A special report on violence and entertainment

The amendment funds a $2 million investigation of the creative policies and advertising practices of entertainment companies (from studios to music labels to videogame makers) to determine, among other things, if violence is deliberately being used as a marketing tool to entice teenagers. Like the commission that dug up dirt on the tobacco industry, it would have subpoena power, which means private studio memos, script notes, and e-mails may soon be playing publicly at a congressional hearing near you. Not to mention possible testimony from the most photogenic witnesses ever dragged up the Hill (imagine Arnold Schwarzenegger at the witness table, cupping a hand over the microphone for whispered consultations with his publicist).

"There's no question there are some in Hollywood who are exploiting urges in young people with ultraviolent images," says Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican who cosponsored the amendment. "There are studies galore that continual exposure to these types of materials — violence, pornography — has a profound impact on young minds. So it would behoove the entertainment industry to step forward to reduce inappropriate violence." Otherwise, he adds, Dirty Harry-style, "we have the recourse of forcing them to do it."

Such drastic scenarios are unlikely — or at least premature. The Juvenile Crime Bill is still in development (as they say in L.A.), with no guarantee it'll pass in the House. Other Littleton-inspired bills have already run into trouble, blocked by legislators still on speaking terms with Hollywood.

"There were other amendments that were much worse," says Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from (where else?) California. "There was one that would have set up a commission to look into whether the government should actually regulate the content of movies. It was really terrifying. I got up on the floor of the Senate and said, 'What is this? The Soviet Union?' "

Boxer helped defeat that amendment in a 58-42 vote. She was also one of the senators who said nay to Hollings' proposal banishing TV violence to the late-night airwaves, killing it with a 60-39 vote. A vote, it turns out, taken nearly a week before Hollings held his drone-fest in room 253. Why would the senator bother to conduct hearings on a bill that had already been defeated? Only a true Beltway insider could answer that question. Fortunately, we have one standing by — a high-ranking aide to a senator who voted against Hollings' bill.

"Oh, you know," he explains matter-of-factly, "that's show business."

(Additional reporting by Kristen Baldwin, Andrew Essex, Joe Flint, and Jessica Shaw)