PARENTAL GUIDANCE SUGGESTED; KEEPING KIDS AWAY FROM THE TUBE SHOULD FALL ON MOM AND DAD, NOT THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS RATINGS SYSTEM.

Byline: Juan Ros

WHEN I was little, Tuesday night was a big night at our house - ``Happy Days'' at 8:00, ``Laverne and Shirley'' at 8:30.

Then, when 9:00 rolled around, my dad would always make us turn the set off. My sister and I would protest, but his reason for censoring our TV viewing never wavered: `` `Three's Company' is a no-no.''

My dad didn't need TV ratings to tell him that ``Three's Company'' was inappropriate viewing for a kid my age. So why do we need ratings now?

Is it because TV programs are more outrageous than they were years ago? Because innovative shows like ``NYPD Blue'' have broken nudity and language barriers on television?

Or because shows like ``Friends'' threaten the integrity of kids' malleable young minds by showing a happily married lesbian couple during the so-called ``family hour''?

Heaven forbid American kids turn on the BBC when traveling in England and see nude breasts on a government-run TV channel. Lawsuit!

It seems to me that parents are doling out what should be their responsibility to others, usually the government.

But what's worse, the government happily gets involved in the battle to ``save America's children'' from some unspeakable menace, like the television.

And that's where I have a problem.

The new television ratings resulted from nothing less than government pressure on the industry.

Children's advocacy groups such as Children Now and the Children's Defense Fund weren't happy with the existing ratings (which they helped bring about), so they further pressured Congress to do something. Congress then threatened the TV industry with programming legislation if something wasn't done, and the networks blinked - except one.

Hurrah to NBC for not kowtowing to this subtle form of government blackmail.

This isn't the first time the government has stepped in to ``protect America's children.''

In May 1985, Tipper Gore helped found the Parents Music Resource Center over concern that music lyrics were getting too sexually explicit and violent. Congressional hearings were held and, eventually, the record industry ``voluntarily'' responded with the ``Parental Advisory'' warning sticker you see on albums today.

Last year, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which in addition to encouraging the television industry to establish a ``voluntary'' ratings system, required that TV sets manufactured after February 1998 include ``features designed to enable viewers to block display of all programs with a common rating.''

In other words, the V-chip, coming soon to a Circuit City near you.

If enough consumers really wanted a V-chip, some enterprising company such as Panasonic or Sony would have started manufacturing televisions with V-chips. Now everyone, even the childless, will pay for a V-chip.

Then there's the Internet, so highly touted by the Clinton administration.

Yet Clinton signed the Communications Decency Act into law last year, which barred the distribution to minors of indecent or ``patently offensive'' materials over the Internet.

Although the Supreme Court wisely declared the CDA unconstitutional last month, Congress and the president are looking for ways around that decision, to ``safeguard America's families.''

Don't they know there's plenty of software on the market, such as Net Nanny and CyberWatch, that allows parents to block their kids' access to adult World Wide Web sites?

Doesn't anyone find it ironic that politicians are giving out advice on how to run your family?

They must possess some special moral wisdom that we mortals don't.

As for television, there are plenty of alternatives for kids such as Nickelodeon, The Disney Channel and The Family Channel. Thanks to cable, there is actually more for kids to watch than ever before.

And if television ratings are necessary so parents can make informed decisions, shouldn't newspapers then be rated?

After all, any child could pick up the front page of this newspaper and read about some horrible murderer, sex offender or drug dealer.

But Congress wouldn't dare go after the newspapers. That's ``Freedom of the Press''

It's in the Constitution!

The rights of individual parents to raise their kids as they see fit are not being respected by the government, which continues intruding on the parenting process - the fragile bond between child and parent that is personal and sacred.

The bottom line is this: The president should not tell parents how to raise their kids. Congress should not pass laws - or threaten to pass laws - forcing parents to raise their kids a certain way. And children's advocacy groups should stop pressuring Congress to enact legislation they have no authority to enact.

Parents need to take responsibility for their kids and not pass the buck. It is up to parents - and no one else - to provide their children with the wisdom to live productively in a hostile world.

Turning to government to protect children, if allowed to continue, will have devastating consequences on parents, children, and free speech in this country.