WASHINGTON. Novi ft Congress seems intent on passing a law to restrict television violence. but protectors of the First Amendment are betting no such measure ever will be enforced. reports AP.

The courts won't allow it. lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and the television networks say.

Nevertheless, the bipartisan momentum in Congress for legislation to reduce violent TV programming is strong.

Eight bills have been Introduced. They range from a requirement that TV sets be manufactured with a computer chip that could be programmed to block violent shows to a mandate that the Federal Communications Commission make reducing TV violence a condition of television station license renewal.

One or a combination of them is likely to start moving toward enactment at the beginning of next year.

Attorney General Janet Reno told the Senate Commerce Committee recently that several

of the bills would pass constitutional muster. But she acknowledged later that she was not familiar with all the case law. so the Justice Department is continuing to review the subject.

The concern is and always has been that TV violence causes the real thing, particularly among young people. Supporters of the legislation say the courts have allowed restrictions to protect children and point to limits on indecency.

But Indecency is different, say First Amendment advocates.

It has been specifically defined as references to excretory functions and sexual organs. Although a ban on such talk has been rejected by the Supreme Court, the broadcast industry has generally accepted that it should be restricted to between 8 pm and 6 am.

Violence, however, has never been defined by law.

And even If It were, lawmakers see some violence on television as beneficial. News shows, for example, would be exempt

from restrictions and "good" violence. such as war dramas or depictions of brutality designed to deter such behavior, also would be all right.

Lawmakers oppose ''happy" violence, which is akin to slapstick, and sensationalistic or gratuitous violence.

But imagine the questions the FCC will have to ponder if a law is passed and the commis-’ sion must draw the boundaries.

Would it be acceptable to show a woman shooting a rapist in self-defence, but not a mugger shooting an inftocent vlc-Um?

How much spilled blood would be needed to illustrate the horrors of war without being gratuitously gory?

The National Coalition On Television Violence defines violence as "the deliberate and hostile use of overt force by one individual against another."

Using that definition, would a drama about the Civil War be allowed on the air when children might be watching?

The creative community has traditionally made these judg-

ments and critics of the push for new legislation say the public should complain to them, not to Congress.

The law can't tell the difference between good and bad violence.” says Attorney Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment expert who successfully defended NBC against charges that a rape shown in the 1978 made-for-TV movie "Born Innocent" caused a similar real-life incident.

"When you start talking about banning or limiting or channeling the amount of violence on TV, you are talking about directly interfering with First Amendment rights," said Abrams.

'Speech about violence Is not only Integral in the most Important works of film and literature in our history, but has been explicitly protected."

Measures Introduced In Congress to regulate violence on television would:

— Prohibit violent programming when children are a substantial part of the viewing audience.

— Require TV set manufacturers to install a computer chip in all sets so they can block programmes coded as vlo-len— Establish a presidential commission to hold hearings and report on TV violence.

— Set up a phone number at the Federal Communications Commission to collect public complaints about TV violence.

— Require the FCC to establish standards to reduce TV violence and make meeting the standards a condition of license renewal.

— Require broadcasters to label programs containing violence or unsafe gun practices.

— Require the FCC to Issue quarterly TV violence reports, detailing the level of violence and identifying'the shows spon-SOr~ Require TV stations to make copies of commercials and promotions available to the public and keep a record of complaints about any that are violent.

— Make the now voluntary on-screen advisories mandatory.