Congressional Democrats and Republicans are teaming up to make the entertainment industry stop marketing “explicit” material to children.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, along with Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, and Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin, introduced the Media Marketing Act in April. The bill would have supposedly prevented deceptive advertisements from being aimed at children, if it would not have been completely rejected by the rest of the Senate.

In other words, the rest of the Senate realized the bill stomps on people’s right to free speech.

Well, Lieberman and Kohl are at it again. Only this time they have the support of some members of the House.

Reps. Tom Osborne, R-Nebraska, and Steve Israel, D-New York, have joined the anti-speech movement in an effort to get President George W. Bush to hop on board the censorship bandwagon.

Hopefully, the president will do his job and serve the Constitution, which would mean saying no limits on free speech.

The bills, which are identical in both houses, are clearly a violation of the First Amendment.

According to an article in The Washington Times, both bills call for civil penalties for advertising by movie, music and video game companies that target children for products with violent, profane or sexual content.

If the bills are signed into law, the fine for advertising this “adult” content to children is $11,000 per day the ad runs.

Lieberman, who backed off Hollywood during the presidential election, should know better. It’s amazing how members of Congress can actually forget about the first change to the “supreme law of the land.”

Of course, he says it’s not a violation of free speech. He was quoted by The Washington Times as saying “It is wrong for entertainment companies to market adult-rated material to children behind the backs of their parents.”

Doug Lowenstein, president of Interactive Digital Software Association, summed it up best. “It puts government squarely in the realm of content regulation, which is a very slippery slope for those who care about the First Amendment.”

What Lieberman and the others are doing is trying to make people feel safe from the evils of society.

The kids that shouldn’t see this stuff are not having it shoved down their throats like he says they are. How stupid would it be for a motion picture company to run an advertisement for a movie like Pulp Fiction during the Saturday morning cartoons on Nickelodeon?

It’s just not happening. Even if it were, we don’t need the government to stop it for us.

It all boils down to responsibility and letting the market take care of itself.

If a kid is watching TV, parents need to sit down with them. If they see an advertisement they don’t like, change the channel.

It’s that simple. As ratings drop, these advertisers will leave because these children’s shows won’t be bringing in any money. Programers will realize why they are not getting the ratings they want and will look elsewhere for advertising.

All these bills do is take the responsibility away from parents.

It makes it OK for parents feel safe leaving their children alone with a TV.

The problem is not what is being advertised on TV, it is parents who use the TV to babysit their children.

Kids will keep watching whatever they want on TV because there is no parental guidance. And I am not talking about typical teenagers here.

I agree with Lieberman that young children should not see this stuff. But it is not his job to tell people what they can say and to whom they can say it to. It would not be needed if parents were worried about it.

What we have here is Lieberman and his gang making people less responsible and placing yet another limit on a constitutional right when it is not needed.

So why is this group of legislators trying so hard to pass this bill?

They are legislating morality. This is something the Democrats constantly accuse Republicans of doing. It’s funny how there is only one Republican backing the bill.

It is also going to be impossible to enforce.

A major problem with this bill is figuring out who is considered a child. Lieberman says the companies will be fined if they target minors.

This makes absolutely no sense. Most logical teenagers can listen to whatever music they want and watch whatever they want and not let it interfere with basic reasoning.

Take myself, for example. Every kid I hung out with in high school listened to what Lieberman would call Satan’s music, rap. None of us go around and commit these violent acts he is indirectly trying to stop. We understood what is right and what is wrong.

So why can’t a 16-year-old kid see an advertisement about the new Eminem CD?

There is not much difference between advertising to 17-year-olds and 19-year-olds. Where do we draw the line?

MTV is watched by teen-agers as well as those in their early 20s. Will companies be fined for advertising on that channel?

We are constantly trying to blame the wrong things in this country. It has gotten so bad we now attack advertisements.

I suggest Lieberman tell people the government is not here to raise your children for you. Do it on your own.

Of course that won’t happen, though, too many people already look to the federal government for the answers.

Hopefully legislators will not buy into censorship as the solution to society’s problems.

Zach Calef is a sophomore in journalism and mass communication from Cedar Rapids. He is news editor of the Daily.