Imagine you are a parent concerned about your child viewing inappropriate content. You rely on the usual parental guidelines, such as “TV-MA,” to select age-appropriate shows. But what if those apparently age-appropriate shows essentially promote gender ideology and transgenderism without any warning?

You might be forgiven for worrying that this is part of a plot to “trans the kids”—a component of a leftist agenda to undermine traditional family roles as it tills the ground for the coming neo-Marxist revolution (see, e.g., here and here), specifically leveraging media’s influence on culture. But such a conspiracy is certainly not required to conclude that parents should be warned about sexual orientation and gender transition themes in programming. But is this ratings system, long a tool, if an imperfect one, compelled speech or censorship?

Most parents do not realize that television ratings warning of violence, crude or suggestive language, and sexual situations operate through a quasi-private, quasi-public system that was approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997. Through the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress authorized the FCC to permit the media industry to develop a ratings framework intended to help parents make informed decisions about what their children watch. Although private media sector leaders proposed the ratings guidelines, the framework expressly depended on FCC approval, as well as input from parents, children’s advocates, and the medical community.

The original purpose of the TV Parental Guidelines was not to dictate values or control programming. Section 551 was designed to give parents clear information about mature content so they could make decisions consistent with their own judgment and the needs of their children. To carry out that purpose, the TV Parental Guidelines Oversight Monitoring Board (TVOMB), composed primarily of media industry representatives and members representing children’s, medical, and educational viewpoints, proposed the ratings system that was established in 1997 and remains in place today.

Following feedback from parents, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, TVOMB added the content descriptors we know and use today. For example, TV-MA (V) indicates violence, while TV-MA (S) indicates sexual situations. TV-MA is the age-based rating, and V and S are content descriptors.

Despite all this apparent collaboration, parents seeking notice about gender identity content are frequently dismissed as unreasonable or intolerant. The question today is whether the existing ratings framework still provides parents with meaningful, reliable information in today’s media environment. Specifically, the FCC has sought related comments and organizations such as America First Legal have submitted comments. While the comment period is closed, the issue deserves ongoing attention.

Certain groups argue that the FCC’s request for comments regarding content descriptors is an “expansion of federal supervision over how programmers describe their own expressive work.” They assert that, by requesting comments from concerned parents regarding gender-transition themes in children’s shows, the FCC is compelling speech through disclosure.

In other words, they argue that additional content descriptors informing parents that sexual orientation descriptions or discussions of gender transition appear in youth programming would amount to unconstitutional editorial categorization of expressive content because “age-based ratings and content descriptors are evaluative judgments rather than purely factual reports.”

This argument overextends its own logic. Age-based ratings and content descriptors have always required some degree of editorial judgment. Determining whether a program contains “violence,” “sexual situations,” “suggestive dialogue,” or “coarse language” is not a purely mechanical exercise; it requires classification, context, and judgment. But this has never meant the ratings system is unconstitutional, nor has it meant that every descriptor amounts to compelled editorial speech.

The better question is not whether descriptors involve judgment, but whether the government is requiring programmers to adopt a viewpoint-based characterization of protected expression. A neutral descriptor that informs parents that certain content is present in a program is different from a federally mandated label declaring content indecent.

Additional content descriptors would not ban programming, restrict viewpoints, or silence writers and producers. Broadcasters would remain free to create and air the content they choose, and families would remain free to decide what they watch. If TVOMB chooses to heed parents’ concerns, the result would simply be that parents receive more information before making those decisions.

Censorship restricts choice by suppressing speech. Transparency expands choice by allowing families to make informed decisions for themselves.

The question is not whether certain ideas should appear on television. The question is whether parents deserve clear notice when they do. If not, parents may be surprised to find their children watching “The Best Kids’ TV Shows With Transgender Characters.”

***

Stefan Padfield, JD, is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a principal in its Free Enterprise Initiative. Esther Bouquet is a senior associate in the Initiative.

Menu

The Quiet Way Gender Ideology Reaches Children