Slashdot Mirror
Feature: Ticket Booth Tyranny (Part One)
This week, I took a giant personal step towards Libertarianism and nearly got busted when I injected myself into a fracas between an out-of-control megaplex manager, a harried working mom and five geek kids trying to see "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut."
When it comes to violence, morality and the young, we're the Idiot Nation, the laughingstock not only of the civilized world but of the highly-wired generation of kids we're supposedly trying to protect. (Adults apparently need protection too. Only Europeans can see the sex scenes in Stanley Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut," cut out for Americans to avoid an NC-17 rating.)
Perhaps without noticing, you may have seen evidence of this new Ticket Booth Morals Squad, out to protect our allegedly vulnerable kids from dirty words and images. (Violent slaughter is, of course, fine anytime.) Signs posted all over theaters warn that rating policies will be strictly enforced. In some chains, even 17-year-olds aren't permitted in "R" rated movies. And Blockbuster Video announced last week that 17-year-olds can't rent "R" rated movies anymore either.
Adults are being grilled at the box office, informed that they must stay with the children for the duration of an "R" movie, or asked if they understand that the movie might be sexually explicit.
Of course, since most movie chains are owned by corporate fatcats but operated by diffident teenagers seething in their crummy, low-paying jobs, these Draconian rules merely pit kids against kids and sputtering adults. Teenagers are suddenly responsible for the moral policing of kids and films. Loopy but true.
The cultural lives of America's kids have long been uncensorable, anyway. Anything produceable in print or video is available on the Net or the Web.
Kids turned away at the box office will simply watch their movies and TV shows on a smaller screen, as the producers of "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" learned last month when they cravenly cancelled the season finale (which featured a giant serpent at a high school graduation) to appease post-Columbine hysterics in politics and journalism.
The decision about what movies kids ought to see is clearly a decision for their parents to make, not Hollywood ratings boards, the video-store managers, discount retailing chains (like Wal-Mart) or movie-theater operators. If a parent thinks that "South Park" - available in bleeped form on cable every week - is appropriate for his her kid to see solo, that should be the end of the discussion.
It's not, though. Now, it's just the beginning.
I knew we were going to have trouble at the theater when the ticketseller refused to allow a dad to buy five tickets for a later showing because one of the kids hadn't shown up yet. "I just want to save him a ticket," the man objected.
"If I sell you an extra ticket, you might give it to some kid who will come in without a parent," huffed the teen behind the glass, in an encounter eerily similar to one in the movie itself.
So the guy gave up and a woman came up to the booth to buy five "South Park" tickets. Her son and four of his friends, all 14 or 15 --- regular viewers of the TV version - clustered eagerly behind her.
"You going in?," a the ticket-seller demanded; he couldn't have been 19 himself.
"No," said the mother truthfully. "I have to get to work. I'm giving them permission to see it, and I'll pick them up during my coffee break. " She stopped herself mid-explanation.
"Wait a minute!," she said suddenly. "Why am I telling you this? I'm their mom. It's okay by me for them to see the movie. What's it your business whether I'm there or not?"
The kid in the booth shook his head. "Can't sell you the tickets," he snapped. "You have to stay there the whole time, too. We have ushers watching for parents who try to leave."
The mother, nervously glancing at her watch, asked to see the manager, who was even more rigid and arrogant.
"It's our policy, lady," he said. "You got a problem? Call the company." He pointed to the General Cinema toll-free number on the wall.
I stepped up to the booth, intending to buy a ticket for "Eyes Wide Shut" - I'd already seen "South Park" twice - listening to this surreally pious claptrap and marveling at how American corporations - Wal-Mart, Blockbuster, the WB TV network, Loews, General Cinema - have mastered the art of appearing pious while being dependably greedy and manipulative.
I said I'd take the kids in. How reassuring, I thought, to know that these companies are making sure that Columbines will never happen again by keeping kids out of "American Pie" because it has some sex scenes.
"Wait! He's not with them," said the kid in the booth to the manager. Meaning me.
"Yes, I am. I'm the pastor of our local church. I'm here to show them "South Park" as an example of evil and immorality in the world. How can we fight Satan if we don't know him and can't see him? I hear he's in the movie. I hope you're not planning to interfere with religious teaching!"
The manager hesitated, said no, then yes, then went to make a phone call. Maybe I wasn't convincing as a pastor. In a minute, a cop sidled up and asked me if there was any trouble. "No sir," I said, "just the eternal battle between good and evil. We are trying to save some souls here."
He blinked, then stepped back. "Well, you have to move along," he muttered, bored. "Otherwise I'll have to ticket you for being disorderly."
I pictured calling my wife and telling her I'd been busted over "South Park;" could she bail me out? The idea kind of grew on me, although I wasn't certain she would bail me out.
The stymied manager and his moral aide conferred briefly. The ticket line was growing longer, the rumblings about the theater chain's intrusive and hypocritical policy getting louder. "Let the kids see the goddamned movie," thundered an enormous man from the back of the line. "Fox News is a lot worse!"
"I've already got the movie off the Net," one of the kids whispered to his friend's mother. "I just wanted to see it on the big screen. We can watch it at home if we have to."
I wasn't budging. The cop didn't seem anxious to get too involved with this particular kind of law enforcement. The manager, flushed, relented. "You can take them in, but you have to stay with them the whole time," he told me.
"Can I go to the bathroom?" I asked. "Is it okay with you if I stretch my legs? Can I come out for popcorn. Can I call my sick mom in Boise?"
The mother's jaw was open, but then she smiled, said thanks. "I've got to get to work," she said. I was going to reassure her, tell her that I watched "Beavis & Butt-head" with my daughter when she was eight or nine, both of us howling with laughter, but I thought better of it. "Good luck," she said. "Kids, call me if you can't get in or something happens."
So I marched in with the five boys, who were looking at me warily, hoping I wasn't actually some preacher. A teenaged usher followed us inside and stood nearby with folded arms. When I got up to go see my movie (I'd bought tickets to both), she stepped in front of me. "You have to stay," she said.
"I've got a rare kidney disease," I told her. "I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?"
She didn't really know what to say, and we both knew she wasn't doing this voluntarily. She smiled and sat down, and I sent to see "Eyes Wide Shut." Every fifteen minutes or so, I popped back to check on the kids, at one point catching the great "Uncle Fucker" song. They were convulsed, but seemed other unchanged, morally speaking.
But this was a small and temporal victory. It's time to start fighting back against Ticket Booth Fascism. Who put these arrogant movie chain execs and clerks in charge of our movie-making decisions? What gives them the right to interfere with our ability to decide what our kids can see? How can movie chains - of all institutions -- buy into the profoundly stupid and demonstrably false idea that movies featuring explicit language and sex contribute to tragedies like Columbine?
In practical terms, don't they grasp that they are simply teaching a whole generation how to get their movies on the Net and the Web - something that will be quite simple in a year or so for millions of Americans -- rather than go to theaters and subject themselves to patronizing, humiliating - and completely pointless - hassles? Haven't theater chains ever ever heard the term "MP3?"
Monday, Part Two: a proposal: Take a Geek Kid To A Restricted Movie Day.
I went to see Shindler List and thee cinema was full of eleven and twelve year old school kid, God knows why and how their teacher got them in there.
Afterwards, they all looked tramatised, surely "The Diary of Anne Frank" would have been preferable, that film made me feel ill, and I used to be a fairly active anti-fascist, and have been well training in the way of the Nazis.
Seems to be a trend in America to over-protect everything.. mainly children.
I can see a child sheltered all his life have his first girlfriend dump him and lose his mind. I think that's a LOT worse than the same situation happening to a child that knows how to deal with emotional situations.
Also, would the ten commandments posted in a high school stop a kid who has been tormented by other students from feeling like crap? No. I would gather that teased children would resent god more than others.
_PARENTS_ are going to have to be a lot responsible. Absent and uncaring parents are what's causing a lot of this.
As the age of many posters here on Slashdot is probably less than what is required to see an R-rated movie, I would expect many of the posts to agree with Katz here. Personally, I'm not so sure I do. Katz says that if the parents says it's okay for their kids to see a movie, then they should be able to see it, no matter what the age. But I would say one of the problems with kids today is that their parents don't take enough responsibility. Certainly that was one of the issues with the Columbine shootings. Now if the parents are unable to be responsible for their kids, shouldn't the government try to do something to prevent the cycle from becoming worse? I would prefer if the government didn't have to be involved, but I don't think the bad parents are getting much better. Parents should (try to) know if their kids are mature enough to see such a film. I'm sure that some 12 year olds can watch the movie and enjoy it with no problem. But there are probably plenty of 12 year olds (probably some 18 year olds too!) who get nothing but negative emotion and reinforcement of bad behavior from the movie. It all depends on the person.
I don't think the theater did anything wrong. They're not perfect certainly, but at least they are trying to be responsible.
Don't you think there maybe problems more important in the world than kids having to rent their porno instead of sneaking into the theater like they did in the good old days?
Your ability to ramble on ENDLESSLY about the most trivial of subject matters truly amazes me.
OOH! OOH! TYRANNY! Little Billy has to go with is PARENTS to southpark! OH MY GOD STOP THE FREAKING PRESSES!
As for "most of the parents that read /.", I doubt that you speak for them either. (And "Satanism in South Park"? Sheesh. Give me a break. There's a difference between portraying Satan and portraying the worship of Satan.)
What Katz was (or should) be proud of is fighting a moronic system that wants to supersede the judgment of children's parents. As for being proud of helping them see South Park, I don't think it's something to be either "proud" or "not proud" of; it's just a movie. Get a grip.
As a geek kid (16) myself who was turned away from seeing Matrix at the theater not to long ago, I have to say I'm really fed up with this whole system. I can't remember a time when I was turned away from the ticket counter, and suddenly 3 months away from being 17 I'm not allowed to watch a movie (which happens to have no harsh language, little violence and no sexually explicit scenes). Come on. In Europe the TV stations are anything goes after 9 PM, and in the states 16 year olds aren't allowed to watch 'R' movies. When will the politics end?
In regard to moral limitations being worthwhile -- it's one thing to prevent your kids from seeing a movie that you feel is immoral. But what's really immoral is preventing my kids from doing so if I want them to, or forcing me to accompany them if I deem it unnecessary.
While you may view South Park as "crud", others do not, and do not appreciate you preaching your values to them, or judging them ("unfit to be a mother", forsooth!). I seem to recall something in the Bible about being judgmental..
As for school prayer -- reserving a period for school prayer is clearly unconstitutional. If students want to pray on their own time, before meals at school, whatever, that's perfectly fine. But institutionalizing it as a universal school policy is quite another, even if you want to pretend that it's okay because "it's optional". The fact of the matter is that by formally setting aside school time for school prayer (or "personal contemplation" or whatever the religious right wants to disguise it as) is respecting the establishment of religion and is unconstitutional. As is posting the Ten Commandments in governmental institutions such as schools or courtrooms. Don't you dare call this "religious discrimination", you hypocrite.
Right ON! I couldn't agree more. This guy is proud of himself for lying and cheating and taking a bunch of kids to see Southpark. I thought the movie sucked. It was unoriginal and unfunny (except for Saddam). I It seems that Mr. Katz can point out everyone else's problems but he has no solutions. When the Columbine thing happened, he blamed parents for not raising their children right, now he is saying that a good parent would leave their kids at SouthPark. Just becuase "They could get it off of the Net anyway" does not make it a good thing to do.
You shouldn't over generalize. Perhaps you dislike Mr. Katz, but your blatant hatred and anger that you express in your post shows that you are closed minded. You show your ignorance by assuming that this is a purely generational issue. I for one, am an adult, and a parent, and I think this article was well written, clear, and expresses a point which I happen to agree with. Your bashing of it without any justification is not only offensive, but it makes me side more wholeheartedly with open - minded types.
As for South Park sucking, that's not the point. The point is whether parents have the right to let their children watch the movie if they choose.
In terms of pointing out problems, the first step to a solution is recognizing there's a problem. And he did attempt a solution -- a non-ideal solution because of the absurd rules, but a solution nonetheless. He should've never been put in a situation where his solution was necessary in the first place.
And no, Katz was not saying that a good parent would leave their kids at South Park. He was saying that a parent has the right to do so if they choose.
Has some new law been passed or something? It seems that theaters are doing this all over the place. I'm 24 and I got carded for an R-rated movie a week or two ago; it's the first time I've been carded for anything.
you would be overreactive also if say for letting these dumb kids into a theatre you could get hit with a thousand dollar fine for EACH person and if its bad enough you get jail time. That is something that people seem to forget. Its not just that we don't have spines. Would you risk your hard earned money or possibly have jail time so that a bunch of 12 year year olds can go see american pie or southpark?
I think that this crackdown is silly as well and that there should be a focus on guns instead. But you should acknowledge that there is a relationship between seeing and doing. If there wasn't why am I constantly saturated by advertising? The concept is that if kids see a bunch of Nike and coke ads they will want to drink only coke and wear only nike shoes. With the young people I know this seems to have worked. So if they see violence, sex and profanity they will want that too. I have seen my fair share of R rated movies and saw quite a few before I was 18. I don't think it did great harm, but I am a lot more desensitized to violence then my parents are.
I think part of this problem is that both sides try very hard not to see the point of view of the other side.
Because, of course, every parent has the same opinions about how to raise their children - and needs all the help they can get from government and movie theatres to enforce those judgements, whether they like it or not.
God forbid our children should see Satan portrayed in any light but a negative one. God forbid they should hear the word "fuck". God forbid they should grow up without being taught that someone else has to make their decisions for them and they have no say over their own lives - why, that might mean the end of representative democracy as we know it...
Or are they supposed to magically learn responsibility with the wave of the magic age-of-majority pixie's wand?
Schools, laws, and parents spend altogether too much time teaching children, as a side-effect of virtually every policy, that they have no right to make decisions affecting their own lives. This message sinks in at the most impressionable time of their lives, and probably accounts for why most adults are complacent slobs who let corrupt government and evil corporate earth-murderers run their lives by Manufactured Consent.
That's my two cents. That and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee.
Seeing your previous post, I doubt this is going to change your mind, but here we go:
1) South Park is a SATIRE. Can you say SATIRE? I knew you could. If you could, for one second, look beneath the fart jokes, you'd see that generally, it is used for pointing out the ridiculousness of the USA's policies, culture, and just all out stupidity.
2) Freedom of speech is exactly what we're TALKING ABOUT. Apparently, for you, freedom of speech is only a concern when the speech that is being oppressed is something you agree with. To quote Benjamin Franklin, although not directly, but as directly as my caffeine-induced state will allow: "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
3) Reactionism is something that SHOULD be bemoaned. If you allow it to continue, it gets worse. Pretty soon, we're back to the good old days of post-columbine oppression, where anybody who doesn't look "normal" must be inherently evil. Sounds like fun, doesn't it? [/sarcasm]
You need to look a little beyond your obviously narrow worldview.
It has to do with the 10 Commandments because passing laws allowing them to be posted in courtrooms and schools is another example of right-wing Christians trying to force their morality on others; this is also what is responsible for the recent draconian attitudes in movie theaters, in the wake of Columbine etc. No, not all Christians advocate the 10 Commandments in courtrooms and schools, but those who don't probably aren't behind all the other morality pushes either. Katz was perfectly within his right to make the comparison, and he certainly made no broad statements about all Christians -- but you cannot deny that this attitude is primarily originating from Christians (specifically the conservative right) either.
Alta tell me your not a parent...For the good of Humanity whatever you do, DO NOT REPRODUCE PLEASE. :)
If you actually think he did it seeking someone's approval you are slower than I thought.
Judging by your reactions maybe YOUR children should not see it, it sounds as if they are not mature enough, or have a inherent genetic flaw, hard to imagine where that originated from
archfeld@hotmail.com
Bloody bible bashing boobs of the world, the nutty Christian Nation of the USA deserves every piece of crap it gets. 10 commandments in schools? Why not, give it a few more years and you yanks will all be burning heretics at the stake again.
And the rest of the world will just continue to laugh at you.
Get a clue before it's too late USA. Your bible bashing fundies are rotting you from the inside out, these "knee jerk ethics" of your huge mega corporations are just one outcome of it all.
Religion != ethics. Knowledge != rebellion. Words != actions. USA != country worth living in.
Actually the reason for the rating system american theaters have is to prevent government intrusion. Back in the 40s the government was going to create a mandatory rating system. The studios were worried this would lead to government intervention in all aspects of movie making.
Basically the studios regulate themselves to avoid government regulation. Internet communities have attempted to do this (unsuccessfully) also.
I agree. Things are very depressing in this world. Such as the current Woodstock having little relation to the original one except bands and a lot of people...and now tacky gift shops selling nostalgic "hippy" clothes. No one realizes the major hypocrisy. "It's all about peace, love, BEER, NAKED WOMEN, DRUGS, AND KICK ASS BANDS!!! WOO, WOODSTOCK!!"
My mother who is very right-wing and fundamentalist Christian was like "cool, Woodstock" and she started singing and anti-Vietnam war song...the ironic thing is she has nothing against the US's current wars or anything. George Orwell's predictions were way too correct.
Finally, somone who understands what it means to be libertarian! JonKatz doesn't have a clue as to what it means.
The problem with the movie situation is that we allow the government (or the motion picture association under government threat) to sensor who is allowed to see a particular movie. And then we get upset when the movie theater upholds the policy. Don't get mad at the theater get mad at the stupid government.
if only we where free nation...
Sheesh. What a whiner. This kind of attitude is no different from the "we need the right to carry guns" attitude. America's whole problem is with its obsession with rights.
Stuff like this:
What gives them the right to interfere with
our ability to decide what our kids can see?
is just bullshit. They are putting the films on
for you, if you don't want to watch them under thier rules then don't go. You can show your kids
whatever you like in the comfort of your own home
and noone will care.
Personally, I think that given the level of bad
language in south park it is not really appropriate for kids.
Then again kids seeing shindlers list in my opinion is good. They may be shocked yes. But what about if you took a young hitler to a film like it, would he have turned out the same way?
Maybe, but maybe not.
Evil and cruel people have been around Long before TV and Films. The human reace has to find its own way through, not become robots in a 1984 type situation.
If you took that film as a training exercise in being a nazi you are a ******* idiot.
Brad
(A gypo)
Among other things, my church says simply "don't watch R rated movies." That might sound extreme, but if you're trying to keep up your spiritual sensitivity it's good advice.
What if the parents don't do the homework, "oh well, screw the kids"? Carding teenagers to R movies is a great idea. And I think violence is as bad as porn, as the former devalues human life, and the latter removes the respect for women, degrading them to pieces of meat. When was the last time you saw a roomfull of men stand up when a woman entered?
Katz, what are you thinking? Don't you see, you're the problem with America? If a woman doesn't have time for her kids, she should either not have had kids, or she should MAKE TIME FOR THEM! You're just helping her mess up her kids.
By the way [from your previous article], even your liberal buddies have by now grasp that the Monica flap was because of Billy's LIES, not because of the sex. Get with it.
And why is it that the Christian viewpoints are never given a score higher than +2, but anti-Christian posts are given an average of +4? Moderators, use your mind rather than your heart!
Tweaking authority figures is a national pasttime in our country, and it's a great hobby. I find it hillareous that John tweaked not only a cop, some prepubescent dweeby selling tickets and a theater manager but a self righteous fart like yourself who probably has no sense of humor and just as probably never saw the movie.
It's very odd that Jews are a lot more fun despite the fact that their god is a hell of a lot less forgiving than yours. Maybe in another couple of thousand years the christans will get their collective heads out of their collective asses, too.
It has been found that children from all levels of aggression were more aggressive after seeing a violent movie.
Quebec has a different movie rating system than the rest of North America... the South Park movie is rated 13 years and over.
Plus the drinking age is 18...
The Southpark movie not only deals with getting in to R rated movies without a parent (By getting some homeless guy to buy tickets for a bottle of booze) and also the rampant finger pointing that goes on in society today. About half of the posters here wouldn't get that irony seeing as how they wouldn't be caught dead seeing the movie because it might offend their morals. That's fine, but do not presume to inflict your insipid morals on me. If you don't have the sense of humor to laugh at yourselves, that's OK too, I'll laugh at you, too. A lot of you sound like Kyle's mom. But you wouldn't get that joke either, would you? that's OK, the other half did.
For those of you STILL going on about the Columbine thing, that topic has grown quite odious. If you think your neighbors are too distracted to notice that their little darlings are accumulating quite the arsenal, perhaps YOU should take an interest in your community. As someone once said "We're all in this together." Even the humorless Jesus bozos.
Finally, John, good job. Your performance was quite discordian and I'm proud of you. We all know that under 18 (Well, up to 24) you're going to have a harder time than you do as an adult. Some adults forget that fact after they hit 18 or 21 or 24 or whatever it is for them. Their attitude is "I don't have to put up with that anymore so I don't care about it." That's really doing our youngsters a disservice and is one of the reasons they're getting disgruntled enough to go around killing people.
If you hate America so much, then get out. I'm sure some of the Cubans have an empty boat they'd be willing to sell you in Florida.
Anyway, no one is talking about throwing out Christian beliefs, just keeping them from being forced upon our theaters, courtrooms, schools, etc.
Oh sorry, my mistake. I thought America was actually a democracy and you voted in your own government.
Out of interest, assuming there was no governmental regulation of what was put on in the theatres and the ratings they got given would you have no problem with kids going along to see porn/extreme violence films. Is there any kind of
film you wouldnt want your own kids (if you had them) see ? And if kids could only go to see them
if their own parents let them , how do you check
that a given kid is really the child of the person
saying 'its ok for him to see it' and how do you
draw a difference between the 'yeah ive thought
long and hard about it and i dont mind my kid seeing this porn film' and the "duh-what day is it?" dont-give-a-shit-anyway kind of parenting, or do you not even try to bother ?
I suspect it's one of those cases in which the theater follows government policy for fear of getting in Big Trouble, even though the government doesn't have the authority to enforce that policy. Classic for a police state.
Movie theaters are not required to uphold the MPAA's recommendations except as a condition of their voluntary membership in trade associations. Truly independent movie theaters are free, under the law, to show whatever movies they like, regardless of rating, and to make their own determinations about whom they will allow to see those movies, and then to defend those determinations in court. The only problem is that the trade associations (and law enforcement, under pressure from "civic morality" groups) will make this a stressful and expensive exercise for the unwary.
The US has a lot of indirect private regulation by threat of public regulation. Libertarians should note that private rating systems imposed under the threat of public rating systems (e.g. MPAA, V-chip...) are not voluntary.
Lying is wrong when it misleads someone into doing something inappropriate. Katz' lie (which could hardly have actually fooled them) allowed the theater staff to do the appropriate thing, which is treat those people like any other consenting customers.
Contrary to what many of you think here, kids are impressionable. They are not born with an already intact sense of morals, values and an understanding of our world and society. They learn if from their surrounding environment-mostly when they are young, but people always adapt to their surroundings. I think many of the ultra-liberals, concerned more about their freedoms, forget that people abuse these freedoms to make money. A good example of this is the media-TV and movies which open people's eyes, usually due to sex and violence. Most of the movies people see now have significant amounts of both.
The problem with violence in our society, as I see it, is not directly linked to our media (TV/movies), as is the current mainstream opinion. However, the whole 'generation X' and the one after has been completely saturated with violence-and it has to have SOME impact upon the viewer. I must have seen thousands of people die on television, and killed millions more on quake type games. I'm not about to run out and go on a shooting rampage, as I'm sure millions of other gamers won't either. But when you have kids in an unstable family, where the parents don't teach a good sense of values and morals in the first place, the addition of gatuitous violence doesn't help. This is where violence in our society starts-a combination of violence and lack of morals and standards.
Seems to me that the American family needs more help than anything, and government regulations and theatres refusing to sell tickets to minors are mere stopgaps to help prevent a bad situation from getting worse. Unfortunately, these have little real impact, because we live in a society where we have a lot of freedom, so government intevention is minimal.
Instead of bitching about the government, why don't you take a look at the bigger picture, and issues such as the general degradation of the quality of life in the freest country in the world?
Who here was certain the author actually knew what he was talking about, despite a glaring error that makes him sound like he's just randomly dropping names of k3w7 tech?
No, I got it right: "ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." You may be confused over how the word "respect" is being used in this context.
Thanks. Every once in a while I feel tempted to make broad generalizations about Christian behavior, and people like you remind me not to.
There's no easily accessible "parent-of" biometric. If the Man gives the theater grief, they can point at the adult who's allegedly the guardian and they're off the hook; it's more convincing than "well, some guy said it was okay and then left".
One thing that these moral crusaders don't seem to stop and consider is: Why don't other countries showing the same hollywood films (usually with little or no censorship) experience a chain of schoolyard massacres? Bad enough that a meaningless, band-aid solution is being applied. But what is truly disgusting is seeing people using such an event to push their own agendas.
that's a civil liberties issue, the sort of thing that libertarians and liberals generally tend to agree about.
You mean liberals like Tipper Gore and Bill Clinton? Or maybe liberals like Andrea Dworkin? Let's get real here: the religious right and the politically correct share one glaring character flaw: the BOTH want to dictate other people's behavior!
> > As an agnostic, and an American I find this > > religious bombardment offensive. > I by "religious bombardment" you mean the > protestations of Christians whose lawful > ability to speak prayer or assemble peacefully > in public schools is being abrogated, Nonsense. Schools don't forbid before/after-school private prayer groups, praying at lunches, etc. What they forbid is a school policy setting aside classroom time for "prayer time". > Yes, separation of _church_ and state. Yeah, the part where a religion starts dicating the behavior of the government. You're as much of an idiot on /. as you are on Usenet, Peck. Too bad I don't have my killfile here.
Try living in a country where they cut out your tongue if you criticize the government.
Fat, lazy americans have it so good, and are so spoiled, that they think their "rights" have been violated when they can't go to a porno movie when they are 13.
Give me a break.
Yeah I agree, I think liquor age and cigarette age laws are oppressive too so
I'm going to buy booze and cigarettes for any kid that asks me. Jon Katz has inspired me to do this!
Some people have a moral problem with honoring rules they don't agree with. Ever hear of "conscientious objection"? It doesn't just only apply to military service.
>Ooh, I'd love to see the NC-17 version of Robocop.
Get the "Citreon" (sp?) version (silver case) on DVD (there is a standard [edited] theater version on DVD too, be careful!)
As for what was edited, let's just say that we never saw the ED-209 operating at it's full potential!
Students do not currently have to say a prayer in a public school. It is illegal to force them to do this. Somehow the Religious Right has magically got it into their collective head that it is illegal to pray in school. This is clearly ridiculous, since there is obviously no way of monitoring every thought that goes through a student's head.
The real problem is that people believe whatever their religious leaders tell them, when the religious leaders are every bit as politically motivated as Congressmen.
Good luck convincing people to give up their guns though - people in America take a dim view of someone showing up at their house demanding that they give their gun, which they bought legally, to the government.
you people really get on my nerves. I've worked at a movie theatre and in the case of the managers of the theatre. they don't care. the workers don't care. the state and the media care. The fine for letting kids into movies can be up to $1000 a person as well as jailtime if the amount of kids is high enough. Also, the media LOVES to try and get kids to buy tickets for movies and make the theatre out to be some horrid, evil troll-creature. when you trash on the movie theatres, remember this: ITS NOT US ITS THE DAMN GOV'T! sorry for being mean but this stuff REALLY gets on my nerves.
May the day never come to pass when this nation
is governed by right-wing fundamentalist Christians, for it
might be called the Christian Reich. Christianity
over its two millennia has done a lot of evil
(Crusades, Inquisition, etc.).
I was very heartened by the [march of apology] to those wronged by the
Crusaders and the like.
Might I remind you that the theater owners WERE doing what they wanted - they were selling tickets to R-rated films to people of all ages. In the post-Columbine hysteria, the government strongarmed theater owners into the current stringent restrictions. A very un-libertarian thing, in my opinion.
read the law. do you think the theatres would care if it weren't a law? The theatre i worked for didn't care at all about the R rating. However, Legally they were required. Its law.
> These are the rules. We do still follow rules in America right?
Ok, new rule. You cannot read Slashdot anymore, ever again.
That's the intent, sure, but the government should never be allowed to determine whether any form of speech can be regulated within the limits of the Constitution. I think the conflict of interest there is quite obvious.
subject.
"Everyone's Gone To The Movies
Kids, if you want some fun,
Mister La Page is your man;
He's always laughing, having fun,
Showing his films in his den.
Come on, come on.
Soon you will be eighteen,
I think you know what I mean
Don't tell your mamma, your daddy or mamma,
They'll never know where you've been.
Everyone's gone to the movies, now we're alone at last;
Everyone's gone to the movies, now we're alone at last.
Listen to what I say,
He wants to show you the way
Right down the hallway with open arms
To teach you a new game to play.
Come on, come on.
Soon it will be too late,
Bobbing for apples can wait;
I know you're used to sixteen or more,
Sorry we only have eight
Everyone's gone to the movies, now we're alone at last;
Everyone's gone to the movies, now we're alone at last.
[solo]
Come on, come on.
Kids, if you want some fun,
See what you never have seen;
Take off your cheaters sit right down,
Start the projection machine.
Everyone's gone to the movies, now we're alone at last;
Everyone's gone to the movies, now we're alone at last..."
what preferences is there with the 10 commandments?
To begin with, what version of the 10 commandments would you put up? The jewish, catholic, or one of the protestant versions. Yes they are different. We used to have daily bible readings in public schools (and in a devotional way, not as literary criticism). But you know what, there were riots over what version of the bible should be read.
It was Voltaire.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Of course, Voltaire was also a satirist.
it's on the basis of Christ's moral authority alone that we Christians claim our salvation! And claim it, we do. To the original poster, God bless.
That's good. You are free to claim you and your groups salvation. But please remember not all of us go by your beliefs. Please leave those of us who do not out of them.
doing that and teaching her kids about responsible drinking would be a hell of a lot better than them drinking for the first time with their friends who knows where.
(of course maybe 12 is a little young but at least by the time they reach high school)
This is a crock of s**t.
A Bible studies group is specifically there to study religion.
A gay/lesbian group is _not_ specifically there to oppose religion. There may be some religions that don't like it, but just because a religion doesn't like what a group is doing does not mean it is an anti-religion group. There are religions that preach vegetarianism--would it therefore be wrong to have a cooking club which cooks meat dishes, because it's anti-religion?
I don't see how libertarianism and Christianity are in any way in conflict.
Certainly the authoritarians in the CC and other right-wing control-thy-neighbour groups are in conflict with libertarianism, but those groups use Christianity only as an excuse for their fascism.
Love and respect thy neighbour are excellent starting points for Liberty.
I always get a chuckle when I go into a store to find a CD or a book and the clerk says "we can order it for you". Lady. I can order it for me. And it won't take two weeks.
The reality of the Net still hasn't struck home for many. They don't understand that a whole new world is boiling just underneath the surface of their attention span.
But they will. Oh yes.
When citizens cannot legislate for themselves, the standards that they wish to uphold due to
interference by Judicial Activism, then this
country (US) amounts to nothing more than
Judicial Tyranny. So much for true libertarianism!
So legislate it for yourself. Pass a law that says _you_ cannot go see these movies. Or, just exercise your option to not go. No one is forcing you to go to see South Park. So I don't want to hear about you trying to keep someone from exercising their option to do so.
Just saw this on a second reading:
It would tend to inflame the passions of such a pastor especially if that pastor is celibate and/or single.
Heh. So you don't even trust your own pastor to behave himself? If you don't trust yourself in that situation, then why should I trust you to tell me how to behave?
"Hey, chill with the personal attacks. Now, I'm an agnostic, but I've studied enough to be roughly aware of where he's coming from. Acceptance of a
religion implies accepting *all* of it (I *despise* people who claim a faith, and then pick and choose whatever matches with their politics; spawn off a
new sect, instead...), and that usually includes a belief that such a religion is the *truth*, and there is a duty to live by it..."
OK, so far I agree with you whole-heartedly...
"...and spread it."
...and this is where I stop. Spreading your religion should not necessarily be allowed. If I come up to you and start asking questions; I'm not saying you shouldn't answer them. However, when you feel the need to preach to the masses in order to convince them of the One True Way(TM) I get upset. Too many people have died because of someone feeling the need to convert the heathens.
Of course, this doesn't even begin to cover the people knocking at the door every third week...
You're confused all right :)
Here it goes:
G - General Audience. Anybody who wants to see it can see it.
PG - Parental Guidance Suggested. Anybody who wants to see it can see it, but parents are advised to use their own judgement as to whether their kids should see it.
PG-13 - Same as PG, but applies to children as old as 13 years old (as opposed to PG, which generally only includes younger children)
R - Nobody under 17 admitted without a parent
NC-17 - Nobody under 17 admitted regardless of parental supervision. [ie. if you're under 17, they don't care if your parents don't mind, you are NOT going into the theatre no matter what]
Hope that helps. Of course, there is always good ol' X, XX, and XXX... but I'm sure you can figure those out yourself!
Let me just say that if you showed Thomas Jefferson our current State-controlled school system, funded by punitive taxes, he would be _appalled_.
And hey, I think we should teach kids to worship Allah in school, 'cause my kids do it. Hope your kids don't mind too much.
The fact the theater has the movie, and will show it to children if (and only if) an adult is there to pass the blame on to, pretty clearly shows the theater has established this policy only under duress from the government.
"Most accidents happen within ten miles of your home. You should probably move." :)
As a Christian in this nation I say enough is enough.
As a non-Christian in this nation I say -- tough noogies.
I am not going to live by YOUR ideas or ideals. You are allowed to live your life as you see fit, but you are not allowed to live MY life as YOU see fit.
You leave me alone, I'll leave you alone.
You try to force your Christian beliefs into the law and make me live according to your religious ideas... and I'll send you to see your "god" a damn sight sooner than you had intended on doing so.
And one 29-year-old who thinks that thousands of pounds of hurtling metal (without concentration and rational planning and study) and neurotoxin (especially at an age the brain is still forming) can be harmful in ways ideas simply can't.
The ACLU forgot one amendment, so it's important for members to also support the NRA. Unless of course you want the rest of your rights to be optional.
Katz doesn't understand libertarianism. It's about freedom; it's not about breaking laws if you don't like them. As a Christian, I would not see SP myself, and I from what I've heard it is pointlessly vulgar. I've no objection to other people seeing it, but I find Katz's actions hypoctritical and morally incorrect for two reasons. First, the mother was using a vulgar movie as a babysitter; so much for holding parents accountable. If she didn't mind her children seeing a movie identified as unsuitable for children, she should have gone with them. Second, we have rules in this society. Our society holds together because we obey them, even silly ones and ones we don't like. There are procedures for changing them. As a libertarian, I think we can get rid of many rules. In the mean time I will obey those rules. I'm all for not forcing my values on others, but every time someone breaks a law, they are forcing their values on society. After all, if we can't control ourselves when we have rules, how are we supposed to control ourselves without rules? Katz's actions are more consistent with chaotic anarchy, and I strongly disapprove.
Does this story not make anyone else wonder about the parent involved?
"I've got to get to work, and rather than explain to my brats why they can't see a movie that's probably not appropriate for them anyway, I'll just give them over to this strange man who is telling people that he is a priest in order to get his hands on them..."
Great.
Yep, the wellbeing of kids should be left entirely to their parents, who always put the kids' best interests before their own convenience...
I don't think it ultra liberal so much as it's just not arch conservative. What we need is to look at what society values and what it does not and what will make the lives of humans better. Restricting life experience to a small wedge of life can only hurt someone. The perception is that if we are more liberal with laws then we will end up causing some major problem wherin people are coerced to become evil and have no choice. Interestingly back in the 1950/60's there was no rating system and look at how we feel about these periods of time: blissful nostalgia. Why is this? Because the times had fewer restrictions that is the message.
I mean, who the hell do you think you are to say that a parent shouldn't have the right to decide what their kid sees and hears? Who are you to try to deny people their basic rights (in this case access to information) because you don't agree with the source?
Yep, there it is in the UN Declaration of Human Rights: The right to dump your kids at some crappy movie.
Please. Denial of "basic rights"? If seeing the South Park movie is so important to the development of her children, that parent could bring them back another day when she had the time to watch it with them. More likely, she was just concerned with getting rid of the kids so she could get to work. If you want a movie theatre to be your kids' parents, maybe you should let that movie theatre be your kids' parents.
Nobody is denying anybody access to information in this situation. Frankly, the American obsession with individual rights, taken to this extent (dellusions about what actually constitutes a basic right), is the basic cause of so many of the troubles that make you, the most economically successful nation on earth, the laughing stock of the rest of the industrialized world.
I posted this already in response to this, but /. apparently ate it. That, or my proxy server ate it. Anyways...
:)
The US Rating System:
G: General Audiences. Anybody can see it.
PG: Parental Guidance Suggested. Anybody can see it, but parents are advised to use their own judgement as to whether small children should see it.
PG-13: Same as PG, but applies to those as old as 13 (whereas PG only really applies to younger children)
R: Nobody under 17 admitted without a parent
NC-17: Nobody under 17 admitted no matter what, regardless of parental permission.
Of course, there are always the old favorites, X, XX, and XXX.... but I think you can figure those out yourself
What part of "congress shall make no law" do people not understand?
The so called 'rating system' is blatently unconstitutional. So is the FCC, any limitation of the Internet, encryption, or anytype of commication medium what so ever!
Grow some balls. DEFY THEM!
You have a completely idealistic view of how to
..lets see...10...then I think you are
bring up kids and the complexities involved. When
it is your money that is paying for your kids to
do everything, then you will find that you wont
be giving them money for things they want to do that you are not happy about. So effectively you
will be censoring their view of the world and
what they can do in it.
I think most people agree that porn and extreme
violence is not good for a childs upgringing. If
you let a kid spend your money to go to films like
this aged
being an extremely poor parent.
I come down sorta in the middle of this being a a geek, but in the older age bracket...
Interestingly enough, few people have talked about the content of the South Park movie itself, which ironically enough is about overprotective parents ushering in an era of fascist censorship. The movie is worth seeing, because though it pokes fun at practically everything, there is an ominous thread of portents for the future as far as our political approach is concerned. Substitute Yugoslavia for the "enemy to the north" and come up with some more socially believable arguments, and you're getting closer to our current situation. All of the cussing and porn references are just our current "cultural" backdrop, and representative of both the degradation and the opening up of moral boundaries within our society. We should understandably be concerned with the loss of moral center and spirituality in favor of materialism, but these things cannot be provided by an older religious or parental moral attitude towards anything "dirty". To me what's dirty is 8 hours of major media coverage for the death of yet another handsome young man who happened to have the last name Kennedy, in order to improve ratings. We are through the looking glass, people , and what is really dangerous nowadays is the sacrifice of absolutely everything to the rampant capitalist corporate money machine.
The use of MPAA ratings is even more limited than that--attempts to give them the force of law in certain communities have been struck down as unconstitutional by the courts. For more information on the particular cases, look at http://www.spectacle.org/cs/library.html. This paper is primarily on the use of internet filters in libraries, but discusses the MPAA court cases in section III.
I'm a Republican. I've been one since I was 15 (about 12 years), and I can assure you that her ideas are neither Republican nor fascist. She is a hypocritical phony whose shock talk is designed to appeal to the same kind of mindless idiots who call psychic hotlines. She may call herself a Republican, but that doesn't mean she is representative of the party.
Often accidentally, which is the strongest argument for sex education. Inflicting children on unwilling parents is a disaster all around.
The potential for deadly force can and is used to defend life (and liberty, which IMHO is the higher goal) from those who would destroy it. Often one need not actually employ it - the fact that you aren't a willing victim is enough.
Actually, most X-rated movies aren't "obscene" (legal standard) because any distribution of "obscene" materials, even to adults, is illegal. The X-rated movies are almost certain to meet legal standards of "indecent", "patently offensive", and "harmful to minors".
John, you've gone and done something morally bankrupt. Shame on you!
For better or worse, we have laws that govern what movies can and can not be shown to children, and under what circumstances. Those laws state that for movies with a certain rating, children must be accompanied by an adult - an adult, it is presumed, who can make decisions on if the children must be removed from the theater if the movie is too disturbing etc., or at the very least can answer the minor's questions and provide guidance once the movie is over.
That's not facism, that's responsibility.
Now I don't subscribe to the belief that a movie can directly cause tragedy like Columbine, nor (being a devout Athiest) do I feel that a movie, no matter how repugnant, endangers anyone's soul.
But I do believe that laws are in place for a good reason, and that we have a moral obligation as citizens to obey and enforce them.
Tell me, how are your actions different from, say, acting as a lookout for graffiti vandals? Or shoplifting? Or stealing cable service?
But what I find most ironic is that you contributed to one of the problems the South Park movie skewers the most - delinquent parents. If those children's parents had cared enough to see the movie with their kids, instead of using the movie theater as a cheap babysitter, then there would have been no need for your "noble" act.
Say, there's very little difference between you and the homeless guy used by the South Park crew at the beginning of the movie, isn't there?
At least _his_ motives were honest.
Shame on you, John!
/Off to the movies we will go/
/where we learn everything that we know/
/because our parents don't have time enough to care!/
Recognise that stanza? It's from the opening song in South Park. How appropriate.
(Yes, I saw Soth Park. Yes, I laughed my Canadian ass off. And no, I don't think it was appropriate for children)
I agree that Katz' lying was stupid and potentially damaging to the children. I also agree that the "mother" should have her priorities seriously re-aligned.
But I do see more and more evidence of religious intolerance everywhere.
You might be right about prayer in schools being an issue. How would you like to listen to me praying in school? How would you like to have me offer a class prayer at graduation?
Think about this the next time you see the 10 Commandments somewhere other than a church. Think about having them replaced with a pentacle, or a chalice and athame.
Religion is fine in your church and in your home. But it should NOT put one foot past either threshold EXCEPT in your heart and your actions.
I will respect your right to whatever you believe as long as I don't have to see it or hear it. If I must be subjected to public displays of your religion, it is only fair that I get equal time.
"Today's High School Christmas play will be followed by the ceremonial sacrifice of the Green Man and the birth of the Horned God."
They rock. Muppets rocked.
Well said fellow anonymous coward.
Religion in schools is NOT an elective.
As I've stated in a post above, I'm Wiccan. If I made Valedictorian, would you have a problem with me offering a prayer of thanks and a request for our lives to be guided by the Horned God and the Goddess?
My religion is not "Satanism" but Satanism IS a recognized religion. Do you want your children to have a warlock leading the class in a prayer?
As for your whinging about "denied Christian freedoms" -- Christians have a right to pray if they want. They do not have a right to make prayer time an official policy of a state-run school.
... about religious discrimination. I was just reading a story in Time today about how a whole bunch of 'good honest christians' (including Strom Therman) were going balistic because they heard the Army had recognized wicca as a valid religion. Guess they hadn't heard about that little thing we have in the US called 'freedom of religion'.
Oh! I forgot, they think that means 'freedom of any christian religion' and it only religious discrimination if it's against christians. If you beat up some heathens it's being 'rightous'. Right, sure.
The courts seem to agree that the Constitution applies to public schools.
I'm not insulting anyone. To the contrary, you're being insulting in suggesting that no one ever could or should stand up for what they believe in if it doesn't happen to involve going to war.
I really cant understand how that reply got moderated up.
When the christian right complain about sex/violence on tv, the standard reply is "if you dont want to see it then dont watch it but dont stop others watching it". Now when a theatre (a private building, rather than having something beamed into your own home) decides to show a film, stopping people under a certain age going in alone, when confronted with "if you dont want to be under those restrictions then dont go" the response is "thats the beginning of discrimination and control". Would someone care to explain why ?
Heck, even the Iranian government is starting to recommend birth control, last I heard.. they wouldn't be doing that if it weren't a problem!
Hey, not all of us adults are that bad! If you were my daughter I'd spank you for saying that.
It comes down to this:
I don't have a problem with you telling your kid what they can or can't watch.
I have a problem with you telling my kid what they can or can't watch.
"Well, too bad for you. I don't believe that there are _any_ "moral absolutes". As far as I can tell, belief in such is the primary motivator for racism, genocide, and other wonderful things the world religions are so fond of."
You don't believe in any moral absolutes, yet it seems you are implying that racism, genocide, and (to a lesser degree) moral absolutism are morally wrong.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. ;)
Reality check time.
She didn't know Jon.
She did know that he was probably lying about being a priest.
And she still trusted him with her children.
And you don't think this is more than a little negligent on her part?
Now, because it was Jon, everything turned out peachy.
Suppose it had been Chester. You're opinion would certainly have been different once their bodies started turning up.
Jon, why are you surprised? This is Christianity In Action. From the Christian perspective you can't let the kiddies get the idea that sex is alright, or that violence is not. Consider the consequences. How can you convince them that they are "sinners" if you don't teach them that sex is "dirty" first? The most sexually perverted individuals in the world (celibate priests) derive a good deal of their power from convincing people that the feelings every normal individual has are manifestations of "sin.' Follow this up with a series of contradictory "beliefs" which the individual must pound into his brain and accept on "faith" (the absolute cessation of reason, in other words) and you have a real winner of a control system. Using these techniques the priest can destroy any child's innate reasoning abilities and teach him, instead, to react without thought and to fear "burning in hell" if he gets out of line. The priest's line, of course. Or the States. This is a great system for maintaining power. Now consider the traditional uses of violence, which is alright to expose impressionable young minds to from the Christian point of view, even desirable. Historically, European Christians have been the meanest and most despicable people in the world. They will kill anyone that they can convince themselves are "of another group" and gleefully steal their property if their leaders whip them up properly. Look at our behavior toward the Native Americans. Look at the behavior of the Christian Serbs toward their Kosavar neighbors. This ability to view another people as "other than" our own group has made European Christians the scourge of the earth . . . and very successful as conquerors. However, nobody can behave in so despicable a fashion that has not been previously brainwashed to give up rational thought in favor of blind adherence to authority figures. You've got to "keep the faith," baby. So, from the point of view of the State organized superstitions like Christianity are great. They keep the masses in line, stupid, and very willing to buy into the state-sponsored power plays of the truly sociopathic. Got to train them early though, or they might grow a brain and escape!
"Children are born ignorant, not stupid. Education makes them stupid." Burtrand Russel
>I'm 16 years old. I'll tell you something,
>I'm more mature than half the adults I know...
I always find it amusing when teenagers try to convince everyone that they're mature and experienced. Hell, when I was 16, I thought I knew it all, too. I'm 25 now, and I realize that I *still* don't know half of it.
Maybe, in addition to pencils and loose-leaf, we should offer highschool students a bag of weed, a six-pack, and a ticket to South Park. After all, we know that 16-year-olds are *very* responsible...
First of all. Kids aren't killing each other and getting pregnant because of what they watch. This is bullshit. The reason kids kill each other is purely a psychological problem with the kid. The reason kids get pregnant is because of lack of education.
Second, just because movies look like trash to you doesn't mean they are. Southpark was a valid, very humorous satire of the whole movie rating system which is what gives it value and i definitely think it would be perfectly fine for teenagers to see. Eyes Wide Shut was a very good film and was far from trash. I will admit though is it was definitely a film for mature audiences.
It's not about kids being barred from a filthy movie...
It's about parents being denied their right of parenting. About the decision of what is or is not suitable for our own children being wrested from the individual parent and placed in the hands of government and big business.
This is the same government and big business that brought us $600 toilet seats and the Spice Girls, respectively. Now they want to teach our kids right from wrong...heaven forbid we should be burdened with such individual responsibility.
I don't want that. Do you?
Ever since my trip to the U.S. I thought that this country is somewhat turned upside down, very strange.
:)
:)
The problems described in this article just add another facette to my experiences, such as 15-year old Kids that have taken more drugs than I ever heard of, but are unable to get some beer (I find this to be strange because I live in Germany/Bavaria where (almost) everybody drinks beer
By the way, California seems to be more strange than other parts of th U.S.
Just my 2 cents
P.S. I hope my English is not too bad
also telling kids no makes them more rebelious
You're right. It isn't up to the movie theater people to determine which movie little Billy can or cannot see.
DUH!!!!!
That's why they require the presence of a PARENT or GUARDIAN.
Why? Have you been to one of the modern metroplexes lately? You drop the kids off to go see Bambi and they run in to watch South Park.
And the theater owners can't control YOUR kids.
So they require YOU to be PRESENT while YOUR kids are there.
Now that sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it?
If you can't actually find a problem with the content of the article then why bother insulting the author. Does the fact that he mistook mp3 for mpg make his point less valid...grow up.
As much as I tell you to go away, I can see you getting better. This piece was your best up to now (and you actually did something right, way to go!). And you continue with you style (the only one who can write 10-page-long essays here, the only one who can get to the hof regularly, and the one who get flamed to hell even when you don't do anything).
I never thought I'd say this, but keep up with the good work!
(let me see... this must be 600th post by now... wow...)
Wow, how absolutely noble of you, I'm sure the theatre will go out of business because you don't care to go there simply because they now inforce their policies. What a bunch of assholes eh? not letting you sneak into movies without paying for them. What gives? Well, good luck with you quest you tool.
Errr...correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't an R
rating to say that a child may watch only if accompanied by an adult.
In other words if you want your child to watch it you choose to accompany them and if you dont then you dont accompany them.
So in both cases you get a choice, and the original question remains.
First off i'm a canadian. I'm proud to be canadian, and to be blunt i'm damned glad i'm not an american. forgive my generalization, but i'm sick of hearing people justify stuff by stating that "the founding fathers supported it". do you honestly think that it is ok to force kids to view the rules beleived by a cult (however socially acceptable and popular it is, christianity is nothing more than an evangelistic cult) every day when they go to school simply because Thomas Jefferson would have wanted it that way? I bet you're one of those who thinks that it is neccessary to allow citizens to carry guns, because they were allowed to 100 years ago. I am always questioned when i make the generalization that a lot or americans are stupid, and that their society will never advance. you're the reason. Marilyn Manson doesn't kill people Rammerstein (sp?) doesn't kill people, R rated movies don't kill people, trenchcoats don't kill people...Guns kill people. How do you expect to get anywhere when your most powerful lobby group is a bunch of stupid cowboys. Grow up, dispose of the semi-automatic you keep in cupboard just barely out of reach of your kid, and stop being such a stupid country.
I did a lot of reading on Aristotle. He makes a lot of sense. He said that moral virtue is the habit of making good decisions. He also said the a good decision is one that leaves you with no regrets. This is largely relative, but it helps explain some of the commandments (which seem to be a 'hot topic' here so I'll discuss a bit
Anyway, I've rambled too much. My point is that children aren't as impressionable as you think they are. They have minds of their own (the age of reason is what? 8?). Some kids will probably go bad from seeing those movies, but they'd have gone bad anyway I imagine. Just because the kids at Columbine played Quake, listened to Maralyn Manson, and practiced (I swear I heard this on the news) alternative dressing, doesn't mean that doing that turns kids into psychopathic homicidal maniacs. I know some 14 year olds who saw South Park the movie, and they aren't swearing and worshipping satan. I haven't seen it myself, but I don't think that it could be bad enough for it to corrupt him or anything.
Sorry how long this message is. I've tried to keep it as on-topic as possible (too many long essays).
First of all, yay! For once it's a holy war actually over religion, not something as mundane as emacs vs. vi.
Second of all, concerning how religion is being restricted in school, I agree. It happens, and I'd be happy to fight along with you to stop it. BUTTTT, I fight because I want to see everyone to have the ability to worship how they see fit. Posting the ten commandments doesn't do that. And, to parent their kids how they see fit. As long it doesn't hurt someone else, people need to be free to do what they want.
I have a _huge_ problem when you say that the parent has no right to parent their kid. How dare you suggest that because you think that the jokes and content is tastless, it shouldn't be seen by anyone? (okay, it is tasteless, but I laugh at it regardless) I certainly don't trust my judgment to decide what people watch, I know I'm not that free of bias, what makes you so special?
Regards,
Andrew McDavid
(too lazy to log in)
right, NEVER tell your kids "no" since they will just do it anyway.
word up man -+Alderweis+-
We may not be headed for another Holocaust, but whereever we're headed, it ain't gonna be pretty.
What a better planet we could have if humanity could simply abide by one simple rule: MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS!
i'm the guy with the first comment here.
wouldn't that be something special to have first and last?
Give me a break, if the kid's MOTHER allows her kids to go and see a movie, what gives the THEATRE the right to say "Sorry, but we think you are raising your children wrong, GO AWAY!" Leave things up to the parents, they always have been, and always will be the best judge of what is in their kids best interest. People who try to force their viewpoints, and their (sometimes unwanted) values on others really piss me off.
My parents have always let me learn for myself, they always commented on both sides of a situation, and said do what YOU think is right. If you are raising a kid, let him/her make their own mistakes, you can't REALLY teach morality, it can only be picked up through experience.
I have read the articles about Columbine on here. I just finished reading your peice about movies and ratings. If I may extrapolate from one to another; I see a growing trend toward 'geek bashing' in American politics, manifested as frantic efforts to enforce social conformity, to 'dumb down' the content of movies, video games, and all other forms of entertainment...in short, I see the same pattern of conspiracy by dullard social conformists to bash those who are more intelligent, creative, or truly individualistic. The same school-yard crap is being played out in the arena of politics, and I say; ENOUGH! If you have never been politically active, if you think that politics is a waste of time, and nothing ever changes no matter if you vote or not, this would be a good time to change your mind. Register yourself. In the coming election, vote against those who exploit Columbine to push social conformity and regulation of entertainment. Vote against those who attack the free creative expression of musicians, artists, video game designers, and others. Vote against those attempting to regulate the net and extend social control to one of the last refuges of geek creativity. Bash back, at the ballot box!
"It's this sort of callous disregard that makes something like the Columbine blame game possible. If people would just work with the system instead of trying to circumvent it we would not have to sort through throngs of angry parents blaimg everything from tv to the internet for the prbolems with kids today."
Not only would these problems be gone, but the Good Ol' USA would still belong to Britain. Rules should not be followed blindly, nor broken without reason. If a rule is **WRONG** (yes folks, they can be), just try and get me to abide by it.
***THINK OUT YOUR DISCUSSIONS BEFORE POSTING***
So these kids are soposed to wait patient and bored until their mother has a day off? You obviously havn't thought out all the possibilities of the situation.
not that I disagree with you that much, but what restrictions would you propose be enforced for controled substances? or do you advocate no regulation, because if so then a 3 year old could easily (and perfectly legally) be "sur le crack". I would hope you agree that that is not a good thing to be happening (please don't argue that there is no "good"). on another, possibly unrelated note, would you advocate people walking around with one eyebrow as well? (ignore if this does not apply)
vivent la lapin sous ma lit
Much of this discussion seems to be centered around the irresponsibility (percieved or otherwise) of teenagers. Some adults are screaming about how easy it is to influence a teenager. But what people don't realize is that it is just as easy to influence an adult.
If I recall properly, the percentage of violent crimes commited in the US by adults greatly outstrips that of the teen population.
Now if people MUST chalk teen violence up to violent movies, what do they expect to chalk the adult violent crime rate up to. What would **YOU** do if you were told that you could not watch a certain movie, or read a certain book just because some board says it's "BAD". I'll tell you what you would do, you would find another way to see that movie, or read that book. So don't complain about people sneaking into these movies.
Learn to mind your own business, if my PARENTS say that I can't watch "The Matrix", so be it, otherwise, I'm watching that movie.
Our global society believes that one should respect his elders, but does every person who is older than me more responsible/less impressionable? Of course not. (I can come up with a rather long list of adults who do not deserve my respect) You cannot simply say, we're older, we're more responsible, we're right, we can watch this movie and you cannot. It depends upon the INDIVIDUAL.
Of course once they start acting like jerks you can pretend like you have no clue where they could have ever picked up such a thing.
People should not be allowed to have kids if they can't spare 2 hours of their life for them. People are just to god damn full of themselves these days.
Im a libertarian, and also a christian (kind of a juggling act, that!!). The problem as I see it is that restriction just doesnt work. Period. But to say that kids watching violence is ok is a bit naive.
Why is America one of the most violent countrys in the world? Violence on TV/Cinema has to be a big factor. But how do you solve this? Prohibition simply doesnt work (which is why i am a libertarian). The key is to realise that we reap what we sow. Only when we realise this and behave accordingly will things get better. But the importance of personal liberty means i would -NEVER- impose behavioural restrictions on another person. "you reap what you sow" is 100% true. You can work with it or against it, but it will happen your whole life.
PS tha Matrix is my fave film at the moment, and I know its very violent. But would i let my kids (if i hade some!) watch it? not till they were mature enough.
Did you read the comment by jashamel? He says that there are parents and there are people with kids.
I've been at home with kids from other families around watching South Park and to them it's fun and entertaining to call people butt breath and say bitch, bastard etc. But to them it's not "swearing", it's fun and comedy. Unfortunately I'm not responsible enough or their parent to tell them that although it is funny, it has a time and place like all comedy.
As an aside, I understand that many states purport that "an armed society is a polite society". They obviously didn't meet kids who've seen South Park!
Ah, but you see - we don't have some ridiculous 'moral ruling' by which parents have to accompany their children to watch a movie.
:)
Anyone can see a U or PG (even if PG means Parental Guidance).
A twelve year old can see a 12.
A fifteen year old can see a 15 and so on.
Most of the time ages aren't even checked.
I can remember going to see lots of 18 films when I was 14 for christ's sake.
As it is, until there is undeniable, rock-solid proof that screen-violence and sex harms our dear 'impressionable' children, then kids have the right to see what they want to (even if they are only 7 or 8).
If their parents disagree then it is up to them to monitor their kids activities - no one else.
Lets continue this vein of thought for a minute - in Bristol we have a nightclub for annoying trendy idiots who barely have 4 braincells to rub between them. The average age of people going there to drink, dance, pull and have joyless car-park sex? 15.
Yes, most of the regs are are just above or just below fifteen years old.
And their parents allow them to do this, it seems.
Also, it is interesting to note that we have a 'watershed' after 9:00pm that allows sex and violence on television (most notably Channels 4 and 5). Does anyone really think that kids stop watching after that time?
How very naive.
I find it amazing that the sex scenes in 'eyes wide shut' have been cut for american release. Especially when *several whole seconds* of footage were cut from 'The Mummy' for the UK release.
Oh no! It's just toooo scary. Thanks, BBFC.
It should not be up to society to protect people's kids from ideas and images that a few might think are 'disturbing'.
A cultured and mature society is there to allow people to share their ideas, art and entertainment without censorship. The proliferation of knowledge , art and entertainment is a goal to strive towards, not a nightmare to fight against.
Kids are their parent's responsibility - no one elses. If the parent is concerned about what they watch, read, or listen to - then they should monitor their child, not rely on some stupid, constrictive and un-democratic nanny-state to do it for them.
Rant over.
--Nick
"You can taste our love every time you swallow."
-Virgin Cola Advertisement.
I went to a school with uniforms. So I didn't really notice what effect they had. My wife went to a school that changed midway for her and she says it just polarised the school and made it much more blatantly obvious who had the money and who didn't...
That wasn't so easy to tell in my school where we all wore the same things. Yes some people spoke better than others and others were more pro education. And others came to associate any book with schooling (much like some people associate computers with work!). But that was of themselves. And not their clothes.
That's what it says. That doesn't make it a good thing. That's the entire point.
This is like saying that someone who can't afford
to buy something is having his rights taken away
from him in that a shop wont sell him goods at a
price he can afford. The law states that this
movie requires an adult to accompany the minor.
This is not an infringment of rights - nothing is
being forced upon this person, rather a condition
is being set upon its use. In much the same way
you need to be over a certain age and have a
license to drive a car on public roads, and you
need to be over a certain age and a citizen of the country to vote etc.
The point is that the mother decided that her kids were old enough to watch the movie by themselves, and the theater manager questioned her right
to make that determination about her own children.
No, the theatre manager was attempting to follow
the rule of law. If she wants her children to see
that movie then fine. If she wants her children to
see the movie in an establishment where the
condition of her seeing the movie is that the law
requires an adult to accompany the children then she should follow the rule of law and accompany the children and if she thinks this is unfair, then complain to relevant politicians.
There are LOTS of situations where children must be accompanied by adults. This is not an infringement of 'rights'.
I always find it amusing when people over 20 start being condescending and hold up their knowledge of their ignorance as proof of their maturity.
Incidentally, maturity is not knowledge, nor is it the understanding of the lack of knowledge.
Maturity is coming to terms with life, understanding life and allowing people their opinions without resorting to trivialities to undermine them.
Sir, I would posit that you are not mature at all - Is it, for instance, an act of maturity to make such a sweeping statement about all 16 year olds? You have no right to make such a statement. You would only have the right if you have talked to, and understood, every single 16 year-old on the planet.
And what has weed, beer and South Park got to do with responsibility, anyhow?
I know several doctors, dentists and university lecturers (all in their 30s, 40s and 50s) who grow their own weed for personal consumption, drink at my local pub and enjoy watching South Park. Even my own father (who is 57) enjoys South Park (and King of The Hill and, for some reason, the Simpsons). But I digress.
Do not delude yourself that you know what responsibility is, either. Responsibility is the right to do whatever you want without harming anyone else. Responsibility is lifting the burden off another's shoulders when they are crying out for help. Responsibility is being able to get up in the morning and know that you did nothing the previous day that has not been beneficial to you and those around you.
You can still be responsible if you drink and smoke weed - as long as it harms no one else.
Rant over.
--Nick
19 years old and hasn't changed much in 3 years.
Ok, point taken - not the rule of law.
However, this thread has drifted. The original
question was that this was an infringment on
a parents right to bring up their children the
way they wanted. Not getting into a theatre
because of the ratings system is not an infringment on anyones liberties or the way that
a parent brings up their children. Your original
statement that not letting kids on their own into
the theatre for this film was the beginning of
discrimination and control was stupid - its like
saying the minimum height limit for people on
some rollercoasters is the beginning of it as well - and every other age limit on everything else.
Anyway the ratings system is held because in the lack of
such a system the government would take action
(and quite rightly) to stop any kids wandering
into unsuitable movies.
No it's not the law. I used to manage a movie theater. There are no laws concerning what the MPAA has decided is inappropriate because the MPAA is NOT a government bureau (sp?) It is merely an organization set up to PREVENT the types of laws you are claiming exist.
I'm an 18 year old male geek who also attempts to lead a semi-normal social life on the side. I can recall going to see Die Hard 2 in the theater a few years back, my first R-rated movie in a theater. I was with one other friend, who was the same age as me. We both bought tickets with no problem.
Since then, I've seen quite a few R-rated movies and never once was I carded...until a couple weeks ago. I went to see American Pie with three friends ranging in age from 16-19. They asked for ID and I had to buy tickets for the two people there who were 'underaged'.
Regarding American Pie, it does a very good job at portraying typical high school life. The kids in the movie talk and act like high schoolers. I honestly don't think that anyone older than 15 would hear or see anything in the movie that they haven't seen or heard before. Oh no-there were naked breasts in the movie! Guess what Hollywood, I've seen em in real life.
Kids are growing up fast these days, and its plain silly to make them wait until they are 18 to see a movie like this, considering the high schools they go to every day.
You make some good points, but its silly to believe that those kids will be any more inclined to lie because of John Katz's actions. But then again its silly to believe that everyone who sees southpark will become muderous, foul mouthed, sexual satanists.
It comes down to this: it is your responsibility to control your children. If you don't want your children to see this movie thats fine - don't take them, and if they decide to go anyways handle that in your own way. But don't make it difficult for everyone who doesn't subscribe to your beliefs to follow there own.
Whether John Katz was correct in lying raises the age old question of whether the means justify the ends. Is it alright to lie if it acheives what you believe is correct? Its a difficult question.
you did something good for a change
nope
Last time I checked, "lying" was bad. Let's not call evil good and good evil.
Weak families are the problem
The parent who "had to get to work" probably best demonstrates the real problem behind the catastrophic violence and frustration happening in our high schools. How surprised were you to find out that the parents of the columbine masterminds didn't know what their sons were building in the garage, were afraid of stepping foot in their room, etc. Their attitude was "I don't have time for my children." Although none of us want to admit it, it's a rampant problem in America right now. Can "quality time" with our children in their most formative years be substituted for making an effort to check the webcam in the day care center a couple of times each day? Can "quality time" with our adolescent children include rated R movies? Let's make sure our children aren't left out.
What are you talking about!? Fines?! There is no government institution which sets up ratings. The MPAA is a film industry organization. There are no fines are jail time for people seeing movies that are "under age" by the MPAA's standards.
-TG
i would never ordinarily do something like this, but my God, Jon Katz, you're a fucking idiot. I thought the amazon.com article was bad, but I managed to contain myself on that. Your disrespect for the cinema's rules are worse than their trying to enforce them...it's THEIR right to make and use the rules they wish, and your interfering, lying, and scheming only makes it harder for everyone else, except a few ratty teens and a stressed-out mom "in a big rush" (doesn't that seem to be the excuse for everything these days?). If you want to make real, meaningful change, if you truly believe kids should be allowed to watch pornography, why not take action in the approriate way? Why not write to your congressman or the cinema owners, or battle it out with someone who could _possibly_ make a change? No...instead you preach to an annoying, quite stupid, and flaming horde of pure followers like slashdot, where you know everyone will accept your every word as the spoken truth. You, Jon Katz, are an idiot.
The herding-off of the crowd after a movie annoys me. One local theatre here tried that for a while, blockading the hallway & forcing the crowd out a side door (On the back of the building) - not only did you have to hike all the way around the building to get back to the parking lot, the restrooms were on the *other* side of the barricade.
Hmm...they sell soda in cups that have to be moved by hand-truck, and they want to block the bathroom...bad, bad idea. First time I came across it, I walked past the first employee, headed to the bathroom - the second employee stopped me, saying "you have to exit that way". I explained the need for a bathroom... he still refused, until I started unzipping my pants. (Hey, I *really* needed to go, okay?) At that point, he decided to let me past. A lot of others must have protested in some fashion, because after less than a month, they stopped that silliness...
Libertarianism is NOT the philosophy of "the hell with you, I'm going to do what I want." Maybe it's the philosophy of "the hell with the government..." but it's definately not about dismissing other individuals. For a libertarian society to work, it requires us to be MORE respectful of other's rights, not less.
In other words, if I own a movie theatre and I require 17-year-olds (or 30-year-old idiot writers, for that matter) to be accompanied by a mature adult in order to see certain movies, that's MY RIGHT just as much as it's YOUR RIGHT to go to a different movie theatre.
I think it's a shame that well-meaning people can't try to help society back towards decency without some self-righteous, self-styled "libertarian" getting all bent out of shape about it.
Last time I checked, "lying" was bad. Let's not call evil good and good evil.
***KNOCK,KNOCK,KNOCK***
Shouts can be heard from outside the locked door. "Open up! Open up I say!"
The old woman answers in a frightened voice "Who's there?"
"The police! Open up! Now!"
She unlocks the door and begins to open it. Immediately several armed secret police push her aside and enter the small building.
The old woman aproaches the head officer. "What is this about?"
Seemingly noticing her for the first time, he gives her a long cold look before replying. "We're looking for unregistered jews."
She laughs, "There are no jews here."
With a look of distain he disregards her and barks out orders to the others. Turning over breaking furniture, they search the four small rooms. She watches silently, not moving.
Satisfied with their throughness, they stop. Out the front door they go as quickly as they came in.
She steps outside into the morning sun. Its a bright day, unusual for this time of year. Sitting on the stoop watching the police go from house to house she listens to their shouts. Listens to them turn today upside down, turn lives upside down. Hours pass before they are through.
The last band of the thugs leave just as dusk comes, their duty finished for the day. She listens to them leave as she looks at the new night sky. Cold winds begin to blow. Time to go back inside to warmth, to life.
Closing the door behind her and pushing debris away she makes her way to the hearth. There, she kneels. She strains to pull the large stone lose. Small hands push from the other side as the stone is lifted away. "Its alright now. They're gone." A small face in the darkness squints against the fading light and smiles. She smiles back. "I won't let them have you. Never."
I think one of the greatest things about South Park: Bigger Longer, and Uncut, is that one of the main themes is exactly what Katz is talking about here. I saw an interview with South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and they had a lot to say about the Motion Picture Association of America. For those of you who don't know, the MPAA is the agency that rates movies, and all that fun stuff. One of the best quotes about them goes something like this [not a direct quote]:
"What we did was create a movie with all the gore we possibly could, with a huge war scene, people dying left and right, and immense amounts of death, destruction, blood, and all around violence. We showed it to the MPAA, and all they said was 'take out the rimjob joke, and it's ok'."
The hypocrisy that is prevalent in today's morality movements is ridiculous. You can turn on cable TV (sometimes even good old network tv!) and see people being eviscerated, but if a program contains a "dirty" word, or (*horror!*) a breast, it is relegated to pay-per-view or a premium channel.
Another non-direct (but close) quote from Kyle's Mom:
"As you go into battle, just remember what the MPAA says: Horrific, deplorable violence is OK, as long as nobody says any naughty words!"
The morality pushers are mostly hypocrites, and usually hypocrites who are too lazy to raise their own kids, and want the government to do it for them. It is not the governments job to make sure your children don't watch movies you feel are inappropriate. It is YOUR job as a parent to do so. If you don't want your kids watching porn on the playboy channel, DON'T ORDER THE PLAYBOY CHANNEL. Or how about actually talking to your kids about things, or making an effort to raise your kids yourself?
Of course, you could just bitch and moan and take freedom away from everybody in the name of morality so that the government can police everything you watch because you're too lazy to watch your own kids. That would be the easy thing to do. Sounds great. [/sarcasm]
Also interestingly is the fact that it seems the only way other than animation to get a G ratings is by having talking animals, which certainly is quite unreal. Of course, the rerelease of 2001 seems to have gotten a G as well, somehow, so it could be that the MPAA doesn't even watch the actual movies before rating them.
> the reasoning behind his little rampage was
> revealed when it was discovered he had a copy of
> Rambo in the house.
Oh god... PLEASE tell me that you're not being serious here.. PLEASE.
I'm so sick and tired of hearing everyone blame their problems on someone or something else. People are blaming their problems and their actions on video games, movies, tv, their parents, society, alien radio waves, and the color green.
Why can't people admit that the kid who shot up his schoolmates was probably a pyscopath? That it had nothing to do with the fact that he liked to watch action movies?
_I_ like to watch action movies. Would it be okay for me to go on a shooting rampage then? But it's not my fault! I saw Rambo, I, II, and III!!
> People are assholes.
Amen. A Person might not be, but People are.
Ooh, I'd love to see the NC-17 version of Robocop. I consider it to be a scifi classic, and I'd like to see the NC-17 version not simply because of the "NC-17", but because I'd like to see it as close as the director had originally intended it.
Alex Bischoff
---
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
- This version includes the 'excessively violent' scenes which the MPAA made Verhoeven cut in order to obtain a more marketable R rating.
Yes! That's now in my queue of DVDs-to-buyPS For coupons for cheaper DVDs, you may want to check out MoviePriceGuide.
Alex Bischoff
---
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
I was out christmas shopping one time with my mom several years back. We were at a mall and were both looking in different stores. Just as I went to go join her in a toy store, she bumped a counter display and knocked it over. So I said with a perfectly straight face, "Clumsy bitch." The clerk just froze and stared at me, but after looking at his face my mom laughed and we both laughed about it on the way home. She knew that I didn't mean it in a bad way, it was just funny at the time. It's become a sort of inside joke between us. I've told the story to my friends and she's done the same and all of them are always shocked, so we just laugh some more.
Words are just words. You can make them mean anything you want.
People like you give religion a bad name. You think that you're God's frickin' gift to humanity, here to set all of us unwashed pagan savages straight with your divine truth. People like you are responsible for the crusades and the inquisitions and the witch burnings of the world. Worse yet, you're the type of moron who would go to the Sistine Chapel and start painting boxers on all the nudes 'cause children might see Adam's dick.
I mean, who the hell do you think you are to say that a parent shouldn't have the right to decide what their kid sees and hears? Who are you to try to deny people their basic rights (in this case access to information) because you don't agree with the source?
Who died and made you the ultimate moral authority? Who are you to decide what I and my kids should or should not have access to?
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
American Nazis prevent US Kids from watching South Park Movie...But are us Canadians any better?
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
I'm not a bit surprised that Katz would turn himself into a hero by lying and cheating. At the same time I'm not a bit disturbed by the Mom letting her kids see South Park.
If there was a lesson there, I prefer the Mom's. She extended trust under the assumption that her kids would place the comedy movie in its proper perspective. Katz's lesson was that if an authority figure was annoying you, the proper thing to do is sleaze around it, make up stories, and then manipulate the situation to 'win'.
I'd have liked him better if he said, "Okay. I am going to walk these kids into the theater, and I'll be looking in on them every half hour or so. Deal with it. I'm a journalist and a responsible person, and you have my word that I'll keep an eye on them, though I think it's ludicrous."
Instead he spun a whole line of sleazy boomer *bleeeeep* and expects us to consider this _laudable!_ This is supposed to signify his becoming libertarian. His _refusal_ to make a stand on the matter is supposed to signify the depth of his committment.
Well, it does. You can't have it both ways. He preferred to play games. He could have done a number of things, among them returning his tickets and asking for his money back- but noooooo, Jon wants to be the rebel, Jon will play a trick on the mean nasty authority figures less than half his age. *feh*
Next time we have an article on this, can it be from somebody who actually took a _stand_ on the matter instead of playing little games with it?
I am not sure quite how to respond to a story like this... You see, I happen to be a part of a minority (?) group of Slashdot readers who actually think that such moral limitations and the so on are actually worthwhile. I think the real problem I see here is on the part of the author and the mother. First off, the author. I am amazed that the author of this story can turn himself into a hero by lying and cheating. Now, I am sure that you can come up with all kinds of reasons to tell me all that doesn't matter - they can already get it off the web, nobody was getting hurt, yada yada yada. The truth of the matter is this: IT WAS WRONG. It was a lie and an embarrassment to the concept of freedom which you chose to abuse on that day. Shame on you.
I don't see the problem of it. The mother wanted her children to see the movie, and Katz offerend to let them do so without forcing the mother to take up her time seeing a movie that she herself may not have particularly cared about.
And to the mother. That a woman when even consider to take her children to such a show is an embarrassment to the word mother. "Mom" is a word which represents a caring, nuturing class of women who have the BEST interest of the children in mind. Come on, figure it out here, people. How can anyone ignore the crud that comes out of South Park.
Have you seen the movie yourself, or are you merely ranting about subjects with which you are not acquainted? The moral message that southpark, through its use of satire, gave was that people should be personally responsible. If a kid does something bad, blame the kid, not the movies/tv shows/books/music that you think could have possibly influenced him or her to do so. How is a movie about personal responsibility and good parenting a bad thing to have your children watch?
As a Christian in this nation I say enough is enough. I don't want to see the people on the fringe of society et abused whenever something like Columbine happens. I do, however, want to see americans start standing up for a little decency and the like.
Your definition of "decency" or mine? As an agnostic in this nation, I find the degrading of women and violence in the Old Testament to be offensive (see the section where God commands the israelites to, ahem, "use," their female prisoners)
And about the "Ten Commandments" comment in the first part of your story - give me a break. Our country is closer now to "religious discrimination" then in ever has been - but only in the context of restricting prayer in school and the like. I'd say more, but I don't have the time.
Prayer is not restricted in schools. A child may pray at his or her convenience as long as it does not interrupt the class. Any free time the child has may be used for prayer, meditation, or whatever else the child chooses to do quietly.
Other Christian Slashdot readers: SPEAK UP! Don't fight with me over ANY of the little details in my post here and just band together to raise the voice that we DO HAVE.
You make the fallacious assumption that all Christians agree with your viewpoint. I personally know many Christians, including my parents, who are not right-wing fundamentalists of the Christian Coalition variety. In fact, if you took the time out of your busy schedule to actually read the Bible, you'll notice that it specifically forbids making a public show of prayer, as the Pharisees did, and instead commands that prayer be done quietly in your own home. If you believe in the Bible, I don't see how you could favor teacher-led school prayer. I know several devout Christians who oppose it for that reason - not only is it sinful, but it cheapens prayer when it is a school-led mandatory action.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I agree with you, despite your sarcasm. In fact, in many European countries, there is no age requirement for the purchase of alcohol, and teenage alcoholism is actually lower than in the United States. Prohibition does not solve problems.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Thanks for an insightful comment...glad to see that not all Christians in this country are fanatics of the Christian Coalition variety (it just seems that way if you hang out in alt.religion.christianity or #bible on IRC).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
That's perfectly fine with me. In many states (including Texas), it's also legal for children of any age to drink, as long as their parents buy the alcohol and supervise them consuming it.
In many European countries, the 12-year-old can purchase the alcohol him or herself, legally. I first had alcohol in Greece, probably when I was around 4 or 5. I'm not an alcoholic (I rarely drink). The teenage alcoholism rate in Europe is also lower than in the U.S., where this is not legal. Obviously the U.S. laws are counterproductive.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It's not their choice. Given the choice, they'd gladly let anybody into the theater, provided the person pays the $5 or whatever for a ticket (and preferably buys some of their overpriced popcorn). The two multiplexes near my house never asked me for an ID to get into R-rated movies when I was 14-16. Never once was I told I couldn't get in. In the last two weeks, however, I've been asked for my driver's license every time before I've been sold the ticket. This all comes in the wake of clinton's little "ask for IDs" schpiel, and the movie industry is complying in an attempt to stave off government regulation.
In summary, they don't like checking IDs, but they'd rather do that than risk government intervention (such as making the "no under 17 people into R rated movies" rule a law, rather than just the "suggestion" it is now).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
There is no law legally mandating the MPAA's age recommendations. Such a law would be an unconstitutional delegation of government authority to a private industry group, and hence would not stand up in court.
The movie industry is voluntarily asking for IDs in an attempt to keep it this way. They don't want the government to set up its own movie ratings board which would make be able to make itself mandatory, so they're trying to say "look, we can take care of it ourselves" by doing this voluntarily.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You seem to be ignoring the difference between government allowing religion and government supporting religion. The first is required, the second is not allowed. Your first example, a Bible study group, is indeed allowed in schools, as long as other religions are allowed to form their own groups (if the other religions wish to do so). Get more facts before making patently false assertions.
The ten commandments are allowed in schools if you are studying them as a religious document. As a "this is the morality you should follow" document, they are unquestionably not allowed. The commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is offensive towards members of other religions. "Thou shalt honor the sabbath day and keep it holy" has no place in a public school - what business of the school's is it what you do on Saturday or Sunday (whichever one your religion considers the Sabbath)?
As for Judeo-Christian, the Old Testament is Judeo-Christian. That's a fact. It's a holy book that is shared by the Jewish and Christian faiths. Since the exact same book is used by both faiths, I don't see how the term "Judeo-Christian" is misapplied in this case.
Finally, the MPAA is not society. The MPAA is an industry group that has its opinions as to what kids should see. Many parents, including my own, differ greatly in opinion with the MPAA. The MPAA is basically committed to keeping kids from seeing nudity and foul language, while allowing them to see as much violence as they want. It is not a question of occasional screw-ups, it's constant. Perhaps it's the Puritan legacy of America that makes us afraid of sex, perhaps it's something else.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Oh you must be thinking of the Constitution. I don't recall Congress being too worried about that document. It does forbid a standing army, after all, and guess what, we have a standing army.
Anyway, they'd probably weasel something in such as tying it to some sort of grant..."Make age restrictions on movies or we don't give you federal highway funding." That's how the gvt. finally forced Louisiana to raise the drinking age to 21 (The majority of Louisianians favored keeping it at 18, but they had little choice. Nice democracy we have.)
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779.
I disbelieve and abhor religion in public schools and the government support of religion, as do many people. Obviously, Thomas Jefferson would therefore oppose any such government support of religion (the above lines were specifically written in opposition to government support of religion, as can be deduced from the title of the statute).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Then perhaps the people saying these things are not mature enough themselves to understand what satire is.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The legal age in Germany is 16.
Greece has no age limit (anybody can purchase).
The UK is 16, IIRC.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If Thomas Jefferson favored religion, I doubt he would've said any of the following:
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." -Thomas Jefferson
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." -Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You are absolutely correct. Movie theatres aren't turning away potential customers because they want to. They're doing so because they were threatened. The government basically said "enforce your own stated policies, or we will pass even more draconian laws regarding your business."
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
One thing you must remember is that the Constitution applies only when the Supremes (the justices of the Supreme Court) says it applies. Thus the Supremes condone blatant violation of the 'takings' clause of the 5th Amendement (see http://www.fear.org ) on the shallowest of pretenses, and I'm sure they could find some shallow pretense to allow stepping into the motion picture industry's puddle ("films are distributed across state lines" or some similar bunk).
Whether they would, in fact, uphold such restrictions is another issue altogether, but never believe that something can't be done just because the Constitution says so. The Constitution, as far as the law is concerned, says what the Supremes say it says. For the most part this makes it about as useful as toilet paper if the Supremes disagree with you.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
The motion picture rating system is a voluntary system created by the motion picture industry. Unless local jurisdictions say otherwise, these ratings are recommendations, not legally binding requirements. Local jurisdictions usually have laws only regarding "X"-rated pictures, since those qualify as "obscenity" under Supreme Court rulings and thus are not considered to be a "free speech" issue.
In other words, you can't blame your local politicians for the theatre hassling your kids. This is something the cinema chains are doing themselves, and that, as private businesses, they have every right to do (no matter how much we disagree). It's like Wal-Mart refusing to carry "skin" magazines and "obscene" albums. While I disagree vehemently with their reasoning, forcing them to do something they don't want to do is just as wrong.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Oh, give me a break. In case you haven't noticed, we are six months away from the twenty-first century, and the earth ain't getting any bigger. Pardon me for being facetious, but I don't think even God forsaw a world population of _six_billion_ people (within a few decades from now). I can assure you the apostles and the writers of the Bible didn't.
Have you ever been outside of the United States and the industrialized "first world"? Spend some time in East Africa and tell the locals that food shortages are a lie. Go to India and tell them overpopulation is "120% false". These aren't lies, they are _truths_ perpetuated by those who love and worship money, and those who are too complacent to realize their own complicity. (Yes, that includes myself and almost every other American.)
Here's some "sophist" propaganda you might find interesting. I invite you to participate.
Umm, Janus head, what's that??
:)
Don't forget, not only are we Americans morally confused, we're also culturally illiterate...
I agree with your point that the main problem is lack of understanding of how to wisely use what we do have, and that if that were possible, most of the current global problems -- in their current state -- could be solved.
But there are limits -- absolute limits. I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that the planet earth could sustain a population of fifty billion humans, without destroying practically the whole ecology or else drastically cutting back the material lifestyle of the industrialized world. No matter how efficient society gets, no matter how advanced technology gets, there is only so much raw matter to go around. And getting back to the original point, having more than four children in this day and age and society isn't helping in this regard.
If "sophism" means believing that imperfect scientists and politicians, studying the world that they live in, are more qualified to solve modern mankind's complex problems than wise old men from thousands of years ago, I'm a sophist.
Hope? Let's not confuse hope with complacency. I think that taking an informed and realistic, perhaps even pessimistic and grim, view of the matter, and using that as motivation to improve things, goes a lot farther than glibly throwing out a scripture verse and trusting God to take care of things somehow.
"You can teach my kids about Jesus when I get to teach yours about Buddha. Is it a deal?"
If your kids want to learn about Jesus and mine want to learn about Buddha... deal.
We're not asking anything as unreasonable as you seem to imply. Who ever said they had "a right to force [your] children to worship [my] god in the public schools"? I certainly never did.
Do I want MY children to have the right to worship THEIR god in public schools? Yes. Do I want YOUR children to have the right to worship their god in public schools? Yes.
This is what the whole prayer-in-school thing is really about. Tell me what's wrong with it.
I'm a Christian and a member of the Libertarian party.
I'd like to ask you where you see the incompatibility between the two.
As for Katz... I think he should have stood up for his position directly rather than lying over it. Nonetheless, kids aren't that impressionable. I've known plenty of liars, but that doesn't make me consider them any less disreputable or be willing to become one myself.
Hmm... so if we allow prayers in high school, will you allow chants before class for the *gasp* Heathen pagans? What about 5 minute meditation for people who like to clear their minds of excess thoughts?
Fine by me.
Personally, if you want to pray in school.. FINE, but do it on your own, not over the school's PA, forcing non-believers to listen to it as well. Because that is closer to religious discrimination
I agree. Who ever said anything about the PA? There have been cases of kids being sent home for silently praying on their own. This is what I have trouble with.
What's particularly concerning...
In my small town, the city council (most of which I know personally) made it illigal to ride a skateboard on the sidewalk.
However, they publicly stated that they had no problems with most folks riding skateboards on sidewalks. They just wanted an excuse to arrest those few punks who were bothering people.
This kind of discretionary power is quite concerning. Their stated purpose (this bit not publicly, but when I talked to them) of giving the police an excuse to arrest folks who may be no different than other skateboarders except they had died hair or otherwise looked like they might be making trouble is not that far a cry from giving the police the laws with which to find reason to arrest anyone who's being a bit unconventional... questioning their moral beliefs... etc.
I don't live there anymore. I'll not say I moved for this reason or one like it... but this is one more reason I'm glad I did.
It's called silent prayer.
I don't know much anyone who has a problem with it. Worship doesn't have to be a public thing -- according to the Bible (which these fundamentalists who are so getting on your nerves are supposed to follow), it shouldn't be; Those who prayed primarily for show are repremanded quite severely, and those who don't... well, nobody should be able to tell if it's Allah, Jehovah or Jesus.
(This, btw, is primarily a new testiment thing... so I don't expect followers of Allah or those who accept Jehovah but not Jesus to be held to it. But then again, they're not the ones making the stink... right?)
Any parents who try to argue that their religion get special treatment would have an uphill battle against the court system, which has a strong record of disagreeing with such things (and, IMHO, going too far at times... but that's another conversation).
My high-school history teacher taught religion. Despite occasionally preaching at a local fundamentalist church (no, not Baptist... not nearly that bad), he was extremely even-handed. People really CAN be sane about these issues.
I agree with you, then. Mark me up as a Christian who disagrees with his fellows.
Well, largely. I certainly wouldn't be happy with a law banning the Ten Commandments (which are really more a Jewish thing than Christian... Christianity isn't about the Hebraic law but an opportunity to be forgiven for ones' infractions thereof)... if my high school World Civ teacher (a remarkably even-handed man and familiar with the texts of every major religion despite occasionally preaching at a local non-denominational Christian church) were unable to post the Ten Commandments when discussing Christianity (but still allowed to post exerpts from the Koran, Talmud, etc)... I'd be quite steamed.
That's the ideal. Unfortunetely, it's not the case. There have been cases of students not being allowed to pray on their own time (recess, whatever) because of the no-prayer-in-schools thing being interpreted too broadly. If the laws (policies? whatever) regarding this are clarified to prevent this from happening, I'd be much happier.
This from today's (8/30/1999) Wall Street Journal:
One school in Arkansas was ordered by the court to bar (among other things) students from praying at lunchtime and teachers from prayer (or even mention of a diety) even during times of natural disaster (yes, this was apparently specificly listed), at penalty of arrest.
IMHO, this is definetely too far.
I'm probably not as old as you think I am ;>
In the UK at least, sex education is quite widely spread. The laws are there (generally) for the protection of children - that is the justification. I do not see exactly why it is necessary for a 12 year old to see the latest rambo film with blood and guts and nudity - if it is believed to be educational, then the parents can rent it out on video and let their children watch it.
I saw Southpark in America, and I wasn't impressed by the number of children under 10 there - I don't think Southpark is suitable for children. Obviously there are going to be people on either side of the (arbitary) limit over here, but that's the way it is - I did not think Southpark was suitable for 8 year olds - although if I had children over 13 or 14 I might let them watch it (and they'd probably get in anyway, when I was 13 we used to get into 15 movies all the time).
16 for tobacco (cigarettes) and age of consent
17 to drive
18 for alcohol and I think still for gay sex
The latter is being worked on, but our equivalent of your stupid right wing bounced it getting through, so it will go through in a year or so.
In the UK we have it a lot worse.
Our equivalent to your "R" rating is our 15 rating - nobody under 15 can go into the cinema, by law. Which I'm afraid, I would agree with. When I went to see Southpark I saw loads of 7 and 8 year olds, which I thought was pretty bad - those kids should not really have been watching it.
Kids will find these things out, but there's no need to make it ridiculously easy - the thing has got to be to make sure that it isn't made unavailable to those old enough (and mature enough) to see it.
Tell me again how the private sector is a greater threat...
I'm no big fan of big business, but big government is not *my* friend. It is the friend of that very same big business.
--
In my country it is.
I've always heard the MPAA age ratings referred to as "voluntary." This means that the MPAA invented these ratings, and theatres have the option to use them to filter their human input; both parties are volunteers.
Theatres are at their own private (corporate) discression when they allow a person to see a movie. Perhaps mostly out of fear of civil lawsuit or boycott, they bow to the industry pressures and regulations. And as we all know, the children of our world are perfectly alright watching bar fights, rape and homicide, violent bodily mutilation, decapitation, and torturous amputation of major limbs as long as they don't hear those seven naughty words! That would be bad for them!
Ok... your right we shouldn't restrict prayer in
school. We should teach kids right.
You tell all the children to bring their prayer
rugs and I will go to the schools and make sure
to figure out which way is the proper direction
to face Mecca so that they can face the proper
way as they pray 5 tim...oh...that wasn't what you
had in mind?
Ok...then I will recruit some Rabbi's to lead
prayer every day...oops no? How about a Catholic
preist? or maybe a Baptist? Too bad David Koresh
is gone..im sure he would have been happy to do the job.
How baout this..lets keep it secular! AFAIK there
is no law anywhere saying that kids CAN'T pray in
school, just that the faculty can't organize them
and make them do it. I am fine with that! If a
student wwished to pray during the day and
isn't allowed to or is stopped from it...then
I say we have a problem.
Also who are you to judge the mother or Mr Katz?
Are you saying she is a horrible mother because
she trusts her children? Perhaps because she feels
that they are mature enough to watch this movie
or that she does NOT believe that movies are
harmfull to children?
That would make her a horrible mother wouldn't it.
Sure Mr Katz lied and cheated. Was that the best
way to do what he did? no perhaps not. However
it worked. In the end all he did was uphold
the mothers Wishes.
-- Steve
I almost completely agree with what you said about movie ratings, but no matter how many cities allow women to go topless, you won't see it very often just from outright societal pressure. (and heck, they'd probably charge them with disrupting traffic or something...)
;)
The RHPS stuff is really lame, though. We had some of that here, and we have one of the best productions at the Rialto in Raleigh, NC. (Disclaimer: I don't work on the show, I'm just a fan...) They were cracking down on underage drinking too, but they started censoring the on-stage activities, and that was pretty silly. (Oh no, simulated sex with a flashlight...)
And man, I'm glad I didn't go to college early. I thought about it when I first took my SAT's, but I'm glad I waited, because instead of being as mature as your average college student, and as screwed up, and half the size, now I'm definitely more mature, screwed up in my own special way, and about the right size.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yeah, I know, it's part of the whole CYA mentality these businesses have, and some of it is understandable, but it shouldn't be this bad.
:)
However... Hey, Mr. Homeless Man, do you want your $10 to buy vodka or not?
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Jon Katz, I've read your articles, and I'm not always particularly impressed, but in this case... Well, you have to pick which battles to fight, and this one sounds entertaining.
I saw the South Park movie, and although I'm certainly old enough (21), I am of course in favor of letting whoever (a) wants to see the movie and (b) thinks they can handle satire, to see the movie. Of course this cuts out the religious right, but by and large, most teenagers and some adults fit this criteria.
Why blame other people for not censoring you when you should be perfectly capable of censoring yourself? Why should movie theaters enforce that the parents be there the whole time, when you can confirm that they have the parent's permission? Isn't that what it's supposed to be all about?
Bah. I hate politics, and arbitrary laws based on age. Don't ask me for my opinions on uniforms in public schools, because I'll tell you.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Mr. Katz, perhaps you could practice what you preach and take some children to this movie and watch it, in it's entirety with them.
Shouldn't that be up to him? The mother of the children wanted them to be able to watch the movie? She is responsible for them. Perhaps she's watched the TV show with them and is comfortable with them watching the movie. Why shouldn't she be allowed to escort them to the movie, buy the tickets, and pick them up when it's over? He simply helped her get past the red tape that the government is busy wrapping the country in, and helped her to do what she should have every right to do in the first place; to take her kids to a movie that she approved of and let them watch it. Perhaps she was one of those cluefull adults that knew what the message of the movie was. Perhaps she wanted them to see it so that they could talk about it later. The point is that it doesn't matter what the reason was... she is the parent here.. not the ticket guy.. not the manager.. not the government. She has to raise those children and be responsible for them. To tell her that she can't raise them the way she wants to raise them is to take the control, and hence the responsibility, away from her.
The government has obviously decided it wants to play parent to the children of this country. I personally don't think many of the people running the government are fit to be role models, but I'm sure they would disagree and get the IRS after me. The government simply panders to the whims of the knee-jerk moralists of this country (when it comes to decisions about parenting, obscenity, etc..), who in turn look for any oportunity to forward their own agendas at the expense of the rights of others. Why do these people feel they have the right and obligation to tell the entire country how to raise their children? Granted that many parents aren't fit to be parents, but telling good parents what they can and cannot do isn't going to change the bad parents or their children. They can't blame bad parenting though... that might not win them the next election. No, instead they blame the media, religion (or lack thereof), video games, Canada, etc...
BTW, I enjoyed SouthPark. It wasn't a model of class or style, but it was funny and it had a good message. That's more than a whole lot of other movies can say.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
While I agree that cutting off his hand, etc., would be considered censorship, I do think that Rob not posting Katz's articles is also a form of censorship, albeit a much more benign form. Every newspaper/website cannot publish anything and everything that a writer wants them to publish. Those things must fit in with the editor/publisher's vision of the paper/website. This leads to them filtering out the things they don't want and including those they do. It's their paper, they are allowed to do this. They aren't preventing us from reading something, they just aren't facilitating it.
Real censorship, in the form that we are most commonly opposed to, involves the government or other high authority stepping in and telling us that we cannot read or view something, or that we cannot buy or sell some work of literature or art.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I tend to think if I keep the garbage Jon writes out of my head, I will be less prone to let the same kind of garbage spread from me to the rest of the world.
I won't argue that it's your choice whether or not to read Jon's columns. It just sounds to me that you're doing it for the wrong reasons. If you believe that what he says is wrong, then you should, in your own mind at least, know why you think they are wrong. If you lack faith in your convictions or in your reasons for believing what you do, yet wish to continue to think that way, then by all means, block his columns. Sometimes people simply believe what they do because of faith. It can't be explained. It's just the path you chose, for reasons that are probably personal.
However, by labeling his writings as garbage, you are generalizing and limiting your ability to truly act and think as an individual. It's good to constantly test your beliefs. It keeps you aware of who you are and why. Otherwise, you simply look to those who think the same as you and ignore anyone else. Bad things happen when people do that. I tend to have a feeling that we are heading for another age that will be reminiscent of the Bad Old Days (hmm.. which never quite ended in many places) when people couldn't tolerate those who had different views from them and would get whipped into a frenzy and attack those other groups. Whether it's done physically or legislatively through lobbying and whatnot, it's still an attack on others simply because they don't agree with you. Just keep it in mind when you make decisions that will affect your view of the world and the people around you.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
There would be no moral war taking place at the theaters if there were no teenaged ticket-taking soldiers poised at attention on the popcorn-butter stained battlegrounds.
They didn't want to be policing the theaters like this. Clinton pretty much told them to do it or he was going to have to start regulating them. Government regulation in most cases is something that businesses will go well out of their way to avoid, as was the case in this situation. If you want to point fingers, point them at our fearless leader.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I have no issue with movie owners coming up with absurd policies, so long as they are not compelled to, there is no illegality, and there is no collusion: as long as J. Random Entrepreneur can operate a theatre with disregard for the guidelines of others, fine.
Unfortunately they can't do that. Not with our government threatening to regulate them if they do. Additionally, it's fine for Christians to speak all they want. It's only a problem when they start legislating. I wonder how many members of Congress DO NOT claim to be Christians? Yeah.. I'm sure the Christians are opressed as the original poster seems to think.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Now I'm not sure if you're saying that Christianity "blows," or if you're saying that new sects are ok. The first would make more sense. The second doesn't say much for new sects except that they can become large and kill lots of people.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I say that Christ died for the sins of men, and it means everything to everything. There is no facet of history, of science, or even of mathematics that can hide from the presence of God. I live in the pursuit of truth, and God is not simply a _part_ of that, He is the author of it.
As a citizen of the U.S., you have every right to believe this. You simply don't have the right to have it taught to everyone's children. I don't care what you believe. That's your business and your family's. Why should other people's children be taught something simply because you and members of your faith believe it to be so? You're not the only people on this planet and you don't have a monopoly on morals or faith. Let parents teach their children. Let children pray quietly to themselves when they feel they must. It works well for the other religions in this country. Why is it always the Christians that are demanding to make a public spectacle of their faith?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Children can pray all they want in school. They simply aren't allowed to disrupt the class with it any more than any other child is allowed to. The teachers and administration are not allowed to lead a class or school prayer because that would be taking time from other children who do not believe in that particular religion. Children should be taught religion at home and in church. It's their business and their parent's business. It's not the business of the schools or the other students. Nor should it be.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It would be great if everyone else thought just like this. Then perhaps we could all just leave each other alone instead of lobbying the government to try to get everyone to conform to our beliefs.
Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately, I'm not real sure about this one) only the Christians have a big enough majority in this country to actually get such legislation passed. I'm thinking that if other religions were on a more equal ground, Christians might just count themselves lucky that they are allowed to practice their religion in peace like everyone else and not go around trying to turn their morals into law.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I have a friend whose dad was stationed in Germany for several years. I believe the legal age was 16.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I'm not sure what kind of sexual education class you had, but I had one too. We were taught about what sex is, what the risks are, what can be done to reduce risks, what sexual harrassment or rape is, what breast and testicular cancer are and how to check for them, etc. I didn't find anything objectionable in the class. It was all just the facts as we understand them today. I don't have a problem with kids learning about these things since they are important to understand, whether you are sexually active or not. The only part I have heard another reasonable person object to is the part about sexual harrassment/rape. I can understand why people would be uncomfortable talking about these things, but it doesn't change the fact that they should be understood by all since they happen to be a problem and they are against the law. Maybe it will wake up a few kids to realize that they can't just say and do whatever they like before they get themselves in real trouble.
Perhaps you had a different class though. I don't expect them all to be alike really, so it could very well be. BTW, I was 17 when I took that class. Parents should definitely have already discussed some of these things with their children by this time, especially if they go to a public school.
I also share your disdain for public schools. Don't get me wrong on that one. The education system in this country is in a sad state.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If that's the case, then I'd have to agree with you. I hadn't heard of this happening. It's ridiculous if it is happening. If kids want to pray on their own time, and aren't causing a disruption or anything, that's their business and the school has no business interfering.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
if you don't want to watch them under thier rules then don't go.
That's the beginnings of discrimination and control. It is also a very slippery slope. One theatre going Moral Majority isn't really the big deal, it's that MANY are doing that in response to hysteria over an unrelated incident.
Although I don't expect to see any world wars over this one, you must remember that Adolph Hitler rose to and consolidated his power in small steps down the slope, all based on desperation over the economy. The economy wasn't his agenda, it was his excuse. The actions he took had little to do with solving the problem, but they didn't have to, they just had to look like they did.
We know what the hysteria is, and we know some of the small steps, now the question is what is the actual agenda, and whose is it? (I suspect there are several whos and agendas)
It's all about people who may or may not even have kids presuming themselves to be some sort of authority on parenthood and then forcing their opinions on others.
Weak families are the problem
Weak families are a link in the problem. The real problem is not being able to make a good living for your family without two incomes and lack of flexibility in employment.
What would you think of that parent if she quit her job and didn't have enough money to provide for the kids?
Let's face it, at one time, a house cost %25 of a single average income. Now it costs half. That doesn't bode well for those making less than average, especially after divorse or death of a spouse. Why don't the parents spend more time with their kids? Because employers that pay above minimum tend to expect 40+ hours a week and people who take days off are the first to be fired.
Are you sure that watching a movie is a "basic right"?
I am. Just like reading a book or expressing an opinion. Speech means more than just talking, it includes any form of communication including a movie
stopping after they read the "establishment of religion part.
The problem is, once laws are passed based on morals and parenting, you are prohibiting the free practice of any religion that has different theories.
The issue becomes more complex when interactions between people with different beliefs gets into the picture. To make a bizarre example:
Someone who's religion tells him that all kids MUST see South Park would believe that of your kids as well as his. You (and I mean a theoretical you, I don't know what you believe) believe that no kids should see it.
The best compromise is to say that he can't take your kids to see the movie, and you can't prevent his kids from seeing it. Anything else respects one religion over the other.
How are we supposed to have prayers that meet all the needs of these people?
To whom it may concern...or not.....keep up the good work (if any)!
The same thing I do for any obscure movie, go to a theater that does show it, or rent it.
If they want to not show it at all, they are free to do that. They will go out of business (since if they won't show South Park, there are many other big movies they won't show), and someone who wants to make money will buy the theatre. If nobody shows it, it'll show up for rental a lot sooner. (Personally, I prefer rent/pay-per-view anyway, I hate crowds).
Followup study: in a month or two, when they can either fill the seats or keep 15 year olds from watching, will they be as 'vigilant' about the rating?
Watching a movie? Okay...
Sure! otherwise, we'd all end up free to say, write, or film anything we wanted, but it would be a felony for anyone to listen read or watch. Communication (Speech) can only happen if one is free to speak and listen.
Would someone care to explain why ?
Because telling parents they are free to restrict what their kids watch on TV affirms their rights and responsabilities as parents.
Telling parents they may NOT choose to let their kids watch an R rated movie by themselves denies their rights and responsabilities as parents.
In other words, the first case is a choice to be made, the second is getting no choice.
but isn't an R rating to say that a child may watch only if accompanied by an adult.
That's what it says. That doesn't make it a good thing. That's the entire point.
If a parent wants to buy tickets to an R rated movie and hand them to their child, who is a theatre manager to say that's unacceptable parenting and refuse to allow it. Especially if the child is 15.
In other words if you want your child to watch it you choose to accompany them and if you dont then you dont accompany them.
In that case, people in China have total freedom of speech and to assemble. In other words if you want to protest the government, you choose to get run over by tanks and if you don't then you don't get run over by tanks.
Extreme example? absolutly!
The point is that the mother decided that her kids were old enough to watch the movie by themselves, and the theater manager questioned her right to make that determination about her own children.
No, the theatre manager was attempting to follow the rule of law.
One, there is no such law! The ratings system was instituted by the industry, not by law.
Two, up until recently, that rule was routinly ignored by nearly every theatre in the country. I used to see R rated movies routinely (my parents were aware of that and did not object). I was never refused admission even though my parents were never with me to buy the ticket. I once heard about someone being carded for an R rated movie. It was such an unusual thing that the person (and everyone else) thought it was funny. Surely, if that was such an 'important law' thousande of theatre managers would be UNDER the jail by now.
There are LOTS of situations where children must be accompanied by adults. This is not an infringement of 'rights'.
In those situations, it is not an infringement because it is to prevent unsupervised children. Theatres clearly don't mind unsupervised children since parents often have their kids watch one movie while they watch another. By the time the kids reach their teens, the parents drop them off, and pick them up after the movie. Thus, to refuse based on movie rating, even with the parent buying the ticket, they are telling parents how to parent, not trying to avoid dealing with unsupervised children. There IS a difference. It is one of attitude. It does matter.
Looks like it's best if we agree to disagree on this one. :-)
Since you insist on attacking this brave poster as a proxy for his religion, I can't offer an argument in kind.
If that were what he were doing, you could offer an argument. In fact, that is exactly what you did. Unfortunately for you, he wasn't attacking "this brave poster," rather the notion that religions (cause and/or rationale of most of the most depraved acts committed by humans) should be some sort of governmental guidance.
Odd that you challenge his character when your bitter (and profane) resentment toward all things sacred would appear to be eating you alive.
To be eaten by honesty or to enjoy the slow death by religion. You tell me.
However, I will point out that the poster in no way provoked the attack.
Really. Can you read?
He never challenged your rights, and he never proposed the strawmen you appear to be attacking.
Ah yes. One can't have teacher led prayer during CLASS TIME and somehow this is a bad thing. Right. Bullshit.I can recommend a few good reading classes for you.
He certainly never "died and made [himself] the ultimate moral authority". Yikes, it's on the basis of Christ's moral authority alone that we Christians claim our salvation!
And to Hell with those heathens. Get your head out of your ass and quit agreeing blindly to a religion your forefathers desperately wanted to keep out of the government.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
There's nothing wrong with a Bible study club. The problem is when the school itself has the appearance of spreading a religion. This is when the Bible study members go around proselytizing or when the group mentor starts recruiting from his classes and other classes.
The Bible study groups have to be careful because religious action on the part of the government is illegal, for good reason.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Sure. Right. Uh-huh.
And the recent blathering by the religious "right" about how they're succeeding in getting prayer groups and so forth started all around the country is just hogwash.
Sure you aren't smoking something when you spoke those untruths. Doesn't your religion condemn those who lie?
The spirit of the Church/state separation doctrine would have everyone treated equally in the eyes of the law; what's happened instead is that Christians are treated as second-class citizens.
No you're not. You can't use a school to push your religion because that gives the impression the government is supporting your religion. That is illegal. As such, the government can't allow that. This is a restriction against the government, not you. Besides, how come I, an atheist, have to pay taxes to support your buildings? Yes, since you're a non-profit agency, my taxes go up while yours don't. If churches had to pay taxes, do you know how much money that would bring in?
I spent years in a Jesuit school, wherein classroom time was set aside for a prayer every morning. I think you mean "public school policy"; you would do well to note that it is in public schools, specifically, that Christians are denied their faith in a matter as harmless as prayer.
Just who is preventing you from praying in school? Is there some evil Big Brother walking around, peering into your thoughts and slapping you upside the head if you clasp your hands in prayer? I didn't think so.
Is it illegal to spend "classroom time" on the spiritual teachings of Ghandi and Maya Angelou?
Um, if they're truely the "spiritual" teachings, yes. This is different from a comparitive religions type course, and it would do you well to understand the difference between that type of class and what you want to take place.
Are the words of _Reverend_ Martin Luther King, Jr., in his _I Have A Dream_ speech, forbidden from the halls of public schools? Of course not. They are curriculum, as must be a discussion of the Christian roots of many in this country. I'd have no objection to a passionless discourse on the many religions that constitute America's makeup. It would be of great satisfaction to me to learn some Islamic history alongside Confucianism; in fact, I did hear quite a lot of it while I went to public schools (though I might wish for more, centered as the public schools are on Western European history).
Good, so you do understand what a comparative religions class is like.
But you can't say that denying Christian freedoms once they walk into a public building is "fair treatment".
I say it merely for the sake of argument. I don't ask for _fair_ from you, or anyone else, honestly. If I depended upon _fair_ from the likes of my peers I think I would be greatly disappointed.
You claim that you get a comparative religion class and yet there is still something "unfair" going on here. Please elaborate. Oh yes, you can't go preaching to students.
And just what is the problem?
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
1) He never stated christianity should be a state religion, you stated this not him. You put words into his mouth, so you could have something to rant about and not address the valid points of his argument.
He states that America needs to live by a standard of decency. The only plausable implication by the rest of his post is that Christianity is the only standard of decency that can be used.
2) You do not know this man well enough to make such accusations against his character. ad hominem.
Likewise...
3) Again, he never said parents should not be allowed to decide on the information their children should be exposed to. The problem here is you keep on putting words into his mouth and then base your argument on them.
Which is why he said the mother was a poor mother and should be ashamed of herself for letting her children see this wretched movie.
Glass houses and all that.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Since then, I have probably had less than 1 beer's worth of alcohol in my 21 years of life.
Not counting stuff *IN* baked goods where the alcohol is cooked out and it isn't intoxicating.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
You make the assumption that I am some old codger who doesn't know what young people do. I happen to be a 23, and I do know what teenagers do, it wasn't that long ago since I was one. And yes, I'm also glad you aren't my daughter. In a few years when I have a child, I will not be letting him or her go see such trash. I would appreciate it if a movie theatre would NOT let my child in when I don't know about it.
I'm looking at this as an insider, not as some old man.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
The rating rules were set in place to keep underage children from seeing things that they probably aren't developed enough to see. The point in having the parent there with them to see R movies is if it's worst than they thought it was going to be, to take them out. Kids are allways going to tell the parents it's not that bad. If the parent is in the theater with them, they see just how bad it really is. You have just taught those kids it's ok to lie about who you are to get what you want. Is this the part you are most proud of, or helping these kids see a movie full of violence, foul language, sex, satanism and whatever else youi can think of.
/.
I hope you didn't think this stunt is going to make those of us who hate your writing style, like you for other reasons. Ok, so you just gained the respect of every 15year old male that reads slashdot. You just lost the respect of most of the parents that read
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Many movie theatres, by fiat, will not show anything stronger than an "R" rating. And it matters not why it's rated NC-17. Wheather it's explicit sex, excessive violence (Robocop was edited to avoid NC-17), or just for the dialog ("[George] Carlin on Campus" got NC-17 and it's just stand up comedy; mere words!). Ratings are forcing Hollywood to limit their creativity or to butcher movies at the last minute. I don't need others to make decisions for me and my family. Only I, and no one else, has permission to exercise my own right of choice.
My son tasted beer at the age of three. Did he like it? Of course not. That's why I let him taste it so he could experience the adult drink and know he doesn't like it.
True, it was only a sip or two. but the recoil was enough for me to know that he won't be trying it again anytime soon. That kind of taste sticks in his mind when his 10 year old friends (in 7 years) offer him some more.
Now for all you extremsits... No, I won't let him snort coke or fire a gun. There are limits. If you can give me one shred of evidence that two sips of beer make me evil or hurt him in any way shape or form, I'll apologize openly. If you're gonna try to flame me with you extremist "you're no father" attitude, I've got my asbestos underwear on and I'll return fire.
Just telling your children "no" isn't enough. You need to teach them to make their own decisions. This whole movie bullshit is incredible. I'm glad I don't live in the U.S.
As a 25 year old who wants the freedom to see scenes of sex, violence, bad language, drug use, sodomy, devil worship, yada, yada, yada in the cinema, I've got to say I'm glad there are age restrictions in place.
;)
I think a 15 year old would have a lot of trouble digesting a film like, say, "Man Bites Dog". Sorry, 15 year old readers, I'd have objected to that statement too at one stage
My own feeling is that age limits should exist, and should be enforced, so that the "adult" category can encompass *all* material - no films should be banned.
As for this fiasco in the cinema; I reckon JK acted like a bit of an arse. The staff were upholding company policy -- their job, remember. If you have a problem with that, take it to the company management, and if that fails, take your custom elsewhere.
--
Now, now, you should know full well that it's blasphemy to paraphrase the Word of the Lord - you should only quote directly.
Many might think that legalisation and regulation of the drug trade would be a more efficient way of controlling drug abuse than the largely ineffective War on Drugs.
By what measure? The rates of murder, gun-related violence, teenage pregnancy and HIV infection are all much higher in the US than in Europe. The behaviour of the US president and the cynical pork-barrelling of Congress makes the petty corruptions of the European Commision seem amateurish by comparison.
But the Supreme Court is explicitly defined in the Constitution as the final arbiter of constitutional issues. Therefore, any ruling of the Supreme Court is, by definition, constitutional; it cannot 'usurp constitutional rights' as it alone (according to the constitution) interprets what the constitution really means (of course some might argue that this is a fundamental failing of the entire constitutional system.) If you don't agree with this, I suggest you propose an amendment to the constitution that strips the Supreme Court of its supremacy. I would be interested to hear what you propose in its place... Who are you to presume what the founding fathers meant when they drafted the constitution and the Bill of Rights? The writers of the constitution knew very well that people like you would speculate on what various parts of the constitution "meant" and try to enforce their own views. That is why they instituted the Supreme Court in the first place.
I too believe that this country, and possibly all of Western human society is undergoing a moral decline, fueled by material excess, anti-intellectualism, a love of luxury over adventure, a glorification of monetary success at all costs, self-interest and an ever lower-brow culture (in which I do not include South Park, a clever satire in many ways) and a truly pathetic trend towards whiny self-absorption (those awful 'Chicken Soup' books and all the pop psychology that creeps into conversation - my pet hate is 'closure.')
Unlike you, however, I also believe in democracy and freedom to let people live their lives as they see fit providing they don't infringe on other people's rights. Now, one might argue that R-rated movies will lead to disturbed people who go around infringing others rights by, e.g. killing/raping them, and therefore violent/sexual moview should be banned. Following this line of argument we should ban drink as it leads to fighting, cars as they lead to mass deaths on the road (incidentally many, many more Americans are killed on the road than from drug overdoses yet we have yet to see a 'War on Asshole Drivers') etc., etc.
You, as with so many Christians, believe that those who are areligious (such as myself) are also ammoral. Personally, I cannot understand how someone can be so bereft of their own morals, that they have to get them out of a book instead.
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
What can I say, these people trying to censor the media can't even do that properly as they're so out of touch. Here in Denver, WB2 (one of the TV stations) wouldn't show an episode of "Felicity" right after the Columbine incident. Why? The sight of some overly-neurotic and overly-talkative university/college students arguing about something really quite trivial might of been inappropriate viewing. I don't understand though, they'd just shown "Buffy the Vampire Slayer": this contained High School children going around killing in a High School. <sarcasm> Hmmmmm, I can really see how that was more appropriate.</sarcasm>
Does anybody know if there has been any research done on if age matters in how susceptible we are to being influenced by watching movies? I don't know anything about psychology, but I would imagine some good research would make this issue a lot clearer. Instead of bickering about pricnciples like freedom and morality, let us instead look at the scientific facts. What are the effects of watching movies with sex, violence, and "bad" language on people of different age groups? Also, other factors should be explored, like IQ, years in school, religious affiliation, etc. I would imagine this has already been explored, but I haven't heard it mentioned. Perhaps someone knows more than I do?
So, if I think that my seven year old is mature enough to take my car down to the liquor store and get Dad a nice bottle of single-malt Scotch, that no one should be able to stop me. I mean damnit, it is my kid, and if I think a 7 year old is mature enough to drive a car and buy liquor, it is nobody's business but mine, right? Never mind that it is the law or anything. Hmm.. maybe I think a 3 year old should have the right to vote....
That is funny... a lot of Christian fundamentalists feel the same way. Personally, I think home school is a waste of time, but hey that isn't the point here.
Yeah. The bible has some pretty violent stuff in it. But I am not proposing we ban anything. You don't like it, then don't read it. You don't like South Park, don't watch it. The point I am trying to make is that, yes I am a Christian, leave me alone about it.
Actually, it was yesterday. I couldn't remember all of them at the time of the posting though... sorry. I tend to look at things from the other direction... what about the judge's right to freedom of speech to put them in his/her courtroom? What if they had been Islamic? Buddist? Sure. That is fine too, let them put up whatever they want.
What does this have to do with the 10 Comandments? Someone needs to learn to cope with anti-religious paranoia. Even if you are not a Christian, most of that stuff still applies. Murder is against the law. So is robbery. It is bad to shag everything that moves because eventually, you will probably catch something (maybe). The whole gist of the thing (if you leave out the first two, which I think are the only ones actually to talk about God), is for us to be good to each other.
Yes, there are a lot of Christian people who think that if you say "The Grass is green," and don't include God in it, that you are the spawn of Satan. But lumping all of us together like that, and dismissing what we belive in is tantamount to calling all hackers crackers.
There are a lot of us in this community that openly embrace religion (and not just Christianity). I think that we are a silent minority, but we are here. I will not accept hostility toward my beliefs in God any more than I will against my beliefs for the Free and Open Source software communities.
I do agree with you. This should be the decision of parents. I don't go see South Park because I just think it is moronic. I'm not going to stop any one else from seeing it though. Even though some "Christians" would try to stop people, doesn't mean you should just bundle us all together and label us fascists or something...
Remember folks, just like computers, if you feed people garbage you get garbage out!
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
I obviously don't understand what all of the fuss is about....
This is a RULE....and it is no different from a LAW. If you don't like the rule (law), then work to change it.
This is not something that the theatres just dreamt up...they have to abide by the rules also...or you see them on the 10:00 news with some "special report" about how they are just letting kids into any movie..."your damned if you do..." you know the rest.
I have five children...the three oldest (16, 13, 10) saw both South Park and American Pie. I also went with them. Now..I work for a major theatre chain, and I probably could have gotten around the rules...but I didn't. If parents want to let their children see this stuff (I obviously don't see a problem with that..) fine...just go see it with them. Then you can answer the inevitable questions..and explain that this is a movie...not the real world.
Grow up guys...have some children...then relook at this issue. I have a feeling you might see it differently then.
Rich Minear
rminear@amctheatres.com
I am not sure quite how to respond to a story like this... You see, I happen to be a part of a minority (?) group of Slashdot readers who actually think that such moral limitations and the so on are actually worthwhile. I think the real problem I see here is on the part of the author and the mother. First off, the author. I am amazed that the author of this story can turn himself into a hero by lying and cheating. Now, I am sure that you can come up with all kinds of reasons to tell me all that doesn't matter - they can already get it off the web, nobody was getting hurt, yada yada yada. The truth of the matter is this: IT WAS WRONG. It was a lie and an embarrassment to the concept of freedom which you chose to abuse on that day. Shame on you. And to the mother. That a woman when even consider to take her children to such a show is an embarrassment to the word mother. "Mom" is a word which represents a caring, nuturing class of women who have the BEST interest of the children in mind. Come on, figure it out here, people. How can anyone ignore the crud that comes out of South Park. As a Christian in this nation I say enough is enough. I don't want to see the people on the fringe of society et abused whenever something like Columbine happens. I do, however, want to see americans start standing up for a little decency and the like. And about the "Ten Commandments" comment in the first part of your story - give me a break. Our country is closer now to "religious discrimination" then in ever has been - but only in the context of restricting prayer in school and the like. I'd say more, but I don't have the time. Other Christian Slashdot readers: SPEAK UP! Don't fight with me over ANY of the little details in my post here and just band together to raise the voice that we DO HAVE.
Let love and faithfulness never leave you;
bind them around your neck,
write them on the tablet of your heart.
Oh, the horror, the horror. Small children prevented seeing from South Park! Parents inconvenienced in their holy task of polluting their children's minds with racial humor and foul language! We can't stand for this! Forget human rights like freedom of speech, expression or religion; forget the starving, oppressed, war weary men, women, and children of this planet; forget the basic rights refused politcal prisoners in Sudan or in China. Forget all of the important things happening in the world today, cause you can't see South Park. Your fundmental human right to 50 foot genitals and racial humor that no one can excuse, your fundamental right to pornography has been abridged.
In all my life, I have never heard complaining so unfounded, so patently ridiculous. I have never heard anyone expend so much effort, so much ridiculous effort, over something so tivial. You are bemoaning the reactionism of a frightened, ill-informed populace, the results of which are inconvenience at worst. Grow up.
Andrew Gardner
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, its too dark to read.
Parents have the right to instill what ever morals they see fit into their children. The problem arises when parents leave it up to TV and Movies to teach their children these morals with no supervision. Who here really thinks that nudity is generally more questionable than violence? Next thing you know someone from the christian right will be screaming for carding at art exibits displaying BREASTS! Nudity is only a big deal because American society has made it taboo.
P.S. Any misspellings or faults of grammar you think you detect are mearly transmition errors, and probably your fault a
On an artistic level, the South Park movie got off to a great start. The songs and whatall were amazing, but after about 40 minutes it seemed as though a different writer/director had taken control of the storyline and f*cked it up completely.
I would never take my kids or anyone elses to see this movie. The ratings board gave it the rating it deserved. I commend theatres who make some effort to enforce an unpopular ruling, and gladly relegate myself to "flamebait" status in so doing.
Mr. Katz's efforts for the kids was commendable in spirit, but the road to Shitsville is paved with good intentions.
**>>BELCH
On an artistic level, the South Park movie got off to a great start. The songs and whatall were amazing, but after about 40 minutes it seemed as though a different writer/director had taken control of the storyline and f*cked it up completely.
I was entertained to a small degree, but I would never take my kids or anyone elses to see this movie. The ratings board gave it the rating it deserved. I commend theatres who make some effort to enforce an unpopular ruling, and gladly relegate myself to "flamebait" status in so doing.
Mr. Katz's efforts for the kids was commendable in spirit, but the road to Shitsville is paved with good intentions.
Mr. Katz, perhaps you could practice what you preach and take some children to this movie and watch it, in it's entirety with them. Not just any kids, mind you, but kids from your own family and/or circle of close friends. Kids in whom you have a vested emotional interest, and whose parents are willing to place their trust in your judgement. Make sure they're well under the age to see it, and watch it with them from start to finish.
Enjoy the fun and freedom of it all. See you at the movies!
-kent
**>>BELCH
MP3 is MPEG2 Layer 3 Audio. MPEG2 is a video format (used for digital broadcasting, like cable and satellite).
:)
Although only Layer 2 is supported nativly by most commercial MPEG decoders (set-top boxes and the like).
MPEG == Motion Picture Engineers Group
That is all
I personally disagree with the reasons for the american ethnic situation - ok, I am also just another european bystander, but from what I have seen, it is not preasure by some institutions, its much deeper - "what would people think, if I don`t follow the official ethnic?" :-)
:-)
:-)
Instead of thinking about "is it good or bad what I am doing" many think "what will others think of me?" (Or at least uncle Henry from Washington State summed it up this way
Would be interesting to confront an republic american with an average commercial break in the 23:00-broadcast of german startrek, just count how many naked "ladies" are doing busy work at themself advertising for 0190/0900-phonenumbers.
One could switch to another station, but you can bet most of them are just airing another porn from the 70/80... except on sunday, then they are broadcasting productions from the 90`s
Did I mentioned, that some violent scenes got cutted from startrek while broadcasting in germany?
Looks like other regions also have their personal ethical problems (not to mention arabic television which REALLY pisses me of
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
<note the sarcasm>
----------------------
It's too bad stupidity isn't painful"
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Actually, you are allowed to say "fuck" in a PG-13 movie precisely once. Twice and it's R. How often have we seen a PG-13 action flick where the big climactic battle sequence plays like this?
When you hear that, think back and you'll realize nobody else in the movie up to that point has said "what the fuck?" or "that's fucking great." The movie didn't want to blow its wad early.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
Screw General Cinema, UA, etc.. Watch it in your own theater with good popcorn, comfy seats, and no morons shouting back at the screen.
;)
My HT rig beats many theatres in my neighborhood (Brooklyn), though that really isn't saying much
I can't wait until Matrix streets (Oct 5 is the rumored date)..
Hey, I hate the government as much as the next geek, but there are things which are can be more efficiently done in numbers than on an individual basis. Government serves me best when it provides a services 'economy of scale', like when it can afford enough weaponry and personnel to defend my liberties as opposed to me dropping mad cheddar to buy my own arsenal..
Parents have used checklists for a long time. My own parents handed down their own checklists to me. Don't swear. Don't fight, walk away from bullies. Don't steal. Do your homework. Do go outside and spend some time away from the computer. Checklists have a place. But they fall apart because they feel to the child exactly like what it is. Arbitrary rules. The child doesn't necessarily understand them, and as a result challenges them. I sure as heck swear when no adults were present. I avoided homework whenever possible. I picked a few fights.
More valuable were the lessons on how to think and reason. My parents helped me learn to reason out rules and ways of behaving. I could ramble on for pages with the lessons I learned, but it can all be summarized in the Golden Rule, "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." I may have decided that my parents religion wasn't for me, but that simple rule, understandable by any child, has served as a guidepost for me.
When exposed to that simple rule and a lot of things that are legal become morally wrong. Keeping software proprietary becomes harder to justify (I want others to share with me, so shouldn't I share with them. Isn't that what RMS wanted?). Insulting someone is nearly impossible.
Conversely, a lot of "rules" become irrelevant. A rousing chorus of Uncle Fucka isn't really hurting anyone. (I choose to reduce my own swearing because curses lose a level of impact when commoditized, but that's a different issue.) A little nudity doesn't hurt anyone. In some situations, a lie can better than the truth.
So, this mother, for one reason or another, chose to allow her children to see South Park. Maybe she's letting the twin gods of television and cinema raise her children, but maybe she has decided that the movie won't harm her children. Maybe she has instilled her children with a sense of right and wrong, and is comfortable that they will be able to enjoy the movie without mental damage. It's her right to make this decision for her kids.
But the theatre has decided for her. Apparently General Cinemas knows better than she does what is appropriate for her kids.[1].
So Jon generously stepped in. While his story was a bit far fetched (A priest? Clearly Jon needs more practice with lies. :-), he did a good thing. He didn't teach the kids that you should lie to get what you want. He taught them that their mother's decision was better than the theatres. He taught them a bit of sacrifice (he missed portions of Eyes Wide Shut to help a woman he didn't know). He taught them that a persons moral choices can be independant of society, business, and law.
Of course, the kids only learned these lessons if they have been taught to think about why people do things, and to judge actions on some system of belief, not on a checklist of rules. I can only hope their mother did this.
[1] Disclaimer: General Cinemas isn't really a bad guy. It's a company that wants to make money, and it thinks it will make more money following this path. Or perhaps the owner of the branch really believes this is for the betterment of society. Either way, GC should not be demonized. People should express their desires for how a business should act to their local businesses, and refuse to patronize businesses with which they have serious problems. I suspect that if enough people tell General Cinemas that they are using other theatres because of this treatment, GC will change its stance.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Katz, I used to think you were just another annoying journalist. Now, I see you did something
good for a change. Keep it up. More Southpark.
Take some kids to see "Debbie Does Dallas" next!
I saw "South Park" this Friday at my local Lowes googleplex - it was a riot. There were a few young'uns there, but it was mainly college-age kids and thirtysomethings with a sense of humor (I like to put myself in that category). It's outrageous how the fallout from Columbine has triggered such a knee-jerk reaction on the part of the Clinton administration ("You really _should_ ID kids - we wouldn't want to have to regulate you, would we?"). As if a potty-mouthed crude cartoon (and it's 'R' rated competition) is going to be the one influence that corrupts our "precious youth"!
The truly disgraceful thing here is that we're gradually giving up our freedom of speech, and we're doing it voluntarily. I guess if "adult" themes like sexuality and language now must be kept from our impressionable youth, we'll just have to send them to see good, clean violent PG-13 movies. I'm so glad that we're protecting our young ones...
When I was a teenager, I worked at an "alternative" cinema in Connecticut that showed all sorts of fare, mostly unrated. I remember 14-year old kids going to midnight Rocky Horror screenings (I didn't go to one of those until I was 16!) - underage kids seeing foreign films with extensive nudity, teenagers filling the place for the annual "splatterfest" (with movies like Basket Case, 10,000 Maniacs, and the original TCM), and all the classic John Waters films like Female Trouble and Pink Flamingos.
Interestingly enough, we had no age policies at all, yet somehow our patrons didn't emerge from the theater to rape and pillage downtown Norwalk on a nightly basis. Go figure.
Bottom line: people who are doomed to be the nutcases of society will find a trigger - regardless of our misguided efforts to protect them. If there are more of them nowadays I'd look first at the trend to absentee parenting and easy access to weaponry before I blame the media - though that's the "easy" answer. But this is a society that doesn't like to look any deeper than
the surface.
Remember - those who would willingly exchange liberty for security deserve neither.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
All I can say is that I'm moderately disgusted with the confrontational, overbearing louts who wish to impose THEIR beliefs on me and will use any means, not matter how illegal, intrusive to me, or personally repugnant they are. Ends NEVER justfies the means.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Er, the judge can do whatever he wants in his home. He can wallpaper his walls (inside and out) with Bible scripture and scream the ten commandments at the top of his lungs all day outside of the courtroom, because he's acting on his own behalf outside the courtroom.
Inside the courtroom, he is acting *as a representative of the government*. As such, all of his powers and all of the guidelines which direct those powers come from the government. We decided quite a while ago that the government should allow freedom of religion, and therefore should not favor one religion over another in such important matters as judicial decisions.
For example:
:-)
"It is bad to shag everything that moves because eventually, you will probably catch something (maybe)."
Not in my morality, I personally think promiscuity is admirable and enjoyable, and view STDs as a unforunate nuisance awaiting solving, not some sort of moral guide
Love the Ghostbuster reference:)
"Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"
Somebody please get the moderators a dictionary so that they can look up "redundant". This is at least the third time I have seen it used inappropriately. If you're going to moderate down (or up for that matter)do it for the right reason. The second, third, fourth, etc., post to make a particular point may be considered redundant but hardly the first.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The current ratings system we have originated in the late sixties. Prior to that there was the Hayes commission (no relation to the modem people)from somewhere in the early to mid thirties.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
But did you go to the theater manager and demand a refund for spoiling the movie for you by making you miss the first ten minutes? No one ever responds to a boycott they don't know about.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I'm sixteen years old. I've been watching violent and explicit films since I was a toddler. Among my favorite films are A Clockwork Orange, Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece which has been banned in England for violent content while today much more violent films pass directly through the iron fist of their governing bodies, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, A film loosely based on real-life serial killer Ed Gein, and several other horror films featuring all the things deemed profane (By Blockbuster's standards: strong language, nudity, sexual situations, adult themes, drug use, and rape). My parent's knew I were watching these films, and, even at a young age, were not concerned that these would adversly affect me. They were correct.
When I enter a classroom wearing a Texas Chainsaw Massacre t-shirt, I am often discriminated against. Teachers have made negative comments, students have harassed me, I've even been forced to leave school for a South Park shirt that said "Kick Ass". Apparently, my education is less important to the administrators of my school than a few words printed on an item of clothing. However misjudged, I have recieved many academic awards and am a honor-roll student.
I personally never have understood the problem with obscenites. A word is simply a means of expressing an idea. "Ass" and "Butt" mean the same exact thing - yet one is deemed to be so unacceptable, it is profane to use it. There's very little sense being made here.
Even though I listen to Death Metal music, watch violent films, and participate in Martial Arts competitions, I have never been arrested. It is rare for me to have a problem with my parents. I don't use drugs. I've never attacked anyone. I don't swear when it's not appropriate. I don't have promiscuous sex. I have viewed all of the things that the MPAA doesn't want me to see, and I'm fine. That said, fuck the MPAA.
# wrote sig.txt, 23 lines, 31337 chars
This whole issue is just horrifically stupid. The other day I got carded to see American Pie with some friends, a movie which I had not only seen at another theater without hassle, but also have on my hard drive at home. And of course, the person carding me probably wasn't much older than me to begin with.
I've never been carded before, and it really pissed me off. I don't look underage, as far as everybody except that ticket booth nazi is concerned (I had recently seen Blair Witch and South Park at theateres which promised to card EVERYONE).
I've never see any problems erupt like the one in JonKatz's article. That's just absurd. Any manager of a movie theater who refuses to let kids in even when their mother is right there telling the manager that they have her consent needs to be fired. Nobody cares about the customers anymore.
If I was a parent, and there was an usher at the door of the theater forcing me to stay inside, and I had to go to the bathroom, I'd make a big scene and piss in the fucking theater. Then maybe they'd realize how absurd their policies were and consider changing them. I'd certainly consider changing my house rules if someone pissed in my living room in protest.
- If you were my daughter I'd spank you for saying that.
Looks like nobody's going to do any spaking, since the author of the post is obviously a man, and therefore is physically incapabale of being ANYONE'S daughter.- You have a completely idealistic view of how to bring up kids and the complexities involved. When it is your money that is paying for your kids to do everything, then you will find that you wont be giving them money for things they want to do that you are not happy about. So effectively you will be censoring their view of the world and what they can do in it.
Yes, but the bottom line is that it SHOULD be the parent's job to censor what the child sees, and NOT the job of some dimwit theater employee, or a government who is completely out of touch with the kids that it's trying to protect.If a parent wants to let their 7 year old kid watch porno, they're perfectly entitled to do that. Some people may think it's wrong, or immoral, but really it's up to the parent to decide.
When I was seven years old my parents would screen every movie we rented, and then when we watched it, they'd make me leave the room in advance whenever nudity ocured. If they rented a movie for themselves that they didn't feel I was old enough to see, they'd hide the video.
Then, when I was little older, they stopped doing that, and I was ready for it. Part of it was probably because when I was seven I was also playing doctor with the two sisters who lived next door ;)
But the point is that by placing themselves on the front lines of the assault, they ARE fighting the moral war. There would be no moral war taking place at the theaters if there were no teenaged ticket-taking soldiers poised at attention on the popcorn-butter stained battlegrounds.
I am 40, what little hair I have left is grey. I went to Blockbuster to pick up a Ja Rule CD and got an earful from the clerk - did I know it had explicit lyrics did I know it promoted violence did I know it....... am I really sure that I want to buy this, am I really buying this for a minor...
She actually tried to refuse selling it to me because by her reasoning nobody who isn't forbidden to buy this CD would have any interest in owning it so anyone who isn't forbidden to buy this CD must by definition be buying it for some nefarious purpose.
Speaking of ratings, why not release two differently rated versions of the same movie?
Is that not allowed?
Jordan
For my money, the theaters are being a little too draconian. You have to stay with your kids? They watch you to make sure you do? OTOH, I have seen 8 year old kids go to movies like "The Matrix" and "Pulp Fiction". That's just not right.
But I think the blame lies with the parents. They are the ones taking the kids to the movie, instead of finding a sitter, etc. Maybe the movie theatres should just show a kids movie in parallel with the big attractions (in another smaller theater), that way the kids would be nearby and not exposed to clearly adult-oriented movies
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Hear, hear. This is a corporate policy, which libertarians hold dear.
While i admire Jon for sticking his neck out for his principles, (and posing as a pastor was truly inspired), i have to say i'm not sure why he bothered. I mean, not being able to see certain films until you get a bit older is hardly the jack-boot of oppression shoved in your face. I don't think kids are really missing out by not seeing R or NC-17 films, and if they really want to see them, they can write the titles down, and rent them when they turn 18. Not such a big deal. I know that immediate gratification is the ideal in this country, but maybe "Give me convienience or give me death!" isn't a notion we should stick with. Patience, my friends...
I worked in an independant movie theatre from 1980 -83 (the "Orinda", in suburban Orinda, California), and we were fairly rigorous about enforcing age limits then, mostly because an annoyingly high percentage of teenagers were disrupting shows for others. Not all of them, to be sure, but enough that enforcing rules we already had imposed on us just made sense.
I know i'm sounding a bit curmudgeon-like here, but there are much greater evils in the world than not being able to see a movie on the big screen.
mahlen
A man who cannot carry his own weight cannot carry a Volkswagen.
--Kehlog Albran, "The Profit"
Restriction and free thinking do not go together.
I don't mean this as a flame, but .... does noone else out there see a certain contrdiction in this statement ?
It is forbidden to think unfreely here. ROTFL
Simon> the young has been to post the Ten Commandments
> in schools
And then ignore them (both commandments and schools) and hope they'll go away.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Theaters are not bound by any law to honor the guidelines produced by the MPAA. The MPAA is a group of parents (not necessarily of children who are in the age group they are "protecting" but have had some parenting experience in the past). They produce guidelines which theaters are strongly encouraged to follow and all major theater chains enforce. They make judgement calls, not at all based in strict scientific evaluation of a movie, but in how they feel about the movie that day.
Recently the House passed a resolution to request theaters take guidelines more seriously, but this is not in any way legally enforcable. Besides, MPAA is much more concerned with sex than violence currently, and last time I checked Columbine wasn't caused by too much exposure to breasts.
The only reason theaters abide by the guidelines is that yheaters would be boycotted by conservative parent groups and Christians if they did not follow the MPAA guidelines. They would lose more money in lost revenue from them than from teenagers. But they will not be fined or sanctioned by the government in any way.
The debate over whether or not a 15 year old should be able to see South Park or American Pie is not something I want to get in to. By that age, morals have or have not been instilled in that kid, and it should be the parents' discression alone what is best for the child.
-nosilA who laughed uncontrollably during South Park and loved Eyes Wide Shut, but was quite annoyed by the end of American Pie.
You (collectively) did and what's worse is that you tell them that their making the right decisions every time you buy a ticket. You need to boycott. Missing a couple of films on the big screen will be a small price to pay for regaining your freedom.
They own the cinema. You can't claim to be a libertarian if you then want to control how people use their own property. If the cinema chain thinks it's in its best interest to enforce ridiculous rules then tough, buy your own cinema.
Brainfart
If you're not going to do anything then stop whingeing (unless the article is a call to arms, of course.)
In a democracy the people get exactly what the people deserve.
Well, the US prez did ask the National Association of Theatre Owners to crack down on underage viewers after Columbine etc.
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Don't worry about ... I'm sure they'll ship a few extra to Canada :)
This response will likely be very unpopular, but I've just plain had enough.
/. since he started. I find him to be oppurtunistic even beyond what I see in the mainstream media. I am particularly disgusted by his slanted view on the "tyranny" that our young people have to endure in their lives, in high school and such. While there are probably excesses in many instances, life is not fair and you just have to deal with it. Its more important for the administrations of these schools to provide a safe environment that it is for a few "oppressed" individuals to be given their "right" to wear a black trenchcoat.
I've been reading Katz on
I was a geek like many of those whose comments I've read here, member of the chess club, spent all my time on computers, etc. You should have seen my yearbook pictures, not pretty. The difference was, somehow I managed to realize that despite having to put up with a lot of harassment from just about everybody, it was going to end after four years. If you want to pursue your own way of looking at things, there is a price. Freedom is not free, you just have to deal with that.
Anyway, wrt to this most recent article, this is the end. I'm finally taking the step of cutting out Katz from those articles I want displayed.
Those 14 and 15 year olds shouldnt be watching South Park the movie, they shouldnt be watching the TV show and they shouldnt be downloading it from the net. The mother who brought them there to drop them to see it was negligent in my view for doing so. I applaud the theatre for finally enforcing a policy that should be enforced, since it is not by the parents who should be. Katz should not have been allowed to "escort" them in by the theatre but what really amazes me is that the mother would allow him to escort them for her! What was she thinking? Were I to allow my children in the same situation, I cant even imagine letting them go off into the theatre with some total stranger.
I am aware that there are single mothers in the world that need to find entertainment for their children while they work. Dropping them at the South Park movie and letting them be escorted in by a complete stranger is not it.
The bottom line is, Katz needs to learn that just because a child wants to do something doesnt mean they should be able to do it. I'm sick of listening to his drivel, he sounds like one of the 14 year olds he champions.
Later,
FM
Frank W. Miller
Your description is chilling. It clearly reminds the middle of the 80's in Soviet Union when a crazy wave of "work discipline" roamed all over. One of the most clear pictures of this was connected with cinemas also. During work hours, raids were made over cinemas and theaters. They catched every person and checked if he should be in his workplace. Those who had to were fined or got administrative punishment.
It was quite interesting that this particularly happened during the appearence of a soviet "blockbuster" that was not seen too well by some high ranking buddies. But people did everything to get into the film. Even if that meant taking a walk out of work.
Some weeks ago I saw a TV program about this. Very interesting. There was the rather funny (well after so much time) of a mother arresting her own daughter for being on the cinema at work hours. Is that the way things going to in the US. Will a policewoman arrest her daughter for seeing "improper" films? Will States change for Soviets?
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.
-- C. S. Lewis
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin
We live in a nation where our essential liberties-- those guaranteed us by the foundation documents of our government-- have come under constant attack: free and peacable assembly, free speech, illegal search and seizure, and free exercise of religion, to name but a few.
Our nation was founded with the overriding guiding precept of Liberty. Somewhere along the way we have lost that ideal, and replaced it by making Democracy alone our watchword-- a poor substitute, for Democracy in and of itself places no limits upon the enaction of a popular tyranny.
The Libertarian Party website is here.
-- Cerebus
Want to hand out condoms or pamphlets on safe sex? Fine! Want to make a gay/lesbian/bi/trans support group in your local high school? Great!! How about Bible study? Uh....we wouldn't want to offend the atheists, now would we? I cannot understand why Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech is permitted, but the Ten Commandments are unmentionable.
I would also like to point out that I am offended by the term "Judeo-Christian". Anyone who truly understands the nature and practice of Judaism or the various descendants of Christianity (Catholicism, Baptism, Protestantism, etc.) would never be so insolent as to suggest that some mutant confabulation of all practices exists and is controlling the laws and business practices of the Evil Moral Majority [sic].
Libertarians are so hung up on personal freedom that they can't see that laws and policies are needed for society's protection. If you want to let your kids watch the "South Park" movie, I agree that it's your decision (although I believe it's a bad one). In the absense of specifically stated permission, society (in the form of the MPAA) does its best to set standards. Will there be exceptions? No doubt. Will there be questionable calls? Certainly. But just because umpires will make bad calls at some point, that's no reason to remove them from the game.
- Richie
There are some people who think that anyone actually mature enough to see the South Park movie would be mature enough not to want to.
I know many 8 year olds who think they are mature enough to drive and plenty of 12 year olds who think they are old enough to drink and more than a few 15 year olds who think that a constant stream of cynical vulgarities has no effect on their psychological and cultural development.
Way to go, yanks!!!! Way to go!!!
-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
It wasnt Congress who imposed the rule, recently. It was Bill Clinton
agreed. Nobody on slashdot have kids...please!
Now, I will admit that I have not seen it, nor have I seen the TV series, but it was my impression that the show lampoons the often-vicious culture of childhood.
Porn, in both my opinion and that of the law, is defined as material that has a sexually arousing effect on the reader or viewer. As far as I know, South Park is in no way sexually exciting.
So why is it porn?
Just asking.
D
----
Ah yes. The great usenet definition of "censorship", pulled from the How To Argue On Usenet article featured on The Brunching Shuttlecocks:
Censorship
Whenever anyone calls you a chowderhead, tells you they've heard more coherent statements from randomly arranged Scrabble tiles, or disagrees with you, they are practicing censorship. People who believe in free speech keep their opinions to themselves. Except you, of course.
How in the name of all things good and plenty is filtering out Jon Katz from someone's personal profile practicing censorship? Katz still has the right to say whatever he likes, it's just this one guy isn't going to see it because he chooses not to.
And as far as being "closed minded", he's filtering out Katz because he's read lots of Katz and has yet to see him say anything worthwhile. He's given Katz a chance, and didn't care for it. So he's doing what every Katz fan tells anyone who disagrees with Katz to do.
I do wish chowderheads could pick a position and stick with it.
Another damned comic
+++ NO CARRIER
Jon has redeemed himself with this episode. I was getting tired of the "End of [put a name here] Era" stories.
I'm quite shocked by this story, considering that the mother herself was there to provide consent.
My post is more towards a problem with a solution. As Jon noted in his opening, the fight against Columbine has turned toward this increase of "religious messages" (i.e. 10 Commandments in school) and deliberate fascism sponsored by our Commander in Chief. Who knew that the Soviets won the Cold War? We may have forced them into an unresolvable depression, but their politics have become an acceptable practice in America.
But on to my post...
I live in Texas, and when I was 16, I had an opportunity to attend a program called the Texas Governor's Honors Program. I've stayed in contact with many of my fellow scholars from this program (and the offshoot Academy program). Many of us identified with the stories of the various school shooters as far as the ridicule and repression from our fellow students. But those feelings subsided after attending the Honors Program. This was truly a good program, that took time to recognize our value and provide an atmosphere that allowed us to actually feel happy about who we are.
Unfortunately, I say "was a good program" not because it is 6 years past, but because the Governor (and Presidential candidate) George Bush Jr. has cut funding for his program. This program was begun many years ago before he was put in office. I'm writing today to say that the advocacy Jon appears ready to present is only part of a campaign that includes allowing politicians to know that programs which are truly useful and helpful to the egos of "geeks" who fit their profiling methods are being cut while ridiculous answers are provided. To serve the public, they must be in touch with the public. And it seems that for this ball, they've gone on to drop it for more ridiculous solutions.
If you read this and are in any way affiliated with this program or one like this, if you are news media looking for actual dirt on Bush and his lack of issues, if you are Jon Katz looking for another advocacy issue, or if you just want to help stop the madness of our politicians, I implore you to speak out.
The 10 Commandments won't help anyone if they don't even begin to value themselves. And most "geeks" (as determined by political profiling) can tell the difference between coloring animated paper cutout figures and flesh and blood humans.
The answer is simple, I won't value you if I don't even value myself.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
Does anyone know if the rumors I heard about the Matrix are true. I heard somewhere, no idea where right now, that They might not be releasing the Matrix to video stores because of the black-trenchcoat wearing, gun toting heroes in the movie.
Also, perhaps kids should not be allowed to see rated R movies, but Their parents should be allowed to make that decision. My parents decided that I could see rated R movies as long as there wasn't too much sex in them, and I turned out ok. Well at least I haven't gone on a murdering rampage yet. Besides as Jon said, it's all a waste anyway since they'll just see the movies, or play the video games, or find the porn by themselves. I know I did not have any problems and we did not have this newfangled internet thing back when I was a kid, (i'm 22 BTW).
Just my 2 koku
Is not blocking Jon's posts another form of censorship? Not being exposed to disagreeable ideas leads to closed minded views. Simular views are held by those that are pro censorship. How far is that stretch. Also when exactly did the essay say it was pro porn??? All I heard was that porn, which is much worse than South Park, is readily available on the internet.
Hypocracy is the greatest luxury.
You or I would never try to keep kids from watching or reading or listening to something they really want to, because we know that some of them will set up a web page, and encode it, and have it streaming or ftp-able within four hours. The law makers and the corporate policy makers haven't caught on to that. They are acting the same way they did a decade ago because they don't realize that they've lost control.
Using Microsoft software is like having unprotect sex.
Bite the hand.
This column, by contrast, is short, to the point, and aside from the fact Katz (like a lot of today's writers) spells everything out in grade 5 English, it was quite an enjoyable piece. My conclusion: get him to write more about social issues and less about technology, which he obviously doesn't have a firm handle on.
Now, if we could find him a new horse to beat, all would be well. This one, while not quite dead, is certainly malnurished and won't carry him much farther.
Using Microsoft software is like having unprotect sex.
Bite the hand.
You _seriously_ need a cranial enema, pal. You also need to realize that there are in reality, very damn _few_ of us geeks that actually want to have some stupid xtian reactionary preaching at us.
I applaud Katz for actually having the balls to speak up and say something. Most people, despite their convictions, seem to abhor confrontation, but confronting this kind of media & church inspired lunacy is the _only_ way to stop the erosion of our civil right to see & hear what _we_ define as appropriate.
"However, no amount of free-thinking philosphy in the world will make me believe that what's morally right is subjective, only that we have the right to make our own choices regarding which morals we will uphold and which we won't."
Well, too bad for you. I don't believe that there are _any_ "moral absolutes". As far as I can tell, belief in such is the primary motivator for racism, genocide, and other wonderful things the world religions are so fond of.
"Your mockery of this person's choices in referring to him as an xtian reactionary implies you would deprive him of his right to an opinion if you had the power to do so."
Hmmm? Not at all. It was _just_ what it sounded like - mockery. I heartily dislike people who make value judgements on what they _percieve_ as other people's moral failings. I have no problem with Alta prattling on about foul language and satanism; I just resent what _I_ see as the reactionary, mostly xtian attempt to control what _I_ may see, do, or think.
but it would have been taking some responsibility for what kind of people these kids could become.
So which is it? If the kids turn into monsters, is it the fault of their parents (according to the first quote) or is it because they saw a 'bad' movie (according to the second quote)?
The main effect of stupid laws is to reduce overall respect for the law. You're looking at the problem from the wrong direction, and blaming people for having a lack of respect for the law instead of blaming the law for being stupid.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
This article and the "Hellmouth" articles resonate well with me, probably because they have real personal content and not so much glossy buzzword-rich pontifications.
It's important to show people how silly/stupid my country's implementation of censorship is. Whether or not you believe that some content is not suitable for minors (I do), legislation and lawsuits are truly poor instruments for regulating content.
Movie rating policies and other kinds of institutionalized content filtering can be a useful tool for parents to use, but that is all that they are. The final responsibility for a child should rest with parents, not with an instituation. It's a mistake (and an ironic one, in the case of the South Park movie which satires censorism) to force government and/or business to take this responsibility from parents.
This seems to be a growing trend in the US. Public schools, for example, are taking on more and more responsibilities formerly handled by parents. A teacher told me last month that if all he had to do was teach the curriculum his job would be a piece of cake.
My personal opinion is that our lawsuit-happy culture has saturated our consciousness with the idea that problems in the world are someone else's responsibility, and this idea has even begun to affect previously inviolate ideas about responsibility for minors. People act like it's the government's responsibility to take care of students who aren't in school to learn, or that it's the movie industry's responsibility to keep kids out of R movies, but in fact it is (and should always be) the parent's responsibility.
These problems are probably exacerbated by the fact that so many people's parents work full time. I'm not sure our current economic organization encourages good parenting. I hope that the proverbial pendulum will start swinging the other way soon. The state should not be taking care of our kids.
-OT
*grin*
I couldn't help but notice the reference to the RUSH album, which also deals with censorship.
Cheers,
-OT
He never stated christianity should be a state religion
He didn't use those exact words, I suppose. He wants the decent, honest people of America to be forced -- by law, as far as I can tell -- to live according to the dictates of his bizarre superstitions. That's called a theocracy. The comparison to Iran was reasonable and appropriate, especially right now given the political situation in Iran. Watch the news from Iran closely; that's where we'll be too, twenty years after the Christians take over.
. . . the valid points of his argument
There weren't any. It was all just the usual "protect-the-children" hysteria, with no attempt made to quantify the damage that's allegedly being done, much less establish any causal link between the alleged damage and the alleged cause.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
. . . when there wasn't such a mad rush to quell Christian beliefs
What you describe as an attempt to "quell Christian beliefs" is in fact a merely refusal by some of us to take orders from you people. You're perfectly free to believe any crazy nonsense you like, but that doesn't mean that I have to believe it too. You do not have a right to force my children to worship your god in the public schools. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. You seem to think you're being "persecuted" because you don't have quite as many special privileges as you want. Heh. You can teach my kids about Jesus when I get to teach yours about Buddha. Is it a deal?
Meanwhile, Christians have a tremendous amount of power and influence in this country, and it's constantly growing.
i understand that Christians don't hold the corner on morals; it just seems that way when the rest of the world wants to make up the rules as they go along.
Heh. This is a glorious example of the kind of "logic" that Christians indulge in. You're assuming A) that anybody not a Christian must have no religion at all, and B) that anybody lacking a religion must necessarily "make up the rules as they go along". Crap, crap, crap. Christianity is just one religion out of many, and atheists are in my experience generally a lot more "moral" than Christians. This is because we can't unload responsibility for our crimes onto God. We can't pretend that "accepting Jesus" (or confessing, or whatever) will make everything okay. The buck stops here. With you, it never stops at all. We also don't have the wide range of excuses for "good" bad behavior that religious people have. We never get to claim that "god is on our side" and that he wants us to murder people, or imprison them for "crimes" which harm no one, or any of the other sick abuses of power that Christians are so fond of. Christianity is an ink blot. People project whatever they want onto it. Christians are people who do exactly as they please, and then claim that god told them to do it -- and that god told them to force the rest of us to do it, too. Then they say that if we want to think for ourselves, we're "sinners" who must be coerced "for our own good". All dissent is defined as a crime. This is called a "self-reinforcing delusional system". Hey, it's all yours and you're welcome to it, but don't expect rational, honest people to join in.
. . . this country wasn't so bad off
Now that we've disposed of the "mad rush" myth, we can dispose of the rest of this nonsense. Since the war, America has changed in a lot of ways. One of these ways is that a lot of people have given up on all that superstitious Christian nonsense. (Coincidentally, the US began to lead the world in science and technology. Funny, that. I guess it has to do with teaching fact in schools rather than superstition). Sadly, a lot of Americans have in recent years pulled the wool back over their eyes. A shocking number have returned to the tired old lies of Christianity, but many have fallen for equally childish and destructive New Age lies. Oh, well. So it goes. This, too, shall pass.
before beliefs are thrown out because they HAPPEN to be Christian, they should be examined for value on their own right.
In stark, hilarious contrast to the violently amoral Christian Right, us atheistic liberals and "Secular Humanists" generally base our morality on the teachings of Christ. We're very much into stuff like loving one's neighbor, doing unto others as we'd like them to do unto us, tolerance, generosity, equality, and all the rest.
"What would Jesus do?" He'd call you a bunch of damned hypocrites and Pharisees, pal.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
If you think that Christian religious observance -- be it coerced or voluntary -- is likely to have any affect on "public morality", read some history, particularly Medieval Europe, the Reformation, etc. Compared with fourteenth-century Italy, the US is now a very moral place by absolutely any standards at all, yours and mine both included.
Or is knowledge of history now considered just as sinful by Christians as knowledge of science?
It wouldn't surprise me.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Uh, I guess, but it doesn't hurt, either. People have been doing fucked-up things (oh! your virgin ears (eyes?)) for a long, long, time. Much longer than media have existed.
Also, a quibble. I would hesitate before saying the US is the freest country in the world. I am American, but I visited Holland a couple of weeks ago, and they are a helluva lot freer than we are. They laugh at our foolish American prudishness. I have been watching an average of about fifty movies per year, of all types, for the past few years (I'm 16). I am still strongly pacifist, strongly feminist (I am male), and strongly opposed to discrimination, etc., even though I have seen a lot of sex and a lot of violence on-screen, and played Quake 3 a bit. My morals are in pretty good shape, thank you, even though the weak-minded will point to the cuss words I have used in this post as evidence that they aren't.
I do not agree that we have a "bad situation" in terms of morals, or that pop culture affects that meaningfully. We certainly have a bad situation in terms of poverty, religious and political extremism, intolerance, and many other issues. It could just as easily be argued, in fact more convincingly, that MTV and similar media have shortened our national attention span, and that CNN and the other cable news channels have created or encouraged our appetite for scandal and instant results to political events.
Instead of bitching about the government, why don't you take a look at the bigger picture, and issues such as the general degradation of the quality of life in the freest country in the world?
Uh, that's what we're doing. Censorship is a fundamental issue to any society. Do you think we'd be much of a country without the First Amendment? Without it, we would not have any meaningful discourse, and Whitewater would still be secret. Once you censor one thing based upon the principle that "it's in the national interest," you can censor anything else, and it makes little difference whether the "dangerous" ideas are societal or political in nature. Any discourse on the Sexual Revolution of the '60s could have been censored on grounds or prurience.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
Blockbuster Entertainment or Theatres, Inc. is not the moral authority. Frankly I wonder why they continue to ask for drivers' licenses, because I've looked all over mine and I cannot find where on that little card it says whether or not I have the maturity to see a movie.
I went to purchase tickets for South Park on opening day for 4 people. Since the post-Columbine kneejerk policy seems to card anyone who looks like they're younger than 35, I was carded. I gladly pulled out my drivers' license, since frankly I think keeping 8-year-olds out of this particular movie is a Good Thing.
Then though, the guy in the booth told me I needed to show 3 more IDs. I asked him how I was supposed to go back and collect drivers' licenses from everyone before I came. I'm buying MOVIE TICKETS, not beer. We argued for a few minutes and he finally decided to sell me the ticket. Of course, when he went to the computer terminal to print out the tickets, it beeped at him -- the movie had sold out. "Oh, I just forgot to put up the sign." As I was walking out he final
Later, though, I heard from a few other people who DID manage to get in, that they got carded again once they entered the theatre lobby, and then were carded yet again when they went into the actual auditorium to sit down.
OTOH, though, when I went to see Eyes Wide Shut last Saturday, I went to the one of the smaller theatres that weren't owned by one of these giant corporations. Didn't get carded once, and it was one of the better movie theatres I had ever been to... none of the junk you have to put up with at the mega-googolplex theatres.
Seems like the common thread here is just to avoid the mega-multiplex theatres. Every town has some smaller theatres (not owned by these worldwide congolmerates) that could definitely use your support. And (at least in my city, anyway) these sort of smaller theatres are in the more culturally rich parts of town. You can get some great ethnic food, visit a club or two, and catch a great movie all on the same street.
Oops... sorry 'bout the typos. Stupid HTML filters choked on my text.
I meant Blockbuster Entertainment or Theatres Inc.
I also meant "As I was walking out he finally put the SOLD OUT sign up."
OK, I'll try it again. Obviously greater-than/less-than characters don't work well here....
Blockbuster Entertainment or (Insert mega googolplex theatre name here) Theatres, Inc.
I *despise* people who claim a faith, and then pick and choose whatever matches with their politics; spawn off a new sect, instead
New sects blow. I read about this one Jewish guy who believed he was the direct descendant of God. He got, like, a handful of these other guys to believe him and they started this weird cult. Even when the govment said, "Hell, No!" and killed this guy, his crazy followers just kept going. In some ass-backwards parts of the planet, this sect continues to grow.
Not as fast as religious intolerance, though.
www.religioustolerance.org
ie that your god is dead and that cthulhu will rise up and eat you and those that believe as you do First, and that by worshiping cthulhu i will be eaten Last and my death will be mostly painless
A Big Gnu Thrush =anagram= Shub Niggurath
If God is Dead, Who's That Living in My Heart.
A burrito, maybe? (But Jesus-shaped)
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
What you think of me personally is of no consequence. Deal with the issues at hand if you can. You ad hominem doesn't address the issues.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
>It is unfortunate that expressing a pro-restriction POV is likely to attract flames from the ultra-liberal section of the Slashdot readership.
I'm on the far right, and I criticized his POV. It's not just liberal who are againstunfounded restriction.
>Is there anything anywhere which says all geeks have to be libertarians, totally opposed to all forms of restriction?
Geeks, by nature, are free thinkers. Restriction and free thinking do not go together.
>FWIW, I agree with you on the movie ratings thing. I use them as a guideline myself; I skip anything with a 15 or 18 rating and wait for the edited-for-TV version.
Great, that works for you. I prefer to see the artists original vision of what their work should look like.
If I decide that the artistic and historical significance of movies like Schindler's List and Amistad are more important than the detriment of a few seconds of jiggling boobs , and I want my children to see them, then it's MY decision to make.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
While I have no problem with allowing parents to make the decision on what their kids can and cannot see, I do have a problem with the fact that this mother just wanted to drop them off and abrogated her responsibility as a parent to some stranger.
If foul-mouthed cartoons are such an important part of her kid's life, she sure as hell can be expected to spend 2 hours with the little brat and accompany him herself.
Don't get me wrong, I laughed through the entire movie, and if I had a teenage child I would probably have taken her/him, but I'd be damned if I'd let some stranger being the one to explain some of the more *ahem* sensitive parts of the movie. I loved the audience's reaction to Mr. Garrett's line...
.You could here the entire theater draw in their breathe and pause for about 2 seconds on that one.
Please tell me what wrong with movie chains telling parents that they actually have to spend time with their kids if they want to allow them to see this movie. And don't give me any of the bleeding heart, single parent crap. Mommie doesn't work 24/7, she could have found the time. I guess plopping her fat ass down on the couch after work to watch re-runs of Friends or the latest on JFK Jr.is more important.
Oh yes..you are soooo oppressed. Why don't you take daddy and mommy's car down to the local suburban mall and after using their credit card to buy yourself some new, fly, baggy-ass jeans, you could then start some sort of protest movement
Help Help..I'm being oppressed!
You are throwing word "fascist" around too much. Obviously you are another spoiled American kid thah has no clue what fascist really means.
Yep, I think you are warped.But that's just my opinion ...
we all out to be thankful that we don't even have to think for ourselves anymore. No longer do I have to sit at home and wonder how morally uplifting a movie is. All I have to do is ask one of my thought contollers and they will tell me. Geez, what would I do without them? I just realized i would have to make my own decsions and think for myself. I can't understand how society went through a day without being told what to think. I'm glad there are churches, governments and large companies to take care of me. I hope when I finally have kids they will be as well taken care of as I am. I wouldn't want them to be exposed to bad language or sex, not until they were out of school, then they could learn about it. I know if I ever watched R rated movies I would probably boink anything with legs or probably shoot someone. Waiting till I was 17 to watch those naughty movies sure was good for me. I'm going to find all my bookswith bad words in them and take a black marker to them, I wouldn't want someone seeing that and think I was a bad person by having a book with a bad word where a child could possibly see it.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
when I was growing up I was not able to see R rated moves till I was almost 17. children should not be subjected to the violence at these moves, thus the ratings.. parents should be responsible for there kids.. it sounds like you object and what are you 12? violence in movies and games does desensitize.. normal phichies can handle this better than one that is slightly off.. I am glad that blockbuster has decided to not rent R moves to under 18 .. THATS is why they are R! I was at a movie this friday night, it was the 10pm showing, and some lady took here 2 kids to see the Generals Daughter. Now there was a little language, and there was some sex, and also some gross scenes, and it was fine for a mature adult, but a 4 year old kid who can barely sit still in a movie does not belong there with or without his mother, making noise. The mother was obviously on a date and had to take the kids. This is poor behavior on her part. She shoudl have never been let in withthe kids, they distracted the rest of the theater, and they viewed material that they should not have been exposed to at such an early age..
Only 'flamers' flame!
Thank you, Jon. In a country as screwed up as ours, the only defense we have against the constant encroachment of narrow-mindedness is wit. Thanks for tweaking those badly in need of a tweak.
I don't think anyone here is willing to go out on a limb and say that Jon is a hero. Given the (brief) correspondences I've had with him in the past, I'd go so far as to say that he'd deny the charge vehemently.
As for the lying, I firmly believe that telling an unbelievable, bald-faced lie can be justified for the purpose of making a larger point. Here, the point was that it would somehow be acceptable to view the movie if one was in the company of a pastor, and was doing it purely for the purpose of "religious teaching".
What I find obscene is the notion that the MPAA (or worse, right-wing fundamentalists) can seek to impose on parents a ready-made, cookie-cutter template for what it's okay to show their kids. Whether you think kids should have been allowed to see the movie is irrelevant: it's the responsibility of the parents
Speaking as a kid who grew up Jewish in an overwhelmingly Christian neighborhood, shame on you for saying that. You have no idea what institutionalized prayer does to children who are in the minority. I have very clear recollections of children asserting, perfectly straight-faced, that I was going to hell because "your people killed Jesus." When I need some advice on how oppressed Christians are in the USA - "one nation, under God" - I'll let you know. With respect, this doesn't seem like the best way to encourage thoughtful debate. I may not be a Christian, but I like to think of myself as having a pretty well thought out code of ethics. It bothers me that not only do you seem to think that your own version is applicable to everyone, but that voices disagreeing with yours should be silenced.So... How many of you out there are ALCU members?
I could rant, just like the rest of you, but it's just becoming too frequent that things like this happen. It's exhausting.
--
"All that is visible must grow and extend itself into the realm of the invisible."
I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
Rated R means "Under 17 not admitted without Parent". That seems clear enough to me. Doesn't anyone follow the rules anymore?
-Rich
It seems simple enough to me. They should not have seen the movie unsupervised.
Permission to see the movie aside, the mom should have seen it with the kids or made sure that Katz saw it with the kids. These are the rules. We do still follow rules in America right? You can argue all you want about how much the rating systems is a joke (it is IMHO), but rules are rules. Dont expect me to call you a hero for ignoring them. I have nothing against these kids seeing the movie. If they think it's funny, great. I hope they had a good time. What bothers me is people just ignoring rules that have always existed. Just because they dont always enforce them does not mean they should be ignored.
-Rich
I understand that you're in the middle of puberty and have to object to authority. That's fine. Be my guest, it's your perogative. Also the fact that this rule affects you makes you biased towards one side. Hitler youth aside, we're not talking about persecution here, we're talking about a movie. There's so many parents out there that want to blame shit on movies, or tv, or books, or the internet without taking even one iota of responsiblity for the behavior of their children. Under 17 not admitted without adult or whatver the wording of the rule is, is designed to keep parents in the loop. That cant be bad. As much as it sucks to have to see the movie with an adult, keep in mind that it's a two way street. If parents and adults were being mindful of kids behavior the blame for something like Columbine could be placed on the parents where it belongs. Not on a harmless film. People exploit the system by letting their children run free and then bitch and moan that the media is corrupting their children. That's the kind of hypocrisy I cant stand.
Like I said I think the rating system sucks. I also dont care if the kids see the movie. I hope they liked it. I just wish the mom would show a little responsiblity and see the film with her kids as was intended.
-Rich
It's this sort of callous disregard that makes something like the Columbine blame game possible. If people would just work with the system instead of trying to circumvent it we would not have to sort through throngs of angry parents blaimg everything from tv to the internet for the prbolems with kids today.
-Rich
According to the article, the theater is being strict about teenagers attending R-rated movies because of corporate policy, not because of government censorship. By libertarian principles, the owner of a movie theater has the right to refuse service to any potential customer for any reason, including the customer's age.
Katz has seen the free market in action. This month, the free market rewards companies that can both sell tickets to naughty movies and pander to Columbine-obsessed parents. If he doesn't like the results, then his experience seems more like an argument against libertarianism than an argument for it.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Had it occurred to you, bonehead, that capalert doesn't speak for the religious right any more than Bob Young speaks for Linux.
Reminds me of some Steve Taylor lyrics: "A Christian don't get equal time unless he's alooney committing a crime."
The tent is bigger than you know, and more varied than you can apparently concieve.
webwalker
flames > dev/null
R: No one under 17 admitted without a parent or legal guardian NC-17: No one under 17 admitted.
On the other hand there are some children who are too immature to deal with some movies, and it should be up to their parents to invoke that control. I was sitting in Titanic and got treated to some kid sitting behind us doing his best Beavis impression when they had the one nude scene in the entire movie. Boy did that ruin the whole atmosphere of the movie.
Really though when you get down to it, it's not so much the fundamentalists that are the problem, but rather those parents who don't take care of their kids. Parents who rely on television and the public school systems to keep their kids in line. If parents depend on the government to do their jobs for them, the government will do that job (God help us all!). Ultimately I want to be able to raise my kids the way I want, without the interferece of the right wing, or the government.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I can provide innumerable examples of corporate (and government) neglect, greed and shortsightedness that has led to loss of life and other serious non-nuisances. If it weren't for (some parts of) our government, we'd still be working 80 hours a week for a pittance in unsafe conditions without benefits and being fired at will. I am neither a libertarian nor a big-government advocate. I simply think that we, the people, need to continue to monitor and keep in check those that would take advantage of us without (usually negative) incentives to do otherwise.
Jason Dufair
"Those who know don't have the words to tell
Jason Dufair
"Those who know don't have the words to tell
and the ones with the words don't know too w
I'd never have the balls to do that.
Of course I'm an asshole... I'd pay a lawyer to take my kids. If I had eather (No lawyer no kids)..
But it is comming down to that. If I want to rase my own kids my way I'll have to retain a legal firm to do it.
Well I'm pritty shure Bill Gates will be a good father and sue every asshole who trys to rase his kid for him.
[I allwase loved the "bad guy becomes the herro" consept]
Nuke em all man..... Just blow them away...
I don't actually exist.
Not only are these policies ridiculous, but I believe they make the problem even worse. Yes, South Park is probably too much for small children, even young teens. But it's the parent's right to make that decision, not a corporation's. The problem with kids today is not exposure to sex or violence, it is the lack of parental involvement in their lives. Children need guidance as they grow and learn, and absentee parents almost guarantees that a kid's values will be dictated by what they are shown without any guidance on how to interpret it. But instead of encouraging, or better yet, demanding parents take some responsiblity for their children, we seem to be insisting that movies, TV, and the Internet become MORE responsible!
Ignorance is the root of all evil.
Let me just get a couple of things off my under-exercised chest here....
1. Libertarianism is about one thing. The right to do whatever I damn well please in *my* house, with *my* stuff, with *my* family & friends, so long as it doesn't interfere with anybody else's right to do the same, and doesn't involve risking another party. In short, keeping the government out of my home and my choices in life. If I want to let my kids watch South Park in all of it's uncut NC-17 glory, then fine, I'll go rent the tape when it comes out. Its about responsible freedom, not some twisted anarchistic vision.
2. I for one am appalled that you would behave this way in a public establishment which is only trying to enforce the rules placed upon it. You may as well go down to the liquor store and buy the kids hanging around outside that bottle of Boones they're after, or go buy 'em a pack of Camels. You wouldn't do *that*, would you? No.(I hope.) I'm even *more* appalled that this lady would let a complete stranger take any sort of responsibility for her and someone else's children.
3. The 'R' rating has been around for a while, with the same restrictions as always. Just because theaters, in the past, have been overly lax in enforcing it, doesn't mean they have to continue that way. Get pulled over for speeding, and do you tell the officer "but I was going 75 here for the last two weeks, and NOW you're going to ticket me?" Of course not.
Blech. Signatures.
I remember about fifteen years ago a guy went postal in England and shot up a bunch a people. You're probably used to it by now in American, but on this side of the Atlantic it's pretty rare. However, the reasoning behind his little rampage was revealed when it was discovered he had a copy of Rambo in the house. Case solved.
People are assholes, and people who are charged (by themselves or others) with protecting our morals, doubly so.
I went to the movie, taking a 15 year old whose mother said she could see the movie, as long as the mother did not have to watch it, and as long as she would go to church the next day without a hassle. Although we were not hassled the ticket seller looked dubious. A third of the audience left. These were not parents, but mainly it seemed like ppl who went to see it just to dissapprove.
I liked the movie, more than any other in a long time.
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
Don't they realise that people will simply watch the films they want anyway? It is simple to get hold of almost anything you want from the web. You can download hardcore pornography from home, yet kids are told they can't watch South Park!
Something is seriously wrong with their view of the world. I know they are trying to follow public opinion, but it seems that the poicy makers don't even know what public opinion is at the moment. I know there was a knee jerk reaction, but that only lasted a period of days, not months.
Gareth
Maybe we need ids for even youger children.
Thats a brilliant idea. Actually we could just give the entire country id cards, and then it would never be a problem knowing who someone was, what blood type, thier fingerprints, thier dna, what they like on thier pizza, what they were doing last tuesday when someone valdalized that wall. Oh and ofcourse all of this information would not only be for sale for more personalized spam, but we could ask to check someone's id at any time because if they either didn't have one or refused to show it they must have something to hide. RIGHT. How about we let the parents do the parenting, businesses make money and provide the services, and government keep the business inline and make sure no one infringes on my well being.
Sorry for the rant, but damn if i don't feel better now.
Lying is not inherently evil. It is a tool.
Sure. But is it the right tool for the job? This particular use of lying, while perhaps well-intentioned, might be compared to using a hammer where a fine-adjustment tool would be more appropriate (my HD will never be the same).
Katz is a wordsmith. Rather than his transparent lies, he might have told the long-suffering theater employees what he told us. That these age restrictions are stupid, and that they signal far worse abuses to come.
It might not have got the kids into the theater (does that matter? Seems they've seen the movie already, in bootlegged form) but it may have had more profound results. We in this forum have heard the message (over and over!). The theater employees - and more importantly the managers - haven't. Or they have, but only from those who cry out for MORE restrictions. Instead of countering that propaganda with some of his own, Katz told a few lies and essentially caved to the restrictions. Instead of a bug fix, he got a work-around. The restrictions are still in place.
Oh Well...
You raise a valid point. America seems to be a land of militant Puritans, where you can see any sort of violence you want, as long as you don't see naked people.
Personally, I prefer not to watch either. Ultimately, though, it's up to personal choice. As for what our kids should see, that's up to parental choice. Parents who send their kids to the movies or sit them in front of the TV to get them out of their hair are (IMHO) failing in their jobs. I have no problem with a child seeing an R rated movie, so long as his/her parents either come along or see it first.
- Rob Cottrell
I guess the bottom line for me is this:
You have the right to take your kids to "South Park" if you really want them to see it. But, if you do, you give up the right to complain when they start singing "Uncle Fucker" around the dinner table at grandmas... you asked for it.
- Rob Cottrell
I know you didn't want a point-by-point review, but it's the way I operate -- after all, I'm an engineer. If I have to agree with all-or-nothing, I'll have to disagree with the whole thing. However, I believe you made some very good points, and so I'm gonna have to line-item this one....
- Rob Cottrell
Okay, I'm not reading the comments on this, there's just to many to go through. So I hope this hasn't been hashed to death already.
Katz went and mentioned libertarianism, then derides private business owners for setting rules for their own establishments. What gives?
Sure, governments are talking about regulating the theatre business, and in some locales, already are. But this wasn't the main point of the article. Rather, it bemoaned the fact the theatre owners were setting rules for their businesses.
If it becomes an established premise that privately owned theatres are not allowed to set their own rules, then it's not long at all before fine restaurants have to abandon 'coat and tie' rules, hardware stores forced to sell spray paint to hoodlums, churches having to allow all to attend their sacraments, etc, etc. Hell, it wouldn't be much longer until Katz writes an article about how horrible it is that I put a "No Solicitors" sign on my door to my home!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I personally feel that it was merely a clever way for Katz to cut in line.
After all, he DID say the line was long.
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
Why is it every comment from a "Christian" involves shoving morals down someone's throught. Who are you to decide what the "best interest" of her children are? Who's to say what you beleive is better than anybody else's beleifs?
Why don't you go run to the other side of the river and rape/pillage. After all, as long as it's the other side of the river, it's OK, right?
Better yet, declare a holy war over America. Kill thousands of people who don't beleive in Christianity. Do it "in the name of God". After all, since you're doing it for "God" it's OK, right? Have armed guards at the theatres who shoot any parent that is seen leaving the theatre after their children are admitted.
Demand that your religious beliefs be taught to children everywhere. Force them to go to Sunday school. Heck, why not make a Christian anthem or salute. Make these children do it every day to a picture of the pope. Salute the cross. March together down the streets.
Teach them that the religion must be defended at all costs. Give them weapons and teach them how to use them. Everyone has a duty, and a place in society. Women should be home raising the kids, while men should be at work. Declare a Christianity tax.
And after you've done all that, I'm sure that a new 'minority' group will show up that's against Christianity. One that has prophecies of someone who will save them from the horror of everything that is Christianity. A 'savior'.
Sound familiar? It's history.
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
I'll tell you. To hell with enough of the government (sinecure social programs, the entire IRS, etc... this is another rant) so that one parent (and I don't care whether it's Mom or Dad or how many Moms or Dads happen to live there) can stay home with Junior and make sure that whatever morals or ethics the household has are enforced. So that when Junior Geek gets ignored by his teachers and picked upon by his peers at school (cf. Hellmouth) said parent has time to show up at the government indoctrination facility, err, school, and jump up and down and make a nuisance of his/herself until Junior gets the attention he needs.... or just bloody keep him home and teach him him/herself... so that there's someone around to enforce the rules on weaponry...
Therein is the degradation of our quality of life, is that Mommy (usually) doesn't have TIME to stay home and teach Junior how this thing called life works. Left to his own devices, Junior gets it sadly wrong.
This is in fact the fault of government... for doing too much, not not enough. This is not something we can sit idly by and moan about. We have to get out there and fight to keep the Imperials down. What? Treason? Umm, hey, dimwit feddie reading this, ever wonder what the Second Amendment was really all about?
Freedom means having the opportunity to take responsibility for our own lives and those of whom we choose to raise, and not having some bureaucratic army do so for us. The current regime has seen fit to take that from us. We MUST take it back. The alternative may well make Columbine look like a paper cut.
There is our quality of life issue.
--
Freedom stands on four boxes. Soap, ballot, jury, cartridge.
"Computers killed nobody, but if I brained somebody with a hammer, would you want hammers to be banned? They are certainly capable of killing people, but not without human intervention."
:). But the mass majority of handguns being fired are being fired at people, not at bullseye's.
Well, that's an oft-stated argument. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, says the NRA. I'm amazed that you can hit a nail from 50 feet with a handgun, but, to be honest, it doesn't change my determination that the sole intended purpose was to destroy life...
Sure, target practice is fine (I suppose...although I feel there are ways to improve self-discipline without firing a handgun...code perl, for instance
To go a step further, the social ramifications of the handgun are intense. It is easily concealed (most people don't scan every passerby for a bulge in their pantsleg) and (nowadays) very easily loaded and reloaded and used. (My problem is much more with semiautomatic pistols than with revolvers... revolvers, while generally much more powerful, are not as easy to use quickly.. am I correct?) Most importantly, however, a recent study (within the last five years) showed that the ratio of burglars killed by handguns kept in the home to family members kept in the home was 1:43. No kidding. If you keep a handgun in the home, you're almost 50 times more likely to end up killing a family member than killing a burglar. Perhaps that is the most distressing aspect.
My personal feeling is that, if guns must remain in american society, all automatic weapons, and all semiautomatic handguns must necessarily be banned. That's just me, though.
this
I've spent the last 2 hours off and on purusing the articles here and I've found the same old pro-censorship arguments coming from the right-wing,(mostly) Christian Fundementalists -
/. for a while and I recognize a few of the sigs and nicks associated with those comments. The irony? My point?
1. We must protect our children from this immoral and unethical world of ours since chaos will riegn if too many 14 year olds see South Park
2. This is all because we don't beleive in God/have prayer in school/let single mothers work.
3. The government/theatre owners/snot-nosed teenage ticket sellers have the LEGAL and MORAL right to ask for id, refuse entry to "minors" and tell parents that they must stay with their children.
Now I've been hanging out at
If these children need to be "protected" from the South Park movie, how come the don't need to be protected the easy availablity of guns and other weapons in schools?
If a 14 year old shoots his/her classmates, why are they then suddenly "mature" enough to face the death penalty? If they are mature enough to know, in the criminal legal sense, that murder is wrong, why aren't they mature enough to decide wether to see a film or not? Considering we want to treat them as adults when they do something wrong, why can't they vote? If I could be held responsible enought at age 14 to lose my life for my action, I sure as hell should be mature enough to participate in the creation of the laws that affect it. Kids are mature enough to make life and death decisions when it suits the needs of certain groups in society in one instance, and kids need protection from all sorts of influences and aren't mature enough to undertand the contents of a satirical movie when that stance suits them.
Well, like it or not you can't have it both ways - if children are not mature enough to make "important" decisions for themselves (or by proxy through their parents), they are not mature enough to be held as responsible for criminal actions.
I find it ironic that many of the people posting here saying that children need to be protected are also the ones who said school shooters (at Columbine and elsewhere) should get the death penalty or knew exactly what they were doing.
Well, which is it?
Funny how some people only take a particular "moral" stance when holding, beleiving and enforcing that stance gives them the advantage....
Sorry for rambling. BTW when my 21 day old daughter is old enough to see films, my wife and I will decide (with her) what films they will be, not a government censorship board, not some group of religious kooks and not a teenaged ticket taker. And if that makes me a bad parent, I guess I'm a bad parent.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
p.s. the columbine kids (victims, shooters, and otherwise) were not old enough to read a lot of the literature that shapes the morality of a person.
Hmm. . . but the Congresscritters WANT to feed them morality based on a book that includes incest, masturbation, and ritualized cannibalism. . .
Even Hemingway is only for seniors.
Where'd YOU go to school ?? I had Hemingway in 9th grade. Of course, I was more interested in hacking into the county HP-2000C back then. . .
My point ??? Somebody's "outstanding Literature" that "teaches morality" is another's anathema. Why can't everyone get taught that individuality is not just a right, but something to be strived for. . .instead of mindless following of [insert your favorite hated group here]
http://www.capalert.com/capreports /southpark.htm
Before anyone rushes to flame me, I don't agree with the above assesment of the South Park movie (I saw it on a recent trip to the US and thought it was great). This is the sort of thing that the cinema owners get bombarded with from the other side.
Movies may not cause violence, but if all it takes is convincing someone to buy you tickets its a kinda bad thing. Really I wouldn't want my kid (if I had one) seeing South Park unless I was with him. So I'd be a little disturbed by someone just offering to bring him in. No he probably wouldn't be morally effected by it, but he might at least have questions about it, and I'd prefer to be there then him learning from his friends. I really don't think it should be that easy for kids to get in. Its also shouldn't be as difficult as you describe. Maybe we need ids for even youger children.
Then again my girlfriend and I had to take her father to see the movie cuz his wife wouldn't go see it.
-cpd
Father of SIX?
This is rather OT, but, how can you justify having six children?
Too damn many people in the world already.
not to disagree with you completely, but:
Ridiculously easy -- my buns! During the SP:B,L&U experience, for the first time in my life my being in a movie theater was questioned. I am 19 but the clerk thought it was his responsibility to card me. Not even my parents question which movies I see, although nothing but what appears in movie theaters ever came up in our conversations. 8) Still, being carded was an episode I will not soon forget. Interestingly, the same clerk did not card me two weeks before or two days after when I went to see other R-rated movies.
With all the poo that we put up with, it is convingcing that the movie and TV rating people are hopeless morons who they look for solutions in altering what Hollywood brings us instead of their own realization of the problem. I cannot help but think that all of my high school graduating class could have gone and seen the movie when they were 10 without "warping their fragile little minds." Conversely, after seeing South Park a kid from a high school with less than average teaching personel (Columb^H^H^H^H^H^Hcity schools come to mind) just might start singing "Uncle Fucka" at the dinner table without a care for his parents.
But that is not the movie makers' fault. Perhaps teachers should address all of what children might encounter instead of completely excluding some of the content from their teaching plan. My social studies teacher talked about his suspension from school because in the seventies he happened to have Mein_Kampf and Mao's Little_Red_Book in his locker. And still he turned out to be one hell of a guy, because studying something is not the same as following. Can kids learn the difference by themselves? Maybe they should start learning the difference earlier with some help.
If Hollywood wanted to influence the young they would use hypnosis, drugs, and lobotomy, not foul language and sexual innuendos. It is capital-D dumb to assert that the source of teenage violence must be dealt with and seek restrictions of the Idiot Nation's entertainment but overlook the problems of ignorant education.
P.S. I thought the Bill Gates bit was hillarious.
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
I suppose that's not too old for me. Do you have a phone number I can call? 8) good comments.
I did not like Katz after he put out three stories about Columbine but this one was well balanced in the arguments it presented.
Btw, did you notice that in the incident with JonKatz, the movie theatre clerk/usher too understood the pointlessness of the rule. The truth is, when you are at the movie stand buying a ticket you are only fighting a rule by some 50 year old congressmen imposed on teenagers along with Trey Parker and Matt Stone. You are not fighting the guy who is selling you a ticket, or the parent of your best friend who forbade him/her from seeing the movie, or even your own parents who might have forbade you to do so. If you are sneaking into a movie you are not allowed to see, it only exercises your wits in hiding that you in fact saw it. I am not going to swear in front of my parents, though I am more than proficient in the language. This is a farfetched point, but perhaps the experience of seeing the forbidden movie is even better for the child's upbringing than paying $4.50 for a movie in which the voice of Earl James Jones tries to justify the "circle of life," because of the mystery of that R on the movie posters... arrrgh, stop rambling now!
all in all, love, war, murder, drugs, obsenities, and plain-old fucking are all parts of everyone's life (mine for sure). but we would not want any of the kids to experience that, would we?
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
actually, that is still not censorship. censorship is forbidding JonKatz to write at all. Rob could say that he does not want Katz to post and that would still be his right, not an exercise of censorship, because the site more or less reflects Rob's views. Censorship is when you cut of JonKatz's hands, put a cloth into his mouth, chain him up in the dungeons of Bastille for the purpose of never hearing his opinions (because you do not like his grammar or subject clauses). That's censorship. I hate when some two-bit political columnist is being laid off in a newspaper and he find a job as an editor of some ultra-[liberal|communist|socialist|etc] college publication and starts rambling how he was censored by a NY Times editor who rejected his submission.
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
Has it occurred to anybody that the real reason the theaters are going off on the carding issue is not about the theater company's morals but sales? Theater related businesses, video rental stores included, are under a lot of pressure with the recent events (no need to tell you again) by the whole of the American public & media.
They're scared that if they don't do something, anything, they'll look like they're ok with violence and other socially undesirable activity.
They're afraid to lose business, why do you think most theaters refuse to play NC-17? It's all about brand image & marketing BS. "We're a family theater", etc.
They're scared that if they just sit back, they'll get regulated. Government regulations cost businesses a lot of time and money. They know if this happens, they'll have to raise ticket prices again, and that'll probably tick off more people than the under 17 crowd.
At least if they do this now, they might look good for the media so there will be less chance that voting citizens will cry for laws to fix this mess.
Unfortunately for the theaters, they are the movie industry point of contact with the public, they can't afford to make the experience a bad one for the ticket buyers. At the same time, however, they can't afford to look like they've contributed to all the ills of society, hence the carding issue.
I'm not defending the theaters actions, just trying to understand it.
Hecubas
Everytime I see some Christian say "What does this have to do with the 10 Comandments? ... Even if you are not a Christian, most of that stuff still applies. Murder is against the law ..." etc., I wonder when the last time they actually read the Ten Commandments was. So, just to clear up the misunderstanding that seems to exist between us, I think I'll post them (from the KJ version, slightly shortened):
... ... ... ...
..." -- Hindus, again.
..." -- What if he's not MY Lord? Does an atheist even have a "Lord"?
From the Book of Exodus:
20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother
20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
20:17 Thou shalt not covet
Now, I guess it is true that "most" of these apply to all of us (Americans at least), since the intentions of numbers 5-10 are more or less covered by our civil and criminal laws, but what about the first four?
Number 1: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." -- What if I'm not Jewish, Christian, or Muslim? Aren't there something like 600 million Hindus in the world?
Number 2: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Number 3: "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
Number 4: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Same objections at to 1-3.
So, given that many of the people reading this web page are non-Judeo-Christian-Muslim, I think it is true that MOST of these may apply to us, but at around 40% of them do not.
Other than your careless words in the first paragraph of your post, you seem to be a rather level-headed person. But it is the "most of that stuff still applies" attitude that gets the Ten Commandments posted on the walls of our state-separate-from-religion courts and school houses. Sure, we should teach kids that murder/adultery/theft/lying/jealousy are wrong and that listening to their parents is good, but do we need to do so in a "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." context? This may seem like nitpicking to some people, but anyone who is a member of any minority knows how different it feels to be on the other side--for the atheists and Hindus of us out here (not to mention the countless others of non-Judeo-Christian-Muslim origins), asking us to just live with the Ten Commandments solely on account of their second half is total crap. I'm not asking you to put up with the words of my gods (or lack thereof) posted in public places--don't ask me to put up with yours.
Thanks,
Sean
Parents are often told to set only those rules they intend to enforce and then enforce them. If you set a rule and then don't enforce it, the child gets confused about which rules are rules and which aren't. Why have an NC-17 rating and an R rating if there is no intention to enforce either one?
If a film maker voluntarily submits a film for review and is unwilling to modify her film to get a different rating than the one assigned, then she accepts that with an NC-17 rating no one under 17 will be admitted to her film. The theater that advertises the film as NC-17 has an obligation to see that no one under 17 is admitted. For either the film maker to expect or the theater to do otherwise is to be hypocritical. Likewise for an R rating. If you say that children under the age of 17 will be admitted only when accompanied by an adult, then only admit children under 17 when accompanied by an adult. I have been bothered for a long time that theaters have posted the R rating definition and then routinely ignored it.
If you think we would be better off without a rating system, fight the rating system. I agree that giving films full of violence a PG while films with a little sex get an R is ridiculous. Parents, film makers, and theater owners should all pressure the ratings system to either improve or disappear.
> there, you have made a judgement about his state
> of mind, even his very well being simply
> because he freely spoke his mind. You assume to
> much and judged his character...
I'm free to make judgments about a man's words and actions. I never made a judgment about his character, although you assume too much, yourself, if you assume that I'd be wrong to do so. Judging character by words and actions is an important part of maturity, and gentle discernment is a great virtue. What company do _you_ keep?
> As an agnostic, and an American I find this
> religious bombardment offensive.
I by "religious bombardment" you mean the protestations of Christians whose lawful ability to speak prayer or assemble peacefully in public schools is being abrogated, I don't know why you're complaining. If your aim is to wipe out mainstream lawful acknowledgement of Christian faith, you're winning.
Then again:
> Ever heard of the seperation of church and
> state.
Yes, separation of _church_ and state. Take a careful look at those words. Reread your history lessons. The Founders opposed religious tyranny on the basis of an established church within the government. They opposed theocracy.
What you hang upon those words, instead, is your own brand of religious tyranny. It's not hard to guess why.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
> Nonsense. Schools don't forbid
/. as you are on
> before/after-school private prayer groups,
> praying at lunches, etc.
Many schools _do_ forbid such things, and their actions are being upheld in court. Moreover, they forbid religious meetings in public school buildings after school hours, while other groups are allowed to do so, denying those groups equal access to public resources. And teachers are forbidden to pray with students privately, even when the student expresses a wish for such activity.
The spirit of the Church/state separation doctrine would have everyone treated equally in the eyes of the law; what's happened instead is that Christians are treated as second-class citizens.
> What they forbid is a school policy setting
> aside classroom time for "prayer time".
I spent years in a Jesuit school, wherein classroom time was set aside for a prayer every morning. I think you mean "public school policy"; you would do well to note that it is in public schools, specifically, that Christians are denied their faith in a matter as harmless as prayer.
Is it illegal to spend "classroom time" on the spiritual teachings of Ghandi and Maya Angelou? Are the words of _Reverend_ Martin Luther King, Jr., in his _I Have A Dream_ speech, forbidden from the halls of public schools?
Of course not. They are curriculum, as must be a discussion of the Christian roots of many in this country. I'd have no objection to a passionless discourse on the many religions that constitute America's makeup. It would be of great satisfaction to me to learn some Islamic history alongside Confucianism; in fact, I did hear quite a lot of it while I went to public schools (though I might wish for more, centered as the public schools are on Western European history).
But you can't say that denying Christian freedoms once they walk into a public building is "fair treatment".
I say it merely for the sake of argument. I don't ask for _fair_ from you, or anyone else, honestly. If I depended upon _fair_ from the likes of my peers I think I would be greatly disappointed.
> You're as much of an idiot on
> Usenet, Peck. Too bad I don't have my killfile
> here.
I won't guess who this might be, and I won't remind you of your self-respect when you post here, anonymously. I simply ask you to state your name so that you can look me in the face.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
> I call your bluff. WHAT groups are allowed to
> hold RELIGIOUS meetings in PUBLIC school
> buildings, while Christians cannot? Name some.
My bluff? I don't have the case notes in front of me here at work. If the issue's important to you, find the information yourself, for now. You have my email address, if there's a burning need. I'll get back to you tonight, if I can. Other than that, sorry.
I _do_ have some notes here on a "Chandler v. James" case in Alabama, wherein a federal court has banned all manner of student-initiated religious activities...
> Yes, this is called CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PUBLIC
> school teachers are agents of the state.
They're what? I thought they were employees, private citizens on the payroll of a local government. Now they're "agents"? No, you're mistaken.
> The state is, by mandate of the Constitution,
> Areligious...religiously neutral. It would be a
> conflict of interest for a teacher to do so.
This is plainly nonsense. If the State is "areligious", that means that it _has no interest_. Therefore, there can be no conflict of interest, because there is no prior interest with which to have conflict.
What I think you mean to say is that it would cause the appearance of improprietry precisely because the State can have no interest in religion.
If that's your view, you're wrong anyway: the State has demonstrated a compelling interest in providing educational services, and that must include religion, at least tangentially, because religion is an integral facet of history.
You see the bind you're in. I hope. The only way out is to give religion an academic look and leave preferential treatment to individuals (including teachers outside of their official capacities). I suppose the government could simply walk away from its public education debacle, but that's too much to hope for.
> We weren't forced to pray or BELIEVE in its
> ideology. That is where your argument has a
> flaw.
I don't see how _anyone_ can be forced to either pray or believe, so I'm interested to know how that can be the flaw in my argument. That would be a neat trick, if you could explain it.
> which INCLUDES freedom FROM religious practice
How did you think you could sneak that by? Where is it written that freedom of religion means freedom from hearing people pray around you? What's wrong with you that you can't stand the free exercise of other people's religions?
After attempting to paint Christians as intolerant, you come up with _this_ crap?
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
> note that in appealing to the idea that
> governmental interference always makes things
> worse assumes some principles or other about
> what things are better and worse, and that's a
> moral principle.
No, not necessarily. It may be that the "problem" was defined as such before Libertarian political policy was applied. For instance, if "the drug problem" is how the discussion frames drug abuse, and drug abuse in the years following institution of a "drug war" sees dramatic increase, the numbers speak for themselves, no? And the "problem", itself, was defined in the discussion.
It's true, all the same, that Libertarianism _does_ define "problems", but to say that any such definition is a "moral" decision is -- while technically true -- stretching the terms of discussion out of conventional form.
Anyway, if you take that tack, can we say that all decisions are moral decisions? Or at least that all decisions have moral consequences?
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
> One is teaching an academic subject, part of the
> role of a school, and the other is NOT.
In your school, fine. If you believe that knowledge has no moral consequences, fine. You may say that Rome conquered Carthage, and it makes no difference that Christ died for the sins of men. You might say that knowledge is knowledge, with or without God.
I say that Christ died for the sins of men, and it means everything to everything. There is no facet of history, of science, or even of mathematics that can hide from the presence of God. I live in the pursuit of truth, and God is not simply a _part_ of that, He is the author of it.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
I didn't want to make a semantic issue, and frankly, I don't know why I made such a fuss about it. You're right; "moral" is the right word for it. I believe that everything has moral consequences, and there's nothing that we do that escapes the moral realm. "Best" must be measured by morality.
I think I just got taken off-guard; most people don't hold to that viewpoint, preferring instead to assign moral ambiguity to "everyday" decisions, but you're perceptive to point it out.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
I don't know what you think I believe, but I believe that the public education ideal is bankrupt. I don't think you should have to send your children to a school where they're forced to listen to Christian preaching.
Not that it happens, anyway. Instead, Christian children in public schools are forced to listen to all kinds of objectionable preaching, including the "sexual education" I, myself, had to endure.
Private schooling and homeschooling are the only choices I could possibly entertain for my children, and from the look of your posting, it would appear that we agree. Evangelism is the domain of private interaction, not state-sponsored education.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
I". Interestingly, the same clerk did not card me two weeks before or two days after when I went to see other R-rated movies. "
um... why would he need to card you twice?
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I don't think Southpark is suitable for children
why should it matter what you think?
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Or a lesbian
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Well, I've gotten a lot of soutpark eppisodes of the net, Southpark itself lends itself well to compression without degridation.
The copy of the matrix I have is about 1.2 gigabytes, American pie looks a little worse, and is about 800 or so megs. I have a copy of the Blair Witch project witch is about 250 megs only, somewhat resonable for an overnight download. it looks like shit though, but I don't think southpark would have the same problem
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
actualy, there are two kinds of republicans, in general.
The republican party was formed around the time that the south split off from the US, I'm not sure if it was before or after.
anyway, these people (generaly Rich industry types, were very moral) got power beacuse the southern, agricultoral people all left to run the south.
so these people were both *economicaly* conservative, and "moraly minded". At the time, being the moraliest they were, they had a problem with human slavery (sometimes moralism isnt' all that bad...).
I used to be more republican minded (I was to young to vote) but unfortunetly I the party is run by religous whackos.
the democrats are no better, just look at our encryption policy....
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
IT'S NUDITY ITSLEF!!!!! NUDITY IS EVIL EVIL EVIL !!! SEX IS THE SPAWN OF THE DEVIL
:P
FIRST IT'S JUST "BEING NUDE" THEN BEFORE YOU KNOW IT IT'S ****SEX*** AND EVEN ***HOMOSEXUAL SEX*** AND BEFORE YOU KNOW IT, PEOPLE ARE ***VOTING DEMOCRAT****!!!!!
I'm kidding, btw. nice site
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
. If your aim is to wipe out mainstream lawful acknowledgement of Christian faith, you're winning
Whoohooo!!!!
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Maybe killfiles would be a better way to handle these kinds of things then moderation. Each person shaves slashdot to there own desires, instaid of a moderator, who could be stupid or biased.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Christ died for the sins of men.
no he didn't, and therein lies the problem with what you are trying to do. you are trying to schools to teach things that are *false* There are people who sware that gosts are real, but that dosn't mean that we should be talking about them in school.
you can bitch and moan all you want, but it will never make it anymore true
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
would *you* vote for al gore? I sure as fuck woudldn't, I don't really want 8 more years of encryption exsport restrictions (take a look at gores stances on other tec stuff. not fun)
as far as someone like George bush jr, I think he's ok. I really wish those fucking Xians would stop pusshing there god damn moral bullshit on the rest of us.
Al Gore VS Pat Buchanan. I'd chose a bullet in the brain......
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
they did such a shitty job killing the christians, now look at the mess we have :(
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
. I'm sorry that I can't really convey my tone very well through plaintext, but I honestly harbor no animosity. :) :P
Use emotocons!!
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The best essay that I've read in a long time, the ticket booth fascists at my local theatre have finally started carding us but luckily some friends of mine work there :). Also I think that these theaters will stop the bullshit because of the great capitalist word, competition. Why should I got to my local 8 screen theater when I can go to Planet Movies with 30 screens all biggere than mine? When I went to see American Pie my 19 year old friend wanted two tickets and the idiot working the counter wanted 2 ids...insane sums it up. I'm pissed, now I get mad more often just listening to Dr. Laura (I think) yesterday and I wanted to kill someone because of her fascist republican ideas, I like Ross Perot he rocks.
-------------------------------------------
> Sometimes I wonder if people have seen the movie. I wonder if they see the satire.
I wonder if they even noticed what the movie was about: tolerance.
At least thats what I got out of it.
This may have been a "moral victory" for you, but the theater manager is laughing all the way to the bank. Despite his incredibly rude treatment of you and woman with 5 kids, he sold 7 tickets, probably at about $8.50 each.
The kid had it right... the best thing to do would have been to have walked out and taken your business to a less fascist theater. Since you saw South Park (a great movie) 2 other times as well, I hope at least some of the money went to businesses with a more reasonable policy.
If there are nothing but Sony theaters and Blockbuster videos in your area, wait a couple of years. High bandwidth, fast processors, and large, cheap monitors will do to the movie industry what MP3s are currently doing to the recording industry monopolists.
JMC
Just ask the many naturists and nudists out there who are trying to protect their little sections of nude beach from the fundamentalist-bought politicos who think they are doing society a favor.
European naturists merely shake their heads in dismay when they see what's going on here in the US. Many European beaches are top-free and many also permit nudity. And yet the sex crime rate is much lower there than it is here.
Yet another example of the _other_
Katz stood up to the knee-jerk, groundless, and yes, a bit repressive policies of the theater, and I applaud him, but I don't think it changes things for him to try and choose the
I think we should all encourage ourselves, myself included, to do things like Katz did, a bit more often. Posting on
Regards,
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Mr Katz,
I cant agree with you on this one. First off, I find two seperate issues that you are merging here. One, posting the ten commandments in schools is as watered down an attempt to get some religion into schools as will be permitted by the courts. And don't tell me about separation of church and state. I can prove that Thomas Jefferson openly supported religon in schools and government support of it. Original intent was that no religon be given preference or rammed down student's throats.
Second, why should children be given things like South Park as their entertainment ? A nation that has deprived children of their childhood has taken a great step towards destroying it's greatest asset, it's people.
For 'Eyes Wide Shut' and sex scenes this has been going on for a very long time. I saw a European version of a movie I was very familiar with in the States and was quite surprised by how much more sex was in it. Yes, I enjoyed it more, but I can understand how the American ratings system would cripple it.
Fourteen or fifteen year olds should be doing things like sports or camping. They are still children, even if their bodies don't think so. Understanding human society or the technology that underlies it is a much better endeavour than being grossed out. Boys of that age will find out about sex, thats a given. I'm not arguing against sex education, just the marketing of trash like the South Park movie to people of that age.
If you wanted to control access then force the parents to watch the movie in toto BEFORE they can give their children permission to see it. I know you can get it on the net, but until someone invents a total body sensor/stimulation system which is net compatible, a movie is the cheapest, most powerful stimulation available.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
The Statute for Religous Freedom was a response to the Church of England, which was the state religon and had special taxes for supporting it, regardless of religous choice of the individual. When Thomas Jefferson was President Jefferson he exchanged correspondance with a group of Catholic nuns at a convent in New Orleans, a new US territory. Catholicism was traditionally supported by the French and the nuns were very concerned that their ability to operate a school would be comprimised. They had always depended upon tax breaks and donations from the public and had always received materials from the government. Jefferson promised to continue all of these, stated his support for their efforts at education and in order that the students might be better acquainted with the US, arranged that official histories of the States be forwarded to the convent's school. He also sent a private donation.
Best not to take things out of context, lest you find you're revising history. Jefferson favored religion and abhorred your stance.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Money is the issue here. You gota make them feel the power of kiddy movie money by boycotting the theaters.
:)
If every kid and their parents stop seeing movie for just a week or two...The theater owners will feel the "Kiddy Power!"
These owners are doing this so our beloved government stays out of the movie business, but they "expect" kids and parents to see the movies.
The MPAA and theater owners should be given kudos for acting before the government made a silly law. Then again, a big business like MPAA, yes it is a business since they make decisions based on making money and not on content, and theater owners should be able to bu...convince enough policy makers to point the finger at some other causes like...;)
Boycott and they will be more motivated...
We'd all know
who's fault it was. The adult who should have seen the movie with the kid. It's not the kids' job to enforce the rule or agree with it. It's the adults job. They should show a little
responsiblity
One of the main points of the movie was the stupid blame game that goes on. Kyle at the end tells his Mom, who has led the whole attack on Canada, that he is the one who should be blamed for what he did, after all, he did it. Even young children understand right and wrong to some degree. It is the reinforcement by the parents that solidify it.
You can't legislate morality, to try is to limit freedom, to limit freedom is itself an amoral act (in American ideals), so just don't do it.
+&x
I commend theatres who
make some effort to enforce an unpopular ruling, and gladly relegate myself to "flamebait" status in so doing.
I must disagree here, this is why. I was visiting a friend in NY this last weekend, we went to see "Eyes Wides Shut" (Stan K's final 3 hour joke on the movie viewing public, I thought it was a good joke) we got carded at the movie and they made my friend go out to her car and get an ID. Not too bad until you consider the fact that we are both 25 and look it. And when they carded an at least 30-yr-old, I just starting laughing, then made some appropriately off-color remarks ("You mean people curse out in public?! gasp!").
The problem as I see it isn't in the law but the blind enforcement of it. What should for sure be a "spirit of the law" interpretation, it's about morality after all, is instead given a strict "letter of the law" interpretation. This was what angered me and our dear Mr. Katz, my freedom is lost and my time is wasted because people are not given the right to think for themselves, and that, my friends, is a bunch of crap.
+&x
Now i do not want to say bash the USA or the American Way of Life as they call - so send your flames directly to /dev/null. Here in Europe we sometimes laugh (silently) at the two facedness of your countries Moralism and Ethics. On the one hand kids get sharp guns very easy (This is very hard here in Germany), have sex much earlier than in most other countries, play absolutely violent video games in arcades and can see ppl being slaughtered by the masses on TV. On the other hand kids have to say a prayer in the morning (sometimes to a god they do not believe in), are not allowed to see a womans breast in a commercial (Not that most women have two), can not see well done films where ppl to something ungodly as having sex. The only explanation I have is that
;-)
organizations like the National Rifle whatever, or the Churches are too strong. I think the kids just
laugh at all this, with the web as a tool to get any kind of information (let it be porn, politics, philosophy or howto build a bomb). What makes me just a little sad is that sometimes a kid with a gun can kill and that kid that saw a naked woman will probably not turn into a rapist. So why allow the one and forbid the other?
BTW your webserver probably went down while I tried to post this - but u probably know that
Somewhere a line must be drawn. Let me take my mother for example.. My mother is a teacher in an elementry school in a small town ~4000 people.
This past year a *kindergarden* student said to her, and I quote: "I don't have to listen to you you fuckin' bitch" yes a kindergarden student, I won't go into what the older children are saying.
Where did this *child* learn this? Well the first obvious answer is his parents... When brought into the school to discuss the child's behaviour this child's mother (as overheard by my mother) said to the child, "I told you not to swear you little son of a bitch"
Obviously this situation rests on the parents who at some point *need* to instill some sort of values in their children. So for this I see the point of not letting children see this movie with out their parents.
The other side is teenagers, who do *know* better than to swear at their teachers, probably do know where to draw the line and hence should be allowed to see this movie.
My parents, who both are elementry school teachers, have noticed a general decline in respect, behaviour and general 'normal' values that children hold. Both my parents are afraid to punish or scold their students for fear of being sued by parents.
The line must be drawn somewhere, this is a good start but it might be drawn a little too high.
I remember when I was a kid. I would watch The Mupped Babies and The Smurfs in the morning, and Nightmare on Elm Street and Hellraiser at night.
My parents believed that there is nothing wrong with looking at the human body or its functions, and they didn't believe watching a bunch of naked women being chopped into little peiced was that bad for you either.
After all of the things I've seen in my early childhood - I turned out pretty well. I'm mild-mannered, respectfull, free-thinking, courtous, a bad speller, and the only one who can find the humor in Freddy Krueger.
In my opinion the columbine incident was caused by the "jocks" and the lives the boys spent (living on an air force base, etc.). Not guns, not movies, not videogames.
It will take more people who are able to think and reason for themselves instead of being led around by the nose.
It still amazes and disgusts me when I see someone treating a young person in a way they themselves would never have wanted to be treated at that age. But they do it anyway because that is the social norm, and they don't think anything about it.
More people need to start thinking for themselves and coming to their own conclusions about what they think is right or wrong instead of looking to someone or something to tell them. You've got a brain, use it. Don't go along with some idea just because thats what society teaches you. Look at it yourself and decide if its valid. I'm starting to rant, so I'm going to quit while I'm ahead.
"An act of congress can easily make something Illegal, but nothing short of an act of God can make it wrong."
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I've got no problem with keeping people under a certain age out of certain movies. First of all, we do it often enough anyways - don't drive until you're sixteen, no cigs until you're 18 - I'm OK with that. Plus, I'm usually glad when I go to see a movie and there aren't young children there. Usually makes for a better experience. However, in this case, when the mother in question cleared the kids, that should've been that. Jon's response was good, except for one thing - he should've asked for the manager right away. Don't harass the front-line kid. He didn't make the rules, he's just required to enforce them. GO right to management in times like that. It'll save you grief.
"Odd that you challenge his character when your bitter (and profane) resentment toward all things sacred would appear to be eating you alive."
there, you have made a judgement about his state of mind, even his very well being simply because he freely spoke his mind. You assume to much and judged his character...
As an agnostic, and an American I find this religious bombardment offensive. Posting Religious material in school is wrong. Ever heard of the seperation of church and state. That's the whole reason the first Americans left thier respective countries. It's fundamentally against what we created this country on. Words are words, nothing more.
lets play a game, in this game what YOU believe in (ie that if i dont believe in the divinty [sp] of his son i will be tortured forever) is absurd as what i believe in ( ie that your god is dead and that cthulhu will rise up and eat you and those that believe as you do First, and that by worshiping cthulhu i will be eaten Last and my death will be mostly painless). try to stand back and understand that most all of human (domesticed primates) thought seems to be as absurd from outside that the point of view.
now, when posting try to understand this so we can have less flame bait and more intresting posts. (not to say that your post are flame bait)
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
..by he who is not named, by YHVH, Ph'ngluimglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn!
i bind you to the ether that is cyberspace, to your lonely newsgroup. back to where you were spawned!
PS: to any cultest that read this i need you help! we must bind Shub before it gathers more power....
PSS: if you dont get it, read some, but say fairwell to your sanity.
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
What was the mother of those teenagers thinking when she allowed a complete stranger to take them into a dark theatre and watch a movie? I'm sure you are a very nice person, Mr. Katz, but would you allow your children to go into a dark room with a stranger in the same situation? I know I wouldn't. Plus, I would be concerned that they wouldn't be seen again. Too many people are kidnapped and abused each year for me to be comfortable with anyone taking my kids, unless I knew them REALLY well.
As for the validity of what you did, I don't agree with it. But comments along this line have already been made. I won't repeat them.
Can somebody please explain this to me?
Social conservatives like Tom DeLay and Bob Barr have come right out and suggested that if the Ten Commandments had been posted in Columbine High School, then the tragic shootings that took place there would not have happened. Is there any evidence for this?
(The following is a summarization of a column that I read some time back; unfortunately, I can't remember the author or the source, but the numbers do stick out in my mind.)
The United States is, by far, the most religious of all the world's industrialized nations. Over forty percent of US citizens attend church on a weekly basis. Compare that with 27 percent in Britain, 21 percent in France, 16 percent in Australia, and 4 percent in Sweden. The United States also has, by far, the highest murder rate of these same industrialized countries; it is six times higher than the murder rate in Britain, seven times that of France, five times that of Australia, and five times that of Sweden. Japan, where you would be hard-pressed to find anybody who's even heard of the Ten Commandments, has less crime than almost anywhere else on Earth.
Back here at home, the state of Louisiana has the highest churchgoing rate of the entire nation; it also sports a murder rate that is over twice the national average. Washington state, the state with the lowest churchgoing rate boasts a murder rate that is 38 percent below the national average.
Please note that I'm not attempting to suggest that churchgoing is the cause of this violence; I'm merely pointing out that it does not appear to be serving as any kind of a deterrent. If lack of religion is indeed the cause for school violence, why have we not seen rampant shootings at such heretical liberal Meccas such as Berkeley and MIT? Why have all of these school shootings taken place in picturesque towns such as Pearl, Mississippi? Paducah, Kentucky? Jonesboro, Arkansas? Littleton, Colorado? These are places that Norman Rockwell would have been proud to call home; they are all a far cry from the hotbeds of secular humanism that you'd find in, say, New York City.
The religious conservatives have claimed to find a solution without showing any evidence whatsoever for its validity; in reality, the evidence is very much slanted in the other direction.
The bottom line is that people like Barr and DeLay have their own right-wing agenda, and it has nothing to do with school shootings. I believe it is the responsiblility of all Americans, regardless of their individual faiths, to combat efforts to turn Christianity into a state-sanctioned religion. It's in everybody's best interests -- including Christians -- to see that this doesn't happen.
And I really don't think that it will; I imagine that the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools will be challenged and the law will be struck down. What would the champions of this bill think of an Islamic teacher hanging up a sign reading THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH? This is, after all, just the Islamic version of the First Commandment. And if you'd object to such a sign being displayed, then you understand why the law must (and will) be found unconstitutional.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
This is the argument the MPAA always uses to justify their actions. The ratings are voluntary, true; but see how fast a theater owner will get in hot water for disregarding them, especially in this year's hypermorality backlash atmosphere. See this article by Roger Ebert for another example of MPAA hypocrisy (in the case of Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut).
--
Ok. I'll admit it. I liked Katz. That is until this article. I guess I learned what Katz was like behind his geek self-righteousness. All throughout this article Katz is pissing and moaning about how arrogent, greedy, and manipulative other people are, especially those who actually have the *audacity* to believe that they are right. But when a time comes when his own interests are served by manipulation and dishonesty, he glady partakes.
I'm not going to use the word hypocrite...ok, yes I am. Katz is being a hypocrite. He claims to support the right for people to set their own moral standard, but when a private corporation does so, he writes an article denouncing them. Katz *knows* he's right, and he's not going to change his opinion for anyone.
Sorry, y'all. The world is full of absolutes. Didn't you learn anything in physics?
--
"Nothing can be changed except ourselves."
-Operation Ivy
I do not subscribe to your same value system. You have no right to impose it upon me or my children. Go away. Your Christian-talk-radio blather carries no weight with me. Few people are buying your "family values" or "religious discrimination" crap. Don't like the movie? Don't see it. And don't whine about it either. You just look like a big wuss.
I know what it's like not being able see "R" because i'am a youth of america. yes i'm minor and go through hassel after hassel to see and do things that the goverment say that we as youth of america can't cause it's "BAD" and who deem these movies and shows bad the public nope a goverment committe deems those things as "BAD".My question is to them is why do you have to try to tell us what we want and what our parents should let us see and do.When all this stuff started about the goverment and movie companys that own cinemas about enforceing the rules and i asked my parents about me being able to see "R" films and the said it's are choice to let you go see these movies that have violence nad nudity and bad languge and the nudity thing was about "eyes wide shut' witch i want to see and my mom said yes you can see that movie it's cool. And i say it to all my friends and family america spreads democracy as if was a religion.The govermnet needs and must stop trying to tell us as the youth of america what we want and what we can see and do.
Thank you,
The symbiot77
Who said it was only political/religious speech. What about the press? Thats what movies come under.
Filth by you opinion.
You miss the point. Noone insists that they see SP or 'this perversion'. The parents allow them to see it. They want to see it by their own free will.
BTW Good way to make a stand as posting as an Anon. Coward.
Does belittling that Indian's religious beliefs make you feel better when your argument fails?
Here's a way that resources could be used more efficiently, have all reverends, pastors, ministers and nuns work at a job not based on some dead Arab 2000 gone. Doesn't feel good does it, and it makes you look like a bigger idiot.
Basiccally your argument is that if everyone got perfectly along and there was no conflict, those 'surface problems', like overcrowding, starvation, plague and drought, wouldn't happen. You seem to have no basis in reality if you see these as surface problems.
Yes there is. Including having 6 kids and increasing the demand on food, water, shelter, and all other products by 4 people in the next generation. If everyone did this, the world population would triple every generation.
As I recall, few people objected too much about that judge until he started making it clear that he did not see citizens before him, he saw Christians (harps playing) and damn heathens (faint whiff of brimstone).
This resulted in (reasonable) charges that the judge was biasing juries, and *definitely* biasing his rulings, on the basis of religious beliefs. This can be done in countless subtle ways (e.g., by explaining to the jury that a particular witness has to take a different oath than everyone else since he's a Godless atheist, but as good Christians they must give him the benefit of the doubt even though he refuses to accept God) and less than subtle ways (Mrs. Smith is unwilling to raise the kids in a God-fearing Christian home, so it's in their best interest for custody to be awarded to their father... a faithful deacon at his church.)
It's been so long that I don't recall the particular details of the cases in question, but I *do* recall several instances being mentioned in several newspaper reports. Naturally the supporters of the judge did not bring up his religious bigotry, and the mainstream media mostly dropped it from the discussion.
(P.S., I think his actions pretty clearly violates the "establishment clause." From what I know of the case, I don't think the judge should have been forced to remove the TC from his chambers -- I think he should have been immediately impeached and disbarred for violation of *his* oath of office!)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Man, you know a good article when your face turns four different colours when you read it! I think a vein was about to burst in my forhead when reading the part about the abnoxious manager and the mumbly cop. He actually asked you to MOVE ALONG?! Anyway, I think you handled that sitch extrordinarily well and I admire and commend you.
;)
BTW, I'm just wondering what you look and dress like. I find cops and managers are much more fun to deal with if you're wearing a suit of some description. They get that wonderful "Uh, you look like my boss" uncomfortable expression
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
This is a very good comment.
The more you allow people to be stupid, the more stupid they will tend to be. The more we babysit the adults, by "helping" them raise kids, the more we have to, because there will always be people pushing the envelope, on the top as well as the bottom.
I think the rating system sucks, as is. It should be more like some of VG systems, where they show several scales of different factors, like nudity, language, violence... etc. This allows PARENTS or ADULTS to decide and not some rating board.
Manax
"Why should I be content to simply live in this world, when I, as a human being, can CREATE it?" - Oertel
Agreed. The real problem here is not the theaters but rather our "big brother" culture and our "nanny state" government. If theaters were really free to show whatever they wanted to anyone they wanted (with parents permission for minors, even) they would do so and this would not be a public problem. They are not free to even serve hot coffee with impunity, much less show a good movie to a 15 year old with Mommy's permission.
We pay a lot for government and, heaven help us, we get a lot of it.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Read what I said again: "It is immoral ..." Libertarianism is clearly a political philosophy, which I surmise is what you're saying. And you're absolutely right about that. However, libertarianism has to be *grounded* in moral principles (note that in appealing to the idea that governmental interference always makes things worse assumes some principles or other about what things are better and worse, and that's a moral principle. One might also appeal to the value of autonomy in a justification for libertarian views, which is the principle I used as an example).
I like your disentangling of the commitments of Christianity from legal moralism, though.
Can't say I buy your theology, but that wasn't my point to begin with.
Still in the game ...
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
Here's my thinking on this: it's not that unconventional to use "moral" to cover things of genuine value (I'll grant that there's a common usage in which it refers mainly to sexual matters). Think of some examples: why shouldn't you steal when you're not going to get caught and the person from whom you're stealing ain't gonna miss it? One answer goes "because your integrity is more important than the doodad," and here, I take it, we are dealing with a moral issue. People with different viewpoints (religious and otherwise) will, of course, disagree about whether (to pick an example out of the air) it's OK to have non-marital sex. What kind of disagreement is it? Yeah, maybe you're right that it's a little bit odd, but that admission that it's "technically" right is at least an indication that we don't have any other comfortable name for the kind of issue I'm pointing at.
Bad governments are immoral; good ones are not.
My basic thought here is that a system of government is going to have to be justified by appeal to what system is the best for the people who have to live in it. Stick whatever name you like on the kind of value appealed to in "best", I'm not married to "moral", although I do think it's the only term that can cover this. I react to "political" because I don't think there's a special kind of "political" value distinct from just plain "value" (or, to the extent that there is, the former is a function of the latter). (hope that counts as an answer to your final question)
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
I love it when anybody starts talking about the 'moral degradation' of a society, because you know that person believes him or herself to be morally above those being criticized.
:)
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...
Or something like that, anyway.
A society's morals are what we make of them. What's less morally acceptable - a teenage kid watching the South Park movie, or a multi-national corporation paying a teenage kid two dollars a day in a Third World country to make crappy shoes? Who's worse off in that scenario, hmm?
What's a bigger problem, kids having access to so-called 'smut', or kids having to deal with poverty? Can kids fill their stomachs with morals?
Katz didn't say that pornography and smut are OK for kids; he merely believes that such decisions are up to the parents and children to discuss and decide. While I may not agree with his actions in the theater, he was right in respecting the intelligence of the kids he escorted.
StoneDog "Strange and beautiful the world may be; try not to get hypnotized by the glitter."
Don't forget - Microsoft would be ruling right now if the government hadn't stepped in (as incompetently as it is though).
Stop hyperventalating; you'll ruin your lungs.
You show me some cases of someone being thrown in jail or shot because they refused to get a supermarket membership card or installed Linux instead of Windoze, and we'll talk. Until then, you're just making a particularly braindead attempt to equate petty (corporate) nuisances with serious (government) coercion.
If we don't like censorship, we can write to our representatives.
We can also do a rain dance, which will do about the same amount of good.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Nominally true; however, the hand of government was pulling the strings ("clean up your act or we'll do it for you"). Remove the government's ability to apply such pressure, and consumers and sellers will find their own balance of rules (which can easily be modified by taking one's business elsewhere).
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
The MPAA is notorious for missing the point. The perfect example is the NC-17 rating. This was supposed to be in addition to an X rating. X was for pornography while NC-17 was for explict, but not pornographic content. Eyes Wide Shut would have been a perfect candidate for an NC-17 rating.
However the MPAA, replace the X rating with the NC-17 rating. They didn't get the point. So now, there's still really only one rating for adult material regarless.
We should all be on guard for our liberties and
freedoms. What the people don't know right now is amazing. Just take GM foods. Monsanto thinks that a lack of public interest means that they don't have to label their killer corn (yup, the pollen from the corn kills butterflies).
At the risk of sounding like an AOLer, I must say I could not possibly agree more. Katz is nothing more than a demagogue. Anyone who places any stock in his inane, unresearched, and totally BS "ideas" is a total lemming. I'm sorry, I hate to make sweeping generalizations, but in this case, it's true. Look at the man. His faults are innumerable. He lies, he distorts facts, he doesn't do basic research, he makes unfounded allegations, he slanders, etc. I could go on forever. The man (?) is a simply a product of frustration, and his writing bears that out. He has no following, though, so I wouldn't worry about that. If he does, I'm sure they're every bit as shallow-minded and ineffectual as he is, and therefore of no consequence.
I can see how you'd be angry, but don't bother yourself. Katz isn't worthy of your anger. He's just a lowly shoeshine boy of the ruling elite. Anyone who can be personally offended by broad social trends obviously has some personality issues. Katz should be in intensive psychotherapy right now, with a team of doctors supervising him around the clock, instead of spreading his idiocy here. But as long as he's here, sit back, read his stuff, and have a chuckle. The look of bemusement on my face as I read his latest tangent must be glorious, indeed!
1. Is he [Katz] advocating that a.) one should boycott big multiplex-style movie theaters, b.) find bootlegs over the Internet instead of going through the theaters, or c.) let "them youngens" watch the "South Park" movie? Can't he make up his mind?
2. What kind of an audience is the movie (and the TV show) made for anyways? Isn't it for anybody *who can take the Uncle F'er thing without cursing like Terrence & Phillip in Real Life?* I think the 14- to 15-year olds would do that, as opposed to the more "mature" types.
3. Does anybody have the news article on something about some teens beating up a ticket seller after the ticket seller refused to let them teens in to watch "American Pie?" I just heard about that from a TV show ("Late Night with Conan O'Brien"), but I want to see a news article or something of the sorts.
4. I think I should stick to watching plays and/or musicals. My fave musical ("Chicago: The Musical" on Broadway) is about a woman who becomes famous for killing a lover and getting away with it. However, I do see little kids watching the big show with their parents. Uh-oh...
I made no such assumption, other than possibly that you were a parent, due to your comment about Katz "losing the respect of all parents who read
That said, I don't care HOW old you are. It doesn't change my impression that you seem to be quite firm in the belief that, if left to their own devices, the average 15-year-old (or at least the average 15-year-old male
OK, maybe not quite that extreme. But pretty damn close.
The other thing you are ignoring is that not all R-rated movies are created equal. I might or might not let my hypothetical someday-child see the South Park movie at a given age. However, have you noticed that many movies that received R ratings are based on books that are taught in high school or even junior high?
Off the top of my head: Romeo + Juliet, Lord of the Flies, Apocalypse Now, and plenty of others that I just can't remember right now. There are also movies-based-on-books that deliberately toned down aspects of their storyline to avoid an R rating: The Color Purple and Fried Green Tomatoes both immediately come to mind.
I still think that the reasonable compromise to all this is to have signed parental consent on file for minors who wish to see R rated movies: blanket consent and/or consent for specific movies. Wasn't the rating supposed to be "Under 17 not admitted without permission of parent or guardian" originally? *shrug*
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
So Jon generously stepped in. While his story was a bit far fetched (A priest? Clearly Jon needs more practice with lies. :-), he did a good thing. He didn't teach the kids that you should lie to get what you want. He taught them that their mother's decision was better than the theatres. He taught them a bit of sacrifice (he missed portions of Eyes Wide Shut to help a woman he didn't know). He taught them that a persons moral choices can be independant of society, business, and law.
:)
Exactly. And the whole incident was a wonderful object lesson in why one-size-fits-all morality is so patently silly.
How many of us read Harriet the Spy growing up and/or saw the movie recently? Remember when Ole Golly explains to Harriet that even though you might not want to, sometimes you have to lie? And that certain kinds of lies are worse than others?
Personally, I didn't ask to go to anything R-rated prior to my parents' first offers to take me (to The Last Temptation of Christ, of all things -- IIRC, I was 9 at the time, and we didn't end up going because I didn't want to see it). I started watching R-rated movies on a semi-regular basis when I was 15 or so and in my second year of college. The first R-rated movie I went to see in a theater was The Crying Game. I didn't go to see it because it was rated R and I wanted to be rebellious. I went to see it because I had heard it was a good movie. And it was, though I figured out the "big secret" 20 minutes into the film.
My parents never told me I couldn't read something. Occasionally, one would say "I think you're a bit young to be reading that; why don't you wait a few years?" I only recall this with two books: Cynthia Voigt's Tell Me If the Lovers are Losers (wanted to read it at 11, read it at 14 and am glad I waited -- it would have gone right over my head), and Fahrenheit 451 (asked about it at 10, read it when I was 15).
The best present Dad ever got me (the Christmas I was 15) was the "Celebrate Freedom: Read a Banned Book" shirt, and every single book on the shirt.
A more recent example of one-size-fits-all morality falling apart in my life: My boyfriend once overheard his mom having a conversation about "permissive parents" with some of her friends, and saying that she wouldn't let boyfriends/girlfriends stay over at her house even though she didn't care if her kids stayed out all night once they turned 18. Then along comes her college-student son's well-mannered (in her eyes), slightly older, college graduate girlfriend with a semi-professional job and her own apartment. Six months after we started dating, my boyfriend's mother deliberately set up a situation of "oops, looks like AJ's snowed in, we're going to have to let her stay," and didn't blink an eye about us sharing the same bed for the weekend. Apparently, I'm a sufficiently good influence in other ways that us sleeping together has become less relevant. *grin* But so much for that little bit of moral high-ground on her part.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
The rating rules were set in place to keep underage children from seeing things that they probably aren't developed enough to see.
Ahem. By whose standards, exactly?
Kids are allways going to tell the parents it's not that bad. If the parent is in the theater with them, they see just how bad it really is.
My, my. You certainly have a low opinion of teenagers. I'm glad I'm not your daughter. (Then again, since I'm 21, it's a moot point by now.)
Ok, so you just gained the respect of every 15year old male that reads slashdot. You just lost the respect of most of the parents that read
I like Katz anyhow, but this made me like him more. And I'm a 21-year-old FEMALE, thank you very much. Again, your low opinion of young people is showing.
And that's actually one of the biggest parts of the problem here. Treat kids like they are jerks, or like they are delicate flowers in need of "protection" from the big bad world (R-rated movies, dirty pictures, books that contain "bad language," availability of condoms, or what have you), and they will consistently live down to your expectations.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
*siiiiiiiiiiigh*
OK, here goes:
[WARNING: this post is written in Rant Mode.]
First of all, the ratings system is FUBAR to begin with. As I recently posted on another thread, Dharma and Greg can roll around making out on the couch before heading off to their bedroom and only get a TVPG rating, but if Ellen merely kisses her girlfriend, it's an automatic TV14. One use of the "F-word," one glimpse of a joint, and a movie becomes PG-13, minimum. One look at a naked female breast (BTW, in my state it's legal for women to go topless, so this is really silly), and the movie gets rated R. Meanwhile, SW:TPM can have all sorts of stuff get blown up and not only stay a PG movie but also be thought of as a perfectly lovely move for kids. BWAH?!
Secondly, any number of serious movies out there get rated R at least; some are NC-17. And some of those movies are ones that my mom would have been perfectly happy to take me to if I had asked, and would have had no problem leaving me off at the theater to see.
My CTY class, full of 13ish-year-olds, needed to see Apocalypse Now for a reason: we were comparing it with the book it was based on, Heart of Darkness. Still, on at least one other campus, someone's parents complained because it was an R-rated movie. As my teacher said, "It's a WAR movie. People are getting injured and killed, and they aren't going to say 'oh golly gee' about it." Ironically, the movie probably got its R rating due to language and not violence.
I started college when I was 14. I had to watch R-rated movies for a class on more than one occasion before I turned 17. Fortunately, I was 18 by the time I encountered the NC-17 movie, Wide Sargasso Sea, (wonderful movie BTW), that I had to watch for an English course I was in because we were reading the book as well as Jane Eyre, which it is somewhat based on. Then again, it wouldn't have irrevocably harmed my brain if I had been *gasp* 16 when I saw it. While in college, and still 15, I also went to the $2 theater to see The Crying Game and Three of Hearts, both R-rated movies. Nobody gave me any trouble about getting in.
Most kids who have not been extremely sheltered have heard all of the seven dirty words by the time they're 10 or so, and are probably using them at least occasionally shortly thereafter. Even if they don't quite understand the meaning. A family friend's then-9 year old son was suspended for telling his teacher "I want a blow job out of town," when he didn't understand what it meant, but had seen "blow job" written on the bathroom wall and thought it sounded cool. Sheesh.
Which reminds me, again we have a certain play by a certain William Shakespeare that is taught in high schools around the country. BTW, it happens to be chock-full of gang violence, kids disrespecting their elders, the occasional bit of dirty humor, kids (we assume) having sex, and teenage suicide. But It's a Classic, so there's nothing wrong with that. And look at the Bible. It's got every bit of nastiness I can think of in it other than actually using the Seven Dirty Words. But most censorship advocates see NOTHING wrong with the Bible; so what if there's sex and violence, it's the Word of God and must be treated as such. Logic, anyone????
Locally, the silliness started with RHPS, which now won't let kids under 17 in even if they have parental consent, and probably even if they have a parent with them. There go a lot of people's Saturday night fun. *sigh* I know my parents would much rather that I was at RHPS and then the diner afterwards than out partying who-knows-where and ingesting who-knows-what substance.
Stupid. VERY stupid.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
I do find a certain amount of humor in the fact that a movie which satirizes censorship is drawing such ire from would-be censors.
It's sort of like Ray Bradbury's essay at the end of the new version of Fahrenheit 451. Some young readers of his wrote in to comment on the irony of the "bad words" being cut out of a book about censorship! Apparently, this prompted RB to look into the matter, find out the kids were right, and order them to put all the "damns" and "hells" back where he wrote them.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
To balance your dogmatic assertion that "IT WAS WRONG" I will assert that IT WAS RIGHT. You seem to have the belief which is common among (though not restricted to) christians that your particular moral code should be applied to all intelligent life in the universe. However, and this may come as a surprise to you, not everyone shares the belief that certain arbitrarily chosen words and subjects are bad/harmful. I for one consider the whole idea of "profanity" to be meaningless. Whenever I ask people who oppose "profanity" why it is "bad", I invariably get answers such as: "It's bad because it's bad" or "It's bad because I was raised to believe that it's bad" or, more often, I get flamed for asking. As for your problem with Katz's lying, let me indulge in a reference to Nazi Germany (no debate would be complete without one): If someone was hiding Jews from the Nazis, would you consider it wrong for them to lie about it? Or would you have them say "Sure, I've seen some Jews, I have some hidden in the basement."? While the theatre situation wasn't as nasty as the Nazi treatment of Jews, this example can serve to illustrate that lying is not necessarily a bad thing. Here's a question: If a lot of people decided that kids shouldn't go to church without having a parent along the whole time, would you consider it bad for someone to lie and get kids into church without their parents? If the answer is "yes" than I salute your consistency, but not much else.
-- $SIGNATURE
Age restrictions lead to abuse. They create a "forbidden fruit" status for alcohol, tobacco, dirty movies, whatever; and they make it much more likely that a young person's initial experiences with these things will be influenced towards abuse by peer pressure. A kid who picks up a pack of coffin nails at the 7-11 and smokes one on his own, is much more likely to decide that inhaling smoke that makes him feel ill is stupid, than is a kid with all his friends around daring him to suck on a cigarette they stole from somebody's father.
(I started drinking whiskey when I was twelve - it was forbidden, therefore interesting. I didn't drink coffee at all until I was in my 20's - not forbidden, not interesting to me. (Until I started hanging out in coffeehouses.))
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Amen! preach on:) heh
For my two cents worth, to some degree I can agree with "protecting the children" but only to the point that it doesn't interfere on adult's rights, or an adult's right to choose for their own children.
Thanks to gratutious litigation, all corporations are hyper-sensitive to the possibility of offending or being responsible for anything. Sadly, this is what has caused things like this to happen -- the theaterss have to protect themselves at all costs or risk a lawsuit with unrealitic punitive damages -- or so the argument goes. Yes, in some instances the punitive damages get thrown out in appeals (i.e. the case of the woman scalded by McDonalds Coffee in appeals didn't get the $2 Million punitive damave, she just got medical costs), but the cost of litigating claims, not to mention the cost of bad publicity, are more then any punitive damage can inflict.
I have to say the only intellegent thing Dan Quale ever said was there was too much litigation and there needs to be reform (of course, as was his style, he was speaking before the bar association when he said this). When the corporations can stop having to cover their butts from everything, sensibility might return (one hopes).
This got a 4? A 4!?!?
Gimme a break. How is this informative? Jon's 'filth'? I dunno about filth. Rantings, yes, pointless, yes.
If that's what you consider filth, then I can't help you with what ails you.
How much importance is put on age.. People complain about kids with bad upbringing not getting jobs and stealing, when, if you check the ages, they will steal more when they are under 14 than over, because they cannot legaly get a job.. I think what I may do is just try to get into South Park for the kicks.. I know the theater in town is checking age..
All I want to know, is why do people think age is all that matters? Isnt it about MATUREITY, not AGE? Ever more proof that humans are idiots..
~S~
Intel Inside: The worlds most commonly used warning label.
are the children well-parented?
This is what it all boils down to. If they have been taught well, they will be able to "handle" the movie, after a certain age. I saw R-rated stuff when I was 14-15 or so. I'm not a psycho killer. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a point at which the kids shouldn't see the movie. I saw South Park (the first time) in a rundown theater in Mansfield, OH. They were ID'ing people left and right. My friend and I sat in front of a married couple and their two 8-10 year old children, who OBVIOUSLY didn't belong in the theater. But these children had seen the TV show, because they knew the names and they danced to the "Kyle's mom's a b**ch" song.
On the topic of age restrictions, etc. They make me sick. the MPAA says, as a guideline, 17 and up, unless "accompanied by an ADULT." (quoted from the real guidlines...) Yet my girlfriend and I, who are both 18, got carded when buying tickets to American Pie. The reason for this was obvious to me - my girlfriend is 5'3" and could maybe pass for 14 or 15. The most annoying thing about this was the fact that they carded both of us, making her dig though her purse to get out her wallet & ID, holding up the humongous line behind us. All they should've needed was mine - seeing one ADULT, they should let both of us in, regardless of her age. It really pissed me off.
Even MORE annoying was the fact that she was in the bathroom when I approached the booth, and had she not returned, I would've been able to buy both tickets without even producing my ID - I can pass for 21 when I'm unshaven, being 6'4". I hate the MPAA. It is stupid. Let PARENTS be in charge of what their children see, not some agency. If the parents don't have the control over the children, that's a major problem on THEIR part.
From a motherboard manual, error beep codes: S-L-L-L-SS: Speaker Error
The ten C were an early law code developed to smooth out some of the bumps of life and represented the values of the time.
However, the world/society/civilization has changed and so have our laws. Saying that the 10C are still very relevant is like saying the wheel is still relevant; The basic idea is good, but we make wheels out of steel and rubber (or whatever) not wood, because our needs/demands for the wheel have changed.
Yeah, don't kill people, and stealing isn't very cool, but most of the other stuff is not particularly relevant. We take the good things that came before us and (hopefully) leave behind what is no longer of use.
There's nothing wrong with obeying the 10C and being a Christian; however, too many Christians are not content to live and love their neighbor, and prefer to shun their neighbors if they are of even a different sect of Christianity, much less a different religion.
Lots of very normal healthy people read/watch/look at porn, lots of parents, politicians, teachers, writers, upright pillars of the comunity, and it doesn't adversly affect their dealings with society.
I think an anti-porn stand is slightly ridiculous. Sure, some people take their interest in porn to extremes, but not the majority.
Oh, and I'm a female, if that counts for anything. I'm not a horny 15 year old boy, anyhow.
I'm afraid I disagree that what Jon writes is filth, though you may have a very broad veiw on what constitues filth.
Dishonesty and trickery, or merely the miracle of the human mind? I believe that we are (as a society) where we are today because of people who were not content to obey the rules and stick within the boundaries defined. I mean, if we were, would we have made the many advancements in science/etc. that we have?
Creativity and ingenuity are traits to be celebrated, not denied. Go Jon!
So, when exactly would you say kids are ready for this stuff? (stuff=swearing, nudity, etc.)
My mother is a very liberal parent. She raised three daughters who are non-violent, intelligent (I flatter myself), capable people who do not smoke, drink, or do any other drugstuffs (excepting perhaps caffeine, meds).
As long as I can remember, I have been allowed to do whatever I liked. If my parents were having a drink, they'd offer me or my sisters one as well. We could watch any movie they rented, and I (an avid reader) could read anything I wanted. We had no curfew, and also no allowance (Mom would pay for school/special things, but all other $$ we had to make on our own). I'm not saying my life with my parents was idyllic, but Mom treated us with the same respect and dignity she used with adults. And we were responsible for our behavior in the same way that adults are.
I guarantee that at 11 I had more knowledge about the world and how to survive in it than all my classmates put together. My vocabulary was more extensive than that of my gr.6 teacher (sorry, Mrs. Luff, but it's true). And today I am 22, a reasonably successful adult, moving forward in the world while people I knew at 11 have 5 year olds and work at the Quik-E-Mart.
I'm not perfect, but I've never brutally murdered anyone, I've never kidnapped children to sell into child-porn-slavery, and it's been a good 15 years since I stole any penny candy from the convenience store.
I guess what I'm saying is if you shelter children, you take away most of their capacity to become reasoning, thinking adults. We have to make mistakes, be punished, get hurt, or else we never learn. When released into the world, lots of sheltered kids fall apart and run back home, to the safe haven of their parent's loving, protective arms.
"Oh, Mr. TVman, don't say fuck, our little Jimmy's back home from university again! He's moving back home while he thinks about changing his major to Cultural Studies..."
No one I knew in elementary school was unaware of the 'dirty' words, and most could tell you how to load a gun. However, very few had any concrete information about sex or condoms. I would say that those people out there "Protecting" youth are doing a damn fine job, wouldn't you? Lets teach kids the truth, instead of feeding them confusing, cutsie, transperant lies.
ok... so how does the american rating system work? Rated R: you have to be 18, NC17: you have to be _???_ (I always just assumed the 17 was for age 17, now I'm confused)...
I have no problem with the theatre restricting entry under 18 without a parent... Wasn't this how restricted movies are supposed to work? If we want to change the rating system then that's another matter(that maybe should be looked into). If parents feel it's okay for their kids to see it, they can take them. And don't say that because the kids can get the movie off the net, or see it at a friend's that their parents shouldn't try to stop them from seeing it. It's good for kids to see where their parents stand on issues such as this. It helps them to find out where they themselves stand.
and about the violence/swearing/nudity. I think that possibly what the rating ppl/censors are thinking is that the violence in the movie is fake, whereas the nudity and swearing are real. Now, the morals on what is _okay_ for a kid(or even adult) to see is another matter that I'm not too sure on and should probably be decided on an individual/parental basis...
Children's Defense Act of 1999 (Introduced in the House)
Well, the part that is most interesting to me in this Bill is the penalties section. If this bill had passed, a person running a ticket booth who sold a ticket to South Park to a 17 year old could get five years in prison. That's right five years in prison The big question is, what do you think of a country that would do that? Does that sound like America?
For those of you who go "Right on, we need this law," might I suggest moving to sunny Iran? It will require a conversion to Islam, but you aren't really a Christian if you want to expose someone to the horrors of the US prison system for selling a South Park ticket to a 17 year old, are you? I certainly know my New Testament, and violence and imprisonment were always opposed by Jesus, even when Peter picked up a sword to save Him from the cross. There's also that whole "Let he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone bit," that a lot of people who call themselves Christians seem to want to either edit out of the Bible or just doublethink their way around.
Remember, Iran has a dry climate which is good for the sinuses and a violent, oppressive government that always claims to be acting for God and against Satan, and you won't have to deal with any of that new agey stuff that Jesus was talking about, like non-violence and tolerance that must be really awkward to reconcile with your pro-political oppression views.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
The imprtant point in here that needs to be emphasized (while you quibble over the morals of using handguns) is that sex and violence are different things. Our movie rating system, however, seems to think otherwise. If a movie has an R rating, I have no way of knowing (from the rating) why it was given that rating. If it got the rating for violence, because characters in the movie spend the whole time dismembering each other and showing blatent disregard for human life, then I probably wouldn't want my children seeing it. On the other hand, if it got the rating because it showed a few naked people or a sex scene, I would have far fewer objections.
Here is why:
Yes, violence is occasionally a way to solve problems, i admit that, i don't like it, but it is true. However, the kind of violence in R rated movies is ususally not like this. It is ususally just a lot of people killing each other and not showing any remorse or recognition that they have ended a human life. I do not want my children to get the message that people are expendable and that violence is a good response to any and all problems they might have. In fact, I would love it if my children never hurt anybody in their life (unrealistic, but the closer to this goal, the better I'd like it). I certainly never want them killing anyone.
Now for sex: there are two reasons not to expose children to sex (as it is found in most movies) early in life. First, you don't want them to run off and get pregnant or get STD's that they are going to have to live with for the rest of their lives. Second, you don't want them to learn that women should be treated as objects. The first problem can be solved with sex education, preferably mandatory, continuous and starting at the age of, say, 11 or so. The second problem is more difficult when it is present, but for good movies with well developed characters and such (read: not an action film), it is usually not a problem. When in doubt, you can read a review of the movie and find out.
I hope that my children will have sex and that they will be responsible about it. i hope that my children will not hurt anyone, ever. So i believe that our current rating system, and also our general moral judgement of the two as being equivalent is in error. In my mind, we as a society should come to the realization that sex is good and killing is not. Our system for rating movies should reflect that. At the very least, movie ratings should resemble the new tv ratings and specify what earned them them the rating (R-V or R-S, for instance).
Obviously this situation rests on the parents who at some point *need* to instill some sort of values in their children. So for this I see the point of not letting
children see this movie with out their parents.
I don't get it. You seem to make the perfectly obvious point that the child learned to be rotten straight from the mouths of its parents. Then you say we need laws to make parents see the movie with the children. But, you've already proved the point - it's not the movie that's the problem, it's the parents! So lay off the governmental censorship, eh?
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
I normally like Katz' material, but this time I think he's confused the issues some - and you can see that in a lot of the comments.
The issue is not whether South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut was inappropriately rated, (it was, IMHO,) and it is not about whether the rating system as a whole is completely screwy, (it is, IMHO).
The issue is whether we allow parents to abrogate their responsibility in raising their children. In my mind, the reason for the requirement to have parents with children in R rated movies is to ensure that they not only know exactly what their kid is seeing and his/her reaction to it, but also so that they can be aware enough to explain the morality behind the movie and if it is something that they as a parent agree with.
The problem isn't the requirements of the ratings - it's the way the ratings are assigned.
Why struggle against something that's trying to promote responsible parenting? In the context of South Park. the issue seems ridiculous. In the context of say, A Clockwork Orange, suddenly the rules that come with the ratings make a lot more sense.
Would we be so supportive of this parent if the movie that she chose as a baby-sitter happened to be some splatter-punk/snuff film?
Kwil
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Just so you know, "Allah" is the Arabic word for God. It's not a name. In Arabic-speaking countries, Muslims, Jews & Christians all refer to God as "Allah," just as in English-speaking countries we talk about God and have many perspectives on just what that word means. It is of note, however, that Allah cannot be made plural, so when talking about pantheism, Arabic uses another word.
Think like a person of action, act like a person of thought. --H. Bergson
Wonderful article as usual. It's really sad to see so much buck-passing going on in the wake of Columbine.
Everyone turns into a pundit after something like Columbine happens. We all had our $0.02 to contribute. Mine consisted of talking about parental responsibility. It's sad, however, when parents aren't allowed to take responsibility. The kids Katz mentioned in his article all seemed to have responsible parents. They knew what the kids were seeing and approved. And yet they weren't allowed to parent. That's just stupid.
I'm personally not a big fan of bootlegging. I think it's wrong to not pay the artists for their work. But I'm not a fan of censorship, either, & I think it's great when people use their resources to overcome censorship. The kid with the downloaded copy of the South Park film was great! Thanks to the Net, I got to see the season finale of Buffy before it aired. I've also got in my grubby little hands a video tape of "Earshot," the episode WB has yet to air, which, as it turns out, was one of the best episodes they made last season &, oddly enough, had a message very appropiate to the post-Columbine atmosphere. It was supposed to air the week after Columbine, but WB got scared. Ironically, it could have been shown as an anti-school violence episode with the message of "everybody hurts so don't kill people 'cause you're hurting, too." Instead, they chickened out.
I'm hoping that the neo-Puritanism through which this country is going is reaching the end of its swing and the pendulum starts to head back the other way. If not, we're going to continue to have kids not being able to see South Park, but we are going to continue to see kids being abused by their peers in schools, ignored by the pundits (I'm still pissed that the kids in Columbine got front-page coverage and people writing songs about them and the like, but black boys like my cousin who get shot down in the street continue to be constantly ignored as if their lives weren't of equal value to those of suburban white kids) & ignored by their schools' administrations. Things aren't going to change as long as people continue to avoid taking responsibility.
Geeks getting abused in school is old-news, now, I suppose. I was one of them, so I know. It just a shame that the things that make us geeks (i.e. infatuation with silly things like South Park) are being taken away from geek kids, but the real problems continue to be ignored. Kudos to Katz for getting those kids into the movies. Unfortunately, getting into movies seems to continue to be the least of geek kids' problems.
Sorry for the long post.
Think like a person of action, act like a person of thought. --H. Bergson
Absolutely true.... I censor nobody from reading Jon Katz. I am just choosing to no longer read his essays myself.
And to quote my latin/economics teacher from High School: "opportunity cost - for every opportunity taken, there is a cost..." no matter how slight. EVERY single action or choice we make has consequence.
And my "self-censorship", if you wish to call it that, is a decision based on the principle of GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. I tend to think if I keep the garbage Jon writes out of my head, I will be less prone to let the same kind of garbage spread from me to the rest of the world.
Thank you Rhys Dyfrgi.
Reality is Relative.
You have been misled by the sophists of the day. You believe what they have been telling you about overcrowding, food shortages, and low natural resources. These are lies perpetuated by those who love and worship money, and would lie to take advantage of his neighbor. They are 120% and absolutely false.
There is enough to take care of ourselves, to take care of our neighbors, and to take care of the poor. The Lord said: "For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare" DC 104:17.
And that is the truth of it.
Reality is Relative.
And I return to one of my original statements, "opportunity cost - for every choice made, there is a consequence". So many of the perceived shortages are in the mind of man and directly affected by man's own bad choices. It stems from untruth and falsehood.
If truth abounded, and mankind would stop warring and oppressing each other, so many of the examples you cite would be non-existant. Tell the Indian that the cow he sees walk by himself is not really his grandfather, and therefore he can eat a little better in the days to come. Tell the warring tribes of africa to make peace and work together, and share resources they have all around them.
So many of the problems we see are of our own making. Just because we have not figured out how to properly use with good stewardship the things we have been given, does not make it God's fault. The promise is real, and still stands: There is enough to spare. We just need to use it more wisely.
You have cited a very low law: "the law of the jungle" (low on the totem pole in regards to importance).
There is a higher law that supercedes it: "Love thy neighbor as thyself".
If this was followed, by every nation and every people, the problems you see on the surface would not exist.
It is the sophist that lies and tells you that "that's just the way it is, and it can't be changed."
What then of hope? Is there no hope in the world?
By your posting, I think what you need is hope....
Reality is Relative.
I know this is flame-bait, but I will say it anyway. I am against censorship and book burning. You may believe what you want, think what you want, and do what you want. That is your right. A stop sign is there, and you may choose to stop, or choose to drive through it. You can choose to abide by a cinema's policies or you can subvert them by dishonesty and trickery. It is your choice.
But one must be careful when making a sweeping generalization... Not all geeks like porn. Not all geeks like vulgarity. Not all geeks like attitude, and goth, and rebellion.
Jon Katz has brought me to a disgust of the popular usage of the term geek. It is so one-sided. There are plenty of good, clean-cut, anti-porn, honest geeks out there.
Jon Katz is certainly allowed his own opinion. To restrict his opinion would be censorship.
But we also have the right to tune him out. I am tired of the "poor, pitiful, porn-deprived geek syndrome" that he so often writes about.
My thanks to slashdot for allowing us to customize our page to our own tastes... I will be blocking Jon's rantings and filth from this time forth.
Sincerely,
A concerned father of 6.
Reality is Relative.
I'm posting this as a preemptive rebuttle. Children are not quite as delicate as our paternalistic legislators would have us believe. When I was young, I watched Blade Runner, and look how I turned. . .okay, bad example. The point is that good prophylactic parenting and perhaps, I know it's crazy, an apres-movie parent-child discussion can make potentially "dangerous" movies like South Park and Eyes Wide Shut into a valuable learning experience, as they allow the youngster to think about the issues involved. Instead of deciding that profanity, a proven cause of homocidal mania and sociopathy, should simply be stamped out, one should speak with one's kids about why it is often inapropriate. We need to stop any censoring as soon as we can, because when censorship has momentum, it's incredibly hard to stop.
I don't know what to say to this... I am a fellow Christian Slashdot reader, yet I have a few problems with your own post. While I agree with your moral stance, I don't think it is anyone's responsibility -- Christians included -- to impose their moral standards on others. There's a double standard here -- would you want, for example, Islamic fundamental standards (no offense meant to anyone) imposed on you and your family? Why, then, impose our standards on others? Compulsion is the very last thing that should be associated with our Christian witness.
As to fighting, raising a voice, and all that... Yes, there was a time when Jesus got polemical and at times violent (moneychangers, anyone?), but what stands out most to me in his ministry is grace. We as Christians should be all about grace. I don't mean not stepping on people's toes, but I mean being even-tempered; open-minded, yet firm in our own beliefs; ever willing to listen yet slow to speak; and above all, humble! Our primary vocation is to be a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week living witness of God's grace and tough love. And this is just as important -- if not more so -- in our electronic interactions as in our day-to-day personal interactions. Thank God for the grace He gives us to perform this impossible task!!!
With all due respect, I humbly ask you to reconsider your approach to your living witness. I'm sorry that I can't really convey my tone very well through plaintext, but I honestly harbor no animosity.
Thanks for hearing me out, :-)
Es Mo (take out "bogus-host" to email me)
The problem is that too many Christians are very legalistic. Unfortunately, this is especially true when they can apply it to others than themselves. I am a Christian myself, but I see grace as being far more important than any legalistic rules or laws, including not only the Ten Commandments, but also any other moral rules my fellow Christians all-too-often force down others' throats.
Down with legalism, long live grace!!!
-- Es Mo (remove "bogus-host" to email me)
Last night was the final straw. We decided, once and for all, to permanently boycott the local National Amusements multiplex.
When it first opened, three years ago this June, it was beautiful. Brand new, modern, convenient. Special discounts and promotions to advertise the place. The theater was half empty on those hot summer days, and you could buy a ticket at 11 AM and stay to see three or four shows. The ushers couldn't care less whether you were 12 or 21. The place just had a friendly atmosphere.
Gradually, things began to change. The first indication something was wrong was when Showgirls came out later that same summer. Suddenly, there were a few security guards waiting at the entrance to the theater to make sure we had valid tickets and we looked of age.
The security guards never went away.
Over the course of the next two and a half years, the theater employees and management became increasingly paranoid. Security guards barricaded off certain corridors when you walked out of a movie to make sure you didn't try to sneak in to another one. You practically had to fight with some of the more obstinate ones after a while for the right to use the restroom. They started checking everyone's IDs at the box office. I saw them once check a polite old man with a cane to verify that he really did qualify for the senior citizen's discount.
Next, they started making us wait in queues in the theater lobby before we were allowed admittance to the theater. To this day, I've never seen anything like it in any other theater. In a normal theater, they space out the shows to allow enough time for the ushers to clean the theater and for the public to walk straight into their seats after they buy a ticket. But, in National Amusement's greedy wisdom, they space the shows to start about 10 minutes after the last show in that theater ended, so that they can rake in the cash from an additional gate or two. As a result, it's not uncommon to see 600 people waiting in ridiculous serpentine lines in the lobby until 2 minutes before the show is scheduled to begin.
The final straw was last night, when my friends and I were ten minutes late getting into a movie because a security guard insisted on rechecking my ID on the way into the theater after it had already been checked at the box office AND I had been waiting in a queue for the last 45 minutes.
Fuck you, National Amusements.
-
The real reason for trying to keep these kids out of movie is overpopulation. If kids see American Pie, they might get silly ideas in their head that sex is good, is an enjoyable experience, which, of course, is not true. And if these kids start having sex, there will be more babies, and thus more overpopulation. The government doesn't want you to know that they supported and planned Columbine. The Colorado food stores were running low, so a little "thinning of the herd" was needed. Think about it. Why else would there be such a stink over sexual and vulgar movies after Columbine instead of the more apparent violent movies? It's planned zero population growth. Write your senator, tell them you support zpg, but instead of taking away sex, one of the few good things left, they should instead encourage violence. That way people can enjoy movies like South Park and Eyes Wide Shut before they are brutally cut down decades before their time.
/., you should have been there as I was debating this with my friend walking down the street, both of us having punk rock hair, and coming to the conclusion that murder is good, right in front of an open air cafe. The looks on peoples' faces, now that was entertainment.
If you think I sound like an insensitive prick here on
So maybe I'm being a nitpicker, or a devil's advocate, but killing is not the ONLY purpose of a handgun. There are those of us who enjoy target shooting for the self-discipline it involves, the steady breathing, the slow, methodical pull on the trigger. I have used handguns many times, and not once have I ever used one with the intent or result of killing or hurting anything. Frankly, when it comes down to killing, I prefer my rifle. More accurate, don'tcha know. Not once did I ever feel empty while shooting these handguns because I was using them without the intent to fulfill their ONLY purpose, which is, naturally to destroy life. I just gave them a new purpose, to drive nails from 50 feet. I even used wood that I would later use in my campfire so that I wouldn't be destroying the trees. Before you go assingning ethical values to inanimate objects, think of the way that computers are being shown to have the ONE purpose of training kids to be cold ruthless efficient killers (and this IS their only purpose) and realize that it's not the tool that has the motives. Criminals destroy life, just as 2 confused kids murdered their classmates. Computers killed nobody, but if I brained somebody with a hammer, would you want hammers to be banned? They are certainly capable of killing people, but not without human intervention.
Let's not forget 2 things here:
1. It's not the theater that makes the ratings, it's the government. Some of the posters seems to be confused on that subject. Granted, they could use more common sense however. The rule is just that one has to be 17 or older to buy tickets I believe.
2. Even if jocks contributed to the Columbine problem, let's not forget that 2 very sick individuals actually went out and killed people. There actions can be forgiven, but never condoned or forgotten.
That is the most absurd statement I have ever heard. They are 14-15 years old, and there are 4 of them. They can walk into many many more dangerous places then a suburban movie theater. If they were younger, or one kid alone, I might be able to understand your concern, otherwise... If you think they are going to "disappear" or be molested you better not even let them out of their rooms, EVER! Being this paranoid is simply absurd.
Spyky
I just want to provoke a discussion about the MPAA rating system, which is particularly ludicrous. A movie which has graphic violence, is often rated far less then a movie which has sexual content, or foul language. You may think that language and sexual content is disgusting and shouldn't be seen by children, and I will agree with you, for the most part, with one question: who decides who is "mature" enough? Isn't that the parents job?
At any rate, what harm does sex or language really do to a young persons psyche. I am particularly concerned with the over 13 and less then 17 category who are restricted from seeing "R" movies without a parent. Trust me, at the age of 19, I *know* that every children knows what pretty much any sexual act is and various terms for them by the age of 13, and of course so called "dirty" language.
The real problem is violence. You can turn on any TV show or cartoon and see graphic violence at the age of 2. Incredibly violent movies only receive a PG rating. The distinction between the violence of a PG movie is that it is slapstick, sometimes comedic. It shows no pain, or suffering as a result of the violence, thus the MPAA gives it a rating for general audience (practically anyone over the age of 5). I argue that this is far more dangerous violence then say, a movie like "Saving Private Ryan" which displays, graphically, the horror and disgusting nature of violence. In a PG movie, or a PG-13 movie, where some character is shot with a gun he falls to the floor and dies, with no blood, because that would give it an R rating. A fistfight or martial arts display always results in someone falling to the floor, "defeated". But from this kind of action, a young child learns nothing of the responsibility, or repercussions that result from violence. This reinforcement of non-effectual violence from an early age is what causes young people to idolize violent behavior. Banning them from seeing movies like "the Matrix" is too little, too late. They'll see it anyway, even if you don't think they should.
I think the MPAA needs to seriously re-evaluate their rating scheme, but the religious right will continue to force them to give sexual but non-violent movies an R rating, while letting kids see so called harmless, yet very violent, movies. Ludicrous. Its up to the parents ultimately to decide what their children are ready for.
Spyky
For the seriously clue-impaired, that was sarcasm.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Try this though - Without turning on your car, see if you can push it up a hill alone. Remember to take the parking brake off! Now, wasn't that hard? Did the car roll towards you, crushing your body underneath it? Now think of how easy that is with the help of a gasoline motor. Think of the 300 million people driving their cars around the USA. Think how much energy that is. We've been using energy created over millions of years at a rate which will not see us much further into the future.
Now go belittle the Indian some more, maybe he'll slaughter his cow today and die next year of hunger. Then he'll go to hell, right?
Wah!
Katz, great job raising a ruckus at the cinema.
But where did you get the idea to start off with: Libertarianism looks better by the day? It isn't specific to libertarianism to oppose censorship in the cinema and elsewhere -- that's a civil liberties issue, the sort of thing that libertarians and liberals generally tend to agree about.
One of your recent articles focused on the disparity in Net access between rich and poor and black and white in America. You emphasized that this kind of economic disparity is a moral issue, a kind of moral question politicians should be addressing, and I agreed with you. But a lot of respondents, true to the libertarian world view, saw no moral problem at all. I don't think libertarianism is what you're looking for, Jon.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
The government is only our friends when they protect our liberties. They have long since stopped doing that.
Sadly, this is correct. The easiest thing to conclude from this is that the government is no longer "of the people," but more and more I am becoming convinced that the government *is* still of the people.
Each of us chooses who we associate with, so our perceptions of what people think tend to be skewed. For instance, civil libertarians probably associate more with civil libertarians than others, and so believe that most people really do want liberty, and the government is out to restrict it. Being a member of the internet community, and specifically the open source community, can give a person the impression that most people have at least similar attitudes as them.
But try communicating with others sometime about politics and liberty. It can be quite shocking at first. Something that seems entirely obvious to us, something we cannot find a reason for people to disagree with, they will be against. The subject can be something as obnoxious as crypto restrictions - "well, they should be able to read anything so they can prevent terrorism" - never taking the moment to think that the chance of export restrictions preventing encryption from being used by a terrorist is 0.
I think this level of apathy towards liberty is widespread in our society. The question was posed by another a few days ago on Slashdot, but here it is again: honestly, if the first amendment were being considered today, would it pass? Would it even have mild public support? And why would it be so surprising to us that the government was actually doing something to promote liberty, instead of taking it away?
The current state of public opinion makes it impossible to reinstate liberties through the government. A political "revolution", something like electing better representatives, is impossible without first having a more difficult revolution; one that makes people start thinking; one that makes people want rights. There are plenty of organizations who want this to happen - ACLU, EFF, etc., but their positions are hardly mainstream. Hopefully someday, they will be.
He's entitled to his own opinion just as you are. Personally, I agree that people should make their own choices about what they view, or, if too young, their parents should do so for them, as these kids' mom did. However, no amount of free-thinking philosphy in the world will make me believe that what's morally right is subjective, only that we have the right to make our own choices regarding which morals we will uphold and which we won't. Your mockery of this person's choices in referring to him as an xtian reactionary implies you would deprive him of his right to an opinion if you had the power to do so.
as a relatively young senior in high school i am banned from solitarily viewing R and NC-17 rated movies. everytime I get asked for an I.D. i shake my head in disgust and envision causing a rucus because i know that I should not be censored from the movie/artform/popular media. Thanks to my parents I have the education (thanks chaucer/milton/Bolt etc) to know my rights privledges and responsibilities as a human. I know I can handle any movie in the box office. I think the fundamental problem is that kids are not educated to think for themselves. Maybe if kids were allowed (encouraged?) to read steinbeck/ salinger etc corporate america would not have to censor the populace.
I can prove that Thomas Jefferson openly supported religon in schools and government support of it. Original intent was that no religon be given preference or rammed down student's throats.
And I can make up the same quotes you do on my side, but it is still the seperation of church AND state, not church from state, not state from church, but mutual seperation of church and state.
And besides, what preferences is there with the 10 commandments? Jew or Christian? That's no choice at all.
marketing of trash like the South Park movie to people of that age.
Sometimes I wonder if people have seen the movie. I wonder if they see the satire. I wonder if it's intentional, but who cares? Go read a copy of "A Modest Proposal" by J. Swift. It's only a few pages, hope you have the patience and ability.
Seperatist and atheist:
Dan
Oh, man, saw Muppets last night, Eyes Wide Shut day before, and Drop Dead Georgeous friday.
:-)
Drop Dead: Funny, very.
Eyes Wide Shut: saw it in an Amerikan theatre, umm, never been carded (never). Sucked, badly. Kubrik, man, you made good movies, but you needed to hire a composer that can play more than 6 notes, repeatedly. Yeah, I know you're dead. Lighting was good.
Muppets, man, more screwed up than South Park, any day.
still laughing at "Release Me":
Dan
I think we better realize that the theaters are not only being pressured by people like Jon Katz and the libertarians out there, but by the moralists and the religious people out there who want to protect their children from these movies.
I am not here to say what is right and what is wrong.
The movie theatres are first and foremost bound BY LAW regarding the admittance of minors into movies rated for mature audiences, and can get in very big trouble with the industry and the government if they do not comply, I am sure. Perhaps even worse is the kickback they would receive from the parents and religious community.
There are certainly more people who would welome more stringent policies like those evidenced in Jon Katz's article that those who espouse his view. Which comes to a simple choice, who would you rather alienate, the majority or the minority. It is a simple business decision. While I agree with Jon Katz's ideals, the simple fact is it is more profitable for them to operate in this manner, and they are, after all, one of the largest industries in the world. They are out to make money.
---"Absolute power corrupts absolutely," advice from a former Dictatorial Emperor. (This sig brought to you from a FFIII lover.
If you don't know what to say...
Someone that reminds me a lot of you once told me
that I have a 'Jesus-shaped hole' in my heart.
You really should consider being a little bit more
insecure and humble. It would look good on you.
____
ZZ
To make it a bit easier I suppose it could be said the movie industry castrated itself to keep the government from cutting its penis off.
Maybe I missed the point?
"Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
I ask you this: do you truly believe that "Katz is the devils spawn"? Do you really think that he is the child of the Adversary? If not, then you are lying.
The first amendment is about being to say ANYTHING, so long as it is not slanderous (or physically dangerous). It's not about being able to say things *unless you can't*. It is there to prevent people like you from stopping others from saying what they wish.
---
END OF LINE
read the law.
Um, which law. Gimme a link. Gimme a hint. Gimme something.
It's easy to assert your own forceful little view as an AC, and I'm eager to be convinced, but do me a favor and help me out a little.
I'm in israel now, for the summer, and here I see commercials with nudity all the time. I'm told this is how it is in many of these countries. Really, what's wrong with a kid seeing the natural form? Unless a movie goes to an extreme, I don't see what is wrong with it. You also can't say that it encourages kids, as over here the crime rates are a lot lower than even in canada. The question is, what do kids lose by seeing nudity on tv or in the movie theater? Nothing. They get a touch of reality.
Everything in our culture worships violence. If anyone hasn't noticed that a very large number of movies are violent. The entire action movie category, even movies in other categories. When we think of conflict, we think of violence. We don't think of some stupid 6 month court case, or a war of words where one person backs down. This entire problem came out of the shootings a couple of months ago -- which I will not name -- and some idiot thought that a kid watching the matrix was an attributable factor. This is so false.
I'd also like to say that I'm originally from Canada, and there they have rated AA ratings where you can get in a movie that would usually be rated R at 14. Canadians aren't perfect though. Just ask any canadian about the bs the CRTC is trying to pull.
Violence is just fine, but sex? Ye gods, that would bring about the end of the world. Require an adult ID to see boobs, but no prob reading about how to make a bomb or start your own nazi party.
Considering no one, and I mean N-O O-N-E, made a stink over letting people under 17 into the movie "Dead Alive" (a _must_ for gore movie fans), hearing about all this smeg with SP and American Pie cracks me up. Heck, we wouldn't want young and impressionable kids to get the idea that it's a-ok to slip it to an apple pie, now would we? Where would it end? Would no pastry be safe? Boys buggering bunt cakes and baklawa, ecstacy with eclairs, dogs and cats living together.....
Killing spammers is too good for them.
A nation having a common set of morals does not mean the nation has to be a religious state. The United States, until recently had been a nation of people with common morals and beliefs, with several religions. This certainly did not weaken the country, like you suggest. You should learn more about the history of the US before you tell other people to go to another country.
I am not surprised your ignorant rhetoric was moderated upwards on slashdot.
1) He never stated christianity should be a state religion, you stated this not him. You put words into his mouth, so you could have something to rant about and not address the valid points of his argument.
2) You do not know this man well enough to make such accusations against his character. ad hominem.
3) Again, he never said parents should not be allowed to decide on the information their children should be exposed to. The problem here is you keep on putting words into his mouth and then base your argument on them.
I am a 21 year old, white male, who does not believe or practice any religion. There are many reasons why I do not care for christianity, but I agree with ultrapenguin.
I myself, am an Agnostic, who has an open view of most religons (exept the wacky ones that worship toast).
Putting in the most of the commandments isn't in its self a bad idea. Telling the kids, hey, don't murder people, is good, although i'd figure they'd all figure that out. But I have trouble with it on a few levels, it tells you to keep a 'holy day sabath' , which Goverment shouldn't tell you to do, and no to use gods name in vain, another thing Goverment shouldn't do. (Goverment being Public Schools).
Adultry and 'Coventing thy neighbors wife' is another thing. Its all a mater of choice and Goverment should stay out of that. If I am lusting over my neighbors wife, then I don't want the Goverment telling me not to.
Also I'd like to point out just because the Ten Commandments are a religous article doesn't mean they can't be used in a public institution. Hell, the '10 Bus Rules' (Like Sit in your seat and such) can be cited in some new religon as a religous article, doesn't mean we (public) can't use them. However, the Commandments to cite to a specefic set of religon(s), The Judo-Christian set to be exact. Thats what makes them not acceptible to use.
I just wish the Goverment would stop trying to enforce there own morals on everyone. I am not saying in anyway that I have no morals, my stand is "If it doesn't conflict with someones personal living, then it's ok" Being Rape,Murder, and Death Threts are wrong and Suicide, Crack Smoking, and Doing what you want with concenting adults on your own property is ok.
Katz is the epitome of what's wrong with the
morals of "America".
1. He lied about being a pastor to help get the kids
into the movie. He has proven himself to
be cut out of the same cloth as the lying
politician: Bill Clinton.
Anyway, no self respecting pastor
should ever even be seen in such theatres for
these reasons: 1) It downgrades the morals of
the pastor, desensitizing at best the attitude
toward sex. 2) It would tend to inflame the
passions of such a pastor especially if that
pastor is celibate and/or single. 3) It causes
scandal. 4) It is tantamount to giving the
"go ahead" to others to view such trash.
2. He seems to think or implies
that pornography and smut
are ok and are a right of kids. Unfortunately,
the new world religion of secular humanism is
inclusive of such a philosophy. When I was
growing up I was taught that more people would
go to Hell for sins against the 6th and 9th
commandment in this century. With respect to
pollution of children's morals scripturally
speaking "it would be better if a millstone
be hung around his neck and he be cast into the
sea". (paraphrased from New Testament)
3. Worse yet is the argument that since the
kids who wish to can get access to such filth
anyway why fight it? Let's apply that absurd
argument to drugs: Since kids can get drugs
anyway (if they really wanted to) let's legalize
drugs.
4. He is hardly libertarian with respect to
respecting the wishes and policies of a privately
owned movie theatre.
It's too bad that Katz didn't get busted.
It might have been a wake up call.
Other comments related to statements made by
Katz and my comments.
1. Europe is in much worse shape morally and
politically. So who cares if the USA is the
laughing stock of them. "Lot" and his family
was the laughing stock in Sodom. Anyhow, since
when should we decide what's right or wrong
based on ridicule by others. Any man that
caves in due to ridicule by others shows himself
to be a moral whimp, afraid, deep down, to do
what's right. In this post-Woodstock society
it's politically correct to bash any attempt at
censorship or reversing the moral slide.
Hardly the courageous stand. Since courage
essentially means "to stand alone" it seems
more and more difficult to find men with
the testicular fortitude to stand up and
be courageous about admitting that the
permissive society has failed miserably and
that it's time to reverse the trends that
have caused: killing (abortion), the post
abortion syndrome that women experience,
STD (sexually transmitted diseases) and the
misery caused by AIDS, inability for women to
have children, financial losses due to time and
money spent to treat diseases, and, worst of
all, losses of unrepentant souls sent for to the eternal pit.
2. Any attempt by parents to restore the
Ten Commandments in schools and censor
what video stores may sell or rent is the
start of a realization by parents that
that a wide open permissive morality has
hurt, not helped civilization. Freedom of
speech was never intended by the founding
forefathers of the US to include pornography
and smut as evidenced by the laws against such
that existed when this country (US) was first
formed. To consider pornography as free
speech is a relatively new invention
sanctioned by a liberal packed Supreme Court
which has usurped the constitutional rights of
the US Citizens to govern themselves. When
citizens cannot legislate for themselves, the
standards that they wish to uphold due to
interference by Judicial Activism, then this
country (US) amounts to nothing more than
Judicial Tyranny. So much for true libertarianism!
/matt
Well as much as I disagree with the theater's overreactive policies I can understand somewhat where they are coming from. They're being hit right and left by politics and all they want to do is make money, not fight moral wars.
Its really up to people to 'get a grip' and tell the politicians where the boundaries are. As it stands the politicans are (and always will being a class of useless leeches) aiming towards whatever they can to make themselves look proactive towards a social problem. Even if the actions are silly.
Businesses by their very natures have no spine, they want money and political battles are costly. They will bend when the wind blows.
The great Penn Gillette (of Penn & Teller, the magician duo) who is also coincidentally a Libertarian, had an interesting statement about this sort of matter. As he and his partner are often prodded at for their use of violence in their illusions. He said, and I paraphrase, that voodoo is the belief that the unreal effects the real. Blaming violence in movies or television is voodoo. Suburban America is backing this type of voodoo. Believing in this type of voodoo will only produce the same results of regular voodoo: nothing.
I also wonder, if movies are rated, who is going to stop the government from taking over by using this rating system? i.e. could a movie sporting a political figure doing something that is not flattering have a NC-17 rating just so the masses could not see it? It's nearly as bad as under communism where the government controls
all media. That's more or less what it is now.
Things are getting more Philip K. Dick-ian every day.
of course. Politicians are so overly concerned about their lifelong careers, that they will not take any stand-moral or otherwise-that would jeopordize it. When it comes to moral issues, or even environmental ones, they just follow the most popular opinions of mainstream america, which, coincidentally, are generated by our news media.
Contrary to what many of you think here, kids are impressionable. They are not born with an already intact sense of morals, values and an understanding of our world and society. They learn if from their surrounding environment-mostly when they are young, but people always adapt to their surroundings. I think many of the ultra-liberals, concerned more about their freedoms, forget that people abuse these freedoms to make money. A good example of this is the media-TV and movies which open people's eyes, usually due to sex and violence. Most of the movies people see now have significant amounts of both.
The problem with violence in our society, as I see it, is not directly linked to our media (TV/movies), as is the current mainstream opinion. However, the whole 'generation X' and the one after has been completely saturated with violence-and it has to have SOME impact upon the viewer. I must have seen thousands of people die on television, and killed millions more on quake type games. I'm not about to run out and go on a shooting rampage, as I'm sure millions of other gamers won't either. But when you have kids in an unstable family, where the parents don't teach a good sense of values and morals in the first place, the addition of gatuitous violence doesn't help. This is where violence in our society starts-a combination of violence and lack of morals and standards.
Seems to me that the American family needs more help than anything, and government regulations and theatres refusing to sell tickets to minors are mere stopgaps to help prevent a bad situation from getting worse. Unfortunately, these have little real impact, because we live in a society where we have a lot of freedom, so government intevention is minimal.
Instead of bitching about the government, why don't you take a look at the bigger picture, and issues such as the general degradation of the quality of life in the freest country in the world?
I'm 16 years old. I'll tell you something, I'm more mature than half the adults I know, and it really irritates me that I can't see "R" rated movies. For God's sake, "Shakespeare In Love" was rated R. Why? There's very little nudity and very little swearing. Yet some committee decided that it was inappropriate for me and my girlfriend to see. Because, apparently, they're idiots.
Telivision does not warp people's minds. Ditto for movies, video games, music...If a perrson goes postal after seeing "The Matrix," it was not due to the violence within that movie, but rather it was caused by an underlying mental instability. Or, put differently, media only screws up people who were already screwed up.
I ask finally, what the hell is the point of filtering the filth in the cinema so that only "mature adults" can experience it, when the filth is otherwise all around us? Gimme a break. Jeez, "South Park" seems downright wholesome when compared to the stuff I could be getting off the 'net right now. So why waste time, effort and opportunity for profit by trying to stop me from seeing what I want to see, when I'm gonna see it anyway, one way or another?
Interesting. You don't know the half of it, but you know enough to say that that my fragile little mind should be protected from what you arbitrarily decide is filth. What could possibly be the harm of letting me see, say, "Starship Troopers" (which comes to mind 'cause they wouldn't let me in way back when it came out; one of only three times I'm been turned back at the box office)? Ok, so there's decapitations and nudity. I honestly don't know what my reaction should have been had I been "mature," but given that it's like two years later and I'm still a totally functional human being gives me the impression that my mind was overly warped.
Also interesting was how you put weed on the same level as beer and "South Park." And, by your last statement, are you saying that if I was very responsible, it'd be OK for me to drink beer, smoke pot, and get into R rated movies? Disregarding the pot-smoking, beer-drinking part, aren't you saying what I'm saying, that responsible people (like me, even if you refuse to believe it) should be able to get into R rated movies? The second part of your post is very confusing.
Is profanity OK on /.? I'm not exactly clear on that.
Anyway, profanity is not a cause of homocidal mania. I swear, my friends swear, my teacher swear, my parents swear, President Clinton swears, and everbody except Clinton turned out all right. In fact, I think that profanity, in allowing you to express frustration better than "clean" words, actually helps you vent that frustration and keeps you sane. This is similar to how some deeply religious people, who refuse to talk about sex in any way, then go on to commit sex crimes in numbers a percentage point or two higher than the average population.
Remarkable. You are obviously an idiot, with a poor grasp of Christianity (for instance, you don't seem to understand that God never made any rule against lying). And you expect nerds (this is a nerd site, it says so below "Slashdot," don't bother saying that you're not a nerd) to accept what you say, or even to agree with you. Were you also on some kind of mind-altering drug when you posted this?
Morons like you are the reason the Republicans are never gonna take back the presidency. You guys really are God' gift to mankind, just not the way you seem to think you are.
Firstly, with the South Park movie being rated in OZ as MA (15+, with parental supervision) there can be reasonable grounds for refusing kids at seeing the movie (graphic sex, swearing).I feel that if it was rated R (18+) that is the only time for management to become a Door Nazi (tm).
It is parental concent that should be overriding concern. It should always be parental concent, be it the internet, TV, music or movies.
Given that the parent of this article gave verbal concent to the management should have been enough.
It is ironic that post Port Arthur, Australians wanted tougher gun control. In America post Colombine, Americans want to reprogram its kids.
Surely in an information rich enviroment, more effort should be spent on allowing kids to effectivly cope with conflicting information, not censoring the data stream.
Protection is not the answer. The only filter should be the persons OWN moral/belief system.
>>>>>
Welcome to the real world. I'm amazed that the manager fellow would try and enforce this. In my experience, the only people who enforce obviously bad rules like that are either: a) paying lip service to it or b) ahrdents who have poles of varrying lengths in their nether regions. Please. Swearing? Fuck me. I fucking learned to say shit whenever I fucked up when I was 5! It was how people responded to a situation where there was a problem. Sex and nudity? Uhm, let's think. When I was 8, I didn't get "hot and bothered" over the sight of women naked. The thought was, to me, revolting. Why? Puberty had not hit. The mind doesn't appreciate the opposite sex until it does. That changed when I became older, but was a non-issue for the first 14 or so years of my life. Why force it to be an issue? Canada is a lot more liberal than the States (thankfully), so I've avoided a lot of the fallouw of those Mayflower immigrants that many US people claim to be decended from. They were puritans, why be proud of that? A moral highground is an illusion, and is used only to make one's self feel higher than others. Usually, these dracion rules stem from a person's own uncomfortableness with the material presented. Just because you can't handle fucking swears, doesn't mean I have bleep myself. The French CBC in Canada has shown movies containing more skin than I've ever seen in a month of R-rated movies. Pornopgraphy is freely available, as are full movies, and programs for Windows (Linux programs seem conspicously free, and if they do cost money, it's always worth it). Time for me to read "1984" and "The Rape Of the A.P.E." again, and see what difference there is between those books and reality. Is I can find one.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
This allows PARENTS or ADULTS to decide and not some rating board.
:))
Then perhaps it becomes time to educate the parents, and not the kids
Jashamel
Fourteen or fifteen year olds should be doing things like sports or camping. They are still children, even if their bodies don't think so
And I could name some twenty-two year olds who are still children, even though they don't look it. Sure, 14/15 yr olds should be doing things like sports or camping, but what's wrong with some edutainment? Because if that's what it basically is. If you're an open-minded person, you'll question things when you are confronted by them. Through that questioning of life, you grow. Personally, I would consider letting children reading this entire thread because it shows them how *cough* grown-ups *cough* view them.
The question is, do certain people (or institutions) want other people to question their existence, beliefs and morals of right and wrong all the time? It doesn't lead you to a safe, mindless life, but it sure as Hell keep life interesting and dynamic.
We're living in a world where people are growing up faster than before. Whether it's good or bad, I don't know. But I won't interfere with their growing up. To try to prevent their growth is not only stupid, but wrong and useless. Grow WITH your kids, if you ask me.
(Uhm.. btw, this might hold some offense language, since I can't make examples without the examples. If it offends, well.. :) )
Hmm... ratings, yeah we have those here too. I think something like 16 and 18. Movies aren't really rated that much here, or at least I never noticed much of them. Ratings here are put on movies though I think they're more like advised ratings than required. I've seen kids under 18 enter movies like showgirls. Movies like 'Army of Darkness' and 'Braindead' can be viewed by just about everyone. They're not gonna ask at the videostore how old you are, unless you look like uhm... 11?
I agree with JonKatz that Hollywood people are going WAY overboard with observing/complying w/ ratings. If parents allow their kids to see Southpark, then theirs should be the final word. Parents are responsible for raising their kids, not the movie companies.
However, parents are responsible for knowing what their kids watching, and explaining to them the difference between accepted behavior and non-accepted behavior. I see kids watching southpark without guidance, and they start copying it. That's all very nice, but personally I don't think it accepted behavior to speak to grandparents, teachers or passerby's on the street with referals such as: "Hey, Butt-pipe!" or to tell them they're a 'cock-sucking, ass-licking, uncle Fucka'. And that's just language.
I can see where after a while, shooting people who you don't like will turn into accepted behavior. However, this is for the parents to moderate. Of course, you have to ask yourself... do all parents do this? How many of them use the TV as a babysitter or to 'get rid of their kids'?
In the end, I guess you're either a parent, or you're someone who just has kids.
So who's right and who's wrong in the rating battle? I don't know. I agree that ratings are stupid... but ever wonder if perhaps they've become necessary? Morbid thought, isn't it?
Jashamel
Katz mentions that libertarianism is looking better and better...He's really missing the libertarian ideology in that case.
;). If you don't like the theatre because of their strict rules with age-ratings, use your power as a consumer, and find a theatre that will let you in - they DO exist.
Unless there's something I don't know about, the MPAA (the group which rates movies) is not a gov't organization, it is a privately owned company that movie studios trust to rate their movies (well, trust is a bad term, but you get the idea).
Libertarianism wouldn't make this situation any better, as it is the *companies* right to turn away any business that they want, for any reason.
Capitalism however is proving that things like these don't last...for example, when I found out that blockbuster censors their movies, I went immediately to Hollywood Video (plus 5 night movie rentals are nice too
a libertarian
-lev
Q: What do you think about American Culture?
A: I think it's a good idea.
(adapted from Gandhi)
I think the only rule that has always existed is the 'survival of the fittest' one. Well, atleast if you beleive in evolution. I doubt that one applied in Eden. the rating system did _not_ always exist, unless 'always' is your lifetime, which would be an amazingly narrow view.
But my real question is 'who says what rules are _right_?' Going back to the infamous nazi references, were their rules right? Shoudl you follow them because they are rules, nothing else? I'm sorry, I'll follow reasons, justifications, and my own judgement years before I'll follow a rule mearly because it is. Some rules make sense, many many many (many) don't. Murder being a crime? There's a good rule. My local school disctrict outlawing ALL non-class realted clubs in order to prevent a kid from starting a gay and lesbian club? NOT a good rule, and hence, not worthy of following.
Question before acting.
"A good programmer is someone who looks both ways before crossing a one-way street." - Doug Linder
Or do you just attend church?
Granted, I've been atheist for quite awhile, but I've made it a habit to study what christianity really is. One thing that impresses me about 'true' cristians (I can name 2 that I know, no more) is that they don't judge. Remember the whole humble thing? It is _NOT_ your place to judge that mother. By your own releigion, it is _GOD'S_ place. not yours. Remember that. Just as I am not saying you are a non-thinking spouter, relaying what they've been told to say. I'm just telling you to actually think about your groundings before you spout out against someone.
"A good programmer is someone who looks both ways before crossing a one-way street." - Doug Linder
You mentioned in the article that your expirence was with General Cinema. I have had problems myself with General Cinema. About a year ago (before I turned 17 and stopped having to worry about these things), a friend and I went to see The Siege (a completely harmless R rated movie). My friend was 17 so he was going to buy both tickets. We waited in line together and I stood next to him as he bought the ticket (he was obviously buying it for me). He was then told that they could "only sell him one ticket". Discouraged, we went home. After getting home I decided to call the General Cinema business offices in my area. I inquired to them if simply people were allowed to buy multiple tickets. The representative informed me that in fact one individual could purchase up to 500 tickets and that you got discounts after 25 (or something). Unfortunately, I never encountered the same problem again (because I turned 17 shortly after). However, I would have liked to have come back with "Well you are wrong, your business office has informed me otherwise".
Shaun Jamieson
Don't worry, I won't ignore you. I'm afraid there is an endless loop of moral posturing implied in your post, because without the creativity and envelope-pushing of popular culture, you moralists would be irrelevant. You need something to bash, to point your finger at and call 'corrupting' or 'evil', in order to make yourselves feel morally superior and to tell yourselves that you are the 'moral guardians of america'. But what it comes down to is this; you are the social and moral conformist bullies who drove the Columbine killers to do what they did, except that your schoolyard is the arena of politics. It irritates you that there are people like Katz who think for themselves and demand the right to think for themselves, people who are creative and intelligent enough to be their own moral guides. And most of all, it irritates you that their exist people with enough balls to break the rules, to stand up and say; "This is BS! I don't accept your moralizing!" For a very long time, people like you have been allowed to set the agenda in houses of legislation around the US, under the guise of 'family values' and 'protecting the children', when in fact what you really want is to go on oppressing those who are different, creative, and intelligent, because they still frighten you with their non-conformity, just like in high school. Well, beware the revenge of the nerds and geeks at the ballot box next year, because we are going to vote you back to the stone ages, where you come from.
All I can is that I was taken to R-rated movies when I was six because my parents were too cheap to hire a babysitter. ;)
Right now, instead of plotting to kill my worst enemy, I'm sitting in front of my computer with Saint-Saens (classical, you dweeb) blasting in my ears. I'd be blasting it over the subwoofer, but it's two thirty in the morning.
I'm chatting on a Role Playing game, where my character has traveled forward in time from British India to kill a man and therefore save a billion lives...
And I am gainfully employed.
Wow, guess those killings and blatent sexual activities didn't screw me up TOO much...
- Le Skunkette
"To die would be a great adventure." - Peter Pan "If you are the master race, then climb these stairs and catch me."