually explicit material out of the hands of youth. “At their worst, violence and pornography are equivalent evils, especially where minor children are concerned,” said Hyde.

They also argued that parents need such laws to help them cope with harmful social influences.

“The federal government helps parents protect children from dirty air . . . [and] dirty water,” said Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.). “It is only incumbent upon us for the federal government to help parents protect their children from vulgar, violent videos.”

But critics said that, aside from violating 1st Amendment protections of free speech, the measure would involve the federal government in matters that are the responsibility of parents.

“It is my responsibility as a parent to make sure my children are watching age-appropriate material,” said Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale). “It is not the responsibility of Congress or Hollywood or any other group.”

Critics also pressed their argument that the provision would allow an overzealous prosecutor to outlaw children’s access to many literary classics and popular movies.

“It will create a police force of what is decent, what is violent,” said Foley, who heads a GOP task force set up to improve connections between the party and the entertainment industry.

Industry lobbyists worked hard against the amendment and exulted in its defeat.

“We did it and it feels good,” said Hilary Rosen, president and chief executive of the Recording Industry Assn. of America, who said that the Hyde proposal was “vague and punitive and difficult to implement.”

But the more potent force in swaying some Republicans was the opposition of business interests that included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, according to Kirk Fordham, a spokesman for Foley. Lobbyists for these interests argued that retailers would face prosecution and the legal burden of complying with the proposed law.

Even as the debate on the Hyde amendment went on, Clinton and lawmakers on both sides of the gun control debate were counting noses and twisting arms for today’s showdown on competing proposals to regulate gun shows, including the one sponsored by Dingell.

“There’s a lot of support moving toward Dingell,” insisted House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

In Wednesday’s vote on the Hyde amendment, the 24 Republican members of California’s House delegation split virtually in half: 11 supported the proposal, 12 opposed it and one did not vote.

Among Southern Californians, those voting for it were Brian P. Bilbray of San Diego, Ken Calvert of Riverside, Randy “Duke” Cunningham of San Diego, Elton Gallegly of Simi Valley, Stephen Horn of Long Beach, Duncan Hunter of El Cajon, Howard P. “Buck” McKeon of Santa Clarita, Gary G. Miller of Diamond Bar and Ron Packard of Oceanside.

The Southern California Republicans voting against were Mary Bono of Palm Springs, Christopher Cox of Newport Beach, David Dreier of San Dimas, Steven T. Kuykendall of Rancho Palos Verdes, Jerry Lewis of Redlands, Rogan, Dana Rohrabacher of Huntington Beach and Ed Royce of Fullerton.

The delegation’s 28 Democrats voted against the amendment, except for Rep. George E. Brown Jr. of Riverside, who was absent.

*

Times staff writers James Gerstenzang and Art Pine contributed to this story.