the television industry's V-chip education campaign a failure. However, this poll did not measure whether parents were aware of the V-chip and chose not to use it. The networks feared that a single profanity would block an entire program. They also feared that they would lose advertising revenue because advertisers would not pay for time slots during programs that might be blocked. Lack of supporting research The American Civil Liberties Union argues, "Research has not proven that watching violence on television causes watchers to commit violence" citing the Federal Trade Commission's Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Review of the Self-Regulation and Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording, & Electronic Game Industries report in September 2001 as support. In ACLU's website, ACLU quoted the FTC in saying, "Most researchers and investigators agree that exposure to media violence alone does not cause a child to commit a violent act, and that it is not the sole, or even the most important, factor in contributing to youth aggression, anti-social attitudes, and violence." According to J.M. Balkin, author of Media Filters and the V-Chip, people "want to filter out dangerous ideas and views they do not agree with or expressions that offend and anger them." There is also cultural and familial differences; an action, activity, or behavior may be deemed as "appropriate" for one culture or for one family but may very well be considered "inappropriate" for another culture or for another family. Balkin says some people believe that the use of the V-chip is a way for the government to "intervene and impose binding moral standards" on others. Expenses While the V-chip is fairly inexpensive to add to individual television sets, a large amount of money has been spent educating people on the technology. $550 million was spent to educate parents on the V-chip, but they are no more aware of the technology or the ways in which it can be put to use now than they were before the funds were spent. Infringement on rights Another argument brought up is that it is not the government's right to monitor or censor what viewers watch on television. According to this argument, because the government regulates the rating system, it is also regulating much of parents' decision making processes on their children's viewing habits. Caroline Fredrickson, of the American Civil Liberties Union, stated, "These FCC recommendations are political pandering. The government