Slashdot Mirror
Feature: Ticket Booth Tyranny (Part Two)
How to strike back against the petty harassment of kids trying to see movies like "South Park?, " and the usurping of decisions that should be theirs and their parents?
- Hit them in their pocketbooks. " If movie chains are going to refuse admission to movies that contain explicit sexual imagery or profanity, MP3 them. Download the movies on ICQ or Hotline, or other sites where they are becoming readily available, just as many kids did with the postponed "Buffy" finale. Watch how quickly they'll lighten up on ticket-booth vigilanteism. Harmless, funny, or overtly rebellious and political movies - "South Park," "American Pie," " Something About Mary" - are not in any sense dangerous to kids over the age of nine, or probably, even under. They are bristling with outsider geek humor and nerd sensibility.
- Squawk. Complain to theater managers; call and write movie chains. Tell them we don't want them making moral judments about what kids should see, that adults ought not be forced to intrude on their children's privacy or buy tickets to movies they don't want to see because theater chains and film studios are too dumb or cowardly to stand behind the things they make and sell.
- Improvise. Remember that the restrictions on young moviegoers are usually led by teenagers themselves, the employees of the movie chains. No studio CEO would be caught dead near an actual ticket booth talking to kids who see movies. These adolescent guardians and the movie theaters they work at can be hacked. Tell them you're a priest or minister demonstrating the pervasive reach of evil. Tell them you have a stomach disorder and have to leave the theater frequently. Tell them you're a Balkan refugee who speaks no English and doesn't dare leave the theater alone.
Also remember that, being teenagers, they are easily distracted. The kids stationed outside theaters to keep children out invariably drift off, get a snack, yak with their friends. They don't really care about the dumb rules they're enforcing.
- Kids: Be patient. Hang near the video game and wait for your chance. Ask adults leaving the theater if you can borrow the ticket stub for the movie you want to see, so that once inside, you can show it if an usher demands it. If they notice it's for the wrong time, burst into tears, whine, howl. Demand that they stop picking on you. Businesses hate scenes, especially with kids. Or buy tickets for "Tarzan," then, when the ushers stop paying attention, dart into the verboten movie. If you get caught or expelled, tell them you made a mistake, go back into "Tarzan" and try it again.
- Or get a few of your friends together and demonstrate against especially rigid theaters. Write nasty letters about them to the local paper. The very idea of protesting these silly restrictions would make news. There is no publicity a movie chain wants less than to have local kids picketing them, charging violations of their freedom.
-- Adults: Fight Ticket Booth Tyranny. Observe Take A Geek Kid To A Restricted Movie Day this Labor Day. Find a smart 13-year-old who wants to see something off-limits and take him to a movie, or, once during that long weekend, go to a nearby movie theater and help kids trying to get in. Even better, volunteer to take kids you know, too. Buy a ticket to "South Park," walk them in, then watch for a half-hour. It's a funny, biting movie, and the ushers have usually wandered off by the time you want to leave. If they haven't, tell them you're a physician, you got paged and you have an emergency appendectomy to perform. Big corporations like movie chains and video stories (studios, too) hate trouble. They're restricting access to movies because they think it will shut block-headed politicians up. If movie-goers make more noise than the politicians, they'll fold, and quickly. If all else fails, then the Web will become the world's biggest movie chain, a process already underway. Note to entrepeneurs: Time to sell popcorn and Twizzlers online.
Jon, usually I think you are right on the ball, but unless I missed some sarcasm here, I gotta say you blew this one. You say yourself that the decision should be up to a kid OR HIS PARENTS. And then you suggest that we hang out in lobbies and sneak strangers' kids into theaters with our ticket stubs or through other trickery. If I was a theater manager, I would have you arrested. If I was a parent, I would sue. What are you thinking?
Nine-year-olds have no business seeing American Pie or Southpark. Use some common sense! These movies aren't for children!
And what's the deal with all of this sneaking into theater crap? I don't want stupid little kids screaming and acting like kids while I'm trying to watch a movie.
Oh, please.
Who nominated Katz the spokesman for "the Geek Community", anyway? I'm getting rather tired of Katz telling us (and others) how geeks do and don't think.
Seriously, I'm starting to get majorly aggravated by Katz taking any controversial issue and doing a square-peg-into-round-hole job of forcing it into a "Geek Issue". Well, it gets him what he wants -- attention. Not so much because he's "serving the needs and interests of geeks", but simply because it's a charged issue.
I thought what Katz did was funny, and even admirable in some ways for standing up to what he perceives a broken system. If you want to do something like that yourself, fine -- more power to you. But trying to organize a national campaign around sneaking into theaters -- even if the cause is just -- strikes me as kind of childish.
You are not a geek.
You are stupid to say that nine year olds should be brought to a movie like South Park. That's a movie that only people over 13 should see, as is Amercian Pie and especially Somthing About Mary.
You do not speak for anyone here, obviously everyone disagrees with you, and finally...
...how is taking kids to R movies really helping anything? You're not breaking the law, and your only supporting the movie industry. Your suggestion to "MP3 'em!" shows just how little technical understanding you have. Get lost. We need a real colunisit here.
I thought he was arguing not that children should have the right to watch movies unsupervised, but that parents should have the right to allow their children to watch movies unsupervised. Sneaking kids into the theater addresses the first issue but not the second -- unless you're sneaking them in with their parents' consent, which is kind of weird if you're not their parent.
"Old enough to die for your country, but not to buy tickets to a scary movie"??
Surely you can think of better forms of social progress than taking an eight year old to American Pie.
Are we doomed to be lo-brow? What ever happened to protesting the banning of classic texts in libraries, freedom to obtain sex education...etc. Is the best we can do is protest access to South Park?
Then again, this is Katz. He's a decent journeyman writer, but he's not overly intelligent or resourceful on his own. That's why he is published in Slashdot as opposed to The Nation.
Thanks Jon for removing private parental authority. It would be nice to know that in your world my kids could just wait for someone to "pick them up" at a theater and bring them in even if against my wishes.
I would certainly love to see the anarchists who "pie" people have a whack at you. You are certainly reaching that level of pompous arrogance in your writing, and I'd love to see the wind take out of your sails publically.
Stop trying so hard to be a geek. Geeks do not support this anarchy you seem to think needs so much attention!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jon,
I like this plan! But even better, I like the idea of a "Take a Teenage Girl to a Dirty Movie Day". Do you think the wife will mind if I lurk outside suburban cineplexes and ask 14 year old girls if they want to see "Eyes Wide Shut" and maybe have some booze at my place afterwards?
In fact, let's just cut to the chase and have a "Get Young Girls Drunk and Bang 'Em Day". Then we can stop being geeks and start a fraternity!
> Movie ratings are not law, they are guidelines
> for parents. If we don't stop treating them as
> laws, they will become laws.
I'm British, and here the board of censors classifies all films. Films with mild swearing are rated 12, films with violence are rated 15 and films with sexual content are rated 18. If you are younger than the appropriate age then you don't get to watch the film.
In England, we consider legally imposed age limits to be a fact of life. You can't buy alcohol until you are 18, you can't buy pornographic magazines until you are 18, you can't buy cigarettes until you are 16. Buying cinema tickets is similarly restricted, along with having a tattoo. There are moves to restrict body piercing in the same way. I don't see the problem with any of this. A fourteen year old kid is old enough to go to town to shop but not old enough to buy alcohol. Same thing applies to watching violent (or otherwise inappropriate) films.
You might argue about the age boundary, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
While reading your remarks about nine year olds and movies like Something About Mary and American Pie, I must say you're dead wrong there.
I have a little brother who recently turned nine, and when I go home for a holiday, what do I do? I play descent with him (takes after me, yup), I help him beat games on his PlayStation, or we play a few rounds of chess. Sometimes we'll pull out the transformers and GI Joes I gave him, and we'll play with those. Then, if a movie is watched, it's one of his two favorites: Star Wars or Empire Strikes Back. (I raised him well... he's a regular me raised twelve years later)
The thing is, he's a very nice kid, and I don't think I know any of his nine year old friends who would even GET half the jokes in South Park, or Something About Mary (Haven't seen American Pie yet, I love college budgeting...) I think the last movie he really wanted to see was Wild Wild West, and that was only because of the cool spider.
Just as an opinion of an older brother looking at my little brother's life, it seems that at this time he's not interested in sex, politics, or any other sort of bodily humor (politics is FULL of bodily humor... Janet Reno... Need I say more?), but rather he's interested in really cool looking aliens and space ships and explosions on ID4, Aliens (yes, he has watched that, and loves it), and Blade Runner.
But that's just nine year olds. I think when I started my middle school years (grades 7-9 here) is when I really became interested in weird movies like those. If South Park was out then, there would be no doubt that I as a twelve year old would've been there, sneaking in anyway possible. As a nine year old, I would've been playing Metroid at home...
Just the thoughts of someone insane...
That is unless you like being arrested as some sort of pedophile. If you were caught doing such a STUPID thing the possible misconceptions could get you in a LOT of trouble. NOTE: People extremely sensitive re: their children.
Let the kids sneak in on their own.
Sheesh. Exactly what is wrong with Christianity today. If you can't make people behave the way you want, at least isolate yourselves in your own little sanctuary.
Because I'm a geek wannabe too, and I don't have the slightest idea of what I'm talking about!
Blanket age limits are purely artificial. Some kids under 18 can handle some material, others can't. I strongly disagree with the assertion that all people under 18 are unable to handle any R-rated material, and you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate it. The only one who knows a child well enough to judge is the PARENT, not YOU.
The issue isn't about convincing you to let your children faster than (you think) they have to. The issue is about preventing us from making a decision about the maturity of our own children.
Katz is a tool, no doubt. Suckie, suckie, suckie...
Jon, you seem *obsessed* with children. Especially with taking children to see R rated movies.
I can't help but wonder why you think it is so important that people should take a kid to see a porno movie. Are you a pervert?
That does it. Katz, your misguided, misinformed, and infantile "plan" oversteps the bounderies of what defines civilized behaviour.
I am not a parent, but if I were, were you (or anyone else) to sneak my child into a movie that I had decided was inappropriate for them to see, then you would find yourself on the receiving end of physical violence. How dare you interfere with how I choose to raise my children!
The rating system is there for good reason. The theatres are entirely within their right to see it enforced. As a supposedly responsible adult, you should be _aiding_ the theatre, not circumventing it.
As for the parent who tried to drop off her children at an R-rated move while she went elsewhere - shame on her, and kudos to the theatre for refusing those children access! Any parent who is unwilling to take the time to provide parental guidence during and R-rated movie, or to at least share the experience so that she could understand what her children were seeing, is a substandard parent.
A far more noble and civilized response on your part would have been to share with her that you had seen the movie, that is was NOT intended for unsupervised children, and that if she was unwilling to accompany them to the movie, that it was in their best interests to not see the movie at all.
Of course, that takes courage. It requires intestinal fortitude to call down someone who is not living up to their responsibilities. How much easier to play the craven, and take on the faceless theatre!
Shame on you, John Katz! Your brand of anarchy civilization can do without. Go back to your benighted mountain and stay there - and leave your laptop behind, so we don't have to read any more of this drek.
Rob, stop this putz, before he starts advocating buying alchohol, tobacco, and other controlled substances for minors.
So after 6 years of being VERY verbal in interviews (though not telling anything about the movie, as with the lost AI. I was impressed) he changed his mind at the last minute? It's possible. But he often said he wouldn't edit it to avoid a rating....And from what I've been told, they removed ONE scene.
They did not remove any scenes to avoid the NC-17 rating; they digitally covered up Tom's wee-wee in one scene. The film didn't lose anything artistically, but was allowed to be seen by a wide audience. Kubrick happily made that choice.
You want to whine about something? Ask why it's okay for Nicole Kidman to spend the majority of the movie in various states of undress, while one glimpse of "little Tommy" would have made it NC-17. Sexism? Objectification, anyone?
Perhaps you'd like to come down here and join the group of 15 year old kids who sing the Uncle Fucker song at the top of their lungs in the malls. Please Katz. THINK about what you're suggesting. Some of these movies are NOT for children. Just because a movie is animated, and contains funny situations does NOT make it okay for every 15 year old kid who's heard of southpark to be ushered in. If I was a parent, *I* certainly wouldn't want my child exposed to SouthPart at 15 or 16. While teens with a clue probably won't be taken to imitating every swear scene in the movie, the fact is that a good portion of them do because its 'cool'. I for one wouldn't want my kids making public nuicances of themselves just because its COOL. .. Maybe I should protest my local police station because their parking tickets VIOLATE MY FREEDOM TO PARK WHEREVER AND WHENEVER I WISH. I'll certainly start doing drugs, because its well within my rights to do so if I think i can handle it, and ANYTHING YOU DO WILL ONLY BE INTEREFERING WITH MY FREEDOM..
I'm not one to harp on your work -- publically --, but having read your last two articles, I very much need to vent my frustration with your frame of mind. Where on earth were you hiding when they handed out common sense? Perhaps for your next fight, you'll go take some sexually inexperienced teenagers to a porn theater?
My god Katz. Do us all a favour and take your typing fingers -- now -- you see that car over there? I want you to take your fingers, place them between the door and the frame, and have one of your child proteges slam the door repeatedly. I don't want him to stop until I see finger mush oozing from what may remain of your hand. Should you feel the need to start another moral crusade, I invite you to do the same with your head.
All this gnashing of teeth is great and wonderful, but by the time your self-proclaimed "Take a kid to the movies" day comes along, there will have been sufficient time for the corporate types to analyze the bottom line and determine that aggressive enforcement is costing them money. The issue will then be quietly dropped.
As long as the killing of children is done only by adults, the politicians and media will have forgotten the details. After all, didn't the problem get solved in a frenzy of modified dress codes and mesh book bags. Yeah, that'll solve the problems.
Katz you amaze me, why stop at just lowly movies? Shouldn't young geeks be able to get all the beer and cigarettes they want? How dare society have a policy limiting them by age, even if there parents think they should have it? This is Katz's big chance to write part III of this series and set up a side business buying beer and cigarettes for Geeks.
Seriously, as a parent, Katz is no ally of mine. I am glad that atleast some theaters are finally following policies they have been paying lip service to for so many years.
Well, there is one reason for that. The female body is beautiful, soft and silky while the male body is big, lumpy and hairy and shouldn't be seen by the light of day. ;)
-Aaron
For the people who still didn't understand the Mp3
allegory/mistake (I don't care).
Go to:
http://drogo.cselt.stet.it/mpeg/
then go to:
http://www.isonews.com/
and click releases, then VCD (Sorry, but they use nasty scripts preventing a direct link)
Nuff'said.
pS: Katz, you are going too far this time.
I think you should tone it right the hell down there buddy. God, what a bunch of fucking fascists. While I agree, this particular article wasn't that great, thats no reason to flame Katz. Particularly when you claim to be some "geek" which you probably are not. You are probably just one of the 1000s of random losers who read slashdot every day. And try and get your facts straight too.. this is not a law.. as many people have already asserted. And Jon Katz is DEFINITELY not the biggest lump of deadweight holding slashdot back. If anything, that lump of deadweight is idiot users such as yourself.
Actually, I thought the first part of the article was pretty good. This second part, perhaps, was unnecessary, or at least could have required a bit more thought.
Katz, eat shit. Who do you think you are, Herbert Marcuse?
I must say, though, that many of you seem to make out that it is not the Government's decision to make ad etc. ad nauseum. However, I think this country has some big problems, and unfortunately raising all restrictions on seeing movies is probably not going to solve them. Yes, there are a number of newer rules that are kind of dumb. And I personally do not see what is wrong with 10 year olds seeing South Park. It obviously makes little sense. Unfortunately, I think there is a kind of deeper set of cultural problems that underlie the needs of many parents to feel that their children are "protected." I think a lot of this kind of moral garbage can be traced right the hell back to the good old Puritans. And our "wonderful" Christian forefathers. Overall, the secular side of the U.S. was built incredibly well. It took amazing genius, IMO, to do what they did. However, I think that the culture and religion of our nation have always lead to problems. The general fundamentalist nature of Christianity, the lack of a stronger cultural message promoting such important things as education. In fact, our culture very often pushes us in the exact _wrong_ direction. The answer isn't more restriction, it is more education (at least in part). Perhaps the spirit of the "rebellious" 13 colonies is a bit too alive and well these days, and being channeled the wrong way.
A liiiittle bit extreme me thinks.
IT WOULD BE
THEN HE COULD MAKE IT LEGAL SO I COULD
LISTEN TO SLIM SHADY ALL DAY
AND DRINK BEER TO I VOMIT AND NEVER GO TO
S/OO/_ LIKE MY DAD ALLWAYS YELLS AT ME TO DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM 23 AND STILL LIVING AT HOME. I HAVE LONG HAIR AND LOOK LIKE NEO BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN THEY CAN TELL ME WHAT TO DO EVEN THOUGH I LEECH OFF THEM LIE MADDOGS FOR MONEYZ AND FOODZ
I HOPE NEVER TO LEAVE HOME. I WILL BE 50 AND
BE JOBLESS AND READ JON
GRABES MP3
ROCK ON JON
Gee, I thought that he said all of those things. Hmm, how come I noticed that he said all of that, and you didn't?
(1) Maybe because I read it?
(2) Maybe because you're a moron?
(3) Maybe you have some other agenda?
"I should be able to drop my kids off so they can have fun without "dad" tagging along"
I think that you mean,
"I should be able to ignore my responsibilities as a parent, and leave it up to strangers to take care of my kids. Sorry, but I'm to busy to care."
Take responsibility for your own family, and don't leave it up to others. Oh, wait, I forgot, we're Americans, and "personal responsibility" is un-American.
I tripped! Where's my lawyer?
I've got to agree with Jon. There's no better way to start grooming young boys for sex with adult men than to let them watch videos their parents wouldn't let them watch.
We'll start by sneeking them into South Park and Eyes Wide Shut.
Hey, if their parents can't watch them, I'll take the job.
I'll even download the mpegs and show them in the comfort of my own home.
Heh heh heh. Good work, Jon. You've got to fight the establishment. I'll be cruising the theaters on Labor Day, looking for young geeks who want a older man to "help" them out.
"Hey little boy. Want some candy^H^H^H^H^Hmovie tickets?"
For eveyone who is so stupid as to not understand the message contained within. Don't even bother replying. It is NOT advocating man/boy sex. Idiots.
I wonder how many business types read this story out of curiosity? Way to go, slashdot...
Why not have a national 'hunt Jon Katz down and pull his fat head out his fat ass day'? Say, the day before Labor Day? Now THAT would be something useful.
So what is so great about being a geek. You say Jon is below the social status of "geekdom" but let me tell you pal, there is no social status below geekdom. Even loserville is several rungs up the ladder from geek. Geeks have no social life and brag about stupid things like drinking Mountain Dew by the case just to stay awake so they can work on their computer days at a time with no sleep. What a social life that is. Remember just because you are a geek that doesn't make you a hacker and being a geek is NOTHING to brag about. Turn your computer off for a week, go outside and see what LIFE is all about.
while i applaud your for your quick wit in first article to combat the motion picture industry bullshit, this time i think you've gone a little overboard with your suggestions proving once again that you're just a fucking idiot
...that it's stupid.
More power to the theatres.
Excuse me? 17 year olds can't behave in a serious manner or make decisions?!? You seem to be under the impression that you can judge a group by looking at it's lowest common denominator. Here's a hint: humans can't be classified that way. There's too many variables.
Secondly, the MPAA ratings are in no way LAW. They are a series of parental guidelines that the theatre system (as a whole) chooses to enforce. It's their theatre, and their perogative, and I agree with it (mostly).
On the other hand, rushing over to the arcade machines in your local theatre and dragging the nearest pre-teen into "Eyes wide shut" is a pretty dim manuver too. Especially if the kid actually WANTED to see tarzan.
You ever wonder if Katz posts really stupid shit to get us all worked up?
Part I of this series was the first Jon Katz piece that I have enjoyed in quite some time. What a shame that part II was so poorly thought-out. It sounds as if it were written by a twelve year old who was denied a ticket to Debbie Does Dallas. First of all, I remember being nine years old. I'm pretty sure that when I was 9, I was not ready for South Park. Now don't get me wrong. I'm all for subverting America's youth when it comes to something such as movie theater restrictions, but this isn't the right way to do civil disobedience. And let's not forget that these are movie theaters, not the government. They don't even have to pretend to listen to you, and it's highly unlikely that any monetary damage can be done to these monsters. And let's not forget that ANYONE CAN SEE A MOVIE if accompanied by an adult. To me this makes perfect sense. Let's say, for instance, that Mr. Katz has a 5 year old son. Mr. Katz lets his 5 year old son go to see South Park by himself (an extreme situation, yes, but I'm taking Katz' argument to its logical conclusion.)
So Mr. Katz's son comes home and starts talking potty-mouth to Mr. Katz's mother in law, wife, brother, sister, dog, parrot. Now the parrot is saying "F*ck crackers, gimme some cheezy poofs!" or some such. Is Katz prepared to deal with the outright utter terrors that he could cause. Not that I don't want to see western civilization collapse. I'd just rather see it collapse on my terms.
Some friends of mine ran into a similar problem. Our group was trying to get into the South Park movie, and the staff was carding people at the door to the theater. (We were all older than 17)
My friends were both over seventeen, but neither one had photo id on them (they don't drive). Fortunately a little harrassing of the theatre staff worked. I showed photo id, and claimed to be their legal guardan. I also said that my friends were older than I was, due to an accident with a time machine and a prophilactic... (a la Zaphod Beeblebrox)
The employee stopped, thought, and smiled. He said "Wow, I actually know what he's talking about"
We all got in.
Moral of the story: Be well versed in classic literature.
ps: You ever wonder if stupid articles get posted just to get everyone riled up?
While I too find this sudden rash of moralism by theater owners anoying and very insincere, I do not believe that all theses restrictions are bad. I saw South Park, and maybe I'm going out on a limb here (being that I'm 19 and probably won't have a kid of my own for another 7 or 8 years) but I don't think nine year olds should be seeing that movie! Neither should anyone under the age of 14 be seeing American Pie without a parent. First of all, part of the funnyness of that movie is that I have been in highschool, I had friends in band, ALL THEY TALK ABOUT IS BANDCAMP! Older people can enjoy that movie more. I also don't think kids should be let into movies like Saving Private Ryan, or The Matrix (by kids I mean little kids, not highschoolers) My point is that the theater owners shouldn't be enforcing the ratings, the parents should, so that the theater owners don't have too
What I wan't to know is how libertarians expect to pay for military and protection when there is _no_ income tax.
So your parents are overcontrolling and less intelligent than you.
/. whinging brat.
Take charge.
Get a job. A bright young person such as yourself shouldn't have any problem bringing in enough to afford your own apartment, transportation, food and clothing. Then you can work on whatever entertainment you want.
You want to be TREATED like an adult, the LIVE like an adult. With adult responsibilities and all.
Then you won't have to worry about your over controlling parents.
But you just sound like another
You want all the privileges without any of the responsibilities.
boo hoo hoo.
You paid the $1.50 - if you don't like the policy, then don't pay them!
Folks, this is nothing new... 20 years ago, I was one of those kids asking perfect strangers to walk me into theaters. (Which, in hindsight, was relatively unsafe behavior for me, as it created an ideal climate for certain criminal predatory behavior that I was ill equipped to deal with.)
But there are ways to deal with this problem. The concept is called human engineering.
Pick your theaters: Earlier this year, some friends of mind decided to rent a theater for a private showing of Star Wars. George Lucas came out with his "rules", and the big giant multi-cinema returned our money rather than risk his wrath. So, being quite bright about these things, my friends tried renting at a smaller theater. That theater wanted (or perhaps needed) the money a bit more. And responded to our concern about Lucas' rules with "George who?".
Pick your battles: Never fight on someone elses terms. You will lose every time. Instead, fight on your own terms. Don't argue with them whether you should be allowed to buy multiple tickets if you're under 25. Or whether your kids should be allowed to see the movie unattended. You will lose. Instead accuse them merely hiding behind these rules as a means of legally discriminating against you because you are Black. Or Jewish. Or wearing jeans. Or wearing sneakers. Make a big commotion. Call the press. Intimidate the manager. And above all else, remember to have fun. After all, God put these twits here for our enjoyment.
Pick your opponents: Don't go up against the neo-Nazi Jock who gets off on the power trip of harassing you. Pick the little old kindly sympathetic lady. Why make things harder on yourself???
On the lighter side, perhaps we should inquire more about why our society has such a puritanical view of sex, while we openly condone violence. Take a good look at the shear quantity of pornography at your local newsstand. Or on the web. Someone has to be buying this stuff. Or viewing it. Or pornography wouldn't be growing like weeds on a fertilized lawn. And yet, everyone is against it...
Why is it that sex equates to a instant R, NC-17, or worse rating while horrible death, dismemberment, and violence start at PG-13? What is it about two consenting adults sharing the pleasures of physical intimacy that so disturbs us as a people? So much more than, say, cutting someone's organs out amid a shower of their own blood?
Or is it, as with alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and so much else, that by outlawing them from our society we actively encourage our younger members to pursue these vices?
The irony is that one can go down to almost any decently-sized bookstore and buy a copy of "The Joy of Sex" or some similar book. Or just browse them if you prefer... With no carding and no age restrictions... So why is it that I've never seen a kid looking at these books?
Remember kids, no one is born being a great lover any more than you're born being able to shoot a gun with any accuracy. Both take a lot of research, and a lot of practice. But with the former, the labwork is a lot more fun...
This is all Jon can UNDERSTAND!
He doesn't understand the tech.
He doesn't understand society.
He doesn't understand law.
He doesn't understand ANYTHING of value.
His crusade is to get children into dirty movies or to pirate them so children can watch them.
One positive thing about this article is that it shows even the most ARDENT Katz fans what an IDIOT he is.
Boo hoo, my child wants that 400$ toy, I'd better buy that too, because thats what he WANTS.. Boo hoo, my child wants to play with a fork in the toaster. Nevermind that its DANGEROUS for him to do so, its what he WANTS to do.
The creators of South Park said on Dennis Miller's show that the MPAA didn't say anything about all the war and violence but made them take out rim job. Now that's fucked up.
It's time. Let's do the poll. Rob???
/.!
Not that A. K. didn't get wronged on SNL. But we
can do it for Andy and Kaufmann someone who
REALLY deserves it!
No more Katz on
Yes Kaufmann is now a verb.
-kabloie
Would you be willing to be interviewed for a first person heart-felt tragedy piece about how geeks aren't understood and how this affects our sexual practices?
Anyone else out there who feels the man has been oppressing your sexual habits?
Get your terms straight.
libertarian
1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b
capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
anarchist
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to
overthrow the established order
An anarchist is a proactive libertarian(1)(2a).
A Libertarian(2b) is a memeber of a political party that strives for minarchy, or limited government.
Again
A libertarian does not believe in any force that limits liberty. (formal government is bad)
An anarchist takes action against any force that limits liberty. (formal government is combated)
A Libertarian strives for minimal limits to liberty. (formal government is bad if gets big)
anarchist == libertarian
if (proactive)
libertarian = anarchist
Libertarian != ( anarchist || libertarian )
What appalled him was the blatent ignorance of anarchist and libertarian beliefs, and the difference between those two groups. As an anarchist, and having many libertarian friends, I can tell you that the goals are, first of all, widely different, and second of all, well thought out. If you ever doubt that either group has thought out their positions, I suggest you do some reading on both groups.
To go back to the topic of the original thread, however, I agree with the poster. All geeks/nerds/hackers are _not_ libertarians. The percentage is much higher than in other population samples, but it's never safe to assume anything.
Did any one catch the FAA new proposal to make stricter laws for the purpose of (and I quote) "Protecting pilots from themself" (Damn JKF jr). I have not once since I was born requested for the goverment to protect me from myself. Especcially at the cost of free choice. One can not stop the rules of survival of the fittest, so why do we keep coming up with laws to protect people from their own choices. If the Capt. Hill was really concerned with the saftey of Americans youth why don't they get research how to make parents give a rats ass about their kids, and less about the SUV and suburbanite lifestyle. Oh yeah that's right... Time is a zero sum equation and more time with kids means less time at work => means less productive companies => less foriegn trade => less goverment money trough taxes => less defense money => less bombs to drop on small countries full of minorities.
Sorry about the release of aggression, but I can't find this bug.
Yes, well, believe it or not, some of us happen to like and respect the geek lifestyle. Get over yourself.
Boo hoo. Someone wouldn't let you see R rated movies.. Well, good for them. If it were my job to keep you out of R rated movies, I would have done the same.
Huh? I live in BC, and when I was under 18 I got into R movies all the time. And when I recently went to see Eyes Wide Shut, there were many minors in attendance. One of the movie employees even cautioned parents to stay with their kids to answer questions, so the minors weren't a mistake on someones part.
I've also never seen AA-14 advertised in any paper, just the usual G, PG-13, and R. What part of Canada are you talking about?
"Katz you amaze me, why stop at just lowly movies? Shouldn't young geeks be able to get all the beer and cigarettes they want? How dare society have a policy limiting them by age, even if there parents think they should have it? This is Katz's big chance to write part III of this series and set up a side business buying beer and cigarettes for Geeks. "
GIVE ME A BREAK, THIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT THEATRES TRYING TO TAKE THE PLACE OF PARENTS! The issue of beer and cigarettes is totally different, they HAVE negative effects on the people who use them, plus it is ILLEGAL for kids to use them (under most circumstances). Movies are just fiction. If I watched "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", I'm not gonna turn out a chainsaw wielding psychopath. Let parents and their children decide what they can and cannot see.
Someone else said that you cannot legislate morality, well they are right. I wouldn't be surprised if these policies suddenly became law.
- Kids can't see movies they have permission to see
- Kids can't see movies they don't have permission to see
- Adults can't see movies they have permission to see
- Parents, movie theaters, and governments feud over which of them gets to decide whether kids have permission to see movies (some parents have standards that are more restrictive than governments or theaters, and a few have standards that are less restrictive; in both cases, they get mad at their "usurped authority").
This is a lot like the censorware debate, where people worry about who will control what information kids can access on the Internet:- Government, or "voluntary" associations that are afraid of government regulation
- Parents
- The kids themselves
Since #3 is "not an option" (i.e. off the political map, and only believed in by a few radicals), the mainstream feuds over the distinction between #1 and #2, while a few outside of the mainstream are frustrated and tired of such arguments.There are always more issues than the obvious few, and it's always worthwhile to try to point out what they are.
This guy hit the nail on the head. This is war, war from tyranny and oppression! Its time to stand up to all the profiteering gluttons and say enough is enough. Its stupid to card people going into a theater! I'm going to take the entire orphanage down the road to see South Park this weekend! This movie censorship is how communism got started in Russia. Do we want to become like that, if we don't stop it now, we will all end up in bread lines!!! Its about freedom baby! YEAH!
Praise the almighty Katz the Christ! He hath come here to save us geeks, and take us to a rated R movie, too! You know, I used to support Jon katz and his writing. I found it to be enjoyable. That was the whole hellmouth thing, that was the first time that I read his stuff. Of course, now I realize that every story he writes is the Hellmouth thing. It is geeks being repressed in this way or that way. Give it up, Katz. First of all, why only take a Geek to a movie? What is wrong with taking a perfectly well adjusted and even *gasp* popular kid to a movie? You are some kind of Slashdot bigot, you are like the womens' rights activists or black activists who take things too far (DISCLAIMER: I am referring specifically to the ones who take it too far, I am 100% behind womens' rights and equality for all). All you ever write about is geeks and how we are being put-down by the popular "man." Give it a rest. Talk about something ground breaking. As someone else said, offer some sort of insightful commentary on the AOL/MS war. And to all of you out there reading this, if you have the time to go out to a movie theater and help sneak kids in, why don't you do something really helpful like pick up trash along the road or work at a soup kitchen. Movies are just movies, if a kid wants to see one that bad they can wait for home video. There are more important things that you can be doing on your day off (Labor Day) than seeing a movie. God, what is Slashdot coming to? I find that I lvoe everything BUT the Jon Katz crap now. Unfortunately, Katz is one of the major ways Slashdot gets publicity online, and now people are going to see this drivel spewing from his mouth and think that he really knows what is going on, and I hope it scares them, ecbause it would scare me.
Anoymous coward Ben, who is now getting a nick and blocking out Mr. Katz.
- Is it bad for government to regulate the information that children get? (May government require that children be allowed to see something? That they not be allowed to see something? Should either of these override parents' preferences to the contrary?)
- If the government shouldn't impose one of the above-mentioned laws, but does anyway, is it bad to try to get around it?
- Is it bad for movie theaters to impose lots of rules on movies because they're scared that the government will do it for them otherwise? If these rules were imposed because of a justifiable fear that the government would impose some regulation which it shouldn't, is it bad to try to get around them?
- Is it bad for parents to keep information away from their kids?
- Is it bad for kids to try to get information that they think their parents wouldn't want them to have? (Sub-question: is it bad to for others to help them?)
I think these separate questions should help people be more specific about what they like or dislike about what Katz has to say.You shouldn't pay a service charge for a service you didn't need - make 'em pay! Dispute that bill due to the $1.5 charge. It's a bastardly thing to due to Moviephone, but you'll hit the theatre owner harder. AND it is a piece of cake to make the dispute (just say you don't remember buying the tickets by the time truth prevails you'll either get at least $1.5 off or they will have all lost their profit margin).
Hello, I dont usually post comments, but I thought I'd just let this one slip in.
I know someone, who was raised similarly to the guidelines in the "Methods of anarchist parenting". He is a friend of the family.
He didnt turn out so well. Not that its my play to judge how "well" kids have turned out (I'm 17 myself). But he just acts like hes better then everyone (and because of this, became racist). He lies to his friends, as well to his family, and his family takes it all so lightly. Hes just an all around asshole, and his parents think hes an angel.
I dunno, sometimes too much of a radical aproach gives kids a bit to much, and they run a bit to far. I guess there is no right or wrong way... Just show your kids you love them, and tell them whats right and wrong (and then let them develope there own morals from those).
Just my $0.02
Flame away.
Ok, time to tear this argument to shreads....
"you guys have proven to the world that you cant behave in a civilized manner to begin with let alone make any decision. The proof of what happened at Woodstock 99 is enough."
To start with, saying that I cannot make ANY decision is just plain wrong. I just decided you are a moron (Wow, look I just made a decision). As for the 'proof' that Woodstock provides, I hate to tell you, but there were more twentysomethings there than teenagers. As for those teenagers who did go, many of them are from the jock/druguser group, which tends to be quite a bit more irresponsible than the rest of us.
"it's the law that you cant see something that you dont understand, or will probably try to re-enact, or will more likely scar you"
Ok, so I (at age 15) don't know the difference between fantasy, and reality. As to the 'probably re-enact' part of the argument, do you think all people under 17 are idiots? If it was probable that teens would try to re-enact the scenes that they see in movies, you would see a LOT more violence. We're not idiots, don't treat us like we are.
"It's a law, live with it or get it changed."
Last time I checked, it was a matter of theatre, policy, oh well, things must have changed.
"...but it takes a large amount of maturity and brain power to see the line between real and fantasy"
/Begin Rant
Ok, 99.999% of the people that I know who are under 17 know the difference between fantasy and reality. How many adults out there cannot determine the difference, quite a few. We are barred from seeing these movies because of an imaginary link between a minority of idiots among us, movies, and violent crimes. Why are ADULTS allowed to see these movies, they have the same type of minority among them, that is even more likely to act. It doesn't even come down to this, it comes down to right and wrong. If my PARENTS allow me to go see a movie, that is their decision, the MPAA should keep out of it. My parents have NEVER ignored me, or dumped me off somewhere because they were too busy, quite the opposite as a matter of fact. For as long as I can remember, I was always a part of the decision making process, my opinion was ALWAYS taken into account(to a certain point). My parents know how I think, and how I will react to most situations. They taught me well, and know me well. They know what is best for ME. It is much better to do this than arbitrarily make a decision, using the excuses "you wouldn't understand", "because I said so", or "your age group can't handle it".
/EOR - End Of Rant
"I had many friends get way too deep into D&D to the point that they thought they were real druids/etc, because they couldnt handle realistic fantasty."
Well, that was years ago, YOUR GENERATION, YOUR FRIENDS. If your friends couldn't handle a roleplaying game, then they must have been seriously messed up(I hope they grew out of it). BTW: Who says 'The Matrix' is realistic.
"let's let the "responsible 16 year olds" have free access to booze!"
This line doesn't even deserve a response, but I'll give one anyway. Alcohol is PROVEN to affect violent behavior (plus it is ILLEGAL), violent movies have not been linked to violent behavior, except by charlatans selling miracle cures for the ills of our society. (Turn of that CNN, put down that Parenting Today newsletter, and go talk to some teenagers. We're not as evil/misguided as you may think!)
Sorry about the rant. If you disagree, so be it, but this is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.
-One Very Concerned Teenager
Let's vote again on whether to kick Katz off. I'm ready to change my vote. Earlier i voted to keep him just to hear what he had to say. Now i realize he's nothing but an idiot not worthy of posting on here. Let's vote.
We need a www.ihatejonkatz.com web site. Any
volunteers to set it up?
Remove him before we start a new slashdot-like
web site!
Katz is not on "our" side. "Our" side does not seem to support the actions Katz has advocated in his article.
Katz in on Katz' side. Katz' side advocates using whatever means available to keep Katz' tripe in publication.
Just because YOU are desperate for public acknowledgement and validation does not mean that everyone is. Many of us see Katz for what he is and we are capable of forming our own opinions from out own experiences. We are secure enough in our identities that we do not need some half-baked hack writer who doesn't even have the respect for his audience to LEARN the technology he talks about to validate our life experiences or opinions.
Katz is VERY wrong on the actions he advocates regarding this issue. We see this. We point this out to him. Your weakness allows you to justify any actions by any who would claim kinship with you. Your kind are the natural prey of con artists and hucksters.
In the burbs of Chicago (Garden Cinema, Old Orchard) to be exact, they card us. At the entrance to the movie. Not just the ticket booth, but the physical enterance. It sucks. I'm 16 and I still can't get in.
Whats even funnier is they only stand out around movies like 'American Pie' or 'South Park' but never even thought about standing outside the Kubrick film. That movies has a lot more nudity than American Pie (1/3 of the film contains nudity)... What kind of judgement do these people have.
bastards...
-ethan
National Buy a Geek Kid Alcohol Night!
;)
That's right, this Friday night is "National Buy a Geek Kid
Alcohol Night"!
If you're a geek, age 21+, go down to your local liquor store,
and offer to buy booze for any geek kids hanging around out front.
Complain to Liquor store managers that they and the State have no
right to make moral descisions about what substances kids can consume.
If you're an underage Geek: Go down to the store, and try to buy a
case of beer anyway. I reccomend Guiness, in the cans, NOT THE BOTTLES.
That little CO2 widget is what makes it great. Bass is okay, too. Or just
get some vodka. ANYTHING! If they won't sell to you, use an excuse, like
"It's for my mom. I swear." If they still won't sell, go get a fake id.
You're a geek. Print one on your dad's snazzy LaserJet!
-JM
(Just kidding, in case your slow.
"It left a smoking crater of my mind and I was blown away / Then the Heat came 'round and busted me for smiling on a cloudy day."
-The Grateful Goddamn Dead
um, it's not law, it's a voluntary system created by the mpaa
I am 20 years old..
I have served in the military since I was 17...
...
If I can die for my country, I can do whatever I want... Nobody would dare want to try to stop me from trying to see an R movie..
Dex
just buy your ticket, wait a couple minutes, then go to another line and buy the other ticket. if the cashier who sold you the first ticket gives you shit, you can just say you "lost" it. there's nothing that they can do about it.
I believe most everyone here agrees that
children 12 and under don't need to see
R-rated movies without a parent. The problem
here is that teenagers 13-17, who can take
sexual education in school and probably see
many fights in school, aren't allowed to see
sex and violence on the big screen. Yes, we do
need to draw the line somewhere, but the line
has been drawn in the wrong place. Once a person
is in high school, they should be deciding for
themselves what to see and what not to see.
If a parent disagrees, then a parent can tell
his or her teenager not to go. If the teenager
disobeys, then the parent must have been
doing a bad job of parenting, and I don't think
the theater should be pressured by the government
to take responsibility for that.
I'll stake out the local ACE hardware.
The poll you are so fond of quoting was too close to the BEGINNING of his career.
He had no track record to speak of and seemed interesting.
Isn't it strange how so little time passed before the was an option to skip his articles?
You're citing old information that seems to directly contradict the number of posts on this subject.
Why if "fuck" a bad word?
Doesn't it mean copulation?
Just like "make love"?
Didn't your parents do it?
Why would the word be bad?
Neal has several books out and is well received on his book tour.
/.
/. have read Stephenson's books.
Jon makes the talk show circuit (right after psychic doggies predict the stock market) and has to hype his book on
People who have never seen
And Stephenson understands the technology he writes about.
copyright is bad,but to profit from others work that is bad.
If joe sixpack copies a movie, big deal, he got it for free, but if he burns 200 CDs and sells em for $5 each, then thats kind of not fair.
Maybe burning 10 copies for friends is ok tho
katz, your articles were already lambasted in every manner possible. you might have gotten the hint that this community doesn't really care for you...
but now, you've posted this drivel. ya know, have you ever read one of those really pathetic 2600 stories? the ones by teenagers employed and barnes & nobles and blockbuster. they start out fine, but then they start to take the tone of 'ha! look at us rebels defeat the system! rape and pillage! damn the man! save the 2600 empire'
sounds childish, doesn't it.
and now you've come out with your 'top 10 ways to bring down the establishment'. would be fine if you were 16. but i know you're not. it comes across as idiotic and amateur.
hey, katz, if you're trying to improve as a person/writer/human being, you're going the wrong way.
Better:
localbrain# kill -1 `ps -ax | grep thoughtd | awk '{print $1}'`
Cops and law enforcement types should only care about Copyright infringement if someone is making money off of it or they are a commercial establishment. Companies should pay for software so should people but just don't go after people who copy stuff unless they sell it.
Finally, it took long enough for people to see through Katz's bullshit. The Part 1 was bullshit enough, but this one really takes it. I'm surprised that more peopled didn't respond negatively to part 1, I guess the under 10 crowd drowned everyone else out. Katz is just another shitty writter writing peices targeted to what he thinks is the /. audience, thats it. LET ME TELL YOU THIS KATZ, WE ARE NOT BRAINLESS DUMB ASSES THAT YOU MAKE US OUT TO BE. WE CAN THINK FOR OURSELVES. Not everyone on /. is an atheist, libertarian, rebelling asshole. I'm not a devout christian republican either. I can think for myself last time I checked, I don't need Katz to make sweeping generalations about 'fake peity' or 'authoratiarn cinema owners' trying to uphold laws that are meant to help parents control the content their children see. GIVE ME A BREAK. PLEASE let this be the last Katz article ever. God damn he is a fucking moron. A real god damn fucking moron. In the words of Holden, a fucking phony.
I am 18 right now. The whole thing about parents having some authority over what youcan or can not see is becuase at such a young age, you really dont know whats best for you. I agree as you approach that teen/adult barrier, you are more capable of deciding for yourself what you can or can not do, and amazingly enough, most parents grant their kids more freedom as they grow up. Its a really revolutionary concept, must have only started a year or two ago (sarcasm intended).
.. Part 1 of this 'feature' was just as bad, however I guess most of the older crowed ignored his idiotism, while the stupider portion of the younger crowd rallied behind him. (BTW, I'm 18 right now, so I remeber being a kid HEH). Let's face it, this ridiculous artcle was written just to generate banner views, and it seems to have done apretty good damn job of it too (450+ comments ss of now). His writing never meant anything, it has always been full of sweeping generalizations, about all types of people from the relgious to his 'definition' of a geek, to parents, to whoever he could slander for a banner view. He's worse than those ZD writters who purposefully flame linux to generate banner views. Much, much, much worse.
FreeBSD is dying. All of BSD has fallen on hard times. FreeBSD is in serious trouble; Walnut Creek is struggling to stay afloat. Mailing list speculation has it that it is up for sale. BSDI growth is flat. And then there are the "also-rans" NetBSD, OpenBSD etc--no comment needed. BSD never caught on with users, and odds are that it never will amount to more than the niche OS that it has always been. Unable to attract younger users, a BSD BOF is looking more and more like an AARP coffee klatch. The BOF chit chat is now just as likely to center around prostate problems and "regularity" than it is to BSD topics. The twilight years of BSD are now upon us. A "Kevorkian" may eventually be in order, and who will be the first to "pull the plug"?
Fuck is a "bad" or a swear word for most people. For some it is just a punctuation mark. I suppose those who use it as a punctuation mark have some other words when they actually feel the need to swear (try hitting your thumb hard with a hammer and listen what comes out :-). Or maybe they just are generally so filled with emotion that they just have to keep swearing all the time. Never the less, I personally swear hardly ever, and persons who do seem arrogant and stupid to me (I have keep reminding me that it's just the way they speak, nothing more). Though I don't understand why the word 'fuck' is somethimes called "the most foul of foul words"...
Swearing is definitely part of human culture. What exact words have status of swear words is irrelevant, and changes with time.
He does not have the support of most Slashdotters, nor should he, nor should he have story posting access.
And you just found this particular piece of fact floating around? Did it come to you in a dream perhaps?
It is only "more obvious interpretation" because you are biased against the author. That or you are amusingly narrow minded in your interpretation. So much so that if someone told you to get stuffed you would look for an all you can eat buffet.
While some of them are perfectly good suggestions, I REALLY have to question some of what's being said
here. DOWNLOAD the movie? Advocating pirating a movie just because a theater won't let you see it on the
big screen? Sneaking into a movie you haven't paid for?
It is interesting to see this complaint come up so often when other intellectual property rights are ignored by folks here. Or am I missing something when people ask for passwords to article sites that require them? You pay for all that software on your computer? You have all the CD's that those MP3's came off of, or is it MPEG's, or does my not knowing the difference invalidate my opinion on this? I know, I know, being a dick invalidates my opinion on this. Oh look, the coffee is done...
Oh my civil rights are being violated!!!! My three year old can't hear cursing and see titties..... What is this world coming to?!?!
I agree 13 year olds shouldn't be able to see hardcore porn, but I don't think South Park causes
This is the whole point of the rating system. One needs a context from which to see the satire behind the language &c. We develop that context as children, and parental censorship and input are where it comes from. Presumably, requesting the presence of a legal guardian at some films insures that the parent either a) feels the child has a secure enough context from which to judge such material or b) will be able & willing to offer a context & help with the interpretation.
Well, this is even cuter than the people sugesting that Katz's "mp3 'em" remark was the result of him not even knowing the basic difference between the mp3s and movies. Come on folks, IT'S A METAPHOR- verbing nouns is normal in modern language nowadays and a part of the jargon file. Like him or not you can at least give him credit for knowing something that basic.
:D
/. won't even see me.)
Anyway, no, Katz isn't a geek. He just writes about "geek culture", to attempt to define and understand just what the term "geek" really means. Yes, the term geek started off as an insult, but as another poster noticed, the term got transformed into the description of a subculture. Nothing more, nothing less, and someone who is trying to understand that subculture is no more a loser or winner than your typical sociology grad student.
The point of the article is (and it dates back to the days when he wrote for Wired) is that the restrictions on kids to see "objectionable material" are dumb and pointless, and that even if they aren't, the MPAA is a poor organization indeed for deciding whether or not they can go see a film. If you had actually SEEN South Park, you'd know that was the exact point that that movie made, and made rather well- the best irony of the whole film is that the events in it seem to be truer than Matt and Trey could have ever dreamed, and the message that it had is more relevant nowadays than any other issue facing America today. (Ironically it's rated AA in Canada). He argued this in Wired, continued arguing this on FREE, and argues this here on Slashdot. This is old hat for him, frankly. (BTW, 12 year olds can't buy cigarettes because they are addictive and potentially fatal. Unless you believe that movies are also addictive and fatal, the comparison is totally invalid. If you do, George Orwell has this great book you might want to check out.)
Slashdot isn't being held back by Katz- he's a columnist, the same as any other columnist in a news source. If anything, he doesn't hold Slashdot back, he gains it legitimacy. Besides, Slashdot is good enough to survive Katz anyway. It's even good enough to survive its own forum.
(I've gotta get an account, BTW. All this work and being an AC means that half of
JESUS H CHRIST MAN! /.
Your total lack of reading skills astounds me! Assuming of course Jon Katz masterminded the poll and rigged the entire thing to secure his GREAT BIG salery writing for
As for you guys claims of him not being able to understand the technical nature of MP3, I have this to say. Shut the hell up! Like an earlier person said, its english called a metaphor. I'm sure Katz has the technical brillance to run WinAmp, and I'm sure he has the intelligence to grasp when he presses play no movie plays, simply music. He was referring to what MP3 is doing to the movie industry, you idiotic simpletons!
Brocheck
"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a beta because I don't work so hard."
Oh, well. Woops. My lack of reading skills both astounds and amazes -me-.
Brocheck
"Peter, you're twelve years old. I'm ten. They have a word for people our age. They call us children and they treat us like mice."
What's wrong with these two scenarios:
Suburban:
We live in a society in which we protect our suburbanite youths from danger. We will protect them from the bad movies and violence in school, but I will be damned if mom or dad has more than a hour or two a night to their kids. The Americans youth spend more time with their friends and teachers than with their parents. This is disgusting.
Urban:
However our urban youth we expect them to grow up in violent situations with no way out. We preach to them that violnce is wrong, but this is the only reality that they know. Then when they turn violent we put them in jails... Jails in America are not intended for reform purposes, instead the average person comming out of jail has little options for employment and often will turn back to a life of crime due to being alienated from society.
Don't expect the us Gov't to do anything about this situation. They are perfectly content with Parents spending all their time at work instead of with their kids. This just means that the economy is healthier, resulting in more revenue through foreign trade. Allowing them to have a bigger budget to play with.
Something is seriously wrong with our society. For the last several years individuals have tried to wake up society with no long lasting effect. We can continue to burry our heads in the sand but, bear in mind the line from the move Seven 'You tap someone on the shoulder and they do not listen, but if you hit them in the head with a sledge hammer. You have their full atttention.' Someone will get fed up with the way our society is going and I hope to god I'm not to close to that person when they do.
Ahha! Wrong... a depressant doesn't cause violence.. Otherwise you'd see fights in bars as soon as someone drank a beer. what causes violence is unstable mential capabilities having an outlet as the concious mind becomes "entertained" I.E. mr jock milatary idiot drinks his whisky, and beats the shit out of his wife.. this is not the alcahol, it;s the asshole that drank it. (BTW: any man that hits a woman needs to have the crap kicked out of him so hard that 2 weeks in the hospital is too good for him.) Now.. if you take a child and every time you jingle the keys you spray vinegar in his eyes, you will condition a response behaivoir... jingle keys and the kid will wince... now display extreme violence and people raping/killing women children others and you generate a response of do what the hell you want.. Hitler did it very well in 1940's... he had every youth turning in their parents/neighbors/etc...
so yes, movies will warp your mind... espically a young mind.
what do you get? well the past 20 years we have created a society of young people that believe they can do whatever the hell they want. and usually ignore traffic laws,have no respect for public property/issues, and will go off the deep end if you "diss" them. Yes, I am ashamed at the bulk of todays youth in the USA and Great Britian.
My generation had our share of "idiots" but we usually kept them in check by (OMG!) ratting on them... something not one of you youngins have the guts to do... (dave's got a pistol in his locker? wow! should we tell someone? nahhh..) you are the police of your generation... look the other-way and you'll self destruct.
NOTE: there was one A-hole in high school
I remember that a real butt-kicking was the only lesson he would learn from.. it's a sad fact.
First off, you haven't gotten it through your head yet, you are not a "geek". No matter how much you try to be one of "us" you are below the social status of "geekdom" and have fallen directly to the rank of loserville.
Secondly, those rules are in place so children can go to the theaters without parents tagging along. I should be able to drop my kids off so they can have fun without "dad" tagging along, and hopefully assume that the theaters are going to enforce the legal obligation they have to bar youngsters from R rated movies. This is not something they made up, this is law.
Why not suggest that 12 year olds should be able to buy cigarettes?
What a dumb jerk. This guy is probably the biggest lump of dead weight holding slashdot back from greatness.
Movie ratings are not law, they are guidelines for parents. If we don't stop treating them as laws, they will become laws.
The next stop is your TV, were you will be arested because you didn't use the V-Chip to lockout Tom and Jerry's violent contenet.
See you in Russia, oh wait, we're already there.
Thanks for that link to Screen It. I just thought I'd point out something that I found rather funny:
I haven't seen the Blair Witch Project yet. I'm planning on seeing it this Friday. I find it pretty amusing that, as scary as it looks, and as much as it will probably give your kids nightmares, it is only rated R because of language.
Pretty messed up if you ask me.
Sorry, but Katz has really lost it this time. These ramblings sound like that of a bitter 12 year old snot nosed punk who got (rightfully) kicked out of a theater for sneaking in. Grow up man! Changes in movie rating/theater policy won't change just because you start flipping the bird to movie workers (who are kids with no power anyway). And rantings like this on the web are like holding up a big sign that reaeds "I'm a Moron!" Get a clue. Write legislators and movie chain owners. Pass out flyers at theaters to get the word out. Organize pickets infront of theatres nationwide. If no one flockes to your cause, TAKE IT AS A HINT- It means you're a raving lunatic and should go away.
What's wrong with a 9 year old seeing southpark? What magic barrier does a 9 year old cross when he turns ten that makes it suddenly appropriate? Or if you'd rather use 11 or 12 or 13...
One thing many people fail to see is that censorship is evil, not because it restrict "freedom", but because it disables our ability gather information and thus make meaningful decisions as a human being. While moralistic idiots try to restrict information going to their children, they should instead be attempting to explain the meaning of the information they get. Pretending something doesn't exist won't fool any kid that's not extremely mentally retarded.
Knowledge of the world is part of what shapes us. How we react to the knowledge we have is the rest of what makes us who we are. If you restrict information to children then you effectively stunt their growth by denying them an opportunity to react to it.
Why not give the geek kids access to what they REALLY want?? When I was 13 I would have much preferred a 6-pack of beer and a Penthouse to any R-rated movie I could have been snuck into. Buy a truckload of beer and pornos and hand them out at the local high school! Then the kids will REALLY think you're cool!
And people complain that political activism died out in the 60's.
let's fight against the liquor store tyrany. and the gun store tyrany. And the adult video rental tyrany.
I agreed with almost of all of Part I of this; now, I find myself disagreeing with almost all of part II. Certainly, if the kids' parents come to the theater and say "Yes it's perfectly acceptable to me that my children watch this movie that I'm buying the tickets for", the theater has no business contravening that. I for one don't think that South Park is appropriate fare for the average 14-year-old, and probably wouldn't let my kids see it if I had any, but it's very much not my decision to make on behalf of anyone else's children.
What Katz is advocating in Part II, however, is exactly that - that we usher minors into the theater, regardless of whether their parents want them to see the film. It would be a different thing if he were saying, "Find someone whose mother wants him to see the movie, but doesn't want to watch it herself, and take him in (i.e. fulfill the "Guardian" part of "Children under 17 not admitted without Parent or Guardian" - which, were it applied rationally across the entire film spectrum, I would have no quarrel with), but by suggesting that we bring in random teenagers who are likely to be at the theater in defiance of parental order, we become guilty of the same offence as the system he wants us to flout.
I will, however, make a point of going to a non-General Cinema theater if I ever get around to watching the movie for myself.
From everything I read, Kubrick approved the use of computer inserted figures to cover some of the more "offending" bits in the orgy scene but the studio did the actual editing after his death. I cannot in good conscience approve of someone else editing Kubrick's vision (being one of the only directors who actually had a vision for his movies) but to tell the truth, the CG manipulation didn't hurt too much since the focus of the scene was not the sex or private parts.
This is _the_ most absurd thing I've seen on Slashdot for months- possibly the most absurd thing I've _ever_ seen here! Jon, go home- you're turning into unintentional self-parody and _wasting_ our time, and totally diluting our credibility.
"This could be an annual event in the new Geek Nation!" Oh _joy_ be unconfined! Who's selling the tickets to the ticket-sleazing event? I've got a great idea, let's replace the role of Linux Installfests, of talking politics and tech with other geek, with SNEAKING INTO MOVIE THEATRES. Why, that could change the world!
Adults! Get really used to lying your ass off for genuinely stupid and meaningless reasons! Who needs justification? It's an evil invention of those wicked authority figures that made dope illegal!
Kids! Hang out by the video games and wait for your chance! God forbid you should hang out at _home_ hacking or READING or LEARNING something actually interesting. You have a RIGHT to meaningless entertainment! It's your RIGHT as a geek to have no values different from those of everybody else! You too can be a brainless conformist hanging out at the mall or video arcade or movie theater! You don't _have_ to act different, or think, or give something to society- the same society which is repressing your important rights to publically view stupid movies! And you, yes YOU, can ignore everything you really are, and redefine yourself as a total passive consumer, and claim your rights to consume anything you want! Why would you ever want to do anything else? What kind of _nerd_ would sit around coding on Linux or even VB or something, when they could be watching movies?
*ack*
go AWAY, Jon... you're NOT HELPING...
He has no idea what anarchy is, and he sure as _hell_ has no idea what being libertarian is (and I'm not even a libertarian, and I can figure that out).
He's claiming all those banners and then equating them all to the classic 'me generation' cry of 'meeeeeeeee!'. He's _only_ interested in himself. He's _only_ interested in Slashdot to the extent that it can magnify his own influence. He's _only_ interested in geeks in the sense of a power base and doesn't even _care_ about us otherwise. He's _only_ interested in the children he claims to want to liberate to the extent that he can assume they all have exactly the same desires and values as he has, which is disgusting as he is horribly bland and doesn't seem to really have a thought in his head deeper than 'meeeeee'.
Let him go do his own thing.... somewhere else! Almost _anybody_ else would be more suitable as a story poster. Hell, Bill Gates has more in common with us- at least he's a _geek_ even though he's a powermad psychopath. Why do we have a story poster who is less appropriate for Slashdot that Gates would be?
Now that he's literally advocating the stalking of children at movie houses, we need another poll. I've never seen such a broad uprising against this man as I saw over this article, combining as it did arrogance, seriously perverse values, disrespect for parents' choices _and_ the advocating of accosting random children at the movie houses. Suddenly the people who've been angry at Katz all along were joined by outraged parents and the occasional pissed-off genuine libertarian. It's time to take that vote again- unless the ballot box is stuffed, he _will_ lose this time. He does not have the support of most Slashdotters, nor should he, nor should he have story posting access.
Absolutely. It's an absolute slap in the face to be confronted with this sort of thing on Slashdot. It's hardly new to get it from Katz, but as of late the man has become messianic, and it's only funny to the extent that it's not maddening: I'm not ready to assume that there's no value to having a degree of cluefulness for story posters, or (God help us) _authors_ who will inevitably come off as official Slashdot party line definers, whether or not that is the intent.
Jon Katz _demands_ followers now. He wants a crusade. I'm not a Slashdot power figure, I'm just a reader, but I demand this: better writers. I don't care how many silly articles are _pointed_ to on the net- it's always interesting to see Slashdotter reactions to some weird concept- but I rebel, not against movie theaters as Katz demands I do, but against Katz's value system, and against the notion that he is at all appropriate for producing articles for Slashdot.
For God's sake, we are now watching a pitched battle between AOL and Microsoft over internet messaging that could leave the WHOLE FIELD completely immobilized in patents and litigation, as well as balkanizing it- and it's possible that only Slashdotters (and their ilk) can truly see where this leads, and why it is so horribly wrong no matter _who_ 'wins' each battle- and we're supposed to 'crack' into MOVIES? I could make a damned good argument that Katz is a MOLE for this sort of thing, intentionally dissipating and confusing the most public web Nerd meeting place at the behest of some powerful industry force. I don't care that he's presumably just a fool- get rid of him!
The problem is that it isn't a technical error. It's a metaphor. Perhaps you heard about those things in your high school english class. Maybe he should've spelled it out more clearly for the slashdot folks. "mp3 'em" does not mean "download the movies in mp3 format," it means "do to the movie industry with asf/mpeg/avi/mov what people already do to the record industry with mp3." It's a tactic, not a format.
Geez, slashdot people are too hung up on technical issues. The mp3 format itself is pretty irrelevant. It's a crappy-sounding format mired in patents. The underlying issues are what's important.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
So, because the theatre won't let them in to see this great South Park movie, they should punish the creators of South Park financially. Am I missing something?
I have a feeling that neither Trey nor Matt would be too upset about kids pirating South Park or sneaking in to see it. Sneaking in to see an R-rated movie was part of the South Park movie in the first place.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Listen, KatzDot fan. The simple point is that how can a man who probably can't even swap faulty hard drives be a "spokesman" for the oh so oppressed geek community?
I wouldn't consider him a spokesperson for this "community," but he is an interesting writer. Slashdot readers overwhelmingly agreed in a poll near the beginning of his tenure here that he should stay, despite the mostly negative postings in the comments area. Apparently there's a relatively small, but extremely vocal, minority of Katz-haters.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You never even watched South Park, did you. Or if you did, you never recognized the message that was throughout.
Thw whole point of the movie is that parents do not take adequate responsibility for their actions, or their kids. Had Stan's mom just said "these are the reasons why Terrence and Philip are bad for you" and outlined them, everything would have been solved. But the movie would have been about 10 minutes long and not that funny. But no, the "blame everyone but me" that seems rampant through the country is what made the movie so timely and funny.
The movie theater is trying to make a buck while enforcing the laws that let them operate. You may remember a month or two ago when Washington and the Movie Theater Lobby agreed on ID checks for R movies. Turns out South Park is the first movie that really falls under this since up till now, it's been the same ol boring "Notting Hill" and "Wild Wild West". Oh, and that Star Wars movie. As it is, the theaters barely make $1 off your $8.50 movie ticket. The rest goes to the movie house. That's why they're always willing to hand out free tix, and why the concession is always so darn expensive. Watching the movie in MOV or AVI format is not only (still) illegal, but won't really hit the theater all that much.
Jon, you are an insult to anyone with a technical bone in their body. All you're doing is providing fodder to RIAA and making those of us who actually own CDs and rip them for strictly personal use look bad. Thanks for nothing.
Yes, but an intoxicated person is far more likely to accidentally harm or kill others than a smoking person, especially if driving a car.
Of course, a smoking person is more likely to cause long-term damage to the health of nearby people through second-hand smoke.
Like I said before, they should all be the same age.
I've always been baffled at the multiple contradictory definitions of adulthood in the United States. Most countries agree that only adults should be legally allowed to:
Vote
Marry/have sex
Operate a motorized vehicle
Join the military
Consume alcohol and tobacco
View "adult" material
Well then, wouldn't it make sense to simply say, "OK, at this age, you are legally an adult, and are allowed to do all of the following"? I think practically every civilized country does just that, and they set the age sensibly at eighteen.
Except the United States. Sixteen to drive, seventeen to join the army, eighteen to vote and smoke, twenty-one to drink. It's completely absurd.
And the worse ones are at the ends of the scale. I think if the driving age and drinking age were both set to eighteen, it would go a long way to reduce drunk driving among the young.
Why is "breaking the law" the important metric?
What about Civil Disobediance?
This is about protesting the attitude of these
corperations in an effort to make them change.
If breaking the law in a non-violent manner
is what it takes...then I say do it. Be willing
to face any consequences if they should arrise
(like lawsuits and jail time) but do it.
-- Steve
As a libertarian I am apauld by your implication.
Have you ever read the libertarien statement
of principals? Here are a few choice quotes:
(emphasis added by me)
"We hold that all individuals have the right to
exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and
have the right to live in whatever manner they
choose, so long as they DO NOT FORCIBLY
INTERFERE with the EQUAL RIGHTS of others to
live in whatever manner they choose"
"...--accordingly we opose all government
interference with private property, such as
confiscation, nationalization, and eminant domain,
and support the PROHIBITION OF ROBBERY, TRESPASS,
FRAUD, and MISREPRESENTATION."
Libertarianism is about freedom.
The movie companies are doing what they do not because of fear of warping childrens minds (which
is an absurd idea in the first place) but because
congress has expressed interest in the insane
notion that watching movies and playing video games can be harmfull to children if they see
"Bad Things".
In attempting to regulate entertainment industries
(which they tried to do a few years ago) the
government is overstepping its bounds. It is not
the job of the government to play moral gardian.
-- Steve
The female body is beautiful, soft and silky while the male body is big, lumpy and hairy and shouldn't be seen by the light of day. ;)
Umm.. there are men and women that fit both of those descriptions. One shouldn't generalize such things.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
After looking up "craven", I found that it means adj. "very cowardly" or n. "a thorough coward". That's how I've always seen it used too.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It wasn't a bunch of "right minded" people complaining to theater owners. It was a bunch of "right minded" people blaiming movies, tv, and video games for the recent school violence that got the attention of the government. Rather than risk being yelled at by these people, they decided to do something to make it seem like they were taking a tough stance to keep these things from happening again. So, they crack down on theaters and threaten to regulate them if they don't start strictly enforcing the ratings system. Naturally, the theaters caved and began going above and beyond the call of duty to keep themselves from being regulated. Blame it on the idiots in the government.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
John,
I read maybe one in three of your editorials. Each time I ask myself why I don't have you filtered out in my preference settings. I'm going to stop wondering, because right after I post this I'm going to edit my settings and rid myself of your inane prattle for good.
You are a the first geek groupie I've ever seen, and you make me sick. You have your head so far up the ass of the "community" you yearn to be part of you can't see what's apparent to everyone else:
There is no geek nation. There is no, one uber-community. There is no one definition of a geek.
What's pissed me off this time is your wannabe anarchic tendencies, as usual, fiercely misplaced.
I'd like to think we could live in a world without mandatory age limits on media, where parents or children themselves would have the right and responsibility to decide what they can and cannot see. If I didn't want my eight year-old daughter to see "Seven" (a particularly disturbing movie. In my opinion, an excellent movie; but very hard to explain to a child), I would tell her so, and I wouldn't bring her. I don't need the government, or movie industry to police me or my children, I've just done it myself.
Now I have to worry about some depraved anarchic arsehole camping outside movie theaters, luring small children in to watch potentially mature content without their parent's knowledge, just so they can satisfy some sick need to feel a part of a non-existent community? Um, hate to break it to you, but you're the reason they're able to pass these stupid laws.
Why don't you go work for Matt Drudge or something.
--
But they'll catch on when it hits rental and therental places report that they can't get enough copies to fill demand for weeks on end.
As a side effect, maybe it'll send a message about theatre prices as well.
It will only take two or three movies following that pattern for Hollywood to start looking for an answer.
If people take all of my advice and boycott ALL movies at theatres with bad policy, the reletive ranking of movies won't change, only the totals. When Hollywood execs find out the lost revenue is a result of theatre policy, heads will roll, I assure you.
Of course, the problem will likely correct itself first, after all, theatres can't afford empty seats either. If enough people really care about this enough to do something, I'd give the theatres two weeks to get the message.
I will participate, but since the last movie I saw at a theatre was 'The X-Files", I doubt they'll notice.
That is true, the 'appropriate' films will see a reletive improvement.
I still suspect that the overall loss will get their attention, and the quirkey rental figures will point them to the answer. They already know they can't make as much money by making only 'appropriate' films, or that's all they would make now. They will look for an answer that restores the totals to pre-boycott level.
Hitting them in the pocket is the only solution that will work. If you help kids get into the movie, you risk violating their parent's wishes.
Also, the managers win if you help the kids get in. That way, they get the money, AND get to claim moral superiority (right or wrong).
Protesting is too likely to get the wrong media spin with the manager portrayed as the victim.
What will work, is 100% legal, and runs no risk is for adults and kids to boycott the theaters that do this. If all of them do it, wait for the movie to come out on pay per-view or rental. Nothing speaks louder than a theatre full of empty seats. If they won't let you decide to let your kids see an R rated movie there, don't go there for ANY movie. After all, just because they're not causing a problem for a G rated movie doesn't mean their attitude has improved. Why support them at all?
Orderly picketing could work in conjunction with a boycott, but leave as soon as confrontation becomes an issue. The objective is to inform others, not cause a scene.
- Hit them in their pocketbooks. " If movie chains are going to refuse admission to movies that contain explicit sexual imagery or profanity, MP3 them. Download the movies on ICQ or Hotline...
So, because the theatre won't let them in to see this great South Park movie, they should punish the creators of South Park financially. Am I missing something?
-- Adults: Fight Ticket Booth Tyranny. Observe Take A Geek Kid To A Restricted Movie Day this Labor Day. Find a smart 13-year-old who wants to see something off-limits and take him to a movie, or, once during that long weekend, go to a nearby movie theater and help kids trying to get in.
If you're got the time and energy fight for a "cause", then PLEASE use that valuable initiative to do something USEFUL, instead of annoying minimum-wage employees while they're working. Go volunteer at a shelter, pick up litter, anything.
This is the lamest rant I've ever seen. Did venting some frustration over silly policy at a theatre really require a two-part article on slashdot?
The title is in reference to the well-placed bagles, heads, salami, etc. that cover up people's genetalia in Austin Powers. In Eyes Wide Shut, there are people in the way of every sex scene in the sex house. It's just stupid looking and does detract from the show.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
I don't want to add just another lame "Me too!" to your reply but I agree wholeheartedly.
I'm a relatively new parent (ages 3 and -4 months yet) but I would be VERY upset of some snot-nosed teen were to tell me I couldn't take my children to a movie becuase the theatre deemed it unsuitable. I am the goddamned parent!
Simiarly, if I saw someone sneaking kids into a theatre I'd alert the authorities in an awful hurry. There are too many kooks out there who'd just as soon kill them as help them. If I want to bring my kid to a movie that says "adult accompanyment" I will damn well do so and raise bloody hell if some theatre manager throws his or his company's morals on me.
There is a severe lack of parental guidance in North America. THAT is what killed those kids in Columbine(sp), not TV.
You said: The idea that a movie cannot harm is false for several reasons.
Says who? You? Did you just make it up? Is it your intuition?
Man, this burns me up. In all of the discussions everywhere about the evils of on-screen penises and other assorted politics, I have not seen a SINGLE pundit or opinionated hack come up with a balanced review of scientific literature.
Please post a URL next time. Give me some evidence. Otherwise, you're doing nothing but wasting electricity and my time.
This is totally irresponsible. You should know, better, Katz. Advocating these things is the same sort of attitude that set all those fires at Woodstock 99.
If I'm old enough to drive, I should be old enough to go into an R movie.
You know you right... you should wait till your 21 to drive! heh eh
If your old enough to go to war you should be allowed to drink!
Ok But first you have to go to war. We'll deliver the brew.
Sorry but as you *well* know you don't have to be responsible at 17 years, (judging from a recent outdoor concert!) but sometime, somewhere, some one should be. That should be someones parents.
We are always talking about movie studios making better cleaner, less violent movies. Why should they when we can't even stand up to 17 year old in a theater.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
Theater enforced ratings are silly. Anyone who's old enough to earn their own money is also old enough to decide what movies they'd like to watch. Anyone younger, and their parents control their viewing habits financially, so it's a moot point.
What's wrong with a 9 year old seeing southpark? What magic barrier does a 9 year old cross when he turns ten that makes it suddenly appropriate? Or if you'd rather use 11 or 12 or 13...
There is no magic number, but there has to be some limit. Same goes for driving, drinking, and a lot of other things. I wouldn't want to be driving on the road knowing there are 11-year-olds driving around. Likewise, I wouldn't want kids to be mimicing the colourful language of Southpark thinking that it is as much a part of the English language as words like "apple" and "building". Although you may not be offended by swearing doesn't mean that the rest of society isn't offended by it. My fear is that the content that is in a movie theatre will come out of the theatre.
While moralistic idiots try to restrict
information going to their children, they should instead be attempting to explain the meaning of the information they get. Pretending something doesn't exist won't fool any kid that's not extremely mentally retarded.
The point isn't to pretend it's not there, but to prevent the kids from thinking it is reality.
Guess what? Kids are impressionable. They read or see one thing, and they think that that is reality. Their world is so small that a bit of influence in our world is a juicy piece of news in theirs. If they see little cartoon kids swearing their @$$'s off, they might think that it's ok to speak like that. If they see violence or excessive sex, they'll begin to think that it's normal. Kids lives revolve around imitation. And R-rated movies usually don't provide the best role models.
Knowledge, I agree, is good. However, we need to present this knowledge in a realistic light. As you've written, parents should explain movies that are not meant for youngsters so that the youngsters don't misinterpret this as reality.
<tim><
The fact is that American Pie and South Park have both been actively posted and reposted and reposted yet again on usenet for the past few weeks.
The movie ratings were a Good Thing. Operative word, were. When they bgan, they were a tool for parents, just like anything else. The idea was that a parent would have to decide if their child was mature enough to see an R-rated movie, with that decision being evidenced by the parent paying for the ticket. The scheme would have worked great, but it failed for several reasons, two of which are the most prominent:
1) Parents got lazy and wouldn't do any research on the movies their kids wanted to see. They took the ratings as gospel, offloading their responsibility onto a ratings board.
2) Movie theaters wouldn't enforce the ratings, by and large (and why would they; it meant lost ticket revenue and no one was forcing them to enforce the ratings anyway). This rendered it ineffective, which parents saw. If people don't think it's effective, it's not effective.
I see two things as needing to be done with the system. First of all, it needs to move to something more content-based, like the TV ratings systems of today. Some would say that this encourages lazy parenting even more. But the fact is that parents should at least know something about the movies their kids are seeing, and if this is the only way to get even semi-meaningful information into the parents' heads then so be it.
Second, the ratings system needs to be enforced by movie theaters again. I know, I'm going to get flamed for this (which wasn't the intent). But I'd also be willing to bet that less than one percent of Slashdot readers, if even that, are over the age of 13 and that the vast majority of those have forgotten what it was like to be a kid. We weren't always mature adults; hell, some of us still aren't (as evidenced by all the FIRST POST-ers). There are some things which most kids simply haven't developed the maturity to handle seeing yet. Those who have can still see the movies, even by this system. It simply takes the consent of the people who one would hope would be mature enough to judge maturity and know the child well enough to do so accurately: the parents.
And think honestly; doubtless we all would have liked to be able to see any movie we wanted as a kid, but when you were eight or even thirteen years old would you have been able to handle Eyes Wide Shut or South Park or even American Pie? Or even if you could, would you have been able to really appreciate any of these? Perhaps a geek audience isn't the best to ask, since I'd imagine most of us were much brighter and more mature than average as kids, but you get the idea...
Make a difference; don't go to the theaters at all. Write letters, tell everyone you know to boycott. Wait for the movies you want to see to come out on video or DVD; will a few months really matter? If you want to change the behavior of theaters, hit them where they live - in the wallet. This means not seeing any movies at a theater who's policies are offensive. Write a letter to the theater every time you want to see a movie there explaining that they lost revenue because of their policies. That is the only way they will learn.
For Katz to advocate sneaking random children into movies is irrational; would he similarly encourage taking children to see hardcore porn as well? By implying that the judgement of the reader is more important than that of the parents of the children in question, Katz shows his true colors: as a self-appointed moral guardian, no better than those who would keep these movies from theaters entirely. His universal allowance policy is as insane as one of universal rejection.
--Gus
Hey, since Katz can do it so can I. I now pronounce today Call-Your-Movie-Theatre Day.
Tell them what you think, but by all means do NOT just follow the ravings of Katz. If you (like me) feel that the movie theatre's are actually right to not allow kids into these shows and the like, call them and tell them you agree!
If you want to get your kids into these shows without you, call and complain.
Whatever you do, don't try to fix the system by lying, cheating, stealing, or getting yourself arrested (or sued) by sneaking someone elses kid into the theatre to see soemthing they are really to young to see.
And on the side: Anyone interested in setting up a Christian version of Slashdot? Email me thomppj@okstate.edu.
Let love and faithfulness never leave you;
bind them around your neck,
write them on the tablet of your heart.
Does anyone else see a problem here? Isn't that sometimes a parent's job? IOW, there are times when a parent has to "intrude on their children's privacy" to assure that their kids are being raised the way they see fit. My parents restricted what I could watch when I was a kid (I'm 23 and married now), and I'm glad they did -- it showed me they cared.
If you feel the need to invade your child's privacy, then you obviously haven't provided your child with a reason to trust you. A child is a human being, and therefore cannot be denied their basic humanity.
So let's see, Katz now advocates illegal acts (like copyright violation and illegally sneaking into movies) as well as a hands-off parenting approach? Doesn't sound like libertarianism, sounds like anarchy.
Very good. Although not exactly "hands off", it is an anarchistic approach. Take a look at methods of anarchist parenting. In fact, you may want to take a look at the whole Anarchism FAQ to get a proper definition of anarchy.
Michael Chisari dominion@beyondtheweb.com
"Got a revolution behind my eyes, we got to get up and organize."
He didnt turn out so well. Not that its my play to judge how "well" kids have turned out (I'm 17 myself). But he just acts like hes better then everyone (and because of this, became racist). He lies to his friends, as well to his family, and his family takes it all so lightly. Hes just an all around asshole, and his parents think hes an angel.
One thing about libertarian parenting is that it requires two very strong role models. Also, although it is libertarian, it is not laissez faire. You cannot take a "hands off" approach, and not provide values and morals for a child.
Don't let the term "libertarian" confuse you into thinking that it's a matter of spoiling your child, nor does it mean not having to be a parent.
Michael Chisari
dominion@beyondtheweb.com
Tell them you're a Balkan refugee who speaks no English and doesn't dare leave the theater alone.
I presume you would tell them all of this in some sort of Slavic tongue? You'd have to be inept to tell them in English.
I find this line of Mister Katz' rather irksome:
;)
/. loud enough that the overstuffed hippies and pot-smoking Gen-X androgynites at Rolling Stone will notice him again. Poor deluded sould thinks that Rolling Stone still matters.
"South Park," walk them in, then watch for a half-hour
The first half hour was clever and funny, but it all slid down hill from there. Mister Katz missed some material in the latter half of the movie that I wouldn't want any nine-year-old I cared about to see.
There was a recognizable attempt to make some 'statements' in the movie, which were commendable on a high-school level. Such filmic 'importance' does not mean that kids need to see it. Give 'em the short version: "War is Hell" (naughty word, too!), "Think for yourself", etc. Personally, I think that the classic "Rudolph The Red Nose Reindeer" has vastly more important and sophisticated messages than South Park. Better animation too!
Mr. Katz has a very childish sense of activism in my opinion. He's hoping to make a row with the angry teenagers here on
Oh well.
Time to exercise those filtering options!
-kent
**>>BELCH
If your friends are anywhere near as insightful as you seem to be, they will undoubtedly find creative responses ('solutions' are hard to come by) to their very difficult and painful situations.
As you get older, you start to see your parents as people, just as potentially flawed and clueless as we ourselves often are. That's my experience anyways.
Parents project their hopes and dreams on their kids in much the same way that we (kids of all ages) project our hopes and dreams on rock stars. If you've ever gotten to know a rock star fairly well, you'll see how far off base those dreams can be! Disappointment is inevitable, even though it's unfair to the 'star', who probably didn't ask for all the attention in the first place. Parents feel the same disappointment, I think, when their kids become separate entities with a will of their own AND the means to exert it. Some parents react to this disappointment more gracefully than others. Alas for your adopted friend. I wish her well.
I hope your friends hang in there and keep their heads up. Things are always changing, and sooner or later they HAVE to change for the better.
Your friend who manages the convenience store kicks ass, by the way. When I was 21 I couldn't manage my way out of a wet paper bag.
-kent
**>>BELCH
You know, usually I like reading Katz's writing. He often makes valid social commentaries. Usually his articles at least give you something to think about.
This one seems just a tad too childish. Yeah Jon, we can all appreciate the throwback to a 60's sit-ins and an uprising of the people. But face it, todays society just isn't like that. Often police will be at or near a theater and contrary to the article they don't feel bad about escorting a whining 13 year-old out the door.
Jon, you left out these other options:
----- obSig
Actually, when my friends and I lived in dorms we would ICQ large iso images of games to each other. But that's besides the point, the jest of what Katz said got across. No, he probably didn't mean that you could only use ICQ to send files to each other, but that's what probably first came to mind for him. Perhaps if he was a BOFH, he would have said scp/rdist/ftp whatever. Does this really matter. Hey, I used to be a nitpicky bastard like you. That is until I figured out that most people care less about the "how" than the end result. Katz isn't a technical writer/person. The sooner you realize this, the less time you'll be thinking of ways you can point this out to others here, and the more time you'll have for a real life.
This is "news for nerds." Why shouldn't we expect more from a writer here than the kind of laughable technical mistakes that occur in traditional media? Slashdot is supposed to be a respite from that kind of idiocy. The writers should know enough about MP3s not to use them as a verb when they are championing video piracy.
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
Why only geek kids?
Because non-geek kids are too busy learning to use the new computers Slashdot readers bought them after Katz's essay on democraticizing computer use among all classes of people.
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
I took Jon's advice and hung out at the local cineplex talking to some of the pre-teen boys who were there without adult supervision.
It took a while, but I finally found one who was both (a) a geek, and (b) looking for new experience that only an adult can make possible.
I offered to give him my stub, but I suggested that we make the exchange in the bathroom so those fascist tyrant anti-libertarian closed source theater workers wouldn't see us.
Long story short, there was an unfortunate misunderstanding and now I'm a registered sex offender who can't move without appraising the county authorities of my whereabouts.
The only positive to this experience is that while I'm under house arrest I have more time to MP3 my collection of NC-17 movies for distribution to oppressed children via Hotline.
One technical question for Jon: Why is it when I MP3 my films, only the sound gets digitized? I hope you can help!
Running to the barf bag,
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
"mp3 'em" does not mean "download the movies in mp3 format," it means "do to the movie industry with asf/mpeg/avi/mov what people already do to the record industry with mp3."
Jon Katz isn't that clear on any technical subject on the best day of his life. "MP3 'em" could mean either thing, but the more obvious interpretation is that this lifelong journalist with extremely limited technical skills thinks MP3 is a format that can be used to pirate movies.
Regardless, it's still the kind of sloppy accuracy and oversimplification that is the hallmark of bad technology reporting in the mainstream press. That it appears on Slashdot, which was supposed to be an antidote to that kind of reporting, is a shame.
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
Huh? How are we gonna manage to get video encoded in an audio format?
-- K
Russia?
Welcome to the 90's President Reagan.
-Ben
bensmith@biz1.net
I believe it was Thoreau who said "if a law or practise is unjust, you are morally obligated to defy it."
I think we would live in a much better world if all lived by that creed.
-Ben
bensmith@biz1.net
Why if kids see movies that have pictures of people's naughty bits in them, what next!
They may end up going to museums and seeing painitngs of nude women or people copulating!
Oh the horrors!
-Ben
bensmith@biz1.net
I would proudly go to jail in order to openly defy people who want to perverse the idea of 'morallity' as keeping kids from hearing naughty words. I think what these businesses are doing is much more immorral than anything they play in their theatres.
The idea that they can tell me what MY CHILD should or should not see is infuriating. It is my job to be parent. Not theirs.
-Ben
bensmith@biz1.net
This is one of the stupidist things that Katz has ever written.
:)
First, writing letters to your movie theatre won't help. They're just following the law. You can't tell them not to enforce laws just because you think they're stupid. Try that argument next time you get a speeding ticket. If you really think the law is stupid, you need to be writing your congressman, if you think that will help.
Second, You don't need to give excuses like saying you're a physician to leave a movie. You're not in prison, they can't force you to stay.
Third, it's dead easy to get into an R movie. I'm 17, but I like to go with my 15-year-old friend. We scanned his passport, changed the birthdate, printed it, and told the theatre it's a photocopy. It got him into Southpark, American Pie, and Arlington Road.
Anyway, I just got kinda irritated because usually I like reading katz' stuff.
Yeah, and the BBFC bites. Freedom of speech doesn't exist in the UK and that bites too. That's why we kicked their limey asses in the Revolution. :-)
:-(
Legislated age restrictions in the cinema are bad enough, but the "video nasties" stuff is so far out that I doubt many Americans would even believe it. (Nothing gets released on video without BBFC approval, often resulting in serious cuts and sometimes outright banning of films.)
I hope you guys are looking forward to THE EXORCIST coming out on video this fall. It only took 25 years. That's only one of many examples of your wonderful government protecting you from art and literature.
The UK is not a model to emulate for movie censorship. Hell, censorship is the wrong model, period. We don't do that here, we just make it difficult for people to make money if the MPAA doesn't like them.
This comment made you hard? That's not something you should admit in public, dude. hehehe
"Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"
At least, not all of them!
Libertarianism doesn't mean "You can do whatever the hell you want." It means "You can do whatever the hell you want, PROVIDING you don't infringe upon the right of others to do the same, or bring harm to others." Theater owners have the RIGHT to bar whomever they damn well please from seeing whatever movie they want. THAT IS LIBERTARIANISM, the ability to do with WHAT IS YOURS what thou wilt. It is NOT the theory that you can do whatever you want with ANYONE'S property. Dumbass.
Katz hopped on the 'geek' bandwagon cos he's smart enough to know he could make a buck claiming to be someone 'in the know.' Do we really need this loser claiming to be a geek and advocating pirating movies and music in the same breath?
What slashdot needs is equal time for people who understand basic political concepts, and hopefully the difference between right and wrong. And a "Katz Sucks" option in every new poll.
There is no such thing as a right to see a movie. Theater owners are well within THEIR rights to bar anyone they see fit from entering their place of business.
What the hell are they teaching in school nowadays anyway?
It's an *opinion* piece. Good grief, if you know you disagree with Katz' opinions, why the hell to you bother reading his articles?
Does anybody else find it interesting, by the way, that although we think censorship is bad, we still find some of these very same anti-censorship people crying out to have Katz stopped from posting on slashdot? Sounds like censorship of "different" ideas to me.
Read my stuff.
What 'oppression' are you suggesting we fight? No one is being killed. No one is facing terrible hardships.
They're frigging movies, people... Sheesh. If you're not old enough, find someone who is and go with them. This is not rocket science.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast...
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
- it's probably illegal. Inciting a criminal action is probably against the law; I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure you can get busted for this.
- More importantly, you just doing it wrong. The correct method to protest an bad rule or law is not by petty theft, but through civil disobediance. Civil disobediance in short, demands that you get caught, and then relies on the publicity to expose the foolishness of the authority. In this case, if you go to a theatre and have a complaint about ridiculous policy, you would follow a procedure something like:
- decide the exact manner in which you are going to break the rule
- notify the press that you intend to do this, provide a date and time
- notify the theatre
- notify the police
- proceed with the action, and hope that the publicity forces reasonable action upon the theatre
petty crime will not bring about change, it will just get your ass busted. the best method for toppling an unpopular authority is through lots of publicity.--sam
--sam
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Take a geek kid to a restricted movie
Why only geek kids?
--
bgphints - internet routing news, hints and ti
It seems to me, that if we object to these policies that are being encouraged by Washington, We have options that are alot better than lame attempts at subverting them, and trying to sneak around the rules.
If a theatre chain is imposing policies, that you don't agree with, write them letters. Show the theatres, that free-thinking people have something to say about this tempest in a teapot.
When you're elected representatives are brow-beating Hollywood to enforce these restrictions, write them. Let them know that they are elected to serve YOU, and that they have a responsibility to listen to your opinion.
And last but not least. So what if a teenager can't get into a theatre. I suppose since it's summer, they don't have studying that they could be doing. But don't they have anything reasonable that they could spend their time doing. It's just a movie. If they don't see it, they'll survive, and grow to be adults anyhow. Read the book, if all else fails. Most bookstores won't restrict selling anything but hardcore, and reading's going to do alot more for your mind, than absorbing someones elses interpretation of the story.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
So, did either the Egyptians or the Romans have publishing industries? Could someone write a book and make enough money off it to write another in those societies? Or was book-writing a pastime that only the independantly wealthy could participate in? How many people could even READ in those societies?
Copyright is VITALLY important to anyone who actually wants to create anything and make a living at it. Without it, pirated goods (none of which benefit the original creators in any way) completely flood the market and drive the actual legitimate goods out of business. The pirated goods are always cheaper than the legit stuff, because they don't have to support the cost of creating whatever it is they're duplicating and selling. So people buy the cheaper pirates, and the legitimate creators go out of business.
This is happening now in places where copyright isn't strongly enforced (Taiwan, for example).
Lastly, your spew about copyright being some oppressive "tool of da man" is utter foolishness. Like most of our rights, copyright benefits the small guy a LOT more than it does the big and powerful. If Disney wants to stomp on someone selling bootleg t-shirts, they don't need copyright to do it. For the little guy, on the other hand, copyright law is the only way to protect their intellectual property and make a living at what they are trying to do.
Jon
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
But then at the same time those same parents are held liable for anything illegal that their children do.
This is a trap, and it's illegitimate.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
It's a big issue that at least the NYC government has been working to combat. It has been shown that turnstile hoppers, and guys who run red lights often have other criminal records. In other words, if someone breaks the law, they have a tendency to really BREAK THE LAW.
I kinda feel obligated to take issue with that point -- I think it's more correct to say that "someone who stabs an old lady for her purse is not likely to think much of jumping a turnstile" than "jumping turnstiles leads to mugging."
NYC's attack on Quality of Life crimes -- arresting vandals, litterbugs and turnstile hoppers in the hope that this will prevent bank robbery and serial killing has, indeed, coincided with a drastic downturn in violent crime. But, I think it is significant that this same downturn has occured in nearly every city across the country, whether or not they had similar programs. Call me a cynic, but I have the sneaking suspicion that it really *is* the economy, stupid.
That having been said, I don't really see sneaking into R rated films as a valid agent for social change. If you must risk life, liberty and Nintendo priveleges to watch poorly animated cartoon characters swear at each other, that's just fine by me -- just don't go thinking you're Che Guevara for having done it.
$_="06fde129ae54c1b4c8152374c00"; s/(.)/printf "%c",(10,32,65,67,69,72, (74..76),(78..80),(82..85))[hex $1]/eg;
I see all these people talking about how they hate Katz's writing (style) blah, blah, blah. While he may not be a geek himself, I noticed that he covers the high school aged people he's writing (mostly) about very well. I myself am a Junior in college, so it doesn't affect me all that much. But just think about if you were their age, then maybe you wouldn't hate him so much.
:(
Anyway, some of these suggestions are rather lame, like the whole take a geek to a movie day?! How bout, just take a "shapable, formable, don't let him/her see that, young mind" to a movie day, to let them see what they are missing out on.
Picketing would always be a good grassroots way to go about it, and I'd consider doing something like that, except I go to MSU, and you know how that'd wind up?! In riots!
Downloading the movie isn't that bad either. Because first of all, the movie theaters don't own the rights to the movie, they just have the privilege to make some money off of it, and show it. Second of all, these large corporations own us any damn way. I don't care how much you protest that, the only way no one is owned is if they do everything, EVERYTHING for themselves. And even then you have to get natural resources, in which case the earth would own you. And doesn't the government pirate us everyday of our lives? Look at ECHELON for fucks sake. They aren't paying me to use me. Shit. That's just the way it works. And anyone who thinks this still isn't good enough, look at it this way. No one owns anything anyway. Property is theft. Once you die, it's not yours any more.
And fuck that copyright crap that your gonna throw in my face. The egytpians never had copyright, the latin speakers never had copyright...it's just a pretentious lie created by the people in power. End of story.
./brm
My girlfriend and I are 25 and 24, respectively.
:)
National Amusements *still* wouldn't let us buy
tickets for friends that were meeting us there.
So much for corporate policy...
My attack strategy would be to have your friends
show up right when the movie is about to start,
be surprised they have to wait through the line
to get tickets, and after the movie demand a
refund for their two tickets because the
unexpected policy change made them miss the start
of the movie.
It might not work, but it would be fun!
My Web Page
Jon katz, Destined to be either an MTV VJ or a Ross Perot running mate.
Wither way the laugh factor is high.
I know realize why the folks in the Slash. front office run the Katz pieces....Comic Interludes.
You have to laugh, if not at the articles then at Jon Katz himself. Funier still are the folks who take him serioulsy.
Comming next from Jon KAtz "Picking Up Underage Hitchhikers on The Information SuperHigway"
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
I really do appreciate your stance on this issue.
I agree that ther is nothing anyone can do to protect these kids from the content available on the silver screen (aside from banning it completly - UNTHINKABLE!). However this artical is unnecessary and downright STUPID!
Download a whole movie in mp3!?!?!
Dont we all wish!
Take an underage geek to a movie day!?!?!?
Give me a break! As much as I thought the story in part 1 was cool this is ridiculous.
Sure we can yell at the ppl that run the theatres.... this is the only valid point you really mention........
Just when I think your gonna have something coool to say you always pull this kind of crap.....
Please let me know when you pass ENC-1101 Jon...
I may not be as eloquent as Jon, but as a parent, it is *I* or my wife that makes the decision as to which movies my daughters (ages 10 and 11) can see. Right now, they'd love to see South Park, but my wife dislikes the show, so we'll wait for it to come out on video. They have shown no interest in American Pie, and they laughed at Something About Mary last year (they didn't understand some of the scenes).
Right now, we are kind of lucky in that whatever intrigues the girls is something that either my wife or I would like to see. Otherwise, we try to convince the kids to wait until it comes out on video... this is usually a short wait.
Will I take them to see Eyes Wide Shut? Perhaps not. We made a similar decision years ago with Sliver.
But in each and every one of these cases, it was my wife and I that made the decisions as to the suitability of a movie for our children. We don't necessarily trust an MPAA rating; they are inconsistantly applied. There are other services right here on the web such as Screen It which gives a lot more information about a particular movie than any single R or PG13 could do.
Perhaps Clinton and Congress are bemoaning the lack of parental responsibility in this country. I may be the exception rather than the rule in how I make my judgments; I cannot talk for other parents.
Having the MPAA's rating system "enforced" by theatre managers is silly, and is deserving of all the contempt you can give it.
However, Jon's suggestion that adults hang out and pick up minors to "escort" them to see a movie sends chills up and down my spine. If I were to see that, I'd probably alert the authorities.
That's just my opinion.
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
There's no way I'm going to usurp a parent's prerogative and take their kids to a "restricted" movie against the parent's will. That's for the parents to decide. You are right in that theaters are behaving in a distinctly big-brother fashion and should be told by parents in no uncertain terms where to put their rules, but that's for parents of the kids affected to do, not me.
I don't have kids. I freely admit I'm an outsider on this issue, but damn, if I were a parent, I would do my best to make sure I knew what my child was watching at the theater. The MPAA provides a useful service to a degree[1] but the parent must do a little research (read a review?) to determine whether or not they want their child to see it.
This is not an issue for theaters to enforce, but neither is it ours to destroy, Jon. Let the parents guard their children, that's what they're for.
[1] The arguments about the MPAA are numerous and growing daily, thanks to South Park and American Pie (which took 4 tries to make "R")---suffice to say I think they should be stripped of any power to do anything except watch a movie and provide a summary of "offensive" behavior
korc
Have you ever seen a 24-year old try and rent a car? I believe most businesses have the sign "we reserve the right to refuse business to customers at our discretion" or something like that.
Discrimination on the basis of age is illegal when you are applying for housing, loans or a job - not when you are buying tickets to a movie.
I was looking for a reason to check the box next to JonKatz under "Exclude Stories from the Home Page". This latest piece of drivel finally convinced me.
Riiight... So, in other words, it is unjust for the MPAA or movie theatres to not allow youngsters to see these movies, because contrary to the opinions of the Man, youngsters are not the shiftless, mindless irresponsible flakes they are made out to be.
But, you can still sneak into the movies because the kids working there are shiftless, mindless irresponsible flakes.
Do you think before you write this stuff?
Oh, oh, oh, but we're talking about geek kids. Who knows why these kids earn that moniker, they just do for our purposes. So it's alright. All 'non-geeks' are road apple, and all 'geeks' are enlightened juggernauts of whoop-ass. Because geeks are, despite their total lack of agreed upon qualifying terms, ubermensch. Maybe that's why Jon keeps trying to qualify among their ranks, despite any resemblence to anything geeklike other than the ability to operate a word processor.
Another damned comic
+++ NO CARRIER
Katz's article sucked. He is advocating things that are against most ethical human beings morals. I am really dissapointed in his continuing appearance on a publication like /. . Another poll is in order to out this offensive drivel which constantly seeps out of his disgusting body.
.02
my
Kent
Poopdick.
It's hard for somebody to get a job and get on with their lives in this world unless they are allowed to drive. 18 is simply too old, too long to wait before people are allowed to be responsible.
Good luck trying to say that "underaged" people shouldn't have sex.
Go for it, sneak kids into movie houses, encourage piracy. Just don't complain when the people who you annoy doing this, the people whos earning potential you are directly affecting, decide to dig their heels in and really become arseholes.
There's nothing decent about helping kids whos parents don't want them to see a film sneak in and watch. They arn't your kids, it's not your business to "educate" them. I love going to the movies, I have a 5.1 home cinema system sitting in my living room at home, but nothing beats the big screen! (as a cinema house chain in England used to say) I'll disagree with anyone at the drop of a hat, but these people are entitled to raise their kids how they want. (however bad that may be) I don't have any kids, but I'd freak if I told my child not to do a certain thing (not that I can see myself ever doing such a thing), and then a perfect stranger helped them defy my wishes.
yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
Hmmm, let 17 year olds make decisions? right! you guys have proven to the world that you cant behave in a civilized manner to begin with let alone make any decision. The proof of what happened at Woodstock 99 is enough. Many young people cant control themselves let alone make rational decisions. Hey, you'r under 17, you have no rights, it's the law that you cant see something that you dont understand, or will probably try to re-enact, or will more likely scar you. every one of you out there is numb to death and murder.. when you see someone tore to pecies on tv you think "Cool lookie the guts" instead of being horrified by the inhuman act. I agree, this is Fiction and therefore fantasy and not real... but it takes a large amount of maturity and brain power to see the line between real and fantasy.. I had many friends get way too deep into D&D to the point that they thought they were real driuds/etc, because they couldnt handle realistic fantasty. So If you whine about not getting to see a movie... tough luck kiddie. It's a law, live with it or get it changed... just like that nasty smoking and drinking law... let's let the "responsible 16 year olds" have free access to booze!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
21 and still living at home.. working a convience store...
What a piece of human waste....
Glad this leach is your friend and not mine. he could make decent money in any foundry (No expierience needed) but I'm sure he's way too lazy for real work...
Mom and dad aint getting on his butt for no reason... he's a piece of human feces and they are ashamed for him. you should be too.. instead of loaning him 20 bucks.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Hmmm, you as a 15 year old, cannot compose a legible sentence let alone a paragraph that even reads like the english language can understand a movie like south park? you are tooo funny.
as soon as you can start writing above a 3rd grade level and use words bigger than wang or pooper maybe then you can understand the movie...
You kiddies whine about this.... put down your tool cd's and listen to some jazz and folk for once... listen to the roots of your music, uinderstand where it comes from instead of burning things, saying "cool dood", and try to use the english language.
NOTE: anyone that uses profanity is proving that they have no brain. they cant' come up with anything witty to say..
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Wag the Dog was R! All it had was about a million uses of the F-word. No sex, no gore. Granted, the idea of total dishonesty on the part of the media and politicians is a little hard to stomach, but nothing a 9-year-old can't handle. A nine-year-old probably wouldn't understand everything, but he might, and even if not, he would still enjy himself. Replace he with she if it suits you. And it's not like everyone hasn't been hearing & using the F-word since they were 8.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
First off, libertarianism. We do not need to strike back against movie theatres that are usurping the decisions of kids and their parent's. Libertarians are in favor of equal and complete rights for everyone. That includes respecting the rights of others. If a movie theatre wishes to say that people under 18 must have a parent with them in an R rated movie, they can do that. Secondly, ways to protest. Mr. Katz suggests many ways to protest this inane problem. Some of which are actually good suggestions. Many of which are just plain stupid. Kids and their parents should stand and fight against stupidity. My parents had to purchase tickets for my friends and I when we were teenagers. Big deal. This is what you should fight for; The right of a parent to buy tickets for their children to any movie they wish. This would allow a movie theatre to decide for themselves whether or not they want children to be able to see the movie without the consent of a parent or adult. This is actually how it works in some small towns. If the theatre manager doesn't think that kids should see the movie, they require parents to buy the tickets. That way the parents truly do know what their kids are up to. So instead of doing many of the decietful suggestions that are suggested in this article, do something constructive, write a letter, call the manager at a movie theatre, or even better, get a few parental types together and get a meeting with the manager. Mr. Katz's suggestions are just encouraging the stereotypes that teens are liars. So teens, do something constructive, and stand up for yourselves. Talk to your parents, get them to support you, then go and talk to theatre managers. If they don't take you seriously, go home, and bring back your parents. Get friends to do the same thing. Theatres will listen. As my parents told me, you get more bees with sugar than vinegar. You can get more if you are nice and polite. Being decietful and mean will only annoy people in the long run. Third and finally, on protests. If you wish to start a lame protest, perhaps you could start one against the motion picture rating association. They are really the ones at fault. If the rating association did a more reasonable job rating movies, then movie theatres could restrict children from seeing movies that might be considered inappropriate for them by their parents. Parents can not personally review everything that their children want to see. It would be great if parents had a rating system that actually provided useful information. I remember a video game rating system used briefly that inlcluded three different scores (I think that it was three), one for sex, one for violence, and for language (again, I am not sure if this is exact, but the idea is there). It would be great if a system like this existed for movies. Take a look at CapAlert. While I don't agree with their final opinions, they do provide information that can help parents know what is actually in a movie. Fight for an unbiased rating system with as much information as this. This could go along way to allowing theatres to actually decide for themselves and their specific local community what is appropriate for children and what is not. It would also actually be a cause worth fighting for. Not this silly "Take A Geek Kid To A Restricted Day". If a kid wants to see a movie, make him do the work to see it. Let him go and ask a parent to take him to see it. Perhaps it will help build a better realationship between a parent and child, and possibly even their friends. -a small plot of land in feudal japan
Years ago I used to work at a movie theater and you wouldn't believe the shit that some people pulled to get over. For example, one guy claimed to be a member of the British Secret Service and he had an emergency that required all of his family members to leave the theater in the middle of a move and he felt that they deserved a cash refund. Free passes were not good enough, because due to his job they all had to leave the country that week.
This asshole called the district maneger AT HOME and pleaded his case until the theater agreed to refund his money. It worked.
But in any case, scream racism if you want to get something. Imagine someone in the middle of a crowded theater screaming "This is bullshit! If I were not (black, white, hindu, asian, native american, hispanic, whatever), you guys wouldn't be giving me this much hassle!" Stick with that mantra for a few minutes they'll relent. Accusations of racism are BAD for business. Remember Dennys problem?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
When discussing what's acceptable for European audiences and American audiences, especially when also discussing Kubrick, keep in mind that A Clockwork Orange is still banned in England.
I saw Eyes Wide Shut. I loved it. I did think the digital figures were distracting, but I don't think that I missed out on an important part of the film because of them. If Eyes Wide Shut had received an NC-17 rating, it would have been written off by many people as a porn film, which would have been more unfortunate than having the digital figures inserted. If that were the case, the vast majority of people who watched it would be hoping for a porn film, and would have been greatly disappointed (like the huge numbers of college students who cheered when Nicole Kidman undressed but slept through much of the rest of the movie in the theatre I saw it at).
At any rate, if the digital figures bother you that much, take heart. I'm sure that an uncut version will be available on video. BTW, would anyone be so kind as to post a link to the NPR story?
Yes, it was Kubrick's choice (along with Warner Brothers) that it be banned. It is still banned, even though Kubrick is still dead.
Who do you mean by "Authorities"? I was certainly not implying that the government banned it. Yes, Kubrick did have input in the matter, and it seems possible that he also had input in the digital figures inserted into Eyes Wide Shut. In both movies, the government did not directly force any changes. The changes were the choice of commercial organizations, but they may have been forced because of the society in which they were applied. In one, it was sex. In another, it was violence (albiet, rape, so sex certainly played a part).
If you thought implying that British society is just as "prudish" as American, then I must not have made my point clearly. My point is this: different societies have diffences in values (however minor), and when discussing how those values affect movies, or even whether the "rules" applied to movies reflect those values, it is helpful to keep in mind that America is not the only country in which Kubrick's films have not been shown in their entirety because of those values.
It was the public's outrage over the copycat crimes related to A Clockwork Orange that caused it to be banned. It is the public's outrage over sex in entertainment that (indirectly) led to Eyes Wide Shut being altered. That outrage may not reflect the majority opinon of the public, but it does exist, and people in both countries are denied some of Kubrick's cinema because of it.
Yes! Another Katz article!
And... he is once again promoting his ultra-libertarian/anarchist/hippie agenda! Awesome!
Hey, I think South Park is wonderful, healthy movie for a young child to watch! It's overuse of sexual humor and foul language is great for youngsters, and it will surely help them become more productive members of society.
Movies like American Pie, too, are totally wholesome and beneficiary to the spongy mind of a kid. Darned overbearing parents trying to instill their own values into their own children! Let Jon and the creators of shows like South Park raise your children! EVERY CHILD IN NORTH AMERICA SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WATCH PORN! It's good for them.
A 3 year old is a human too! With a big long Bill of Rights! They are capable of making their own educated decisions about life! And today's latest crop of Katz Approved(TM) movies will truly mold admirable character in them. Away with morality! Heck, away with clothing while we're at it! Who needs government! Jon for leader of the earth!
...I forgot my tag. But amazingly, I think my tag fits it a little better. Welcome to KatzDot. (K.)
----- if ($anyone_cares) {print "Just Another Perl Newbie"}
warn "Just Another Perl User" if $anyone_cares;
Listen, KatzDot fan. The simple point is that how can a man who probably can't even swap faulty hard drives be a "spokesman" for the oh so oppressed geek community?
ESR I can see, but not the holy JK... the messiah for liberal nerds. Even though he isn't really a nerd himself. Kinda like black-headed, Austrian Hitler and his blonde Germans.
BTW, cigarettes cause natural cancer of the body. But pornographic-wannabe movies are a cancer to our society. Do you really think things are BETTER in this nation, thanks to movies like South Park and American Pie? And don't give me that "porn helps children" garbage... nobody in his right mind believes that. And Katz' encouraging our youth to "break the rules" kinda invites a generation bent on anarchy, doesn't it?
----- if ($anyone_cares) {print "Just Another Perl Newbie"}
warn "Just Another Perl User" if $anyone_cares;
I wonder if the media (news vendors) have ever stopped to think that maybe they contribute to the hysteria over school violence by covering the stories until the people immediately involved are tired of the privacy invasion and want to recover from the ordeal without the help of 20/20.
"There is no culture in computer science, only cults." - M. Felleisen
The problem isn't that little kids can't get into R-rated movies by themselves. Frankly, I agree with that point of view. The problem is that R is way to broad a rating.
"R" can mean anything from too interesting and mature for little children, to gorry violence with sex scenes. I used to see R rated movies with my father all the time when I was younger. And none of then had any content that anyone would feel funny about letting anyone see. They really need to divide the R rating so that most such movies can be viewed by anyone over 15. (without parents.) At 15, anyone is mature enough to see most R rated movies.
I was really ticked off by the theater when I saw Southpark with one of my friends. We both had to show ID (he's 17 and I'm 18) when entering the theater. Then, once seated, some guy came in to check our stubs! And we look our ages.
Am I the only person who can remember when I was this age? 14,15,16 what have you. Did you ever try to get into these movies? Wheren't you "ready" to "handle" them? What is the problem with someone of ANY age going to see American Pie? Honestly. What will it do to a single person out there? Is it only mature, responsible adults who are capable of laughing at jokes of a sexual nature? Not at all. Think back to your own time in high school, most of us were making jokes that wouldn't even make thier way into most of these movies.
Sadly most people are severely out of touch with their past. Parents feel they have a right to mold thier children in the way they want, not the way that might be best or produce people capable of going off into society as productive, intelligent, happy people. Many parents feel that they're even acting in the best interests. SO I ask you, think back to when you were this age yourself and do what you know is best.
After all, kids know best, right? No matter how young they are. So if any child, especially a geek child, since we're all aware that they know more than adults, decided to let That Guy In The Park sodomize him, well that's fantastic! We shouldn't just celebrate their union, but as fellow geeks, we should actually go out of our way to set them up on dates as much as possible. Let's just keep this a secret from li'l Jimmy's parents, though -- I'm sure they're well meaning, but they don't know what's really good for him like we anarchist geeks do.
Hey Katz, got any kids? I'm having a killer Y2K-eve bash, so wouldya mind emailing me their phone numbers so that I can invite them to partake in the festivities with me? I'll supply the drinks myself!
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
but it is just really grating every time I see him use the word 'geek' the way he does. I'm not saying this because I take it as stereotyping, though there is some truth to that.
I'm saying this because he has thrown the word around way too many times. Geek is now the word that means "all things that do not go parallel with the grain of the system" apparently. Here's a little refresher on the word, in case somebody forgot: geeks were the kids 20 or 30 years ago that played D&D, talked constantly about Star Trek, carried pocket protectors, were skinny and pale and wore thick taped together glasses, and above all, were antisocial. Various combinations of the above were called geeks.
Here on slashdot, people have done a remarkable job of taking this stereotype, and whittling it down to the essence of what geeks really were (are) - creative, smart, usually quirky people that are fascinated by logic, discovery, fantasy, and the like.
Katz has managed to take this bare-bones description and add things like "anyone who questions authority" so that now the hyperactive troublemaker in class that laughs himself into a fit if you say "vagina" near him and the loser that collects porn behind his parent's back and gets himself into fights at school and the class clown that stands on his desk and sings to annoy the teacher are all suddenly "geeks". And after all, we all love geeks here on slashdot, don't we? So what could be more natural than to take all these kids that are being kept out of movies and make it our crusade to take them all to see it?
Anything less would be censorship and conformity, and would add up to squelching the lofty dreams and aspirations of all those "geeks" out there.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
It was clearly a figurative statement. If he had said "screw 'em", you wouldn't have said "I don't approve of casual sex", now would you.
In general, I tend to agree with most of Katz' writing. But in this article, he first advocates "hitting them in the pocketbook", by NOT going to the movies and finding other ways of seeing them, claiming that this is a good way to fight back, since the declining profits would force theaters to take notice. Then he goes on to say "Take a Geek Kid to a Movie", essentially, "Give the Theaters More Business than they Legally Deserve". These points really conflict. You can't fight a war on conflicting fronts. If you are going to take a position and make a stand, that's fine, but this article falls apart in its attempt to show diverse methods of attack.
The other problem here is Quality of Life crimes. It's a big issue that at least the NYC government has been working to combat. It has been shown that turnstile hoppers, and guys who run red lights often have other criminal records. In other words, if someone breaks the law, they have a tendency to really BREAK THE LAW. Katz is advocating kids sneaking into theaters, taking stubs for other showings (not paying), and adults showing them that lying to break the law is a Good Thing. Since his recent theme is that parents need to show their kids the Right Way to act, and teach them to be Good People, this is completely against everything he seems to stand for. I advocate complaining, writing to congressmen, and making a scene, but blatant disregard for rules and the law is no way to teach kids the Right Way to live.
I urge Jon Katz to put a little more thought in before he writes his articles to make sure he isn't just writing popular ideas and reactionary statements, but really making a quality point.
He means 'bootleg'. Get the films, watch'em on your own terms.
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
Nice ideas, man, but wrong target. As you say, the people working at the theaters & enforcing the rules are no older than the people they're pissing off. The people making the rules are the corporate fat-cats that own the mega-chains, and they're so insulated they wouldn't know a geek-boycott if it fell on 'em. These rules are low-IQ knee-jerk reactions to current event, and they too will pass. The REAL root of the problem here is just what Matt & Trey are the latest in a long line of moviemakers to cry foul about; Jack Valenti and his MPAA goon squad. These hypocritical, sanctimonious (oooohhh... big words) bastards feel compelled to 'protect' us from foul language & sex, while realistic ultra-violence and drug abuse is perfectly ok for kids of all ages. When I went to see 'Starship Troopers', there was a guy a couple of rows back with his daughter, who couldn't have been more than 8. I don't know if they stayed through the whole show, but that movie was damn disturbing, and got off much easier that South Park. Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to really affect the MPAA's stranglehold on America movies. Atleast Valenti's old and will probably be dead before my children have to suffer through his personal brand of 'morality'...
Finally! I am sick and tired of reading these ignorant replies to Katz's articles! It seems like far too many /.'ers don't realize that he is on *our* side and that there is more to life than the future of technology. Our society is touched in every way by technology, and vice versa. It's all about the issues at hand, whether they are a kid's right to see a movie, a company's right to compete, or one's right to use whatever OS he chooses.
The amazing thing to me about this whole
grass roots movement we seem to be building
here is that we are up in arms about whether
we can or can't, should or shouldn't, will
or won't cry, scream, protest, picket, to
pay to view some over-marketed, over-hyped,
piece late '90's Hollywood dogshit.
I have spent much of the past decade watching
in complete awe as otherwise apparently rational
humans bent over backwards to suspend disbelief
and fork over as much money as possible to
be subjected to stale plots, bad acting, and
overly expensive effects smirkingly called
"cinema". Theater (I won't even talk about
television..) has taken a direct spiral into
the toilet over the past twenty years, and yet
we get completely up in arms over whether or
not little Johnny can see the next Piece of
Shit (to quote Bill Hicks) film.
I could give a rat's ass over the controversy
between the Moral Majority and the Libertarian
People's Front. Maybe the damned cinemas are
accidentally doing you a favor by not letting
your kid be subjected to another batch of
overpriced Hollywood propaganda and moral
conditioning (not to mention shotgun
advertisement).
Take the opportunity to take your kid to a
fuckin' museum, a ballgame, or heaven forbid the
fuckin' library for a change! That to me is
the real problem with America: we'll fight to
the death to fork over our dollars to the
corporate Megalith to view some forgettable
worthless brainwashing propaganda while
our government slowly erodes our rights to
privacy, speech, and arms. We ignore the
opportunity to sieze the resources of our
educational systems and complain that our
children grow up stupid -- that the government
doesn't require schools to force-feed
knowledge into our kids to compensate for
lack of parenting.
Let me go before my head explodes at the stupidity
of this whole discussion.
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
Not because I respect the parents, but because they tend to get upset when people take their 13 years old anywhere.
My advice to you is this: lay off the pipe, man.
With all of the other interesting things you could write about, do you really have to advocate film piracy? Breaking the rules? Jiminy Crickets... This one takes the cake.
In a word, childish. This is what kids do when there's rules that won't let them do what they want. *waaaaaah* That's life. Cope.
Blech. Signatures.
Squawk. Complain to theater managers; call and write movie chains.
Tell them we don't want them making moral judments about what kids should see
Buuut...didn't this whole thing start when the "right-minded"
decided that they didn't like what was possibly going on
(god forbid they actually see the offending movie) and start complaining to the theatre owners,
movie studios, etc.?
How useful is complaining when the fools have already had their say
and the studios et al are knuckling under?
This whole "protect the children" crap has gone too far, and most theatre owners
would probably deal with not letting kids in than having the local PTA/church/whatever
keep hounding them.
But, by all means, go for it!
Hell, I got carded when I went to see Heat for god's sake!
Not only was I 24 at the time, but I was seeing it out in the sticks (some mall in Oshawa, ONT).
If I had seen it back in Toronto, there was no way they would have looked twice at me.
So, carding has been in place at some theatres, apparently.
POpe
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
because I keep rereading this, and it looks like he is serious when he suggests that we violate copyright law, and serious when he suggests that adults expose themselves to lawsuits filed by children's parents.
It is not a decision that parents and children should be making for themselves. It is a decision that the parents should be making. It is most definitely not a decision that Katz should be making.
These sorts of antics are the reason why the theaters feel the need to resort to the "tyranny" that Katz describes. If a teenager tries to sneak into a movie theater, that's civil disobedience. If Katz takes my child into an R rated movie, that's actionable.
My daughter is an intelligent, well-balanced 7 year old. I may delegate to her the decision to see more adult movies when she is older, yet younger than 17. It will be decided by my wife and I, not Katz.
No, Katz is saying that a parent may decide that her children may see South Park, but they may not decide that her children may not see it. The latter decision will be trumped by Katz, and those who agree with him.
The movie theater is trying to make a buck while enforcing the laws that let them operate.
What? I thought movie ratings were guidelines, not laws. Is it really a crime in some communities to allow underage people to see certain films?
My understanding is that it's theater policy, not law. About on a par with the no-throwing-popcorn policy, and the no-talking-during-the-film policy. IOW they could order you out of the theater for violating the rule, but they couldn't charge you with a crime. Nor could they be charged with a crime if they permit underage folx to see an R or NC-17 film.
Am I mistaken? Do some communities actually have laws to back up the movie ratings? Maybe it's time to be afraid...
I went to see "American Pie" last week with my girlfriend and her nephew. The nephew is 14. We get up to the ticket counter and ask for 3 for American Pie, and the wench behind the counter gets all snippy. "This isn't a movie for kids!!" she screams at my girlfriend. Taken aback, my s.o. replies, "Well, his father took him to see South Park the other day, so this should be nothing!" The woman behind the counter continued to argue with my girlfriend, as I stood there dumbfounded that this idiotic person thinks she can dictate what my girlfriend's nephew -- whom she'd never seen before -- can and can't see -- DESPITE the fact that all parties involved agreed to let him see it. She said she was going to get security, for god's sake!
We just went into the movie and laughed our asses off. Believe me, there's nothing in that movie a 14-year-old hasn't seen before. I bet the jackass censors who make these rules had a stack of playboys by the time they were 14. I mean, come on, in the age of the internet, do you really think there's anybody who can't get their hands on a boatload of porn within minutes? It's ridiculous, the arbitrariness of the entire system.
No, I don't think American Pie was a kid's movie, but what is it going to hurt for them to see it? I mean, really, they are going to know that people have sex? Gee, the foundation for all (mammalian, at least) life... nonono, they can't see that!!
I always thought it was odd that the day before I turn 17 I can't see these movies, and the day after, I can. Like there is some kind of magical transformation that turns me from some innocent child to a "mature" adult.
How aggravating this is.
rooooar
Im sorry people. I TOTALLY agree with what Katz said in his first essay. But some of the things in this are just not the right way to do things.
If you do any act of protest, do it within the rules.
Picket Line = Good
Complaining = Good
Sneaking in = BAD!
Copy = BAD!
Stay within the law!!
--Sean
Eyes Wide Shut:
According to an NPR story, Mr. Kubrick did the editing while he was still alive. "I promised the studio an R rating, and they are going to get an R rating."
Is NPR lying? Enquiring minds want to know!
What does layer 3 really mean? Is it just another /codec/, or does it mean something else? COULD video be encoded to mp3, or would that be mpeg with an mp3 audio stream? Any pointers, url's, hints, braincells appreciated.
The more you know, the more you forget. The more you forget, the less you know -> The more you know, the less you know... :-)
Thanks for the answer!
When I first read this, I was waiting for the humorous, I'm-so-cynical-I-crack-myself-up line. Then I thought "Well, maybe it was just a slow computer-news week". Then, I saw it for what it was: a full-blown idiot rant.
Take an under-age kid to a movie because we, as a geek society, believe they should see it? Who the hell gave you the power to make this decision? Every parent in the nation? Don't you realize the reason we have these content ratings (on movies, now on TV shows, video games, etc...) is that our society is attempting to take over roles that should be filled by responsible parents?
If you want to write a useful piece, try analyzing the breakdown of the traditional family structure, and it's affects (both good and bad) on our society as a whole.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but such a poorly thought out piece as this just makes me sick.
--Mid
While Katz's "plan" is a little bit of an over reaction and a tad flaky to boot, his heart is in the right place. I beleive, from what I read yesterday, that the question is not whether there should be an age restriction, but what that restriction should be. It seems to me to very arbitrary down in the USA. I just checked the Toronto Star and here in Ontario, South Park is rated AA - Adult Accompanyment. That means that kids under 14 must come to the movie accompanied by an adult...and adult is ANYONE over the age of 18. I guess this is quite similar to your PG-13. Up here this is a complete non-issue, but we also shou South Park on our Comedy Network uncensoired at 9:00 pm every Thrusday night. So does that mean Canadian kids can handle this more? that Canadian parents or government don't care about kids as much as you down there? Perhaps because we are such a large, sparsley populated country, we have all grown up knowing how important communications is to a community and that restricting communications is not always a good thing. Maybe we just get the jokes and the whole point about South Park a little better (we have lots of really funny commedians too). Lets face it, South Park, American Pie and Something About Mary should not be R-rated films...they are just not worthy of that disticntion (all were rated AA up here).
I think the greater issue that needs to be addressed is how a few religous/right-wing Zealots can have such an influence on the MPAA that it would rate these films R or NC-17 and that they could influence theatre owners/corporations to enforce these ridiculous rules.
Last year when I went to see Private Ryan (rated R up here) a few kids snuck in. Before the film they were laughing a giggling - it was obvious they though they were going to see something like The Longest Day (or anything by John Wayne). % minutes into the film they were quite, attentive and pensive. I think they learned something, something valuable by seeing that film. If they hadn't seen it, they may still think war is the cool fun stuff the Duke does. I'm glad they snuck in.
A 10 year old may not be able to handl or understand some of these films, but lets give kids, sespecially teenagers some credit...they are alot more astute than we realize. They may just "get it" and laugh about this whole situation - real life is imatating South Park!
So any of you teenagers who live in border towns want to see any of these films, come on up to Canada...not only will you see the movie, you'll see it at a discount - $9.50 Cdn is about $6.37 US.
BTW, the rating system up here is just not that strictly enforced, especially if a parent is standing right there saying its ok. None of this would have happened a the local Cineplex Odeon.
Tempest in a Teapot.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
I'm not an advocate of pirating artistic endeavor, either, and I'd never want to watch a Kubrick film on my computer monitor...but I do argue with the notion that there are limits to which we should be going. Who gets to set those limits? It's the presence of limits, arbitrarily set, which occasioned and promulgated such tyrannies as Katz is decrying.
Let's breach these limits now before the industry sees we swallow their swill happily and they impose MORE!
If virtue is its own reward, jsut imagine what vice offers!
Isn't the real problem that we are using age as a proxy for maturity?
This is the identical issue as sexual consent
laws, drinking age laws, driving age laws, and
what have you: some politicians have picked a magic number out of thin air and equated
achievement of a particular number of years with
a particular level of maturity --- mostly because
it's not possible to have a predictable system
which is based on a nebulous concept.
"South Park" is a satire about attempts
to censor material as being inappropriate
for children --- that's why it becomes a
rallying call for rebellious children;
it's a perfectly logical extension.
For what it's worth, South Park is one of
the funniest satires on television at the
moment --- once you get beyond the language
and listen to what the language is being
used to say, that is.
> Katz somewhere has picked up the notion that people have an absolute right to not only expose themselves to whatever they wish but that no one else may interfere in the slightest.
...
This is one of the few political things that I think truly is a black & white issue: either you believe that people have the right to interfere in
what other people expose themselves to, or you
don't.
You worry about the lack of a limit on what other
people can do; I worry about the lack of a limit
on what other people can prevent me from doing
I'm not sure about that --- I have major
problems with the way that first amendment
rights have been applied to 'corporate speech'.
I'm _not_ convinced, for example, that it's
a good thing that the makers of various
drugs are now able to advertise them on
television.
In general, I value freedom more ... but I think
there are limits. I've long been willing to argue
the point with my pro-drug-legalization friends
that maintaining controls on antibiotics is a
reasonable thing to do (your misuse of the
antibiotic can, in fact, hurt me).
Similarly, although it's less clear-cut, I'm concerned that advertisements of drugs which tend to be
(a) short of technical information and
(b) targeted at people who likely couldn't understand technical information if there was any
has a negative effect on overall health and
the medical profession: it encourages people
who don't understand what the drugs do to demand
them because some television ad told them it
was good for them.
*shrug* maybe that's their problem. but i value
their health more than the fiscal health of the
drug manufacturers.
"Take a Geek Kid to a Restricted Movie Day"??
/. readers. I'm getting sick of your self-promoting opportunism.
Please be so kind as to avoid trying to speak for a group of people as diverse as
I think censorship is wrong. I think parents should be allowed to let their kids see what they want to, provided that the parents talk about it with their kids afterwards... the South Park movie is a great example of something that's disgusting, ridiculous, and violent, but also hilarious, clever, and thoughtful. Kids could learn more from it than just the words to "Uncle Fucka".
But you're not addressing that at all. In your usual style, you're making vague, poorly-worded pronouncements and calls to arms - and in doing so, insulting the people you used to ride to fame.
What is it about "geeks" that you find so attractive? Why do you try to hard to wedge your way into this community despite your obvious lack of any of its defining qualities?
And why should only "geek" kids be taken to see supposedly inappropriate movies?
See? Apparently, I was being fanatic to the point of being unreasonable about it just by calling it "oppression."
However, just because blackmail and killing are worse forms of oppression doesn't mean they match the definition of it more than other ways of taking away people's rights. And that is what this is doing. Taking a small bite out of the right of parents to have a say over what their children can see. It doesn't matter that it's not a big deal. The oppression that comes slowly isn't going to be any less bad than the oppression that comes quickly. We still have to stop it.
--- Your superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons
Is this going to work? I can tell you right now that a lot of people in the "geek community" are only idealistic to a certain point - and I'm not certain it extends all the way to "Take A Geek Kid To A Restricted Movie Day", petitions and demonstrations.
Movie ratings just aren't oppressive enough to anger people. We're lazy about this sort of thing.
A shame, really.
We should fight all forms of opression, and be fanatic to the point of being unreasonable about it. Maybe then we'll be heard. They sure listen to other fanatics. (see "decency guardians")
--- Your superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons
In the UK, Southpark (which hasn't had it's release yet) will almost certainly be rated 18 (and quite possibly be cut to pieces as well, making a mockery of the title no doubt). 18 means EXACTLY what it says - no kids at all, even people who are old enough to reproduce and marry will be barred from seeing the film.
(Disclaimer - I'm no longer in the UK, so I'm not sure what the actual rating will be - but my guess would be 18)
To hear that US kids can get to see a film like SP or Eyes Wide Shut even WITH an adult sounds like a pretty good deal to me. If I were a kid in the UK, I can imagine I would find it pretty hard to get to see this until the video release.
A little planning goes a long way...
Okay, I say "almost" because I have to realize that Katz is, first and foremost, a professional writer who has it in his best interest to generate a strong reaction. By the fact that this story has already generated 450+ comments, its pretty clear he succeeded.
But aside from his self-interest in playing the hype machine, I think both of Katz' articles are wonderfully inspired. As far as I'm concerned, the bottom line here is the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution - freedom of speech - and the fact that the new restrictions being attempted by movie theaters are a serious breach upon that freedom.
The Constitutional right to free speech also implies a right to hear, and nowhere in the Bill of Rights have I seen reference to an age limit.
Of course, other laws treat minors differently all the time - sometimes for the best, most often not - such as laws which "protect" children by requiring parental consent to use services like Planned Parenthood, never considering the possibility that an adolescent in an abusive/incestuous family might seek counselling.
But the question of the day is this - would I, a single male, age 28, participate in take-a-smart-kid-to-an-R-rated-movie-day? Almost certainly, provided I had the blessing of the child's parents. You see, I am a pretty firm believer in equal rights for minors, but unlike the nation's lawmakers, I don't have the conceit to pretend I know what's best for someone else's children. Similarly, I have enough of a self-preservation instinct to know that sneaking someone else's kid into an R movie against the parent's wishes could potentially result in fairly serious consequences for me. I do sincerely want the kid to see any movie of their choosing, but if they are smart enough to appreciate the movie, they're probably also smart enough to social engineer themselves a ticket without my intervention.
Instead of sneaking an adolescent into the movie, I would instead probably try to get them to read lots of intelligent subversive BOOKS, which, for the time being at least, aren't illegal for minors to partake in, though I don't have absolute faith that will continue to be the case. Depending on the kid's age and inclination, I might recommend anything from Lewis Carroll and Mark Twain to Kurt Vonnegut, Neil Stephenson, "The Catcher In The Rye", "The Chocolate War", Updike's "Rabbit, Run", John Fante's "Arturo Bandini" books ("The Road to Los Angeles" etc.), Karen Finley, the autobiography of Malcolm X, Abbie Hoffman, etc. (Other suggestions?)
While I was at it, I'd also probably make the kid copies of all my Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, and Public Enemy albums, because that would fill them with righteous vigor AND annoy their parents.
every time i think that the people whose opinions i read have sunk to the absolute zero of intelligence, they go on and write a part two of what might have been a good article on an important issue. and totally make an even bigger fool of themselves.
if (me.isGeek() && me.isAnarchist()) {
doWhatJonSays(me);
blowBrainsOut(me);
}
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
This plan would do wonders for geeks. Everyone already knows we're losers and potential murderers. Let's now show them that we're perverts who sneak children into obscene films. Hey, that bit with the copyright infringement will reallly help the cause, too.
I always wondered who this Katz guy was. Now I realize that he's just some 12 year old who wants someone to let him in to see naked ladies on the big screen.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
*sigh
Yeah, I think kids should really be watching more movies. I mean, the movies in theaters now are so fucking great and all...
I might agree if there was something in theaters that was worth watching, but as it is, this just reads like an "Anarchy Text Phile."
"h0W t3W bL3w b4wKz d4 m00v33 tH33teR, by j0n k4tZ"
It reminds me *way* too much of 7th grade.
-- I can't think of anything witty to put here. Sorry.
hehe nope :)
.wav just a slight bit of compression.
from mp3 faq
Q: Talking about MPEG audio, I always hear "Layer 1, 2 and 3". What does it mean?
A: MPEG describes the compression of audio signals using high performance perceptual coding schemes. It specifies a family of three audio coding schemes, simply called Layer-1, Layer-2, and Layer-3. From Layer-1 to Layer-3, encoder complexity and performance (sound quality per bitrate) are increasing. The three codecs are compatible in a hierarchical way, i.e. a Layer-N decoder may be able to decode bitstream data encoded in Layer-N and all Layers below N (e.g., a Layer-3 decoder may accept Layer-1,-2,-3, whereas a Layer-2 decoder may accept only Layer-1 and -2.)
Basically they are all audio formats (the video "layers" arn't called "layers") and the higher layers are most complex than the lower layers. Layer-1 is really not that much far from
Katz, I usually like reading your articles. I don't always (or even usually) agree with you, but at least you are offering some kind of opinion to be discussed. But this is just a list of teenage pranks that we all tried at one time or another. There's no opinions here.
... Watch how quickly they'll lighten up on ticket-booth vigilanteism. "
"Hit them in their pocketbooks. If movie chains are going to refuse admission to movies that contain explicit sexual imagery or profanity, MP3 them. Download the movies on ICQ or Hotline
Wrong. Unfortunately, the "R" rating that these movies get is the law. In the past it wasn't always strickly followed, but now that the movies are becoming more and more explicit, theatres are being forced to comply. (I'm not arguing that this is right or wrong, just stating a fact)
"Squawk. Complain to theater managers; call and write movie chains."
This will be WAY more effective, but unfortuneately I don't think it will work. Theatres are not mom-and-pop or just local anymore. They are now giant megaplexes with coffee houses and bakeries, owned by giant corporations who could care less what the average person wants. These places are making tons of money, and their profits are only increasing. Who cares what the average joe wants, as long as the setup they have now is working?
"Improvise.... Kids: Be patient. Hang near the video game and wait for your chance..."
These are just childish games that everyone has done.
"Adults: Fight Ticket Booth Tyranny. Observe Take A Geek Kid To A Restricted Movie Day this Labor Day. "
Come on, Katz. You just threw the word "geek" into this segment to pander to your audience. Buzzwords are what sell these days, not real ideas. What does a kid being a geek have to do with seeing South Park? NOTHING.
I don't even get your point on this whole article.
LL
"If you are falling, dive." -Joseph Campbell
South Park is an exception. It was written with 13 year olds in mind. The humor, despite it's wide appeal is very juvenile. And the vulgarity was thrown in to appeal even MORE. The point is, a 13 year old could get MOST of it. But I still maintain that the responsible parent should discuss the movie; see what it means to the child.
Actually it *wasn't* written with 13 year olds in mind. Parker and Stone were very explicit about having intended it to get an R rating, and that they wrote it for adults.
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
And let the kids buy cigarettes, too! And porno mags, and alcohol! Hey, why should the storeowners try to restrict the kids, isn't that the parents job? Bring your kid up right and he won't want cigarettes, right?
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
isn't it great when people hit 'enter' inside the comment boxes...makes them look like poems!
heh
In BC, we have G, PG, 14A, 18A, and R.
14A means adult accompaniment required if under 14, 18A means adult accompaniment required if under 18. This is a far more sensible rating system, although I still don't approve of it.
Looking at the movie listings, South Park and American Pie are both rated 18A here.
While we do have the 14A rating, which should be used for movies targeted at a younger audience but featuring violence/swearing/etc, it is often replaced by the 18A rating by the movie theaters.
I think that it is up to each individual theater chain (all two of them if you don't count the independant ones) to decide what rating the movie gets, based on the american rating (G, PG, PG13, R).
I know that Cineplex is far worse with their policy, they always give people trouble. I try to stay away from them as much as possible.
Nix absolutably seriousness.
Btw, a child doesn't need to have the parent in the movie, just in the theatre.. or so it goes in NYC at the theatres I've gone to... But this isn't an arguement on how things are in which areas, but how your arguement is just terrible.
Disapointedly,
Spencer
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
If someone could give me a working email address for Portland Oregon area Regal Cinemas, that would help very much. Act 3 got bought out by those assholes.
Help us build a better map!
for this insanity. Damned fscking dumb bastard.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
All I can say is Amen!
1. Don't tell me what my kids can or cannot do. I'm perfectly capable of deciding that myself.
2. Don't undermine my authority over my kids. (Tha t means you, Katz).
I realize that the USA is a fucked up country, but it seems everything you pansies do to fix it just screws it up more.
Yes, I am saying all americans are pansies. Why? Because if you weren't, you'd have voted the moronic government out of office by now.
Those of you really concerned with the way things are going and who have the political tenacity would have run for office (and would have been voted in if the rest of you fuckwits bothered to vote!).
Come on, people! You now have the power of the internet at your disposal. Don't you realize just how easy it is to have leagues of voters come to your side?
Fix the patent office!
Fix the copyright laws!
Fix the crypto laws!
Fix the gun laws! (I do believe a properly trained gun owner is the best theft-deterrant)
Pull money from your military (bloated as hell) and give it to R&D (like FPGA's or disease research) or to NASA.
Squash affirmitive action (putting someone into school because of color rather than ability is not fair to anyone, including the poor soul who was thrust into an environment he can't handle mentally)
Fix all those stupid child laws!
Make punishments match crimes so that people are actually DETERRED from criminal activity (gee, what a concept).
I could go on forever. Now if only I were a citizen of the country I reside in...
The point is, you make a stand for everything you believe in and BOOM! you have a political platform!
Yesterday, myself and 2 coworkers of mine wanted to go see Blair Witch Project. One of the guys was taking a training class that was only a mile or so away from the theater, so he went to go pick up tickets for all of us (it's been sold out constantly around here). They told him he couldn't buy multiple tickets because he's only 20, and they had just instituted a policy that you must be 25 or older to purchase tickets. Never mind that he was buying the tickets for people older than himself (I'm 22, the other guy is 23). Being quite angry at this, we started looking for ways around it. The theater was too far away to possibly make a lunch-hour ticket run.
We called up Moviephone, and purchased 3 tickets with absolutely no problem in 1 order. Anyone with a credit card could do this. At the theater, they asked for the ID of the guy who ordered them, but didn't ask to see my ID or the ID of the other guy I was with. And we weren't too obviously together, we had stood aside while he went through the line to get the tickets.
Now you're probably saying this is all fine and dandy because we were able to see a movie we were legally allowed to see without too much more trouble. And I'd agree. Except that Moviephone charges a $1.50 service charge _per ticket_. Yeah, that's not a lot of money, but it's the principle of the thing. We had to pay extra to see something perfectly legal and allowable for us to see because of a damn stupid rule.
The children don't need any protection mandated by government or corporations. If you don't want your kids to see it, that's fine. If they manage to see it anyway, then you need to work on your parenting skills.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
I don't want to sound like a left-wing nut (I'm probably failing), but I want to know: Where do you draw the line? Dumping tea in a harbor was illegal two hundred years ago, but most US citizens feel they were right in doing so. I'm not saying that you can equate movie theaters with the British Empire in colonial times. I am saying that freedom was part of this country's formation and we should always keep that in mind when considering any loss of that freedom. We should not say "it's only a movie", instead we should say "How will this affect us and our freedom (as a country)? Can we live with this?"
Is it to the point that we should protest with illegal acts? Maybe not, but how much is enough?
Finally, I do agree with the continual running line in this discussion: hit them in the pocketbook. It's your money. If you disagree with rules of a particular theater, Don't go there! The theaters probably created these rules thinking it would help their margin in the long run (which, in my mind, is a twisted philosophy). If they find out they were wrong, they will change their rules.
Don't blithely assume this isn't an issue worthy of you time. Many people have died for freedom. I think you can afford to protest some stupid rules.
My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.
And just make sure your Constitutional Law prof is good. Mine nearly put me to sleep (define irony: a Brit teaching ConLaw at a US law school).
Hey, if you're a reasonably mature teen-ager in the Dallas area, send me a note. I've been wanting to see South Park anyway. You don't have to wait until Labor Day. Heck, you don't even have to be a "geek" (is that ok Katz?).
/* Whew! That's enough anarchic pseudo-rebellion for today. Tune in tomorrow and watch me burn my library card to protest the "man". After that, we'll all go to Sam Goody and pay $13.95 for a Rage Against The Machine CD. */
A few stipulations:
My spouse wants to go, too.
I've already suffered through Eyes Wide Shut and I have no desire to see it again. Don't even _think_ about it. Sometimes, being underage keeps you from wasting 7 bucks.
Your parent(s) or guardian(s) must approve.
You're paying for your ticket.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
I have seen There's Something About Mary and South Park. I didn't really like either; the laugh-to-groan ratio was way too low (much like the latest Austin Powers flick; nowhere near as good as the first). The real issue, though, is when Katz states that they are fine for nine yr. olds.
Pardon? I don't think that a nine yr. old needs to see a fellow jacking off, or Saddam Hussein waving penises at Satan. Granted, I can see little wrong with letting a sixteen yr. old in; by the time one hits that age one is pretty used to the world. But nine is way too young. Hell, when I was nine I still thought girls had cooties (man was I wrong...).
For that matter, I didn't need to see them. I watched TSAM on a trans-Atlantic flight, so it was basically wasted time anyway. SP was just a complete waste of time and money IMHO. I've enjoyed the show (Heidy-ho Kyle! Respect my authority! OMGTKK! YB!) to a certain extent, but the movie was a) over the top b) inordinately crude and worst of all c) just not funny enough. I can forgive just about anything if the movie ends up being funny, but SP just wasn't. I realise that I am in the minority here.
But back to my prev. point: kids twelve and under shouldn't be let in to see R movies. There's generally a reason why they're R. Granted, some movies get the wrong rating, but I cannot recall the last such one.
The idea that a movie cannot harm is false for several reasons. The biggest is this: GIGO. Yes, just like a computer, our own output is a function of the inputs we have received over the years. If we've grown up watching our fathers beat our mothers, we too are likely to do the same (or poss. become extremely non-violent; the point is that it affects us). If we grow up watching propaganda we are likely to believe it (e.g: how many people now believe that the Serbs are a) evil and b) allied with the Nazis in WWII?). If we grow up watching violent movies filled with filth, gore, perversion and debauchery, then our threshold for that sort of thing is raised.
No, going to see Pulp Fiction does not make anyone (well, hardly anyone--the mentally unstable are another matter entirely) a murderer. But it raises the threshold just a hair. Add that up over the years and you get a very definite coarsening effect.
I may sound ridiculous. Ask any parent about how kids behave after seeing a movie. Even teenagers get more or less agressive for days to weeks after seeing movies. I am not advocating a ban on movies. For all sorts of reasons that would be a bad idea. But a reasonable sense of restraint is in order.
Jon Katz seems incapable of exercising that restraint.
The voluntary MPAA rating system isn't about censorship; it's about truth in advertising. Chuck Colson said in BreakPoint Commentary #90712 - 07/12/1999:
How absurd can Katz get? What kind of lame-brained "rally the geeks" movement will he think of next? How about trashing vendors at Woodstock for price gouging? C'mon, Katz. You're way outa line here.
First there was the contrived morality play of part 1, which I am completely willing to wager that he fabricated. (Oh there just happened to be a little geeklet in line, Katz's vision of the ubermensch, having downloaded the film off the internet. Sure, sure..)
And now there's this babbling insanity about movie theater anarchy.
Katz, fuck off please.
That Katz utilizes slashdot as a purely one-way conduit of information? His brainless editorials appear on the front page of Slashdot, and yet he never finds time to reply to any of the well thought out responses to his idiocy. He merely crawls back under the rock from whence he came until he can prepare another nugget of wisdom to fore down our collective throat. Perhaps Malda should give equal billing and front page space to the 10 or so best replies to each Katz article and browbeat Katz into addressing each of their points. At the very least his failure would be amusing.
Right now Katz just pisses in our Cheerios and disapears.
Well Katz, where are you, you little shit?
I used to have some semblance of respect for Jon Katz. However, his articles in the last week have wiped out any value his words may have had in my eyes.
I find myself a little confused how he could turn a disgusting and worthless movie like "South Park" into such a virulent, politicized debate about individual rights.
"Children" are not capable of making careful, reasoned decisions about what is appropriate and what is not. However, our society assumes that "adults" are capable of making these choices and set arbitrary year marks to delineate between who is a "child" and who is an "adult." No sane person would advocate the rights of a 5 year old to have access to alcohol, firearms or explosives. That's just silly. However, we allow people of set ages (21 years or whatever) to have access to those kind of privileges, provided they have no history of violence.
So, somewhere between the ages of 5 and 21, we are supposed to gain sufficient maturity and knowledge to make wise decisions about such things like alcohol and other dangerous things. However, this is not a perfect system: I made the decision not to drink when I was 15 years old (too many alcoholic relatives whose lives were destroyed by drunkenness), even though I was still 6 years away from the legal drinking age. My brother, who is now 16, made the same decision this year. My other brother, who is 20, is not quite so responsible or wise.
But to get back to the meat of Katz' article:
I find is attack on parenthood appalling and was deeply offended by his blasphemous impersonation of a pastor. When a person--any person, male or female--bring another life into this world, they are responsible for that child's well-being for the rest of their lives. They are responsible to protect them from harm, to provide moral guidance, and to restrict or allow privileges as they see fit. Obviously, Mr. Katz is not himself a parent (or is a pretty poor one) or he would never approach the children of other people with such careless disregard for their welfare. Any normal person with the best interests of the child in mind would not do something like this.
Is there anything good about "South Park?" Any aspect of it that makes it a worthwhile investment of time? Or is it simply amusing? Why does this movie (or any of its similar ilk) deserve to be the rallying cry for rebellious children?
I have never seen "South Park," "Something About Mary" or "American Pie." I never intend to. There is nothing in them worth my time and energy.
OK, Jon, Part 1 had a good point - that movie theaters were restricting kids who obviously had parental permission because they weren't following some silly rule.
However, in Part 2, you lost out. What kind of crap is this? Take 13 or 9 year olds to movies like SP or American Pie? Kids - lie to anyone and everyone! It's OK! Parents - lie, cheat and steal rather then spend time with your kids. Here's a clue, Jon - just because a kid WANTS to see something doesn't mean that he or she is mature enough or ready to see it. That's one of the reasons that these restrictions are in place - to make sure that parents know what their children are watching, so that they can keep an eye on them. You've got this idea stuck in your head that people are mature enough from Day One, or that somehow, people become mature at a young age, like four. That's absolutely nuts. And, what is this crap about lying to get into the theater? What the hell kind of moral message is that? "Here, kids, it's OK to do whatever you want to get whatever you want! It's OK! Adults! Lie as well! Pretend you're a priest! Or a doctor! Hell, pretend you're a cop and arrest them! That'd be a great day!" C'mon, Jon. This has got to be one of the dumbest things that you have ever written. If kids want to see a film, and their parents won't let them, who are you to decide they are wrong? If the parents do care, they can sit through the movie for a couple hours. Yeah, it'd be spending time with them, which a lot of parents today would rather pull out their teeth then do, but maybe, for once, they could actually find out what their children are really like.
You are now officially one of the stereotypes being lampooned by the film. Only your knee-jerk reaction is in the opposite direction.
Not to mention that your "solutions" are completely ridiculous! Pirate the movie? Smuggle kids in? What could you possibly be thinking?
I saw "south park." I loved it. I howled my ass off... but is it really for kids? I'd say not.
It's a brilliant satire, but if all you see is animation and a chance to hear little kids swear, you're missing 80% of the movie. And that's all that the younger set will get out of it.
Get a grip, Katz.
>No, the Roman writers had no copyright - which
;-) you can't paint writers like Lucian with the same brush. It's true that Horace also received the patronage of Maecenas, but only after he already had like Lucian established himself as a satirist.
>is why most of the great literature from
>that period was government subsidized and extols >the virtues of the Republic (e.g. Cicero's De
>Re Publica) or the Empire(e.g. Virgil's Aeneid).
Well, I suppose you could make that argument for Virgil who was court poet to Maecenes, but really the Aenid can't be characterized as the work of a political hack. If it views the Romans as divinely favored, it is because that is how the Romans viewed themselves. In any case, how do you explain the continued appeal of the Aenid, if it is such a piece of political swill?
Even if the Aenid is in your view politically tainted (you vulgar swine!
Your generalization about classical writers simply doesn't hold up. Ovid made his living as a dramatist until he was banished and as far as I know didn't receive any government largesse. Epictetus was a slave who who in his lifetime was banished for his writings.
Even if we were to grant your thesis, that the Roman art was ordained by the societal elite to praise the status quo, the difference from now would be what? What fraction of jealously guarded IP has any kind of critique of consumerism, for example?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
never would have thought that katz, was into ONTOLOGICAL ANARCHISM...
dude jon, have you been reading Hakim Bey's T. A. Z.?
cause this sound just like something bey would say. hmmm, guess jon has grown out of 'trying to be geek' to 'trying to be hip'? or am i insane?
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
The whole point to his article is it does not matter what you think. It matters only to the parents and the kids. Basically if it is not your kid then shut up.
root@localbrain root>ps ax |grep thoughtd
Up here, South Park and American Pie are AA-14, "adult rccompaniment required under age 14." Eyes Wide Shut is R, which is "no admittance under age 18." We don't have an NC-17, which means that the uncensored Eyes Wide Shut orgy scene would have been allowed here, but because Canada is considered part of the US movie market, we got the censored version, just because you guys can't figure out a goddam ratings system that works.
He means bootleg the movies in whatever format you want to... just like making an MP3 of a song and putting it on the net is bootlegging. He's not suggesting you put the movie in MP3. Frig, you people have narrow, literal minds...
And I thought that living in a conservative college town would limit my social freedoms, but after listening to other people's stories about getting carded at the theatres, refused admittance, etc., I think I got it pretty good. I look young for my age, when I tell people I'm a junior they think it's in high school. Even worse when I shave. Yet I've had absolutely no problems getting into Southpark and Eyes Wide Shut. And the town I live in (College Station) is almost notorious for being conservative, hence more likely to card (I remember seeing many young kids being refused admittance). Makes me wonder about this backlash against popular entertainment that's going on now.
As for what Jon has said, Jon, ordinarily I like your writing, makes me evaluate my mores, but this time you've gone too far. Those guidelines you have set up amount to anarchy. Though I may not agree with a law or system, I at least find civilized ways to deal with them. Yeah, I'm all for revolution, but let's do it in a civilized way, instead of acting like rampant madmen. Sheesh, had to get that off my chest.
Jack
Demona's Law - "User data expands to exceed available bandwidth." ("User data" being pr0n, mp3's, vob's,
I have to agree with several other posters in that Katz's rant seems a little overblown. It's only a movie fer crissakes. Why not celebrate "Give a geek kid a subversive book day" instead? There's plenty of them with far more scathing social commentary than South Park, and last I checked, the library wasn't carding.
This is a mis-use of the word "tyrannical". One cannot behave like a tyrant without attempting to control or manipulate others and advocating freedom of "experience" could only fall under this heading if he were taking that possition in order to manipulate others to some other goal (which you have not stated or implied that you feel is the case).
Why not slow down, think about what you were like at 15-16. It's a time when civil disobedience is a) least likely to produce negative, life-affecting results and b) most likely to lead you down a path of questioning authority and opening yourself to thinking through the really important choices that you will have to make later on. I know that my few late-teen experiences that really shook my world and made me question everyone and everything around me are very directly responsible for most of my successes later on. That's likely not going to be the case as a result of a dispute with a movie theater, but it's a start. Good things and bad... they all start small, and the only real guide we have is our own moral compass. I know mine has been strengthened by such conflict and subsequent resolution, how about yours?
On the other hand, remember that Jon's first article (the sense of which seems to have been assumed in this second installment) was discussing the plight of parents who were not able to get their kids into a movie because they were unable to attend with them. I don't really think movies are a great choice as baby-sitter, but on the other hand, there's no good reason that a parent shouldn't be allowed to drop their kids off to see a film. Parental Guidance has been given. Done. They're not the theater's kids, and if the theater wants to start dictating how a parent raises their kid, they should sue for co-custody (hyperbole asside, this is what the studios are trying to excersise).
Jon, I wish you the best. "Our Kids" have become the political football of a very scary powerplay. The "War on Drugs" which has killed hundreds of thousands while pushing drug sales to new highs; censorship that is totally out of whack with practiced community standards; constant dumbing down of our educational institutions and a lack of focus on real political issues all seem to be the reward that this battle-cry reap. I hope I'm wrong, and that the next 20 years get a little brighter, but I have a feeling that they're going to... well, in the words of South Park's daring tots... suck *ss!
It's scary that people like Jon Katz have children. His daughter should be transferred to a nice foster home somewhere, and some professional therapy would probably help also. Does anyone doubt she grows up to be a screwed up little brat?
/.
It's also scary Katz found someone who tolerates his views enough to marry him. Then again, if someone like him can find a wife, maybe my chances are better than I thought...
This message brought to you by the
Citizens For a 100% Katz-Free
I believe that there is no such thing as "desensitizing" kids to anything, and no matter how you try to control what entertainment they get, they're going to turn out however God made 'em. It's all politics.
Calling out bogus battery capacity claims.
When do you *have* to be responsible. We all know people in their twenties who are irresponsible, and there are millions of irresponsible people in their 30s, 40s and older. Age doesn't mean responsibility. I am 18 but I work full time during the summer, take all honors and AP classes. I would say I am more responsible than the 39 yr old deadbeat dad or lifelong welfare recipients.
Will the starter of this subthread gain a sudden burst of responsibilty and maturity when he reaches 17 that he wouldn't have now?
Realistically at 13 kids, especially geek kids, have seen the worst the media can through at us. I saw From Dusk 'til Dawn when I was around 14 or 15, and I was less disturbed by it than my parents, who saw parts of it in passing(the movie is R rated and has some nudity and is one of the more violent movies I've seen). I turned out fairly decently.
Studies that say movies harm people are always fundamentally flawed 3 ways. First, they aren't scientific, but thats minor since it would be nigh impossible to make it so. Second, cause is mistaken for effect. For instance, some studies show that serial killers have a fascination with violent movies, and suggest that the movies cause their violent tendancies. Their prejudices make them overlook the obvious-they like violent movies because they are violent. That's effect, not cause. Third, The sample groups are always the violent. From their data, it could easily be concluded that breathing causes violent behavior. Looking at all that see violent movies would show that a tiny percentage of the viewers turn violent. But then having
I'm not asking for less violent movies. Obviously, not everyone is since they tend to be very popular, whether its Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, Rocky or the latest Jackie Chan. Please speak for yourself.
I find Jon Katz's excessive use of the word geek rather offensive.
I(a geek myself), do not like the way Katz makes so many assumptions about geeks. We are all individuals. We all have our own likes/dislikes, political views, OS preference, etc..
The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient... - High Road to China
Subject says it all. You spoke my opinions for me!
The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient... - High Road to China
Yes, I sympathize with Jon's concern that noone should be setting silly rules concerning what we can see and what we should see. He made that case well, and enough has been said on that point. The anecdote of his effort to salvage a working mother's "theatre as babysitting" plan was amusing and I honor his chivalric efforts on her behalf.
On the other hand, this "call to arms" trivializes real and meaningful civil liberties issues, and worse, risks alienating virtually every moderate who had not already arrived at a position on the issue. On the scale of importance, this issue is *NOT CLOSE* to the CDA, Export Restrictions, Filter-Fads and other real and meaningful horrors of the Censorship Cabal.
Calling for criminal activity as a form of "protest," particularly in this commercial context where mere "voting with your pocketbook," is louder than any amount of lobbying is both irresponsible and counterproductive. Worse, some of the conduct advocated (helping minors to see movies without their parent's permissions) is dangerous, corrupt and irresponsible. Others have already written about the errors of these ways, so I shall not repeat those arguments here.
What I did want to add is my thought that such conduct eventually cedes the moral high ground to the censors, and fuels their position. The thrust of the pro-CDA movement is the, compelling to some, argument that we need to protect our children from the "bad stuff," whatever that might be. People are genuinely concerned for their kids' well-being, terrified that they are impotent to stop the dangers and are fed the idea that merely voting for censorship will make their children safe. This is a very effective sell to the masses, and should not be underestimated by those of us who know better.
Imagine the PR that would issue as anti-censorship folks become identified with conduct that is (or is perilously close to) a form of kidnapping. Far worse can happen to the movement should some lunatic pedophile ever do harm to a child after taking him or her to some risque film in the "name of liberty."
My point is that calls for illegal or fringe conduct in response to a purely commercial endeavor is not only a bad idea, but that it is futile and counterproductive. Ultimately, such actions play into the hands of those who advocated the foolish rules with respect to which you are protesting.
Mr. Katz advocates conduct here that is petulant, puerile and foolish. While the conduct he decries is likewise silly, nothing good will come from following his program. To the contrary, it is far more likely than not to lead to even sillier rules and restrictions from the powers-that-be.
Are you a parent?
It IS a parents responsibility to raise their kids in the best morally way. Of course it is up to the parent to determine what those moral standards are.
When my kids reach sixteen, I may not have total control over them, but you can bet that I will make sure I have a strong influence on their decisions.
I've always noticed that I get the worse advice about raising children from those who don't have any. Watching a nephew a couple of days a week doesn't qualify you as a parent!
Only once people are allowed to make thier own decisions, regardless of age, will we be able to put this all behind us
I don't think I would let my three year old make many decisions by herself. Of course I do believe in letting them make their own mistakes, but I also have to try to make my two daughters grow up with respect and integrity.
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
In terms of sheer offensiveness, Naked Lunch absolutely towers over South Park. But in spite of that, I think it should not be banned... *even for children*. That's why we have parents. If I were a parent, there's no way I'd give my kid permission to read it before he/she was either 18 or mentally ready for it. "No, Johnny, you can't play in the street and you can't read Naked Lunch".
The problem with censoring is that we can't stop Johnny from playing in the street and we can't stop him from reading Naked Lunch. The best we can do is teach kids as well as we can and hope that they learn. I just really don't see the point in having institutions enforce parental guidance through censorship. It's a blatant violation of freedom of speech. What's worse, it shows that adults don't trust kids and that they don't see them as having or deserving the same human rights. I think that these issues are behind a lot of problems with kids today. I *really* hate to quote Sting, but "If you love someone, set them free."
Perhaps, but I think that corporate news and advertising are far more socially damaging. They serve to set strict social limits on the range of thinking and political discourse (especially in the US)... and to eliminate the basis for true critical thinking (by obscuring, censoring and distorting the facts we might otherwise reason with). If you haven't already, put your critical thinking cap on and read Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent." It's a real eye opener. Better yet, have your kids read it (once they're old enough to get it).
So let's see, Katz now advocates illegal acts (like copyright violation and illegally sneaking into movies) as well as a hands-off parenting approach? Doesn't sound like libertarianism, sounds like anarchy.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
>When discussing what's acceptable for European
>audiences and American audiences, especially
>when also discussing Kubrick, keep in mind that
>A Clockwork Orange is still banned in England.
Not quite - it could not be shown in Britain while Kubrick was alive because a) he owned to copyright and b) he didn't want it to be shown (for various reasons to do with hysteria over copycat crimes when the movie was released).
Now he is dead I don't know what the situation is - certainly it is not the case that the "Authorities" banned it, as you seemed to be implying.
1. Every time you use the word "geek", I have the sudden urge to throw myself into the middle of traffic. Not everyone is a geek. Hell, most of the cool people in the world aren't geeks. There are people who are exquisitely cool who are complete computer illiterates; what, should we ignore them? "Take a Geek Kid to a Restricted Movie Day". Good grief.
2. You're actually advocating theft of intellectual property just because you feel like being petulant? You're the journalist, so you should be able to answer this question: who does it hurt? Does it hurt the theaters, or does it hurt the studios who make the movies, and who have nothing to do whatsoever with the policies of theaters?
If you make it unprofitable for networks to show Buffy (because everyone's downloading bootlegged videos off the Net), then the networks will simply stop buying Buffy altogether... in which case, there'll be nothing left for "geek kids" to download.
If you make it unprofitable for networks to show South Park -- same reasoning -- then the theaters will just stop showing South Park and use that screen to show the latest chintzy Nicolas Cage action film. The theaters won't get hurt; the creators of South Park will get hurt. Very ethical and highminded of you, you know, hurting people who haven't done anything wrong.
3. You are taking this waaaaaaaaaaay too seriously. There are a great many social and societal ills out there, and you're encouraging us to petition movie theaters about their enforcement of the R rating?
Isn't it the MPAA which assigns R ratings? Why aren't you encouraging people to petition the MPAA to get with the times, instead of encouraging people to harass pimply-faced sixteen year olds working at the theater who are just trying to make an honest buck?
If you must spend your efforts and energies in a futile "Damn The Man!" protest against the movie Powers That Be, then for God's sake, become a Big Brother to some disadvantaged kid. You can take your Little Brother to all the R-rated films that you want, and you might actually make a difference in his life instead of only making a difference in your vague ideology of First Amendment freedoms.
4. Take a Constitutional Law course, for crying out loud. THIS IS NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE. Don't make it out to be some horrid infringement of your civil liberties when you don't even know what your civil liberties are, and are not.
Hold the phone a second. Discrimination is wrong when it's unjustified; if you can point to a relevant difference between two people that gives you reason to treat them differently (and there are no overriding reasons to treat them equally), then it's not "discrimination" in the bad sense (I discriminate between oncoming cars and air masses when I cross the street). Nor (as you point out) all discrimination illegal, and not just because the law often doesn't reflect the best reasons. Now, whatever you may think of the "who will think of the children?" kinds of people who advocate all sorts of restrictions on what can be shown in public (and, heck, in private), they at least have something approximating a reason for treating the young differently; the law, being what it is, goes to the side of caution (c'mon, do you really need to be 21 to drink responsibly? Damn, one reason to like Europe better -- but I digress =)
But how is the case he describes discrimination against people over 18? If anything, it treats them exactly the same way it treats the young on this issue, as "guilty until proven innocent." The point from the theater was that their ages hadn't been ratified, and the policy of not selling tickets to *potential* minors was upheld.
Now, the fact that the theater lets MoviePhone sell tickets without ratification, that does discriminate against people who don't have credit cards.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
"I tell the guard that I've taken a vow of silence." -- Knights of the Dinner Table
Is this article supposed to be as stupid as it reads, or is it all intended sarcastically?
In responding to the first part, I made the point that, inasmuch as some of the theater policies are nominally "private" but fact government-imposed, opposition could legitimately be considered civil disobedience rather than contempt for private property rights. However, some of the suggestions here (piracy, helping kids sneak into movies without necessarily getting parental approval) are just over the line.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Although, unfortunately, it is legal to discriminate against those under 18 in the US, it is not legal to discriminate against those over 18 on the basis of age. You would be well within your rights to threaten to sue the theartre for this. (And to even sue, but that's usualy too much work)
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Times change.
Even moreso today, times change.
Pre-industrial age, times did not change quick enough to be noticed. A child in 1650 wasn't vastly different from a child in 1700.(and maybe they were different, but you all get my point i hope)
But today, times change faster than ever before. Every day new advances are made. My life is nothing like a 15 y/o's in 1950. In fact, it is vastly different.
The point is... whenever these ratings were made, they're already outdated. Its like the comp i got last year... had a 200 mHz processor. I feel pathetic now because most of the newer software I can use needs something much faster.
Teens can get porn online. You want me to give you a list of PW newsgroups? You want me to show you binary newsgroups that have all kinds of porn? And you want to know how easy it is for me to get these? I have online access, I have access to those...
And violence? I have often dreamed of ripping people's throats out with my bare hands. Does this mean I have a violence problem? Yes... but that's not the point. The point is that I can find much more violence if I want.
Teens, adolescents, whatever(all these terms are soo degrading) do not deserve these restrictions. After you become about 13, you've already seen all of the stuff that's in R movies. At 15, if you haven't seen the stuff that's in NC-17 movies, you deserve to be laughed at thoroughly.
In short, these ratings are very, very outdated. They might've been useful at their inception, but now they're outdated.
But, as has been made apparent, there is no solution except to explain these things to congressmen, to politicians, to people who are actually in power. And, due to the overwhelmingly conservative nature of politicians, especially with regards to minors, that will never change anything.
So the plight of minors who are restricted in doing things for which they are supposedly too immature for will continue, because most adults are far too protective of minors, not realizing that all of us grow up sometimes. And that age at which we all grow up is getting lower and lower everyday...
The Typo Daemon
So is Jon's existence on earth now solely based on writing flamebait? Perhaps he's trying to keep us busy writing replies while he's off taking over the world. What 'we goin' to do tonight Jon?
that a movie like South Park, whose very point is that the censorship of language and the disallowing of teens and kids to view movies, is one of the central movies involved in the movie theater oppression? It's funny, anyway...
"Now near I am, yes.....and now, far I am, mmmmm."
-when Frank Oz confuses Yoda and Grover
"Now near I am, yes.....and now, far I am, mmmmm." -when Frank Oz confuses Yoda and Grover
It's true then, North America is a culture that truly eats it's young alive!
Kids are very smart. I used to be a park leader when I was in my late teens. I have to say that the kids made more sense than the adults around - you always got a straight answer. And cripes, most of the time they know what they like
In Canada, the drinking age is 18. I suspect that the US's law of 21 is some sort of relic from puritan times...
Hey, moderator who pronounced this off-topic: give the PC back to daddy now, he needs it for Quicken.
While I personally have great disdain for Christianity and all other organized religions, this post was clearly anything but "off-topic". Get a clue.
You've got to be kidding me. Just because you or someone else you know doesn't get their way, you're going to advocate retaliating by breaking federal copyright laws? You, sir, are an imbecile. Just keep it up. And don't think the industry and their squadrons of high-priced legal talent aren't reading this. I can hardly wait until the day you go too far with your idiotic little rants and really incite something. Those lawyers are going to be circling you like tigers around a fat little maharaja on a fallen elephant.
My boyfriend and I just spent last Saturday helping a friend of ours move for the second time in two months. The first time was when his parents kicked him out for not mowing the lawn.
He's 21. He is a night shift manager at a convenience store. They didn't understand that after coming home at 10 AM because the next guy didn't show till then, he needed to SLEEP before being expected to do anything useful.
But behind all that: He's a long-haired, black-trenchcoat-wearing, RPG-playing, pagan techno-geek. His dear old dad is a Bible-thumping, hellfire and brimstone fundie who has been screaming "SATANIST!" at him for several years now.
I had a similar run-in with my mother four and a half years ago when I came out to her as bisexual. And she's pretty liberal -- were I to have told her I'm a lesbian, that would have been fine. But obviously bisexual = screws anything that moves (um, NOT!)
Yet another friend of mine, one I looked upon as a kid-sister in college, was disowned by her parents for changing her major from a curriculum she was failing to one she understood. The real kicker here is, she's adopted. And they used that against her, no less. "Adopted kids tend to have mental problems because a stable mother wouldn't have given a child up for adoption, or even had sex before marriage" yaddayaddayadda.
And I won't even get into all the teenagers I've talked to in ISCA's support forum who are being physically and/or sexually abused by family members, or alternatively who are in the middle of a nasty custody battle between their parents where one side is accusing the other of same.
Walk a mile in the other folks' shoes, people. And while you're at it, try not to step in the "Father Always Knows Best" manure.
Sorry. This is just unusually immediate to me right now.
Seriously, folks. I can think of a lot of parents with kids my age or slightly younger who have nice, open, friendly relationships with them. Mom and I have pretty much mended our rift, and Dad's always been supportive of me regardless of what craziness I'm into -- everything from modeling school to student activism. He rocks.
And again, if the parents are giving permission, what the hell is wrong with a 15-16 year old kid belonging to the local Rocky cast? Beats hanging out on the streets, folks. But NOOOOO, RHPS is an R-rated movie, and all of a sudden won't let anyone under 17 in even WITH a parent. Bwah? I don't get it. This is completely inane.
Father doesn't necessarily know best; neither does Big Brother. Kids handle all kinds of stuff in everyday life that most of us would rather not think about or remember. How, praytell, is a string of cuss words or a naked breast or *gasp* a lesbian kiss scene going to do any further damage?
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Heh, me too.
True story:
New Year's Eve 1988/89. Just me, Mom, and Dad. Dad is blenderizing these yummy-looking things made out of champagne and orange sherbet, which I am staring longingly at. Dad smiles at me and says "Go ahead, have as much as you want!" Over the course of the night, I proceed to have three full glasses of the stuff.
Bear in mind that as this is going on I was 11 years old, just under 5' tall, and pretty skinny. But it tasted good
True story, Part II:
As I've mentioned before, I went away to college quite young. One of my friends from MBC/PEG is an immigrant from Eastern Europe, and the laws are a bit different there. Her mom sent me a care package as a 16th birthday present that, much to my amusement, included a bottle of wine.
Dad took one look at the label and said, "I'd let you have it, but that's not very good wine. Want me to get you something better?"
*heh* My father is an awesome guy
As I got a bit older (though not technically "legal"), I developed my own "rules" for how to handle alcohol: It had to be something that tasted good to me anyway (not that this is difficult -- I can be talked into trying new things quite easily), I cut myself off after two drinks unless I was around people I trusted, and over time with said trusted people I learned where my "limits" were. Oh, and I did more than my share of the taking-keys-away drill.
The drinking age has always been this irritating little thorn in my side because most of my friends turned 21 waaaaaay before I did and many of them "dumped" me for the bar scene. My best friend (and now-housemate) was nearing 22 and pretty much over that when we first became close, and I was not quite 17 at that point. Via Jason and similar-aged friends, I could get all the alcohol I could possibly want.
What I couldn't do (except in this one place that was incredibly lax about carding, yet somehow not frequented by most of the college kids) is sit down with my friends and have a drink. One drink. And now I have a younger boyfriend who is still underage, so I still don't go out to bars -- haven't been in one since my birthday, in fact.
(And in an amusing bit of irony WRT this thread, half the time I don't even get carded in restaurants or grocery stores -- only in liquor stores themselves. And I just turned 21 last October! The aforementioned bar was the place I was taken for my birthday and THEY didn't card me, either! Then again, considering the huge crowd that turned up, and my "It's my birthday -- who's buying?" pin, they probably knew. *chuckles*)
Disclaimer: I actually don't drink very much these days. Wine or a cocktail with meals out if I'm in that sort of mood (which happens maybe once or twice a month), the odd Killian's or cider when hanging out with friends, and this lovely homebrew mead that my friend Michael makes, if he's willing to share some
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
*rolls eyes*
First of all, buddy, there's a difference between just "working" at a convenience store and being the shift manager (read: Buck-Stops-Here Person) for the store. ESPECIALLY the night shift manager.
Secondly, he's probably doing more actual WORK than either you or I are doing, considering that we're posting to
And I didn't loan him ANY money
The situation as a whole is much more complex than I have any business getting into here, but it sure as hell ain't "Clerks." And it's not like his parents were exactly going to spring for school, either.
I've MET his parents. They are scary and screwed up people. I honestly believe they kicked him out because they thought he was going to be the next Eric Harris and wanted nothing to do with him. After all, he wears a black trenchcoat and is in possession of an air rifle and a not-very-sharp katana.
I don't care if you pulled yourself up from abject poverty or if you were born with a silver foot in your mouth like George Bush -- not everyone is you. And you're STILL wrong.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Issue #1 is the original incident that Jon Katz witnessed, and others like it. In other words, not allowing kids to see movies they HAD the permission to see, but that the parent wasn't going to stay for. This could have easily become an issue in my life; Mom had no interest in The Crying Game (she likes romantic comedies to the exclusion of almost all else) but had absolutely no problem with her 15-year-old daughter watching it. Dad was actually interested in seeing it, but he's a workaholic who might not have found the time while still in the theaters. ("No, really, two tickets to see this R-rated movie, for me and my Dad. He'll be here any minute
Issue #2 is that ADULTS are getting screwed with here. If I'd had to put up with that nonsense when I was picking up opening-night tickets to Elizabeth for myself (21) and my boyfriend (20), I would have been quite irritated. To say the least.
Issue #3 is closed-minded parents who scream at their kids for wanting to see a movie that happens to be rated R rather than forming independent judgments. As per my previous rant, Father doesn't always Know Best. I was incredibly blessed to have a father who was relatively into the same sort of entertainment that I was (lots of deep symbolism, lots of satire, British humour is way up there, etc) and remembered to share it with me as soon as it would do anything other than completely go over my head.
Issue #3A is that teenagers in this country are, in general, guilty until proven innocent. That there link that I just posted is about a miscarriage of justice that pre-dates Columbine by nearly six years, and has yet to be rectified. As I've posted on yesterday's thread, there is a real problem with folks assuming that your basic "oddball" teenager is going to be Conducting Depraved Satanic Rituals and Committing Heinous Crimes for Satan.
Foolish hysteria like what we are now witnessing WRT movie theaters tends to have very nasty results. Read everything on that link if you don't believe me. Three guys about my age are in jail for a crime that occurred six years ago that they clearly did not commit; one of them is on Death Row. Every time I see someone using that lovely catch-all bogeyman "Satanism" as part of what kids shouldn't see, I cringe, because I remember the West Memphis Three case.
And thanks to Littleton, something like the WM3 case is much more likely to happen again. This is an outrage. Here's a clue: Quit treating teenagers like lobotomized children, and 99% of them won't act like they are! Hello??
*sigh*
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
All of the above working together, and yes this includes the kids, dammit! After all, who does it concern most, if not them?
With respect to the filtering/censorware debate, I will NOT support CyberSitter and the like. I *do* support programs like SafeSurf and RSACi. I know that my pages are likely to contain "adult" themes (case in point: Kindred Spirits, my Amber fanfic), but it's certainly no worse than the VC Andrews novels that were passed around by my 9th grade classmates and available in our school library. I don't think my pages, at least not those pages, are much of a threat to anyone who has read the original Amber series in the first place. (Die-hard storyline purists hate me, but that's beside the point.)
As far as R-rated movies go, I thought the original rating standard was "under 17 must have permission of parent or guardian." I could be wrong, but in practice, that was how many theaters operated, and it seems to me to be the most sensible practice. Parents could give kids permission to see certain R-rated movies or all R-rated moves, and that could be on file with the theater. Perhaps the kids would have to bring a "movie card" with their name on it like a video rental card, and would have to "sign" for tickets. For those who are under 17, and whose parents will allow them to see the movies, I think that is a reasonable compromise.
Unfortunately, I've dealt with enough unreasonable parents that I worry. The Baron of my SCA group is a high-school English teacher, and he was flat-out told to stop teaching a certain book because something ridiculous like two parents in the entire school system objected. Not only that, the book was then yanked from the school library. He had no chance to defend himself, no chance to even respond, he was just told "you upset a parent and you can't do that."
This is lunacy. Jennifer's parents have no right to tell Jason and Jessica what they can't read -- Jason and Jessica don't belong to Jennifer's parents. At best, Jennifer's parents have the right to control what Jennifer reads, and I'd say that that falls apart as soon as Jennifer's old enough to walk or bus to the library by herself, or at minimum as soon as Jennifer's got the spending money saved up to buy whatever book she wants at Borders or via amazon.com.
The same thing frightens me here that frightens me with censorware and other such things. The people who are going to be reasonable human beings and discuss things rationally with their kids aren't the people who are going to feel the need to use CyberSitter and its ilk. At most, they'll set up a RSACi or SafeSurf filter for their young kids, or just tell them to keep out of porn sites.
The ones who want this stuff are the nuts. Remember from a few years back the "child molestor" on AOL who turned out to be a 19-year-old guy who fell in love with the (IIRC) 16-year-old gay son of some very homophobic parents?
I don't know precisely how to fix it. But it would be a big help if people talked to their kids and actually LISTENED to them instead of kneejerk reacting to "bad things" (like assuming that someone's support of medical marijuana means that s/he is a stoner him/herself -- blah). And unfortunately, the ones who don't want to be open with their kids about anything are the ones who want the censorware and the carding at R-rated movies.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Just like every other knee-jerk reaction to some tragedy, the "new" enforcement of age restrictions will blow over. Give it 6 months, and the rules will still be on the books, but nobody will be paying attention.
go to mpeg.org for definitive info
My impression is that MPEGX stands for version X of the MPEG architecture, which contains several layers (audio, video, foo, bar). Layer 3 of MPEG1 happens to be an audio compression format typically using the extension MP3 (maybe it should be MPL3?).
MPEG4, for instance is their latest audio/video format suite. Hopefully MPEG4 audio will subsume MP3...MPEG4 audio is much better (MP3 has a lot of legacy junk in it).
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
OR
Get a bunch of 21+ friends (10 or so) and ONE "under-age" friend (20 yrs., 11 months old)..HEY better yet, pretend it is this "under-age"d friend's birthday THE NEXT DAY. Buy your 10 tickets legally, then ask the ticket guy about buying a ticket for your ONE "under-age" friend (who will become 21 tomorrow). When the ticket guy refuses to sell you a ticket for the 20 yr. 11 month old DEMAND a refund for all the 10 tickets you just bought. Ya think maybe they'll realize the stupidity of it all?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I stand corrected then :)
"the more you know..."
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It's true... as I mentioned in an earlier rant, my mom let my sisters and I see/do/read/watch/try whatever we wanted. She didn't protect us from life, but explained to us the consequences of alcohol/drugs/cigarettes and all kinds of other stuff.
Now she has three adult daughters who don't drink, smoke, ingest those naughty drugs, or brutally murder their classmates.
And it's not that preachy you-just-shouldn't-do-that kind of abstinance; we've all been drunk, etc., and have made the informed choice not to do it again.
Don't knock freedom; learning through experience is the only way to keep us out of rickety ivory towers.
In response to the U.S. vs. European sensiblities thing, I would just like to add that in Canada we generally have a more liberal attitude to nudity and swearing. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the Degrassi movie (aimed at a highschool audience, but you see characters having sex and at one point using the dreaded 'F' word)
In response to Eyes Wide Shut, there have been some vague rumblings (especially from CBC radio hosts) about getting European versions of U.S. movies shown here. Canadians aren't too shocked (generally) by sex.
I'm hoping that as more people see the movie, the rumblings will increase. I know I'm going to write some letters and see if I can manage to do my part to stop the odd morals of U.S. censors intruding into Canadian theatres.
1. Companies which do not refuse to show South Park in their theaters don't give a damn who sees it or not. They care only about money, while the movie might not fit into the personal tastes of the management of the theater, if they really believed it was "morally evil" they wouldn't show it at all. No, the reason why they are hassling people is fear, fear that if it doesn't appear they are doing something the government will do something violent to them (like putting them in prison.), or put them out of business.
2. Boycotts don't work, usually, especially the type suggested by Jon. This is because if you boycott "immoral" movies and everyone loses money, the Christian coalition and other fascists who have no problem claiming God as protection for their fascism will say, "See, people are turning away from such immoral movies. Lo the Lord hath spread His virtue unto the ignorant masses and soon they will Elect a Parliament of Saints to lead them. And lo the witches will burn and the flames from the pyres will reach to His heavens..." (Remember, these people have no problem lying if they think it will serve their ends, and the media is more likely to treat this as the truth than the idea that people would be opposed to censorship.) You could boycott "moral" movies, but don't expect people to follow you. People are more likely to vote against the fanatics in Washington than they are likely to drag politics into things when they are just tired from a week at work and want to see a movie.
3. What's the real solution? Turn this into a political issue, and make the media see it as such. Make the people who have been making decent people miserable by hassling them for things that are none of their business (like whether they let their kids see South Park, or not) start to suffer a little. Make politicians who exploit tragedies to try to turn this country into an authoritarian state have to live as ordinary citizens by taking their political offices away from them at the ballot box.
I appreciate Jon, but I think the only solution to this is to put the people threatening our rights out of the House, Senate and White House.
Vox Populi, Vox Dei
The Voice of the People is the Voice of God!
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Wrong wrong wrong! Why don't you pay attention sometimes? Kubric wanted the movie to get the R rating in the states and made the changes himself. It was not done after he died or behind his back by greedy, frightened executives. If you don't believe me, call up NPR, which did a report on Kubrick and Eyes Wide Shut just yesterday, and ask them about it.
The information i have came from http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnps05fm.cfm?SegID=5 4513
if you click thru "entire program" you can get a real audio recording of it (you will also have to find the part about kubrick, it's about 20% in).
While some of them are perfectly good suggestions, I REALLY have to question some of what's being said here. DOWNLOAD the movie? Advocating pirating a movie just because a theater won't let you see it on the big screen? Sneaking into a movie you haven't paid for?
There are much better ways to handle the situation. Ones that aren't illegal. If a theater won't let the parent leave the children, talk to the manager, and let them know you're not returning if they keep this up. And be loud when talking to them so others know what's going on. Make people aware that the theater is being like this, then go elsewhere.
If no theater will let you do this, just wait a few months and purchase the video/DVD. And make sure to write the offices of the theaters and complain, and get others to do so.
Look, it's just a movie. There are limits as to how far this should be taken. And none of it is worth breaking the law.
I do like some of these, however. I can only smile with the thought of a group of people picketing a theater. I wonder how long it would take to get them to do something - I'm sure they wouldn't like that publicity.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
After watching south park, the "information must be free" part of my brain started to glow.
I watched the movie in a theatre half-filled with people deemed too-young to let the movie have a chance to "warp their fragile little minds."
The movie's most dangerous message to those kids, though, was not "uncle-fucker" or "floppy donkey dick," but "Sometimes your parents are fallible, and even when you are right and they are wrong, they don't listen to you, do they?"
The scariest element of the movie is not that little Timmy will start spewing profanities, but that Timmy might learn to think for himself and start contradicting his parents!
I see this same message in Katz's article. Teenagers, by the time they are old enough to get to a movie theatre, are old enough to decide whether or not they want to get into a movie theatre. Your job as a parent--teaching the fundamental moral lessons of life--should be long done by then. After they're in high school, they're already on their course, and you can only hope to guide them. You cannot assume a dictatorship at that point: you're too late.
I would encourage my teenager to see South Park (I would really like to go with them, to share in the intellectual benefits of the social satire). On the other hand, I would hope that by the time my kids are teenagers, they will have the same critical thinking skills that I value in myself which tell me that "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer," "American Pie," are the real evil movies. Not because they are violent or crude, but because they perpetuate American Culture through the mindless sponges (their peers) that eat that material up.
I think Katz is right. Take a youth to a youth-restricted movie. It shows far more respect to a budding intellectual and human being than restricting the information does.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
They're singing "Uncle Fucker!" Dearie me! Certainly they're going to smash in the Quickie Mart window and loot and riot now! What hath Hollywood wrought!
What are you afraid of? My girlfriend and I are 21 and we *still sing Uncle Fucker. We saw the movie 3 weeks ago. Yes, we're pathetic, but I don't think that we're anything to be afraid of.
That 15 year olds sing a song is only an indication that it is catchy. I get more angry when I hear kids singing Brittany Spears and Will Smith. That stuff's catchy, too, and it's just as insipid. At lease Uncle Fucker has social value as a satire.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Have any of you actually considered the children's interests? For fuck's sake! I'm sure that all of the authoratarian control freaks of parents want to decide what content their children can see. But hasn't anyone considered what the children themselves want? I know the legal discrimination involved here, but on a purely ideological level, shouldn't children have the right to think for them selves? Is deciding what content they can see "good parenting"? Do any of you actually think that they will be better at making their own decisions as an adult, when they aren't even allowed to see, let alone judge questionable material as children?
I am a twenty one year old, perfectly capable of seeing whatever I want legally. But I'm still young enough to actually remember what it was like when I couldn't. I had every intellectual capability of many who could, but I was censored constantly... and there wasn't a damned (legal) thing to do about it either. It's kind of easy to oppress a class of people who can't vote, isn't it?
I feel that the greatest hinderance I ever encountered in my intellectual and ethical development was controlling parental interference. It's bad enough that they can tell you what you must do, or see (i.e. their church, their political views, etc...) But the ability to decide what a child cannot see, read or learn is despicable. I really can't trust someone who advocates giving parents more power! Yes, I think that parents should be active in raising their children. They should be teachers, role, models, and when needed counselors, or confidants. I even agree that punishment is a necessary part of raising a child. However, I don't think that a parent should ever forbid a child from anything the first ammendment would protect for an adult. Why do I say this? Am I a terrible anarchist for believing in free thought, free speech, and freedom from other's (even parent't) religions? It's because I remember.
I say tell your parents to go fuck themselves if they decide that they should control what you can see, read, or think. Tell them to go watch Dead Poet's Society.
I'm a gnu world man.
I've got to say, I agree with you there. The line has to be drawn somewhere. But the big difference between my views and apparently those of every other /. poster is that I feel that 1st ammendment rights should apply to everyone.
I'm a gnu world man.
I don't really mind corporations being able to advertise drugs... as long as others are free to say why they don't think the corporations should be. I'm not nearly so concerned about the rights of corporations as those of individuals, though. I think this issue is basically a trade off. Which do you value more, freedom or security?
I'm a gnu world man.
...since we're posting back and forth days after everyone else has stopped.
But I agree with you about valuing the populace's health more than the corps' fiscal health. The 1st ammendment doesn't protect fraud anyways. I know that 'marketing' frequently pushes it, though.
I'm fairly familiar with this sort of issue since my mother is a doctor. I think that it would be the doctor's responsibility to refuse to treat people with drugs that he/she doesn't feel would be benificial. After all, doctors take an oath which binds them to just that.
As far as over the counter drugs... I guess people need to be responsible for their own health if they chose to take them. Normally taking such a drug will only harm the user, but you have a very good point with the antibiotics. In that case I can definately see restrictions for 'public safety' reasons.
But anyways, this entire idea is tangential to the one I was arguing. I want to see people's intellectual freedoms protected, even at the price of security. I think that anyone should be free to read what they chose, believe what (religion) they chose, and speak their views in an open forum. So, yes I can agree with drug restriction laws... but only if we're still free to debate them.
I'm a gnu world man.
Your issue 3A is a load of crap. Firstly, one
case does not mean you can use the phrase "in
general", so this is just offtopic bullshit.
Next, I had a look at your link. I'm
Australian, so I'd never heard of this case, but
there are 2 examples which come to mind. The
first occurred in 1980 in Australia, where Lindy
Chamberlain was convicted of murdering her baby.
She claimed a dingo took it. The coviction was
later quashed, but it destroyed her life. The
next example is the case involving Ruben Carter,
(the song 'hurricane' by Bob Dylan), where cult
status was made out of a murderer. The point is
that standing on the sidelines, you can't know
what's going on, so you have to tread a very fine
line.
Greg
Gee, Katz, outside of me missing extreme sarcasm, it looks like you're pleading 9-and-up-year-olds to learn to act like assholes. Wow, that's bound to grant them respect from theatre-owners and the MPAA right away!
Good job Katz,
Now that we've taught the little ones to lie, cheat, and steal, perhaps we ought to teach them to rape, pillage and murder?
How about some integrity, Jon? Even if this was a sarcastic article, it was in terribly poor taste. I enjoyed the "Voices From the Hellmouth" series, but this is just foolishness.
AFAIK that "recent outdoor concert turned disaster" was frequented by more 20+ year olds than anyone else.
Before claiming the right to proclaim what is geek and what is not, why don't you study your pet subjects a little more? Right now, you sound to me like a clumsy suit trying to appeal to what he thinks is an undiscovered market. But make no mistake: you are not a geek writer, and possibly even not a writer for geeks.
South Park is filled with geek sensibilities? It was funny as hell, yeah, but I fail to see what was geek about it. Oh, yeah. The scene when we see Cartman's mom in a German sex movie on the Internet.
A good example of a geek writer is Neal Stephenson. Contrast In the beginning was the command line with Katz's writing and see what I mean.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I sincerely hope that Katz is being incredibly sarcastic here, because if he's not, than he is just incredibly wrong. It's one thing to bring kids into the movie. That one particular case was okay Jon, but to organize some kind of ill-conceived campaign to bring children to movies that they have no business seeing is just plain idiocy. I did not see South Park, but two of my friends did. I figured that they would like it more than I would, so I prepared to take what they said about the movie with a grain of salt. However they came back and said it was the worst movie that they had ever seen. They also mentioned that it had scarred them for life. Obviously they were being a bit sarcastic, but the movie apparently had just too much useless and gratuitous sexual content. Before anyone mention their "sheltered" background, I would like to mention that they attend the University of Michigan, a very large public university, and so in fact they are hardly sheltered. What is the point of bringing a twelve year old to such a movie? Arguments to the effect of "they hear it all the time in school" or "they know about it anyway" are just plain bullshit. What kind of logic is that? Example: Junior hears about calculus all the time freshman year of high school, so why don't we just teach him it? Easy you say, he is too young to fully grasp it. That is exactly my point. The children are too young to fully grasp the complexity of some of the themes from South Park. All that is going on is warping of their view of sexuality and the like. People wonder why our society is so immoral, well surprise surprise, maybe it has something to do with what our children are getting exposed to. Well enough of my rant. I know that these views are going directly against some other views of people here. I am open to others, so please feel free to consider taking children to movies. In my opinion, however, doing so is incredibly foolish. For shame Katz, you are a confused person, who obviously has not thought out the implications of what you wrote. Your one action with the 3 kids was fine, but on a grander scale you are headed for trouble.
But a world of typicality (is that a word?) soon becomes boring. I have to say you're wrong on this one, friend, even though I know the flames will probably pour in as a result of my saying so.
I read a comment yesterday that claimed that an adult should be allowed to make the choice for their child to see an R-rated movie, claiming that only that adult would have to put up with it. That is not so... in fact, that is an arrogant and eliteist claim. We live in a society which demands social interaction, and it is rude to place yourself above that at the cost of society. Sure, I'm probably a communist, but an open source advocating communist at that :).
I will firmly state that not only should children not see movies like SP, Something about Mary, Debbie Does Dallas, and Star Wars: Phantom Menace (only because that one SUCKS); but furthermore, these pieces of trash with no social value should not be made. In fact, the directors who concieve them should be ashamed that they ever dreamed of such a thing. These movies insult art.
Wow. I'm a fascist communist now. Remember that I am speaking of ideals and not legislation here... I don't think it should be illegal for these to be made... I am only stating that I wish there was enough integrity and righteousness in the world that these movies weren't made. I would rather have a million crap films made a year and be able to say what I want to say... but if I'm wishing, I wish that I could still say what I want to say and NOT have to put up with this pulp fiction which demeans the very being of art.
So, I'm a fascist communist who drifts too much in thought. What I'm saying here is do what you want, say what you want, let your kids get screwed up as you see fit. But, please keep others in mind when you do so. And when you hit the "Reply" key to flame me, try to remember to convince me why I should let my (future) children grow up any faster than they have to.
Wow. Do you ever get the feeling that you have said a lot of words, but not said anything? Sorry I can't make a better point for what I believe. I guess I'm just a fascist communist who's thoughts drift and has no eloquence.
Bite me. :)
What the subject says.
Wah!
I completely agree with you there. Why is male nudity so taboo? Why does a glimpse of a penis all of a sudden make a film a porn? I don't understand that, and I applaud any director that does make the choice to include male nudity.
I wish that Kubrick didn't back down for the rating. (A Clockwork Orange featured male nudity . . . and was NC-17 (well, X at the time)) But I can see why he did. In his shoes I may have done the same. Thanks for the info; it's good to know I didn't lose any of the movie (content wise) just for the crime of being an American.
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
So after 6 years of being VERY verbal in interviews (though not telling anything about the movie, as with the lost AI. I was impressed) he changed his mind at the last minute? It's possible. But he often said he wouldn't edit it to avoid a rating. If you want I can post the interviews (I'm sure I could find them again). That leads me to believe that he buckled under pressures of his production company, or distributor. And from what I've been told, they removed ONE scene.
;-)
Which goes back to my point. Why is it acceptable for European audiences and not American? Because we don't want to parent. And we don't want to have to police every theater every day. Maybe the facist/nazi film patrol will allow MORE films to be made with art in mind rather than popular aceptance. But I doubt it.
Oh, and I do pay attention, but only to the information I see. I can't know EVERYTHING
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
What about the non-consenting parents? That's the issue at hand here. Everyone has to suffer because no one wants to parent anymore. I snuck into movies when I was a kid. I saw alot of stuff I prolly shouldn't have, or should have had a parent there do discuss it. But my parents didn't care, and I ended up an anti-social geek posting irrelevant comments on /. ;-)
Sure. Take a geek kid to a movie. But make sure the parents decide they should see it. And make sure they understand what they saw. Some 13 year olds can handle it. Some cannot. It happens that way. I wish it didn't, but it does. And I couldn't morally be in that position to say.
Take for example, Eyes Wide Shut (ha! I knew I'd get a chance to discuss it!!!). If Kubrick was alive it would have gotten the NC-17 rating in the States because he was very adamant about not editing the film. But it was edited. Because theatres don't want to be responsible for 13 year olds with tickets to Tarzan sneaking in because of the higher rating. They don't want to be responsible for children watching it WITHOUT their parents consent (you remeber the Showgirls mess? That was icky EVERYWHERE). I saw the movie and I loved it. Alot of 'adults' didn't understand it, and I can see how the symbology and metaphors would be LOST on a 13 year old. So what would the point of them seeing the movie be? It was a film written for adults.
South Park is an exception. It was written with 13 year olds in mind. The humor, despite it's wide appeal is very juvenile. And the vulgarity was thrown in to appeal even MORE. The point is, a 13 year old could get MOST of it. But I still maintain that the responsible parent should discuss the movie; see what it means to the child.
I don't mean to sound preachy (I realize I do). Take the geek kid. I'm behind that. But be sure it's not behind the parents back. And if the parent doesn't want to discuss it with the kid, take that role too. Who doesn't like discussing movies? It's not the film that causes children to shoot thier classmates; it's the presentation.
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
The Onion ParentCorner Presents
Protecting Your Kids From Inappropriate On-Line Material
The Internet is a valuable educational tool, but for parents, it can also be a nightmare. Here are some tips for keeping your kids away from sexually explicit web sites and other questionable on-line content.
Drape your computer in terrifying slaughterhouse entrails to make it unappealing to youngsters.
Go to the favorites file in your web browser. Retitle "Goat Porn" folder "Financial."
Young boys are understandably curious about Internet porn, but not if you patiently explain to them that women's vaginas have razor-sharp teeth that can bite off a child's hand.
Tape pages of The Bible securely over your child's eyes, ears and mouth, then double his daily butterchurn chore-hours.
Periodically check your family computer's log-on history for any pornographic sites not visited by yourself.
Make sure your child does not use the Internet after 9 p.m.
Do not allow your kids to become desensitized to violence. Beat them harder each day.
Glue storybook pictures to your computer's monitor. Tell your child that this is the Internet.
Ask yourself why, if you can't exercise even a moderate degree of control over your children, you bothered to have kids in the first place.
Write letter asking web site "Cock-Craving Asian Nympho-Teen Cum Sluts" to tone it down a bit.
Replace your children with responsible adults.
Provide your child with a detailed list of every web site he or she is not to visit.
Force your child to look at pornography for many hours straight until child begs, "No more!"
I am 20. One of my best friends is 20. We made the mistake of going to see Eyes Wide Shut at a national Amusement theatre. Because we were both under 21 (!!!!!), we could not buy any additional tickets for a friend who we were going to pick up. Their corporate policy is that to buy more than one ticket for a R movie you have to be over 21. I asked, what if I am a parent and want to bring my kids to the show (highly likely in this day and age, and pertinent because R is 17 unless accompanied by parent or guardian). I also asked how could they stop me from charging the tickets, as any 18 yr old can get a credit card. These queries left them dumbfounded, naturally, leaving them to parrot on about corporate policy.
I haven't formulated my attack yet tho...
matt
Well, with a nude woman, her primary sexual organ is not readily visible if she is disrobed from the waist down. Sure, you see some pubic hair, but that is just hair.
The situation is very different for a man disrobed from the waist down. Unless he has an abnormally large amount of pubic hair, his primary sexual organ is in plain view.
That, my friends is the main differance between male and female frontal nudity. Remember, breasts are a secondary sexual organ for females.
I go to the movie theater to watch the movie on a huge screen with great audio. If I didn't care that much about the huge screen/great audio, I'd just wait and rent it from the local video store. Plus, I don't think its right advocating piracy against the movie theaters (unless they keep jacking up their already insane prices).
..................................@ @
i dont display scores, and my threshhold is -1. post accordingly.
Discuss
Set aside a day to buy beer or cigarettes for some kids hanging around outside a convenience store. Whose place is it for the tyrannical store clerk to refuse to sell alcohol or tobacco products to minors?
Go to a gun show and buy a couple shotguns and TEC-9s for a couple geeks at the local high school. Why shouldn't they be able to exercise their essential second amendment rights? Tyranny!
If the store clerk isn't going to sell tobacco products to "underage" geeks, steal 'em! Yeah, hit 'em in the pocketbooks just like the film and record industry! Stealing from someone who doesn't want to sell will surely make the see The Right [Katz] Way! Robbery will do for liberating tobacco what MP3s did for online distribution!
Click on the "Over 18 Only" link to the porn site for a geek! I'm sure they'll appreciate you giving them a hand against tyranny!
Improvise! Pretend you're a medical doctor and write up fake prescriptions for marijuana for medical use for a geek! It's not fraud, it's rebellion!
Call names! Complain to theater owners and tell them they are too dumb and cowardly to stand behind what the industry produces. Ad hominem attacks will make them see the libertarian way!
Kids: Remember, there are plenty of pedophiles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hadults who are willing to help you out, and show you those adult things you're forbidden to do by the oppressive government!
Remember, if you don't like a law, just break it and encourage others to break it too! To hell with civilized self-governance!
Ok, first you mention the
>usurping of decisions that should be theirs and >their parents?
admitting the fact that Parents have a responsibility to monitor the influences that are acting on their children and then a couple paragraphs later you say
>that adults ought not be forced to intrude on >their children's privacy
You've got to choose one or the other. Or maybe you meant adults in the sense of theater managers and their in the sense of the parents. But you're the professional writer and I this is either very unclear or an outrageously stupid statement.
Of course adults have a right to intrude on their children's privacy. Just because a kid wants to see a movie doesn't mean that they have an implicit right to go see it. That's why they're kids. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to advocate here.
And then of course, theres this gem:
>Harmless, funny, or overtly rebellious and
>political movies - "South Park," "American Pie," >" Something About Mary" - are not in any sense >dangerous to kids over the age of nine, or >probably, even under. They are bristling with >outsider geek humor and nerd sensibility.
What in the hell is geek humor and nerd sensibility? The only line in South Park that could be considered a geeky joke would be the part where they shot Bill Gates. Of course the whole South Park craze began on the internet but it's hardly limited to what you would call geeks. Something About Mary had nothing to do with "geeks", neither did American Pie. It's really getting kinda old seeing you throw in lines like this in every piece, obviousely trying to "get with" what you percieve as some kind of grandiose counter-culture. Stick with what you know.
Well, why does America, (and the rest of the world for that matter) have restricted movie ratings at all?
Answer: Parents that are one with the blindfold.
These are the parents to the freinds that we all had as youths that werent allowed to come over when you were sick, and had to be
home by 9:30.
Actually, as hard as it is to see sometimes, parents are the ones who have already been there and know what kind of dangers their kids may overlook. And more importantly, they're the ones who care enough to try to do something about it. Sure they may be overprotective and they may not understand how being a kid differs from when they were kids but you have to give them credit for trying and try to understand where they're coming from.
For one, I disagree with Katz on several things, mainly pirating a movie and such.
Personaly I feel the movie rating system has gone to far, with theater owners saying "no way jose" to teenagers, if its 17 or older, then why are movie companys all concerded about the NC-17 rating? I beleave you can accompany your kids into that, it is your right to expose your children to what you want. (most of the time) Other countrys have differnet rating systems that go by the way I fell ours should
All People, 6 and up, 10 and up, 12 and up, 14 and up, and 18+, being that most movies that are comedy's or satires that are extremely offensive are 14 and up, 12 and up would be todays PG-13..
if the point was to curb violence have movies that show more than just a plain death or an elabreate murder/suicide be 18+, no exeptions... sex can be handled by 14+ and light sex can be handled by 12 and up.. the ages were chosen by there developmental stages, All being animated nonsense with no unplesentness, 6 being movies that have a death and/or involved kissing. 10 being a little more death and more romance. 12 and up is basicly frontal nudity, still no murder but death can be a subject, 14 and up can be non-penatrating sex scenes (you can asume there is penatration, but none is shown on camera) and concouis murder can be shown, 18+ is everything else, be aware any of these cna be over-ruled by a parents intergection...
The movie system in its self was supposed to be a warning to parents. Aparently thats not enough.
I fail to see the logic of people (not just Jon Katz) rallying around all things "Geek". Non-Geeks enjoy movies. Geeks aren't subversive revolutionaries. Geeks are people who bite heads off of live chickens at carnivals. In today's slang, a Geek is basically a loser with a lack of social skills. I don't know why someone would be proud of such a title. If you are discriminated against for being a geek, you shouldn't empower your geekdom - you should learn how to go outside and talk to normal people, not shun them. Geeks aren't always technically inclined, nor do they see our technology-enhanced future any better than non-geeks. They are, in essense, people who can't function in normal society, so they write here as if they wield great power to make up for a feeling of powerlessness. That is fine, but don't aggrandize it. Geeks don't have any magic abilities that are making them more useful in modern society. People who are smart, or are technically inclined do. If you want to cal them nerds, go ahead. But realize that rallying around a derogatory description of yourself is foolish.
I thought the first part of this article was interesting. It *is* ridiculous when a parent can't make a decision about what his or her child is allowed to see. But I don't see where sneaking
other people's kids into R-rated movies is a righteous act.
I think what we need is a slightly different system. Movies like South Park and American Pie are vulgar but not truly adult. They would be better served by something like a 14 or 15 rating (no children or preteens allowed), whereas films like Eyes Wide Shut are very much adult and should be restricted to those over 18. And any parent should be able to take their child to any movie they see fit (of course, it gets tricky when you start taking 10-year-olds to see anything in the EWS -> porn spectrum).
Kook9 out.
I saw another post and though I'd add another $0.02.
Why are kids not allowed to chew gum in school?
Because they stick gum under chairs...
Why do kids stick gum under chairs??
Because they arent allowed to get up and throw it away.
Irony.
One of the smartest teachers I had was one that allowed us to chew gum. I stopped chewing gum after a month. and when I did chew gum, I threw it out.
Kids can handle it, but they're never given the chance.
...
That makes $0.04
I dont remember (Ever) using wang or pooper.
Somehow I see that your reply seems to iconify exactly what I am fighting. It perturbs me that you could be inconcievably oxymoronic in the senset that you are puting down youths.
You seem to flame me, flame my kind, and then go support my kind
GRAND. You speek out of complete steriotypes. I happen to enjoy jazz, hate tool, love metallica, hate country, and enjoy the doors. I am not blind to the rest of my society, as you apparently are.
NOTE: I attend one of the toughest magnet schools in the country, I take precalc as a frosh. I get A's in English. And French. AND Im bilingual with Swedish as a mother-tounge.
Yes, this all leads into the grand issue of censorship, right up there with abortion and gun control.
-------------
My $0.02
-------------
Well, why does America, (and the rest of the world for that matter) have restricted movie ratings at all?
Answer: Parents that are one with the blindfold.
These are the parents to the freinds that we all had as youths that werent allowed to come over when you were sick, and had to be home by 9:30.
Polititians must satisfy even the paranoid, for they are the stronger voice. Somehow there are no paranoid on our side -- at least not yet..!.
I can understand it, so I live with it. Its sad. But Im trying to fight it.
Approach:
All these parents that stand for the paranoid clique of society want society to sheild itself from their kids. Why do we do this? What happened to majority rules?
If they want their kids to be spoon fed pre-chewed bits of food, (Thank the hacker manifesto for that one) why don't they do it themselves, and let the rest of us see our movies..!.
Polititians will argue that the freedom of choice doesnt apply to the children, as they are too young to decide. They dont have a stabilized judgement.
I am that child.
I am 15, and I have a friend that wasnt allowed to visit me in the hospital, nor are we allowed to play football on the grass when the Green-a-Lawn truck has been around, because we might eat the grass. OR we might bring the pesticides inside, and kill the furniture. GRAND.
Yes, I may be one of the more mature youngens, but I saw terminator when I was 8 and it rocked! period.
1)
This dude doesn't nothing but tries to define himself, first he was claiming to be a geek, now a liberial, now a hybird geek-liberial, wtf...
Dam don't writers have there own little writers group or something? Like artists or hippies or something.
2)
-- Adults: Fight Ticket Booth Tyranny. Observe Take A Geek Kid To A Restricted Movie Day this Labor Day. Find a smart 13-year-old who wants to see something off-limits and take him to a movie, or, once during that long weekend, go to a nearby movie theater and help kids trying to get in.
So John, let me get this right, you want to sneak under aged kids into a dark private theather that is playing a spicey adult film?
WTF is wrong with you man
freak...
Why doesn't John put this engery to something productive? I mean he could put a document project together, find someone who knows computers and co write a howto, do something, anything positive for the 'Geek' commitee he claims to be a part of.
/. gets worst with each run, the first part, not to bad, the second, shot me please .
These don't have to be for linux, or unix, they can be for MacOS or whatever John uses to 'Geek' on. Not all Geeks use *nix. Whatever he does when he suposely 'Geeks out', he should contrib to that.
This article, sorry John, but listen it serious sound like your cut and pasted this off a 14 year old kids 'C00( WaREz siTE!' that is pissed off because he can't see kartman fart on kenny.
Pick anything, write the help file for the KDE version of minesweeper, or the FAQ for solitarie under GNOME, spell check the documenation for iceWM.
Everything that keeps getting posted on
Sorry if this is a waste of space... but this comment made me laugh. HARD.
:)
The only good thing that could possibly come out of this would be seeing the headline:
"GEEKS PISSED!"
probably followed by a smaller subtitle:
"football team brought in to cease protesting at local movie theatre"
I have to admit, I don't like Jon Katz writing. It's usually bloated, and popus. But his last article really struck a chord with me.
I myself tried to go to the South Park movie last week. I'm two months from being 17. I bought the tickets via MovieFone and picked them up without a problem. But when I went to enter the movie the 45-year old female ticket taker decided that I couldn't go in.
?
"You have to be 17 or be accompanied by an adult at all times."
Yeah, whatever. If I'm old enough to drive, I should be old enough to go into an R movie. Ultimately I had to say I was going in with some random 19-year-old behind me. He didn't seem to care about being responsible for us.
While pirating the movie may go a bit too far, making scene or writing and complaining to the theather is a good weapon. Everyone that said 'someone thats 9 shouldn't be going anyway', bite me. To think that a MOVIE could harm a child is rediculous. I'm tired of my rights being striped away under the illision that they are protecting children. THATS THE PARENTS JOB!! How about everyone start taking responsibilty for themselves and teach thier kids the proper values. Movies aren't what inspired the Colorado tradgity. It was the parents for not being more involved, and the kids at the school for outcasting them.
It seems rather irrelevant about how everyone is tweaking out about these teenage kids and movies, i dunno, maybe it's just me, but smut is still *very* easy to find on the internet, sure there's adultcheck and yadda yadda, but there are newsgroups with no such restrictions on them, not to mention if they have an older brother/friend who is 18 can buy them whatever they need (if he is a nice guy anyway) being stricter on movies won't really help anything. As for this installment of Katz, i can see what he's going after, and I agree with it, but I think he is doing it in a wrong fashion. Though i do find it funny how no one likes what they are seeing/hearing/reading and yet is not willing to do anything about it (myself including, I'm a lazy boy)
I cought an interview with Matt & Trey (god i hope that's their names) on Muchmusic, i think, where they were talking about South Park and said how they wanted to do a war so they can make it really bloody and how the censors didn't really care about that but wanted them to take out rimjob
wow, if you lived in a house full of retards, they'd make you live in the basement.
It appears to me that Mr. Katz is missing several points here. He seems to have taken a stance that we have some voice in the going's on in film-makerland and that we are surrogate parents. He couldn't be more wrong.
"Hit them in their pocketbooks," says Katz. We cannot "Hit them in their pocketbooks." If a movie, or type of movie fails to make money (at the box office) then those types of film will cease to be in production. If a film company invests $50 Million in a motion picture and that film fails to earn back (at least) it's investment, then they will have learned their lesson...what point have you made? Do you think that a holdings company gives a rat's ass how many people have actually seen the film? No. They are interested in the final dollar intake. Point? Bootleg all you want. Scam your way in the door until your head spins. It doesn't matter; This (and any) genre of film exists because they are big money earners. Take away the money and you take away the film.
"Find a smart 13-year-old who wants to see something off-limits and take him to a movie..." Jon? Isn't it enough that our ever-loving government has determined parent's to be too irresponsible -too stupid- to raise their own children? The ratings system exists for a reason. Why would you even consider further usurping the ability of a parent to raise her or his child as they deem fit? If the parent of a twelve or a thirteen year-old kid doesn't want them exposed to cultural gems like, "Shut Your Fucking Face Uncle Fucker," is it your place to determine that they are mature and aware enough to handle it? Are you going to sit with that adolescent and properly explain the satire of the scenerio? Is it your right to potentially force an unprepared parent into a situation where they will have to deal with it? I'm not saying that you can protect kids or sheild them from anything... eventually, they will be exposed to it. But, I find it hard to believe that you would want to be the one who does the exposing. You might as well run a taxi service for them so that you can be the one who helped them get their first bag of tea.
I cannot answer for the militant censoring movement in theatres. As an adult (!) I have little to be concerned with... Perhaps that is the point, though. 'As an adult,' I have the right and the ability to do and involve myself with every aspect of any culture that I decide, 'As an adult,' to be a part of. This is not an issue of censorship or individual rights. "Ticket Booth Tyranny," is a step in the wrong direction. If you want change, try to put the decision back into the hands of those who are responsible for the results of those decisions...the parents and the children that those parents are raising.
knot@illiterate.net
Why Shouldn't a kid be able to watch `SouthPark and the like'?