Voices From The Movie Line

Columns last week on Ticket Booth Tyranny drew well over a thousand e-mail messages, mostly from kids (including many of those ushers) enraged at theater chain restrictions, posturing and hypocrisy, and scrambling to buy DVD's and build home theaters. The entertainment industry seems not to grasp the strong message that digital technologies give kids lots of choices. They can't wait to make them.

For centuries, technology was of little interest to anyone outside its own developers and users. These days, technology seems to be pushing the country towards a cultural and moral meltdown. Technnics aren't simply a source of wonder and surprise, but of fear, resentment and widespread puzzlement.

The flashpoint of much of this unease -- perhaps a metaphor for it -- is the place where kids, culture and technology converge -- the Net, the Web, music, TV and, lately, movie theaters.

Pop culture been much more than entertainment for kids ever since rock and roll. One of the few enduring legacies of the Boomers was to elevate popular culture to a central place in American life. That evolution has only deepened. For kids today, culture is a primary recreation, but movies, TV shows and music are also something else -- a universal language and common interest, almost a shared ideology.

Many people define themselves by the shows, CDs, Websites, computers and movies they like. Culture isn't just something that's fun for the young, but more and more something that defines who they are. Liking "South Park" isn't just an expression of what's fun. It's a statement of individual identity. Technology has heated up this process by delivering more culture in faster, more graphic, more explicit and less censorable forms.

That's why the growing tendency to blame techno-driven culture for violence and other social problems is so pressing an issue for kids, who have no political voice or spokespeople, and who are presumed to have no rights beyond those which parents and politicians grant them. In fact, morality and the young has become a cheap, sure-fire political issue all over the country.

The massacre in Atlanta this week tragically underscores the irrationality of America's approach to violence, kids and culture. Would the killings have been prevented if the killer had been kept out of violent movies? Should adult access to e-trading sites now be restricted? Outrageous responses like that would never be considered for adults. They shouldn't be for kids either.

The giant conglomerates that control much of American pop culture are happy to go along with these prevailing winds, yet seem strangely ignorant of the technologies they are acquiring and developing and the ways in which so-called "children" use it. This is going to prove a monumental mistake.

The music industry, greedily confusing freedom and piracy, has driven an entire generation towards the now entrenched habit of acquiring music for free. The movie industry and the theater chains are now embracing this generation-alienating philosophy in their embrace of faux morality. They adopt the pretense that kids will be safer if they see only violence, but not sex . But by pandering to so-called moral guardians, adopting useless and quixotic rating systems, imposing ticket booth interrogations of kids and parents, the people running Hollywood seem not to grasp the growing power of the young to access and control their own cultural lives, and make their own choices about what they watch or see, thanks mostly to technology.

Earlier this week, I received more than 1,000 e-mail messages (second only to the "Hellmouth" series) in response to a two-part series called "Ticket Booth Tyranny," which talked about the sudden post-Columbine ticket booth harassment of teenagers trying to see movies with profane language or sexual imagery.

The movie industry may be mollifying some fuddled parents and scoring some points with the moral guardians in Congress, but if the e-mail I got is any indication, this is one of the most profoundly short-sighted trade-offs in entertainment industry history.

These messages were angry. They saw clearly through the posturing and pretense. They spoke directly to the lunacy that occurs when corporatism, technology, politics, morality and culture get tangled up with one another.

"I'm 17," wrote Sean, who's entering the University of Michigan in a few weeks. "I'll be eighteen in September. I drove last weekend with my date to see 'Eyes Wide Shut.' They carded me, and wouldn't let me in. The chain decided that they were enforcing an '18-year-old only' policy for this movie. It was humiliating. All summer I've worked as a counselor helping retarded kids, but I can't see Nicole Kidman's butt? I've got a DVD player, of course, and will see this movie soon enough. But I'm never going back to that theater. I might not go back to any theater."

Matthew works for a multiplex in Maryland. He's also 17. "I'll turn away sometimes 10 or 20 people a night, not because I can, but because my job is on the line. Before we obtained 'South Park & American Pie,' anyone who would sell tickets, or usher, had to sign a paper stating that they would enforce the regulations or face dismissal if underage people got in under their watch. The policy posted at the box office states that anyone that looks underage to the ticket seller is to be carded. Again, sometimes people are carded walking into the movie by an usher. One night, an usher kicked 30 people out. First night of 'American Pie,' the theater did over $1,000 in refunds to underage kids."

It's hard to be rational about this idiocy. "American Pie" is an often hilarious spoof of teenaged sexuality that features four horny high school kids plotting to get laid. Without exception, the four are thoughtful, sensitive and good-hearted, both to their friends and their girlfriends.

There is nothing even remotely as vulgar or disturbing in this movie as much of what's on any local newscast almost every single night. Or a score of cable channels or accessible websites. "American Pie" could safely be shown in high school classrooms as a guide to sensitivity in sexual relations. The idea that a 16-year-old kid could see this movie and turn violent or otherwise be morally damaged is amazing in the 20th century, sure to be remembered for monumental advances in technology.

Matthew said he's also instructed to make sure that "children" under the age of 17 are accompanied by their parents into any "R" rated movie. "I think along the same lines you stated in your article - if the parent wants the kid to see the film, and they're there buying the tickets at the box office, the kids should be let into the film. That is the ratings system in action - advising parents, instead of forcing moral values on their kids."

Matthew and many of his fellow usher e-mailers made it clear that they have no desire to be in charge of enforcing and defining moral values for other people.

At least a dozen other ushers wrote in to say vigilance varies according to:

- Whether the manager's on duty or nearby. - - Whether the ushers know the kids trying to get in. - - Whether the usher is about to quit for another, better-paying job and doesn't care who gets in. - - Whether the usher is in a good mood or not. - - Whether the lines are long. - - The gender and attractiveness of the ticket-buyer. - - The pressure from the parent company. -

Several of the ushers wrote in to suggest seeing restricted movies close to Labor Day when many movie chain workers are about to go back to high school or college and don't care if they get fired or not. Employers are also desperate for help, and less likely to toss benevolent workers out.

Jon Winters messaged to say he and his wife recently built a home theater in their house. "We prefer to wait until movies come out on DVD and watch them in the comfort of our home." He and his wife went to see "Eyes Wide Shut" but wished they'd waited to see the movie at home. The projector was out of focus, and the sound from an adjacent screening room was bleeding through the walls.

"In the future we will wait for the DVD no matter how badly we want to see the movie. At least I can control the technical merits of my home theater."

Jon's message is significant. Among other things, the Net and other digital technologies offer precisely that kind of choice and control. His sentiments were repeated by hundreds of other people restless about their movie-going experiences even without being hassled at the ticket booth. Jon said he's building a home theater. The best high definition projectors will function as computer monitors, he said. "My friends freak when I pull up GNOME on my 72" HD projector. I can surf the Web and check e-mail during TV commercials. Lots of fun."

Almost as much as getting booted out of a movie theater because you haven't passed some arbitrary biological morality benchmark.

Many other e-mailers said they were also eager to find alternatives to theater going. They cited crying babies, people talking, high prices, out-of-focus projectors (this generation is especially used to clarity in images), sound "bleed-thru;" high prices for bad snacks; the absence of "Pause" buttons, and the movie industry's self-imposed censorship ratings.

Movie theater operators may have much bigger problems to worry about than the oral sex discussions in "American Pie."

"This ratings bullshit is the last straw for me," wrote JimB. "I am going DVD. These people are so gutless. I have the right to see what I want. I don't believe for one micro-second they are worried about my morality or well-being. They are just trying to keep the religious crazies off their back. I'm old enough to be a camp counselor, but I can't watch a friggin' movie like American Pie. I've given these a-holes countless dollars over the last few years. No more." JimB is 16.

Many of the messages had this familiar themse: the Net and the Web provide an alternative to moralistic restrictions like those going on in movie theaters. And adults are clueless when it comes to the nature of kids lives during this time of technological change. "I've been seeing violence and sex all my life," wrote Don from Portland, Oregon. "I remember seeing the LA Freeway shootings, and cable shows and magazines and radio and all sorts of other stuff. Do they think by keeping us out of movies that we will not be exposed to stuff like this. Some of the stuff I've seen is graphic, but I can't say it's hurt me. I'm a straight A student and looking forward to college. I've never broken any laws. These people are just outrageous." Like many of the others, he was saving for a DVD player.

Adam, who's also 16, was denied permission to see three movies last weekend "South Park," "American Pie," and "Eyes Wide Shut," even though his parents said it was fine for him to go and sent him a note to that affect, which included a number for the theater to call if necessary.

He was escorted from the lobby.

A middle-aged couple offered to take him and his friends into "South Park" but backed out when the theater manager said they had to stay inside with them for the entire movie.

Adam said he and his friends were furious. "And I can turn on HBO anytime late at night and see people having sex. Just how is South Park supposed to hurt me? Or American Pie? I want to study film when I go to college. Are these movies supposed to damage me? Undo my parents teachings? Turn me into a murderer? I ama a kid who actually likes going to Church! I don't need moral lessons from ushers. Are they supposed to keep some kid from grabbing a machine gun and shooting me in school? Or keep me from doing that? Don't these yahoos know that I can stuff on TV or online that's a million times more violent or sexy than this anytime I want. Screw these theaters. As soon as I get the money for a DVD player, I'll get what I want on the Net and I'll never go back. I don't have to spend that money for overpriced popcorn and humiliation."

Cathy wrote that her father listens to Howard Stern every morning when he drives her to school. "He says stuff all the time that is sexual and vulgar. He talks about women's vaginas. I can listen to him but I can't go see 'American Pie'?"

In fact, the restrictions on "American Pie" in particular -- a movie directly about the lives of many of the kids forbidden to see it -- had hundreds of e-mailers in a fury.

MReynolds messaged that he believes the current epidemic of ticket booth moralizing is part of a larger pattern. "There seems to be a large segment of the population that welcomes regulation of everything from cryptography, to television, to the Internet. And almost all these campaigns to regulate our freedoms (I consider the ability to encrypt my porn a freedom) are encapsulated behind the banner of 'we must save the children from these evil things!'"

MR may be more correct than he even knows. Technological historians like Langdon Winner have written about the outbreaks of moral outrage that often accompany periods of great advances in technology -- the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, the development of the Net and the Web.

They are, he says, almost akin to religious upheavals.

"The writers who have isolated technology as an issue have repeatedly stressed that what is involved is not merely a problem of values or faith," he writes in Autonomous Technology, "but, more importantly, a problem in our understanding of things. There is, they assert, something wrong in the way we view technology and man's relationship to it."

There sure is. Thus most Americans blame technology for teenaged violence, even though there is little to link the two, and violent crime among younger Americans has been dropping sharply for years despite enormous increases in the availability of techno-driven pop culture, violence and sexual imagery.

The Internet has altered the very context in which kids, morality and technology interact. It makes censoring the cultural lives of the young, or bovine symbolic gestures like the theater operators are now making, ludicrous. They young don't become more moral, just more cynical.

Technologically-inspired ratings systems, V-Chips and filtering programs don't work. They can't raise moral children, or get lazy and irresponsible parents where they want to be -- off the hook.

Comments

U.S. vs. Europe, Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

The Religious Right (note: not all religious americans, or even a majority) thinks that the prevalence of sex in movies and culture is the driving force behind everything from teen pregnancy to mass murders. However, sex and erotica are far more prevalent in Europe and Japan than they are in the U.S., and these countries have far lower rates of violent crime and teen pregnancies. Also, this attitude allows a variety of expressions of sex to be shown. Sure, there will be pornography, but there will also be adult discussions of sex, its place in society, and gender relations.

Japanese anime, for instance, is infamous for its gratuitous sexual scenes, especially when females are concerned. This is not seen as a bad thing in society, and there are plenty of anime that take a more serious tack on issues. Also, few members of the Religious Right (or anyone else) would question the sexual morality of the children and adults exposed to these images.

Jon Katz is right on this one. The movie code is meaningless, and also does not allow for differences between American Pie and Eyes Wide Shut, or take into account the social comentary and artistry of these movies. It should be downgraded to merely "advisory" status, to allow parents to make these decisions, and also to allow kids to be raised to critically look at the messages (positive and negative) that their culture is sending them.

you missed the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing you should be afraid of is the amount of restrictions and regulations coming about in the name of 'protecting the children'. The U.S. which supposedly values individual freedoms has many special interests and groups who want nothing more than to take those freedoms away.

If people don't speak up, don't participate in their government, and ignore the things that don't affect them, then pretty soon there won't be much left to salvage. Government tries to get its claws on so many aspects of our lives that it is frightening. People need to raise their own kids; teach the proper values. If you keep asking the government to do this for you, you may get more than you bargained for.

- Speed

Condoms are shameful?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the prospect of actually getting laid is shameful?

Or is it the act of preparation for getting laid?

How about this, you see me and a cute girl at the drugstore. I'm picking up an extra large box of ribbed nobblers (name the quote). Do you feel sorry for me? Do you feel sorry for her?

Or do you wish you were me?

Re:Hear hear!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've answered your question yourself -- at least in part. Parents are too busy because it takes two people's wages to run a household instead of one person's. The blame can be placed on the standard of living having changed over the decades between our parents' generation and ours.

Hypocrites

[Zack]

There seems to a lot of readers here who disagree with this article simple because of it's author. They rant "can't he read? Last time he posted this I said that he was wrong!" Well guess what, bucko, I thought he was dead on. Christ, you aren't listening to what anyone has to say. You flame Katz for writing an article that is pro-freedom because of the group that he's writing for. These are the same people who are scared of Echlon! Make up your damn minds.

Now that that's out of the way, why don't we actually talk about this instead of flame? Okay...

People here have posted that they don't believe that children should not be allowed to see movies because they are children. This is where I start to get confused already. I watched plenty of R movies when I was young... Did they make me go out and kill people? Uhh.. lemme think... no.

Then people say that it's okay if the parents go in with them. Wait. So the fact that their parents are there change the movie somehow? Uhh.. lemme think... no. The movie is the exact same movie. How is it different if the parents BUY the tickets? wait.. that's right.. it's not.

Then you claim that the theatres can turn away whoever they want. Yeah, right. You guys would be up in arms in a second if a movie theatre decided to not let black in. Or refused to sell tickets to Jews. How is that any different from refusing a 16 year old and letting in his 17 year old friend?

The point is that this is baseless age discrimination and enforcement of someone elses morals.

I went to see American Pie last night... I didn't get carded... In the movie there were plenty of 15 year olds, a few 6 year olds, and a couple of (crying, sigh) infants. Only the infants were with parents.

I don't remember any of those kids raping anyone on the way to the parking lot...

Ban Oxygen

[Zack]

I breath Oxygen, and I haven't killed anyone.

But ya know, that day trader breathed oxygen as well! I say we don't let any of the children breathy oxygen.

Thanks for the flame pal... You're exactly the kind of guy I was talking about. You couldn't refute anything I said so you merely attacked _me_ instead.

> Yes, you are a hypocrite.

Uh. How?

>So, because you watched R movies and didn't kill
>anyone, then it is okay for anyone to watch R
>movies?

My point is that movies don't make people go kill other people. Music doesn't make people kill other people. WWF doesn't make kids get into fights. South Park hasn't resulted in any mass sucides to get on the mother ship.

>You know, Katz' supporters would have a better
>case if they could actually think about their
>statements.

Well then bring up something about my statment, AC.

Re:Ban Oxygen

[Zack]

> Zack, how old are you? 15,16?

I'm 20. I consider myself older than the "children" mentioned in this article and younger than the "parents" I think this gives me a pretty decent perspective for both sides of this argument.

> It is really, really sickening to see an adult
> attempt to incite children over ridiculous
> issues

The issue I see here is personal freedom. I don't see that as ridiculous. The issue is that theaters are stopping people (these kids are people, aren't they?) from going to see the movie they want to see. Not because the movie is going to damage and warp them and turn them into pyschotic maniacs, but because they're underage.

> Hell, he goes as far as suggesting that the
> aforementioned entities are the centerpeice in
> teenage life today.

Well, the are somewhat. Children today spend a LOT of time watching TV.. the "movies" is a popular hang out, the only place you go on dates in high school, etc, etc... That they define you as a person is a bit backwards though... It's the other way around. Who you are determines what movies you want to go see.

> most parents are out to cursh any dreams
> children have of having 'fun'.

I know... I understand that parents have the best intentions. That's not what I was arguing. So when the parents take their teen to the movies and by them a ticket, their intentions are good, right? Where does the movie theatre have the right to say "no" to them then?

> they have been alive just a little bit longer
> than you

Right... and my grand parents lived in a generation where the thought that swing music was the downfall of society and anyone who liked the music was obviously a santanist and a heathen.

The whole fuss over R rated movies is going to be laughed at by our kids kids.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments (well, except for the one where you called me 15... and the absolute bias against Katz because he is Katz).. the rest was pretty well thought out.

Looks like we have to agree to disagree...

Re:Kids and their parents money

[bsa3]

There's plenty of non-Hollywood stuff on DVD. I've got Pi and a bunch of anime titles, and there's more where that came from.

Check out DVDExpress sometime.

Movies

[drwiii]

One thing Katz misses on is that the theater restrictions are still being implemented on a voluntary basis. I can see what the fuss would be if this were a law of some sort, but it's simply a suggestion that some businesses are choosing to follow.

I was in a local theater this past weekend to see Deep Blue Sea , which was an average movie, but was also rated R. Looking around the theater I could see quite a few unaccompanied under-17 persons attending the showing. So much for the big "we honor age restriction guidelines" banner hanging out front, eh? Theaters just want your money. That's the bottom line.

Just remember, if they ever put Schindler's List back in the theaters, your kids won't be allowed to see it because it's rated R, and they're under 17. So much for learning from the past.

Re:Movies

[powerg3]

One thing Katz misses on is that the theater restrictions are still being implemented on a voluntary basis. I can see what the fuss would be if this were a law of some sort, but it's simply a suggestion that some businesses are choosing to follow.

Right, but you have to remember that most theatres , it seems, are owned and operated by large corporations. I work at a Loews, and just today I was in the box selling tickets. Luckily I didn't have to card anyone. But if and when I ever do need to, I will, because my ass is on the line, so my manager's ass is on the line, and so his manager's ass is on the line. And why? Because some SONY executive decides it would be nice to follow MPAA guidelines. And that's the problem. The decisions should be made by people who have direct contact with the environment their employees work in.

Re:Movies

[blahedo]

Just remember, if they ever put Schindler's List back in the theaters, your kids won't be allowed to see it because it's rated R, and they're under 17. So much for learning from the past.

And the irony in that case is that Schindler's List was shown on network TV during prime time about three years back---uncensored, uncut. Sort of silly to restrict anyone from seeing it at the cinema, then. :)

Of course, the more serious counterpart to that is the fact that many, many kids have virtually unlimited access to HBO (all five of them), Showtime, Cinemax, and all the other "pay channels", because their parents want them and can't be bothered to set parental control passwords on them (if even they knew how), or because they don't care, or because they do think their kid is mature enough to watch it. There is something to be said about big-screen vs. small-screen (namely, the big screen makes everything feel much more graphic), but there seem to be a whole lot of cases where kids are denied access to something at the cineplex when they have full access to equally bad or worse things on TV....

Re:Movies

[Steve B]

No, Katz is right on that point. The movie ratings system is only nominally private and voluntary -- it was, and is, quite clear that the government would harass the industry if it didn't step into line.

The problem with Katz's argument is his failure to distinguish between real censorship (see previous paragraph) on the one hand and legitimate private property rights and parental prerogatives on the other.
/.

Re:Movies

[ahodgson]

The decisions are made by the people paid to make them. That's how businesses work.

Like someone else said, if you don't like how a business is run, don't work there. Or open your own. Or organize a boycott. In short, DO something. Don't whine about your "rights" when in fact the whole thing is just an example of the business exercising their right to do business with whoever they want.

And hey, before you flame me, I think arbitrary age checks are stupid, and the whole Christian sex-guilt thing is just bizarre, but it still doesn't make it right to tell a business owner they have to change the way they do things because you feel you have a "right" to buy their product.

You are correct.

[Indomitus]

The US seems to be the only country in the world that has so little faith in it's citizens that those in charge feel the need to protect the citizenry from fiction, nudity, and "foul" language. The worst thing is, that American parents go right along with it, fooling themselves into believing that it's helping. Instead, all it's doing is creating a new generation of kids who will grow up to give parental control over to some other arbitrary authority figure. Parents need to teach their children about the human body and about so-called foul language, then it won't be so much more appealing as a forbidden fruit. If the worst thing an American kid does this year is see Nicole Kidman naked or hear the South Park kids cussing up a storm, this would quickly become a much better place to live.

Re:So, U support pornography 4 minors w/o parental

[Trepidity]

I support teaching children never to use "u" as a substitute for "you," and never to use "4" as a substitute for "for."

Re:Katz doesn't read Slashdot!

[Trepidity]

Hmmm, he gets thousands of messages from kids upset that they cannot break the law

How do you come to that conclusion? What law is being broken? There is no law against under-17-year-olds seeing R-rated movies. The MPAA movie rating system is a voluntary industry system, and has no grounding in law. If a movie theater wanted to let anybody see R rated movies without asking for their age, they would not be in violation of any laws. They might get in trouble with the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO...interesting acronym), but they would not get in trouble with law enforcement.

Basically, know what you're talking about rather than spouting off ignorant drivel. This law you speak of does not exist.

Re:Theatres have the right..

[Trepidity]

No, corporations do not that have the right to do so. They may restrict particular people from frequenting their establishments if those people cause problems, but they may not make discriminatory class-based prohibitions. For example, I could not start a theatre that only admitted white people, even if i owned the theater and didn't feel like letting non-white people in.

Re:I think you are confusing....

[Trepidity]

Well, MPAA ratings and age "guidelines" don't have the force of law behind them, but the theater owners are not free to do whatever they want either. If theaters do not follow the industry's policies, they run the risk of not being allowed to purchase movies from the studios.

Kids know enough

[Have Blue]

Kids are the people most affected by these regulations. Kids are the people who directly experiences the effects (if any) of the movies in question. The testimony of the kids themselves is the most important and most overlooked part of this debate, and the point of the thousand E-mails is that the kids unanimously disagree with the moral guardians.

Re:Kids know enough

[alumshubby]

No way, you don't want kids seeing something like Saving Private Ryan before they could actually experience it.

I hope you're just being sarcastic. I sure as hell would want my kid to get a damn good look at it. (Not just yet. He's four years old, his granddad was a WWII combat veteran, and we're largely a military family. He wants to be fire fighter, thank God.) I want him to be provoked into thinking before he joins up because he likes the uniform.

For that matter, I'd like anybody who thinks drugs are cool to take a good look at Trainspotting, High Art, or Drugstore Cowboy. Then maybe we'd get a cop friend to drive with us to the nearest crack house.

Re:Kids know enough

[Wah]

No way, you don't want kids seeing something like Saving Private Ryan before they could actually experience it.

Re:Go away, yourself

[phil reed]

You can register, then filter Katz out yourself. If you don't do that, if you'd rather sit there and bitch, you deserve to be ignored.


...phil

But the *parent* judges if it's too Adult.

[DunbarTheInept]

You try to make the point that the parent should be there to make the judgement call when things get 'too adult' for the kid. Your argument has the hole that the movie industry has chosen ahead of time, before the parents had any say, that movie X requires their attendence and movie Y does not. The decision to require their attendence or not is removed from the parent's control.

Ratings are way off

[MadCat]

Movie ratings these days are *way* off the
scale these days. As are the ludicrous attempts
at censoring movies, denying people access
and more of that fun stuff.

Practical example. This weekend I went to see
SouthPark with my girlfriend and her two kids,
aged 11 and 6. We got in but only after we
created a scene. The usher and manager told *us*
what was best for *our* kids. Fuck that, they
wanted to see SouthPark, they got to see it.

Did they swear after the movie? No. Did they
pull out guns and mow down the lobby? No. Did
anything change? Not at all.

After that we decided that we wanted to see
another movie and the kids went to watch
Tarzan and my girlfriend and me went to see
the Haunting. The strange part here...

SouthPark is rated R. SouthPark is animated
and is so clearly an animation that you can't
really get around it. the Haunting is rated
PG-13, yet the images displayed in the movie
were rather disturbing, now I'm not really
in to horror movies but it sure as hell wasn't
going to do a 13 year old any good.

Moral of the story -- I'm saving for a DVD player
and the theatres can collectively decide where
they want my business to go. I know for a fact
that if I get trouble one more time I will never
ever visit a theatre again. The only reason
I do is because it's a night out, but if I have
to, I'll make it a night out at home where
I can decide what my family and me watch and
where nobody can decide what's best for my girlfriend, her kids and me. We're all perfectly
able to decide for ourselves.

(Just a sidenote -- the kids initially wanted
to see the Haunting as well, but we told them
that it was a rather scary movie and that we'd
see it first and if we thought it was okay,
we'd let them watch it next week. They're not
going to see it though, and I'm pretty glad
that it's my gf's and my decision and not some
lame ushers' or managers' decision).

Of course, kids!

[pb]

Is anyone surprised that the very people who are being censored are complaining? Gee, when the Nazis were killing Jews, why didn't the German soldiers complain? Maybe because they weren't next...

If a movie is rated R, there's no reason for a theater to deny people who are 17. If they do that, then they should (a) have rated the movie NC-17 or X, or (b) prepare for angry phone calls, letters, and lawsuits, and people talking about freedom of speech.

Any arguments?

Incidentally, I'm 21, I saw Eyes Wide Shut, and I thought it should have been (a) uncensored and (b) rated X for nudity and adult situations. I don't think they'd show A Clockwork Orange in theaters today either, and I don't think Southpark or American Pie are even in the same category... if Eyes Wide Shut is rated R, they should be rated PG or PG-13.

Re:Of course, kids!

[pb]

Oh, so it's popular, so we don't need to rate it on content?

I understand your argument, and I think you're right, but I don't think it would hold up to any serious legal test. (Fortunately. :)

Re:Of course, kids!

[kcsmiff]

Incidentally, I'm 21, I saw Eyes Wide Shut, and I thought it should have been (a) uncensored and (b) rated X for nudity and adult situations. I don't think they'd show A Clockwork Orange in theaters today either, and I don't think Southpark or American Pie are even in the same category... if Eyes Wide Shut is rated R, they should be rated PG or PG-13.

But where did you see Eyes Wide Shut? A cineplex odeon? A Royale theatre? Some other big chain? If Eyes Wide Shut had been rated X, I'm sure that it would have been much harder to find a theatre playing it.

I've been reading up on the MPAA and their various goins-on.. There's a movie called "Coming Soon" (which should be out soon I believe, I know i'm going to see it if I can) about four sexually active girls. IIRC, there is little to no nudity in the movie. The MPAA gave it an X, the director had a fit because American Pie got an R and yelled at the MPAA for having a double standard. One representative of the MPAA told her that "we are representative of parents across the US, and they would judge this movie by a double standard, therefore we have to."

From what I've read so far, there have been several movements to get a rating that is "more than R, but not a porno" and have all failed because people end up associating the rating with porn (what do *you* think of when you see "NC17"?).

The enemy is not the ushers whose jobs are on the line or the theatre owners who have to make a living and therefore have to please the MPAA.. Nor is the enemy Jon Katz. Seems like the enemy is the double standard that parents and other people across the US have.

Godwin's Law Invoked

[CaseyB]

Godwin's Law has been invoked.

This thread is over. You lose.

These are just symptoms.

[Static]

I don't think you can divorce a country's entertainment ratings system from its society and its history. Social commentators, particularly religious ones, will view the current obsession with sex and violence as symptoms of a deeper social problem based on how western society has developed. The ratings system that seems to be getting in the way is from a slightly earlier time when there was less of an obsession with either.

At the same time, it is not straightforward to compare "norms" from one society to another. For instance, Japanese culture and society is not the same as American culture and society. That is one reason why anime has so much gratuitous sexuality. Simply put, what is depicted is part of their culture. A number of things western society would find sexual in an anime, the Japanese would not.

Static.

Re:These are just symptoms.

[_Void_]

You can't just write off sexual imagery as "part of their culture". Sexual imagery is part of *every* culture, whether it is "allowed" or not. Here, it is allowed in both japanese and western culture, so this point is doubly irrelevent.

In fact, the only difference (vis-a-vis explicit imagery) between japanese and western culture is that japanese culture places more emphasis on personal responsibility and maturity.

Contrast this with western culture's insistance that "nothing is ever your fault" and that "you can always blame somebody else", and it's not surprising that people blame more problems on porn/violence/whatever, whether it is justified or not.

It *is* possible that children in the west *are* more affected by explicit images, but (if they are, a point still undecided) surely a better solution is to arrest this cultural slide into immaturity than to (yet again) just fix the symptoms.

If a situation like this arises (external "threat" versus parental responsibility), the automatic outcome is removal of the threat, *not* tightening of parental control. Basically, inattentive parents hand-off control to the authorities, simply because it's easier than they themselves doing anything about it. The answer is not to mask the symptoms - the answer is to go for the source of the problem.

No-one cures measles by painting over the spots.

TTFN,

Actually, they're not.

[Static]

I believe this is how it is supposed to work. The ratings system reflect what whoever influences the censorship board believe most movie-viewers want. I would review a questionable movie, like you did, before I let my kids see it, taking into account the rating it's been given (and why). OTOH, I'm not the sort of person to violate the rules of the rating, either. [South Park the Movie is rated MA down under, which I think requires Parental Accompaniment. Eyes Wide Shut is rated R, which means no-one under 18.]

I've had discussions with friends of various ages about who should and who shouldn't watch the TV serious of South Park. It is clearly not aimed at kids. The creators have clearly said so. One friend is a teacher of 8 year olds and is shocked so many of them are familiar with it. She won't let her 11 year old watch it!

Static.

That hits the nail almost squarely on the head.

[Static]

Yes, it is about parental responsibility and rites of passage from child into adult. Social commentators are starting to argue with force that the lack of meaningful rites of passage for so many of today's adults is a Big Problem. A result? Obsession with ultra-violence and sex sex sex.

When (if?) we get this right again, there will be less demand for X, R and NC-17 films. But it will take at least a generation.

Static.

Picture Size

[Chemical Serenity]

If you look at projection film, you can see the grainy-ness on the screen. It's more apparent in movies shot with super-35, of course, or older flicks.

Like with theatres: The larger the screen, the farther back you sit so you don't notice the fine detail imperfections. You'll hardly get the experience you might want from a movie if you stick your nose six inches awat from a 72x40" screen.

--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)

Definition of 'child'

[Chemical Serenity]

It seems to me that most of the complaints Jon talks about are made by 15, 16, 17 year old 'children'. In the real world, while they may still have some childish ideals and attitudes towards life, many of these people are young men and women and are indeed being maligned by the arbitrary nature of minimum-age-limits. They may not know what's best for them... but how many of us do as adults anyways? Most people I know just keep doing what it looks like they're supposed to be doing until something new comes along.

Until recently, most cultures had specific ages or events which divided children from men, and most of those events took place at around the time of sexual maturity. Keep in mind that it was as little as 100 years ago where many marriages were made where the participants were 13 or 14 years old. In environments where the dividing line between child and adult was clear, such moronic ideals as are coming from the government nowadays would be scoffed at.

We shelter our children far more now than we ever have before. We keep them acting as kids longer, trying to hold back the inevitable tide of biological impulse... possibly because the urge to nurture isn't being outweighed by the need to have more able bodied helpers in the struggle for survival, who knows.

I also find it highly distasteful to be forced into a situation where other people make choices for me, or my family, as to what is suitable for our viewing pleasure. Your morals are not my morals, and I'll kindly thank you to keep your borderline-mind-control attitudes out of my choices of entertainment... and that of my children!

--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)

Re:You're absolutely right.

[Chemical Serenity]

The government should, indeed, keep its hands and laws out of what I decide my children should experience... by the same token, I will steadily decrease my influence over thier choices of entertainment as they approach manhood, as they are more capable of making thier own choices and dealing with the consequences thereof.

I have 2 boys, 8 and 5 (nearly 9 and 6). I don't let them watch south park. If they were 17 and 14, I would let them. In all likelyhood they've already heard the Uncle Fucker song in school anyways so my restriction there may be moot, but my decision to do so is in line with my best effort to raise my kids to be responsible members of society. If they were my daughters, and were 14 or 15, I'd probably let them watch it too. Blair Witch as well... I heard more foul language from disgruntled viewers leaving the theatre than from the actors themselves.

Arranged marriages were an unfortunate fact of life (and in some places of the world, still are) as a means of political and economic necessity. I don't endorse the idea of marrying off your 13 year old daughter TODAY. If you were paying attention rather than engaging in semi-smarmy reactionism, you'd have seen that the point was saying that when such marriages were happening and that the participants were considered adults, and were given the rights and privilages thereof. Children matured faster by physical and societal necessity (shorter life expectancy, more need for able bodied labour to support family industry, yadda yadda yadda).

Those imperatives are no longer such a concern, in these days of the post-atomic family unit, where a single parent can conceivably provide all the necessities of life for a family.

--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)

No Way!

[jafac]

My 11 year old son has been begging me to go see South Park.

I say NO WAY. I saw that movie myself first. I don't mind if he hears dirty talk, swear words, etc. I know he knows every word in the book - hell, I did when I was his age, but I told him until he learns to stop using the word "fart" in inappropriate situations (ie. in front of his mother, or especially infront of MY mother), I deem that he does not have the responsibility to handle those words, and that's what being an adult is all about.

I would feel the same way if he was 17, unless he could show that he did have the ability to control his behavior.
I told him that if he could stop using the word "fart" or stop belching loudly like he does to impress his freinds, for 1 week, I'd take him to see it. His record so far is 2 days.

"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law

Boomer Parents Abdicate Responsibility and Whines

[David Jensen]

Children don't like restrictions and boomer parents don't want to be bothered to go through the effort needed to raise their kids right. This is news?

Hollywood has installed a totally incompetent rating system that only Jack Valenti could love. Jack's last reform was to call X ratings NC-17. Nothing happened. Still no news.

Some day, these outraged teens and kids will look back at their outrage and wonder why. They will understand completely what motivated this "protection" that Hollywood was offering them. I hope they will see that what is happening is merely silly, not an outrage.

The truly sad part is to watch kids who are officially too young to see the movies without their parents tell other kids that they can't see it either. If the movie chains want to enforce the rules, the cineplex managers should be the ones doing the carding, not the hapless ticket sellers.

As a practical matter, I think that we as parents and as a society tend to treat teenagers as if they are younger and less mature than we ought, but it is still the responsibility of the parents to make the decisions for their kids and know when to delegate that decision-making to the kids. This is a responsibility that we cannot delegate to others. It's a responsibilty that we should not want to delegate.

At one time societies had rituals for children who were becoming teens. These could be as simple as eighth grade graduation or religious ceremonies which brought the child into an official state of (nearly) adult. Now, the big statements of growing up are the driver's license and going off to college, rituals that come far too late in adolescence to be useful.

When are kids old enough to see movies about sex, drugs, or evil behavior? Clearly, the absurd result of R ratings for movies that have a target audience that is younger than the rating "allows" in the door is no good. I'm hard pressed to think of any 15-year-old that I've met who could not handle South Park or any of the Halloweens or similar movies. Being scared is fun. Handling being scared is better. Being scared at the movies is a safe scare. Let the kids do it.

The R and totally dead, NC-17 ratings have to go. I think it needs to be replaced with an R-14 (about 80% of the R movies of today) and an A-18 (adult movies, teens allowed with parents only) rating that better reflect the desires of movie goers and still give parents a chance to help their children decide what to see. Still, if parents hadn't been willing to give up their responsibility for raising their kids, Hollywood and the chains would never have felt that they had the right to tell children (and by extension their parents) what they can see.

DVD home theater is in my future, too

[timur]

I agree completely with Jon Winters - I am tired of movie theaters. In my neighborhood, there are FOUR mulitplex theaters, and they all show the same movies (more or less). I spoke with one of the representatives, and he said that they will all charge the same for movies, but they'll distinguish themselves by service. Well, that appears to be a load of BS. The service is no better in one place than another. In one particular theater, there is a row of bright lights in the aisle along the bottom of the screen - it's so damn bright I can read a book! I complained THREE TIMES to the manager, and they haven't done anything.

The sound systems in theaters is also overrated. Anyone who has seen True Lies on a 60" screen with a Dolby Digital (aka AC-3) sound system at home knows what I'm talking about. It's a whole new experience when you can hear every single bullet as the jet fighter sprays the building floor.

I can't wait until I get enough money and space to buy a home theater like some of my friends have. Once that happens, I will NEVER go to a movie theater again.
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address

Re:Theatres have the right..

[Phillip Birmingham]

Oh, that's right, freedom is a bad thing for corporations, but is good for individuals.

Corporate freedom is not bad, just less important than individual freedom.

Age Discrimination

[Brian Ristuccia]

If you cannot be trusted with minor responsibilities like not seeing a restricted movie, why should you be trusted with adult things?

If he can't be trusted to stand up for his right not to be discriminated against based on his age, how can he be trusted to stand up for all our rights should he be drafted into our armed forces or commisioned for jury duty when he turns 18?

Because of the AARP, we can't impose special restrictions for old people. Why should it be any different for young people? You can't have it both ways.

What about "Coming Soon?"

[Fandango]

Thanks for posting that link to the Salon article.. very relevant. I just read that article the other day and it's good to see the other side of the story escaping the hypocritical "double standard" that the rest of the media is under.

The one comment I'd add is: enough about American Pie! What about "Coming Soon?" As the Salon article points out, this sounds like a great movie about the female side of the equation, and a movie I'd really like to see. I know I'm not the only 20-something straight guy who doesn't feel threatened by female sexuality, right? My g/f and I really enjoyed American Pie and I'd love to see Coming Soon with her, but because the hypocritical MPAA keeps trying to give it an NC-17, it probably won't be "Coming Soon" to theaters.. and that really sucks!

Preach on my brother!

[Lamont]

I'm with you. While reading this article I couldn't help but think he's right about the hypocrisy of theatres, but that isn't really his agenda here.

I especially like all the references to "the Net". What exactly does the internet have to do with any of this...the fact that DVD movies can be ordered online? How revolutionary!

Re:I hope so.

[escher]

The movie rating system would be a good thing if it was actually applied appropriately. However, the MPAA does not have a solid set of standards, and the few rules they do follow don't necessarily make much sense.

Movies in trouble? Right.

[Watts Martin]

Yes, some movie theatres are actually making an effort to enforce the ratings now. Yes, that'll probably piss people off. Yes, ramping up the enforcement because of skitterishness over school violence is silly. But none of those things present a convincing argument for abolishing the MPAA ratings system, and they're not even particularly convincing of the apparent argument that children should be let into R-rated movies. Sorry, I just don't think the right to free speech is endangered by telling a 13-year-old he can't go see someone masturbate into a pastry.

As for the argument that Mr. Winter's DVD home theatre with the GNOME interface is the harbinger of doom for the movie industry, sorry again, Jon. Last weekend was the biggest box office weekend in history in America. People are not failing to go to the movies, and it seems that those teenagers being turned away from The Blair Witch Project aren't significant enough to affect the bottom line.

I can't address the argument that liking "South Park" is a form of asserting one's individuality without collapsing into giggle fits, so I won't try.

Re:DVDs off the net? No - Rent!

[Tumbleweed]

Just rent the things. The local rental store has DVDs here. And they generally won't degrade with usage, either, other than by bad handling. Much better than tapes!

I'm definitely ready for DVD...

Voices from the Reality Line

[nadador]

YAKC -- Yet Another Katz Complaint. Let's see, do we have the prerequisite reference to censorship? Yes. Letters from disgruntled teenagers? Yes. Abundant references to Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR in the comments? Yes. Reduction of religious people to blathering buffoons for thinking softcore porn isn't a fundamental right? Yes.

The more of these Voices from the whatever there are, the more that they show their true character. Is it irritating that some people were denied entrace to the movie? Certainly. Have they been denied some sort of fundamental right? No.

The response to this is totally out of proportion to the severity of the situation. Being denied or inconvenienced in viewing movies that are at best mildly entertaining soft core pornography or full of racial humor is not so great an evil that the nerd community should rally around the so called "oppressed." To other commenters, its not Nazi Germany. Get over yourselves.


Andrew Gardner

DVDs off the net

[cpt kangarooski]

I liked the kid who was confusing VCDs with DVDs. VCD movies are already insanely large downloads for anyone using a modem (poor me, I guess; no good DSL or cable modems here). DVDs are what - like 4-18GB?

If he's got a computer, he should just get a DVD player for it; much cheaper, even if you have to use one of those obscure non-Linux OSes.

Re:DVDs off the net

[cpt kangarooski]

Okay, fair enough. I had interpreted it as meaning that he planned to dl the movie, but maybe he was talking about ordering. (I would like to, but since I'm the amazing creditless boy, it's more trouble than it's worth)

Re:DVDs off the net

[Render]

You might, but DVD players can't read CDRs. Guess you're stuck watching movies on your monitor. Break out the comfy chair...

-Render.

Re:DVDs off the net

[xantho]

>Its much more comfortable to watch a movie while laying on the couch then it is sitting at my computer desk. You ought to put the Lay-Z-Boy in front of the computer. You're close enough to the screen when reclined that the perspective is the same size as the TV from across the room. --Hunter Pankey

Re:DVDs off the net

[Jonathan_S]

Actually a lot, possibly most, DVD players also play Video CDs, so it is possible he meant to download and burn the VCD, then watch it on television, rather that on the computer.

Re:DVDs off the net

[ntillery]

Newer DVD players can play VCDs. I know mine does. Its much more comfortable to watch a movie while laying on the couch then it is sitting at my computer desk.

I'm 23 and got carded...

[vendull]

I could agree with you more man. My wife and I are both 23 years old and the $%^&* ticket booth attendant would not sell us tickets without ID's to the Blair Witch Project. I too was tempted to walk away. It's not like I was even *close* to the age limit.

Re:OK buddy

[alumshubby]

Well, richnut,

here's a larger social problem I see it's indicative of: Way too many parents aren't taking as much interest and control in their kids' upbringing, and this vacuum gets filled by legislators, school officials, and even movie ushers having to step in and make decisions.

I hope that when my little guy is 17, I can take him to movies like these and actually talk to him about them afterward. I think that's the intent of the MPAA rating system, anyway.

A different way to approach the situation

[Trix]

I've read most of the series on Ticket Booth Tyranny and I think I may have a different solution to the problem. It seems to me that the effectiveness of civil disobedience has declined in the last several years, so maybe it's time for a new tactic>

Vote with your feet.

Sure, having a "Sneak a Geek Day" sounds like a nice idea, but look at what you're doing -- you're putting more money into the theatre owner's pockets. That's no way to change policy. Instead, I propose shutting down the entire movie theatre industry for a day. See how many people you can get to NOT go to a movie theatre. After all, the movie studios know that the really big money is in home video releases -- why do you think that theatre engagements keep getting shorter and shorter?

If you want to change the mind of the theatre owners, don't add to their coffers. Hit them where they live -- in the wallet.

That's just my opinion.

I think you are confusing....

[TBone]

....the right to control the clientele of their establishments with the right to expand or focus on what that base clientele is.

Yes, the theaters have the right to say "OK, you are a problem viewer and you may not visit our establishment".

They do not have the right to say "We as a corporation feel that we are better qualified to judge who the target audience of this movie is than the MPAA". The MPAA gives every movie a rating which is intended to guide parents on the content of the film.

In agreeing to show movies, the movie theaters should be following the pre-established guidelines for the film. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a letter-writing campaign to the studios informing them that your local theater chain is not allowing all of the potential customers in to see the film would generate good results.

This moral decisionmaking is being made at the corporate level for us, so bring in another corporate level to help counter the idiocy. Making movies is a business. If the studios can't get the movie out to be seen by everyone who wants to see it, then they will eventually come down on the outlets that are limiting their take on the film.

Here's a few links for you all....

• Eyes Wide Shut
• American Pie
• South Park

And remember how to go about the advocacy, people. The studios aren't going to care if you and your brother, both 15, couldn't get in to see these movies. But they will care that theaters are shutting down legitimate 17-year-old viewers because some corporate menegement weenie thinks he has a better grasp on the morality of your children than you do.

Re:I think you are confusing....

[Roland the Gunslinge]

On what do you base your assertion that theater owners do not have the right to make their own standards? They own the property, they make the rules. MPAA ratings are GUIDELINES, they hold no force of law one way or another.

What the hell are they teaching in schools nowadays?

We still need a permanent 'Katz sucks' poll option.

Re:Theatres have the right..

[Roland the Gunslinge]

In a truly free market, there would be no prohibition on such behavior from a legal standpoint. Of course, people adopting such policies would advertise their stupidity, and would hopefully lose quite a lot of business, which is why I advocate repealing such laws. Bring the bigots out in the open.
The point is, however, that property rights (a concept Mr. Katz cannot grasp, apparently) overrule any alleged 'right' of a 17 year old to see a movie.

Re:Klueless

[lucid]

If you'd like some actual statistics on teenage driving, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (), teenage drivers make up 6.7% of all drivers on the road, and were drivers in 17% of all police reported accidents. Which is not to say that they were at fault, just that they were there. Many of the letters Katz summarized or quoted from were from people aged 16 or 17. If these children, as you say, have no idea as to what is good or bad for them by now, they have a lot of catching up to do. One or two years from now, they will emerge from the magic chrysalis of enlightenment, and will have gone from "children making stupid children decisions" to "adults making mature mistakes." Also, you noted that children are the responsibility of their parents. But the theaters here have usurped that responsibility. I recall one message Katz related said the person in question actually had a permission slip from his parents to see whatever movie it was, but was walked out.

Re:Klueless

[lucid]

maybe someday i'll even know how to do those link things. heh.

Re:Oh My God...

[rhinoX]

You forget to mention that the RAPES were alleged against the ADULT SECURITY GUARDS and POLICE. Ahem.

Censorship

[Zaediex]

What does censorship have to do with movie ratings? People under 18 years of age are restricted from watching movies with certain ratings. Boo hoo! Will the movies be available from your viewing pleasure when you are are deemed chronologically old enough? Sure they will. Should you able to watch these movies now? No! Why? Because that's the current rule. Our society is bound by all sorts of these funky rules. We may not agree with all of them but you have to agree that they've served us pretty well so far. I do agree that some of them are dated and could be revised, however, until they're changed we're obligated to follow them.

So buckle up little camper, and obey the rules...

Zaed.

Because that's the rule....

[slouie]

I find it insulting that Katz has decided to take it upon himself to declare that theaters should no longer determine whether or not they wish to enforce voluntary policies pertaining to MPAA ratings. The managers who are attempting to establish an R policy do so to conform to what they view as community standards. And there is nothing wrong with that. It's perfectly LEGAL for them to do that, just as it is legal for stores to "refuse service" to a customer as long as it is not discriminatory.

Is being treated differently because you are younger than 18 discriminatory? Hell yes, but it is also the point at which the LAW determines whether or not you're an adult. As arbitrary as it sounds, the law says the day before you turn 18 is different than your birthday. It's not a level of maturity that's being measured. It's not knowledge or experience that's measured. It's age that determines whether or not you can vote. Why? Because the government won't spend the time or effort to measure anything else unless you make it worth their while (example: see how many teenagers are serving hard time for "adult" crimes), so should we should expect theaters to determine an individual's maturity level before allowing them to watch a movie? Hell no.

And so, a business owner tries to make it their business to act like a member of the community and puts up a policy enforcing the R rating. Well, gosh darn it. Life sucks for the kids. If they can't get an adult to watch the movie with them, then that business owner has the right to refuse service.

All I read in Katz's article is whining. "I got a note from my Mommy." Even the schools have stopped believing that line. "I'm 17 and I couldn't watch a movie. Darn that's unfair!" That's life, brat. If you haven't learned that by now, you're gonna suffer when you get out in the real world. Go watch something they'll let you see. "I'm gonna buy DVD." If you wanna protest with your dollars, Hey, feel free to do so. The usher, cashier, or manager you had to argue with and whine to when you didn't get your way will appreciate it.

It's not the theater manager's fault that the movie is rated G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17. It's the Movie Picture Association of America (MPAA) that sets up these ratings. The manager follows the rules set down by the corporation that owns the theaters who try very hard not to get sued and upset the stockholders by following MPAA's standards. You wanna do something about it? Try fighting the MPAA instead. The manager is just trying not to get fired because some brat's parents sued his bosses for not enforcing the rules.

What really upsets me about this story are the mention of parents who aren't willing to get involved enough with their kids to go watch these movies with them. The rules say "accompanied by a parent or adult guardian." What's to explain about that? You've known the rules have been since you were kids. Stop whining because you're too embarassed to ask Mom or Dad to watch the movie with you or because they won't do it. They have their reasons. Talk to them about it. Interact with your parents instead of putting the blame on the theater.

Maybe we had it easier when us older folks were younger, but then people weren't so lawsuit-happy back then.


-S. Louie

Re:Because that's the rule....

[Krellis]

: Is being treated differently because you are
: younger than 18 discriminatory? Hell yes, but it
: is also the point at which the LAW determines
: whether or not you're an adult. As arbitrary as
: it sounds, the law says the day before you turn
: 18 is different than your birthday.

Well, actually, in most if not all states, you are
considered to have reached the age of majority on
the day before your 18th birthday. Therefore the
day before and the day of are the same, but two
days before would be different :)

Sorry, just had to point that out, it'll never
happen again. Honest!

---
Tim Wilde
Sysadmin, Dynamic DNS Network Services

Natural Born Killers

[Asperity]

Interesting bit about Natural Born Killers:

A woman in Amite, Louisiana, was suing Oliver Stone along with just about everybody else involved in the production and distribution of the film -- she'd been shot during a crime spree that was supposedly inspired by the movie. The shooters were said to have watched Natural Born Killers repeatedly before setting out on their adventure. Or whatever you'd call it.

Both of the criminals -were- over 18 at the time of the crime. This case isn't even a "kids are impressionable, let's protect them" one -- according to the plaintiffs, we're all impressionable, and the defendants should have known the movie "would cause and inspire people such as the defendants to commit crimes."

Let's just lock it all up, why don't we?

Oh, forget it. I'm not really sure what I was trying to say here. It is an interesting case, though. People have tried this sort of thing before, and it generally doesn't work, but who knows what a jury in a smallish southern town will say about it?

Re:Natural Born Killers

[Asperity]

I think you're right; the whole thing is silly. I just posted the bit about the Oliver Stone case... I dunno. I thought it was funny. And whatever one thinks of ol' Katz, it's always nice to have some more examples of weird entertainment-industry-blame-fests than just a couple of emails. Or a thousand. Whatever.

Really, I think the MPAA is a load of hogwash... I should look into who funds them. The money's going to waste. If a parent really -is- concerned about what her kid sees, and has some sort of authoritarian bent anyway, she can (and does) research the movies on her own. There're all sorts of groups willing to provide information, ratings and whatnot keyed to every demographic, no matter how bizarre -- and they do it because they already believe the MPAA's not sufficient.

The idea that a movie, book, etc. can incite violence like that is absurd -- especially since in the NBK case, they're claiming that it incites violence in "people like that" as well as the general public. Just think about the team of lawyers and psychologists even the smallest independent filmmaker might have to hire to make sure their movies won't "incite" the criminally insane to violence. It's almost funny -- but what if this sort of thing gains a court precedent?

The idea behind this particular case is that they want to view intellectual property as being like a regular physical commodity, in that, just like with consumer safety lawsuits, you could sue for damages if you're harmed by the film (like you could if you were harmed by, say, a faulty child safety seat or something like that.) What a scary thought.

The 'moral majority' -- that the politicians claim is demanding ever-increasing restrictions on what we can and can't view -- should take matters into its own hands and do it themselves (like some of them are already doing, to their credit.) Putting the responsibility for what they feel they should be doing for (to?) their children into the hands of an association that isn't accountable to anyone, least of all the people they're supposed to be serving, is not the way to do things.

Probably why so many people are confusing the MPAA ratings with law -- it may not be government, but it sure feels like it, in the sort of tangly bureaucratic way that makes me itch.

Thanks for your response.

It's not a terribly well-formed one, but it'll have to do for now. :)

Re:Natural Born Killers

[Seraphii]

I'm not denying that there are severely disturbed people out there, as a matter of fact i think that the fact that the original post was made was evidence that there is at least one pretty much severely disturbed person out there, what I'm pointing out is that with or without the "incitation" to commit the crimes that these people end up commiting, they're going to do it anyway, not because they saw some movie and thought damn I wanna be just like mickey and mallory, or because they're below that artificial nonsensical arbitrary age barrier, and although a large amount of pople may equate the two in a cause-effect fashion, I don't think that has any basis in fact, "Natural Born Killers" Didn't make the fundamentally disturbed people involved in the incident that you mention, *into* fundamentally disturbed people, these people were just straight out whacked... as for the *real* cause, I don't know because I'm unfamiliar with the individual case, but as the earlier voices from the hellmouth line of journalism points out, what the mainstream media, or some fruitcake woman in Amite thinks is the cause of the problem, is pretty much blatantly *not*.

I'm sure what you're saying about the fruitcake from Amite is completely true, and I think all it serves to illustrate is the fact that this woman is a member of the aforementioned moral majority whom I was speaking of earlier.. Thus validating my view that this is nothing but a political ploy designed to curry favour from people such as this Amite fruitcake...

Perhaps it will stop happening when the majority that needs to be appealed to is not a bunch of stupid, panicky animals, and politicians can make sensible arguments and sensible statements in order to gain favour.

Or perhaps not. Like right now.

Thanks for your response.

Remember "Here come the seventies" TV-series?

[Pig Hogger]

Remember early 1970's "Here come the seventies" TV-series, where the future was dissected every week?
One episode above all marked me than all others: it said in substance "When children can dial-in a movie request, or insert a cassette, censorship becomes irrelevant".

-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!

Re:I hope so.

[kneeo]

I like going to r-rated movies. That way your *almost* sure that the snot-nosed, noisey kids wont be there to disrupt my movie going experience.

Re:Katz doesn't read Slashdot!

[Chris Lindsay]

As a former ass. manager at a United Artists theater... The MPAA are basically all-powerful in the movie industry. To show movies, you must "voluntarily" comply with the rating system set forth by them. You don't, you can't show any movies. Once you agree to this, sign it into a contract that no one thinks twice about, they have the power to fine theaters thousands upon thousands of dollars if the regulations are not enforced.

Wired magazine on Home Theater

[daviddennis]

I think it was two or three issues ago that Wired had a very interesting article on the highest of the high-end home theater gadgets, the $180,000 plus systems. The article described a system where a conventional video signal could be sent through a $ 25,000 black box that removed the scan lines and made it as gorgeous as HDTV.

I was wondering if anyone had actually seen this kind of system, and if so, if it was worthy of the hype.

D

----

Re:Klueless

[toriver]

It doesn't matter how many thousands of emails you got from CHILDREN. They are still children. They are still the responsibility of their parents. They are NOT adults nor have the achieved the maturity necessary for the decisions on what is good or bad for them.

You just fail to get it, do you? The things a parent needs to protect their kid against are certain parts of Real Life, not some fictious entertainment. There isn't an usher asking the teenager for an ID when he gets a dose of cocaine from a street dealer.

What's the message you're trying to give? "Kids, you can live 'American Pie', you just can't watch it on a screen"? It's okay for Little Jill to learn about sex in the backseat of Horny Jack's car, but she cannot watch Cruise and Kidman have some in a theatre?

All this "protect the children" bullshit are strawmen thrown up by sensation-hungry media and control freaks who make no effort to teach children right from wrong, they just try to remove as much "wrong" from the movies etc. that kids can get at, and foolishly believe this will lead to only "good" influences getting to the kids.

Re:So, U support pornography 4 minors w/o parental

[Crankpin]

Anonymous Bonehead wrote:

"You must still be asleep. If "censorship" cuts children off from "some aspect of human experience", and you don't want to do that, then porn must be okay."

I have no problem with it. If you see a problem with your kids & pornography, then by all means, don't let them access it.
Just don't try curtail ayone ELSE'S acceess.

"Isn't sex an aspect of human experience?"

Duh.

"Do you have children?

Maybe little girls?

:)

Don't worry, I'll make sure they have access to all aspects of human experience."

What is this? Religious Whacko Acceptance Month? You're saying that if John thinks porn is okay, it's okay for you to threaten his kids.
What?

"After all, it isn't your decision as a parent as to what you consider your children ready for, is it?"

That's the point, you drooling idiot. It's the PARENT'S responsibility. Theirs, and theirs ALONE. Censoring content for everyone is a result of laziness on the part of the parents - they don't want to be bothered, so they get the govenment do do it for them.

"Why don't you try posting again when you've gained some experience with raising children?"

Why don't you try posting again when you've managed to aquire a CLUE?

Is it just me, or is anyone else out there tired of of the religious whackbrains in this country trying to decide what's "morally correct" for everyone else? And their kids?

Of course kids are opposed to this regulation..

[Loligo]

They're the ones most directly affected by it!

How many pot smokers are in favor of keeping pot illegal? How many people in favor of keeping pot illegal smoke it?

This isn't rocket science, geez.

-LjM

Re:Stupid Analogy

[Loligo]

Woah there, Steve, didn't mean to ruffle anything, only point out that the people that are most directly affected by a particular type of prohibition are also the ones most likely to be opposed to it.

If I wish to do activity A, but there is a law prohibiting me from doing activity A, it only makes sense that I will be opposed to that law.

However, if I am in favor of the prohibition that keeps activity A illegal, I am very UNLIKELY to be someone that participates in this activity.

I didn't say anything anywhere about people that feel it should be an individual's choice - yet choose not to participate themselves (which is where you stand, it sounds like).

Sorry for not being more clear on this one...

-LjM

Re:Kids know all?

[Disco Stu]

And they listen to Limp Bizkit. Blah. If that's not brainwashed, I don't know what is.

digital home theater

[meme]

Yeah, CorpGovLLC are hasseling us at the ticket booth so we'll stay home, no mass get togethers. Digital home theater will allow them to track your every movement. The last thing they want today is for people to get together somewhere, unplugged and actually starting to talk to one another out of earshot of those in control. Once Hollywood starts beaming first run movies into your cave, they'll collect bit after bit of information on you. All while making more money than ever before. Modulate the signal, get jamming.

Re:Your country isn't the world

[dirty]

"This motion picture has been rated R by the MPAA." The MPAA stands for Motion Picture Association(sp?) of America. In short, there is no law saying kids can't see R-rated movies, period.

Logic takes a holiday

[Belgand]

I was recently going off to see The Blair Witch Project, seeing as it was the second day of release I expected the lines to be incredibly long and possibly sold out. So, being the cunning eighteen year old lad that I am I went off at 3 that afternoon to buy tickets. Now I didn't expect any problems, me and my $9 got me two student tickets, one for me and my date later that night. But what did I find when I got to the box office? They refused to sell me two tickets since I wasn't 21. Even though I was over 17 they would only sell me one ticket. Even after pleading with the theater and using all known forms of logic they refused to relent. Not wanting to show up for my date without the tickets I was eventually able to get my parents to buy me the tickets.

The thing amazing me most of all though, was why Blair was rated anything over PG13 (although it would probably only actually scare a PG audience). The only reason I was sent through the gauntlet of this theater twice? The characters utter the "dreaded" f-word! OH MY! That I, at 18 might allow an impressionable 16 year old (hell, my date was older than me!) to hear words they use on a regular basis.

The only reason the theater chains continue these practices is because people don't complain. Until the mainstream media bothers to get around to this injustice nothing will get done.

Re:Logic takes a holiday

[ronfar]

I doubt the mainstream media will do anything helpful about this, since they are in part responsible for it. It's advocacy through slanted reporting, something I've seen my whole life. I remember as a teenager watching Sally Jesse Raphael doing a show on Dungeons and Dragons (in those days D&D was popular among smart, bored kids who weren't good at sports), she had some people on to say how awful and Satanic D&D was and someone on from the Church of Satan to defend Satanism. (No body was on to defend the idea that roleplaying games not only didn't endorse Satanism but were not any kind of religious worship at all. That was taken for granted by Sally and the people running her show.)

This philosophy has crept into the mainstream news, "Was Columbine caused by movies or video games? We'll ask the author of the book On Killing David Grossman and Senator Joseph Lieberman what they think," is the type of thing you hear from TV discussion shows. How do you fight the mainstream media? I haven't been able to figure out a direct way but they do tend to snuggle up to whoever's in power in Washington, so maybe voting will help. I don't know though, the media is both powerful and entirely unnaccountable, so I don't know if they can ever be beaten. If anyone out there can think of a way to fight slanted reporting and lies of ommission in the powerful US media establishment, I'd love to hear it...

Re:Ain't that the truth!

[Deimos_]

Dead wrong? How is speaking out againsts the removal of freedom dead wrong?

The core of the thing

[Deimos_]

First, I would like to make a disclaimer. What I say may offend you if you are a hardcore religious person-- READ NO FARTHER, that is if you are not a logical person. I enjoy and for the most part agree with Jon Katz's work, this and the hellmouth article I particularily agree with. There are two main reasons behind censoring. Those two main reasons are Security and Religion.

• Security: People are afraid of death and or pain in general, and with good reason: pain is unpleasant and death is a complete unknown to everyone who is living. In response to this primal fear of death, our race has invented the 'Sanctity of life' Thats right, we made it up. To quote George Carlin, "If everything that was alive is now dead, and everything thats alive now is going to die, wheres the sacred part?" People feel that since they cannot stave off the the inevitable hand of time, they can at least live their life as long as possible. There is nothing wrong with this. The problem arises when certain people, usually middle class, church going people feel the need to restrict others so they and their children can remain safe. The tradeoff of freedom/security is usually not a very good thing. My question: Who are you to say what I can and cannot do, as long as I don't infringe upon your rights to do what you want to? The rights of one individual stop where the rights of the next individual start. If I want to watch a movie, I want to watch a movie, you have ABSOLUTELY NO right to say which movies I can and cannot watch based upon their content. This goes for anything else I want to do which harms no-one. If I want to take a hit off the bong or jack up until I bleed, who cares? Most certainly you don't you just want me to not become violent and kill or hurt you. You say they will make me a violent person? What are the chances of that? If everyone who ever took a hit, watched an action movie or a porno even SLAPPED someone for every movie they watched, or every toke they took, we would have cadavers stacked higher than the empire state building and the stench alone would make people worry about more important things (what are we going to do with all these stiffs?). How is it that you know me better than my parents? How is it that you know me better than I know myself?
• Religion: Where in this hell did this beast even come from? I'll tell you, religion came from the need to know what was going to happen after death. We most certainly have a primal fear of death (of course, if we're dead, how can we pass our genes on, if an organism isn't scared of death, then he has a pretty bad chance of passing his mutant genes on to his offspring) Since we were scared of it, we needed something to explain and protect it from its harsh reality. To date, as far as we know, there is NOTHING after death. There is also NOTHING to disprove life-after-death as well, so simply stated, WE DON'T KNOW!! People flocked to a religion because most of them promised everything, and followed the very bad saying, "Never look a gift horse in the mouth" Generally, if something is too good to be true, it is. Certain people in higher ups in these religions (When I about religion, I talk about christianity, all the way from catholics to primitive baptists, they are all in the same boat, as far as I'm concerned, the rest of religions with only a few exceptions, are not a bad thing) decided that sex was a sin. They did this because they wanted to fuck the women and remove the peasants from the competition!! Instantly, everything that felt good, was a sin. Today, the end result of this rather good idea (hey! who doesn't want to get laid?) is the taboo on anything sexual. It'll spoil our kids they say, bullshit, if ANYTHING, it'll educate them. I see absolutely nothing wrong with my kids watching porno's because I would much rather them be sexually proficient, to be able to return the favor (from American Pie) than just hear about it, want to do it and care not about who/what they do it with or about them. Besides, if they are more profficent, they now have a better chance of passing on MY genes to the next generation and continuing my silent legacy, recorded in my desendents DNA. There is nothing wrong with the human body, it is a good example of how evolution works. In my opinion, its also a very appealing thing to look at. (some views may differ, some people like horses better, oh well, whatever floats their boat)

The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach, but it IS a result of evolution. What we must do now, our risk extinction as a species, is to evolve to the next step-- enlightened self-intrest. An it harm none, do what thou wilt. Throw out this religious crap and THINK for yourselves instead of letting someone else think for you. Its not that difficult, in fact, it feels rather good (another sin?).

Peace..

-Deimos-

Re:The core of the thing

[Deimos_]

Of course I thought about it. I fucking said and I said that it needs change now. Apparently you did not read what I wrote. What makes me a hypocrite. I fucking practive what I preach! (well, I don't get laid enough, but thats beside the point). TV? OBVIOUSLY you didn't read my post. How would you know what TV I watch? Well, even thought it is beside the point, I will tell you how much TV I watch: NONE! I hate the TV, its a religiously biased, intellectually insulting piece of dogshit. Your simply pissed because I'm insulting your beliefs. I told you at the top of the article that if you were a religiously biased person, don't read this. You obviously didn't read that either... -deimos-

Blinding Flash of the Obvious

[Karth]

I've read Jon Katz's articles, and I've seen them be good, bad, horrible... and I gotta say, this last one is probably the least thought out one I've ever seen. Yes, kids are going to whine about going to movies. Yes, some adults think that the kids should be allowed to see whatever they want.

Some adults also believe that their kids can't decide what movies to watch without their permission, and HOPE that the theater will help them enforce this decision by not letting their underage kids into any movie they want to go to.

I like Jon, I've liked a lot of his articles... but this one is crazy. If he wants to post something, why can't he have someone involved in real life (read CmdrTaco or Hemos) check it out first?

Re:Blinding Flash of the Obvious

[Kintanon]

I'm just randomly inserting this in the thread here:

I can't believe how many of the same people who screamed about the FBI wanting to tap Sat Phones are now advocating censorship in movie theatres.
These people also dump on blocking software, yet once again advocate arbitrary censorship in movie theatres. So, everyone who complains about blocking software and FBI privacy infringment, then supports movie theatres denying entrance to 15-17 year olds is a hypocrite.

Kintanon

Re:Is it that tough for you to figure it out?

[Karth]

After the age of 13, any child in the united states can legally seek to be removed from their parents custody. A judge will decide if they are responsible enough to be on their own. So even if they are on their own, they still have to have someone older (Judges have to be above 25, afaik...) and hopefully wiser to help them along the way.

I strongly believe in the first amendment, and I agree that free speech is good... but if you wanna argue constitutionality....

The constitution was designed by people in the 1700's. They designed it as a document to guide people that were capable of rational, common sense, thought. They didn't design it for a culture where people have no idea if stepping in front of a train is a good or bad idea, and people who think that putting their hand in a fire won't get them burned.

Let the flambe begin.

Re: Blind Faith of the Oblivious

[Karth]

Well, my parents raised me to be "sensible, good-natured, and morally secure", and so did the parents of many of the people that I no longer consider my friends.

The same "sensible, good-natured, and morally secure" people are the ones that snuck into theaters, got people they knew to buy them alcohol, and got in street fights in the neighboring cities.

Re:I care about my kids...

[xantho]

>Why should parents be required to stay with their children in an adult movie? Because if a parent intends >to allow their child to be exposed to such material, he/she should be there to see exactly what the child is seeing

This overlooks a couple of possibilities. Perhaps the parent already has enough knowlege about the film that it is not necessary to experience all of the movie. Of course, it is to the theatre's gain to make the parent spend another $6.00-9.00 just to accompany their child. Another possibility is that the parent has already seen the movie and directs eir child to watch.

--Hunter Pankey

Re:Klueless

[xantho]

>You want an example? Teenage males are the worst drivers according to insurance records. They >make stupid decisions. Even when they've been trained on the correct actions (read safe). Well, teenage drivers have had somewhere from 0 to 3 years experience. Teenage lifers have had somewhere from 13 to 18 years experience. Getting in a car accident on my 16th birthday is like getting myself killed on the day I was born. It is not like getting myself killed on my 16th birthday. Vague, eh? --Hunter Pankey

Re:Klueless

[xantho]

>You want an example? Teenage males are the worst drivers according to insurance records. They make >stupid decisions. Even when they've been trained on the correct actions (read safe).

Well, teenage drivers have had somewhere from 0 to 3 years experience. Teenage lifers have had somewhere from 13 to 18 years experience.

Getting in a car accident on my 16th birthday is like getting myself killed on the day I was born. It is not like getting myself killed on my 16th birthday. Vague, eh?

--Hunter Pankey

Re:Katz doesn't read Slashdot!

[richnut]

You know this movie nonsense has totally flipped me around on Katz.

It's clear to me now that he's just a wind sock blowing in the most convenient direction to stir up some sort of "rally the geeks" battle cry on some sort of preceived injustice, conveniently centered around some sort of recent media event.

Is the world really a crappier place becasue kids cant get in to see movies? Are you really saving the world, John? Who are you really defending, the good kids or the kids that go out and do the bad stuff? You're the one telling them to disobey the rules. You're the one blowing this stupid subject way out of proportion (Jeepers man it's a MOVIE!!). You're the one filling these kids with this perception of how bad they have it and how terribly unfair it is they cant see a movie. If one of them goes out and blows away an usher at a theater I suppose it's not your fault right? All teenagers are ticked off at authority, Ever think it's morons like you sending these confusing messages that's goofing them all up?

Someone needs to tell these kids the same thing my parents told me:

"Get over it. In the overall picture of life this means nothing"

-Rich

Re:Go away Katz

[richnut]

Get out of here Katz. You're the problem with kids today. It's poeple like you who are confusing them so much. We're talking about a movie here you dolt. Not selective service, not drugs, not sexually transmitted diseases, not guns in schools, not any other host of IMPORTANT issues that teens need to deal with. Get a grip.


-Rich

Re:JonKatz, I'm impressed for once

[richnut]

Please...

None of this is about censorship. These movies are not censored. Anyone can see them WITH AN ADULT. That's not censorship it's social responsiblity.

Katz is just using the concept of free speech and censorship to rile people up about something that really doesn't matter.

It's a MOVIE for crying out loud. You didn't get to break the rules this weekend and sneak in? BFD. Life is hard.


-Rich

Re:OK buddy

[richnut]

What issue is that? You attack me but dont even make a point.

Are you trying to say that not being able to sneak into movies anymore is indicative of a larger social problem?

Are you trying to say that putting forth an honest attempt to sheild kids from something questionable is bad?

Actually. Wait. You're right. It is indicative of a larger problem. It is indicative of all the whiners who weild vast teams of lawyers on some quest for personal freedom when all they are really doing is wasting time and money. It's indicative of kids who think they're entitled to things just because they think they should have them. It's indicative of all the spoiled little brats who ruin it for everyone else.

If you're trying to say that this is a symptom of kids being treated unfairly, you're right. Kids are treated unfairly. So are adults. So is everyone. If you're going to fight unfair treatment you have to pick your battles, and a stupid movie that no one will even remember in a few years just doesn't seem like a very good one to me. There's too many other bad things going on to make this much of a deal over a movie that is legal in all 50 states for people over 17.

-Rich

Re:JonKatz, I'm impressed for once

[richnut]

First of all, many of these theaters are not allowing any people under the age of 18 in PERIOD. Not with an adult, not with a parent, not at all

Boo Hoo. It's a movie. Get on with life. These kids will see it sooner or later, one way or another if they really want to.

The only form of censorship which is even remotely defendable is that of the parent.

I cant agree with that more. I hope every single kid who got kicked out gets their parents to rent it for them if they really want to see it (when it comes out of course)

The only thing I'm saying is we're not talking about burning books or anything here. If you dont like the theater's policy dont go. If yout dont want the rule around, write the MPAA. Just dont try to pass this off as some horrible injustice to the kids of today, they have way bigger problems.

-Rich

JPN & SCN countries morally deranged?

[webwalker]

Either you've got a really novel notion of what constitutes deranged or you've never been out of your American hole.

Japan is numero uno for child porn because Japanese males have an unrestrained passion for naked pictures of pubescent girls. They show up most often in the states as 'Lolitas.' The practice is winked at in Japan, but is common and public, available at every newsstand. Does it surprise you coming from a country that is still 100 years behind in it's valuation of women?

Re: Puritanical Beliefs. I swear, you and Katz have been smoking the same DOPE. Read Ian Buruma's `Wages of Guilt' for starters if you want an inside take on the screwed up social cesspool that is modern Japan. I think both of you (and a large number of the flubber-mouthed anti-establishment knitwits on Slashdot) need to learn that Puritans and 'Puritanical beliefs' (in it's popular usage) are not the same thing. The racket about the persisting influence of 'Puritanism' gets really old, because most of the fools stupid enough to incautiously lambaste it only know of it from having seen 'The Crucible', written in 1953 as a thinly veiled jab at McCarthy's 'witchhunt' for communists.

Change Gears: Scandinavia? You've got to be kidding me! Consider: it is legal to own or produce child porn...just as long as you don't sell it. This is healthy?

BTW Scandinavian countries, while having differing attitudes on sex, consider lots of things that are taken for granted by Americans to be pure horrors. And they're not of one mind about the issue: Sweden on the conservative side and Denmark on the liberal side with the other countries more or less conservative based on the issue. Consider what IS prohibited: Gay or Lesbian couples adopting children and most forms of drugs. Consider what is HEAVILY REGULATED: Alcohol and nicotine cannot be advertised, are HEAVILY taxed, and are severely restricted concerning the places where they may used or purchased.

Since the subject of your post was movie ratings consider this: ALL Scandinavian countries have movie ratings systems. They work somewhat differently than the American system in the type of content they seek to screen (mostly the Uber-Violence that characterizes Hollywood today) from children. But a significant fact is here if you can stomach it: AGE is still the benchmark, and it is the STATE who makes the decisions.

CiXeL, I don't think the porn you downloaded (and are apparently still downloading) has made you 'mentally deranged.' Morally deranged, yes. And mentally stupid, if you think humans have become smart enough to not do things to themselves or others that are harmful. Laws decided on by the community for the community's own good are the cornerstone of self government and hence democracy. Like a man says, "It ain't perfect, but it's better than everything else." In keeping with wildman Katz' loopy anarchism, you're supporting a principle of thought that isn't a system. It's chaos, and no basis for governance.

Yeah, I can imagine you're pissed at me right now for sounding off on you. Maybe if you slowed down long enuf du korekt UR spellign you might have to consider the content of your thoughts before you inflict them on the rest of us.

webwalker

everything old is new again

[grrrreg]

I am really, really old. Born in (gasp! wheeze!) the Kennedy Administration. When I was sixteenish I was denied legal entry to see 'Serpico' and was really pissed about it. Same with 'Last Tango in Paris' (wow....butter!) the year before, and others, more than I care to remember. Point is, I survived to see them, and many others; I also swore that I would support kids who want to see movies of their choice when I got 'old.' So, here I am, agreeing with the overall Katzian theme that the kids are alright, BUT must we really devote so much bandwidth to this? Yes, I know that I am contributing to the problem rite now, but....gosh!

ps: 'affect' should have been 'effect'.....just to show I was paying attention

Re:Once again, censorship doesn't account for momm

[CaptainSuperBoy]

Bottom line - it's not the theater's decision what our children see. It's the parents' decision. As Katz says, violent crime among young people has been dropping, not rising. Who decided that movies have anything to do with this? Why is it OK to see graphic violence on cable or the internet but teenagers can't see movies that are about people their age, such as American Pie?

Your point about mature children makes no sense - it's nobody's decision but the parents' whether a child is mature enough to see a movie with some sexual humor and a little nudity. Katz is definitely advocating responsible parenting - what he's NOT advocating is the hands-off parenting that's all too common, letting internet filtering software and MPAA ratings have the final say in what their children see.

What are they trying to do?

[Kerosene]

What are the theaters attempting to gain by this censorship? Why is it evil for american kids to watch a movie that might be just a little violent? I saw "Blair Witch Project" last night, and I found it extremely entertaining. Even though it had an R rating, and I'm 15, it wasn't anything I couldn't handle. Why don't they allow parents to make the decisions for their children, and not put it up to the theaters, who are ran by huge companies that are always afraid of being sued?

Re:What are they trying to do?

[protogeek]

Erm, no. If the Hays code represented the societal standards of the day, then movies which violated those standards would have offended too many viewers and flopped at the box office, studios would have avoided similar films in the future, and the Hays code would never have been "necessary" in the first place.

Then, as now, restrictions on movie content were forced down the industry's and the public's throat by a small but vocal (and now, litigious) minority who feel entitled to tell the rest of us what we should watch.

Re:What are they trying to do?

[Stonehand]

* Probably, the theatres are attempting to save themselves from a) government legislation (my understanding is that it's all voluntary, now) and possibly b) lawsuits from irate parents. Given that there are many, many two-parent households who don't track their kids that well, it wouldn't surprise me if at least some would consider suing if a theatre let their 14- or 15- year-old in.

* Arguably, they could make the claim that if the parent isn't even going to show up, that they have no evidence of such permission. The requirement that the parent actually *stay* throughout the movie is a little odd, but it's not that big a leap.

This way, they are leaving the decision with the parents: show up with your kid and see the movie, or withhold your permission by not showing up. The theatre doesn't have to decide anything at all (such as whether a note of permission is real, or so forth); arguably, there should be a middle ground here (versus letting all kids in, and leaving yourselves open to liability) but I'm not sure if one exists.

Re:What are they trying to do?

[Tortolia]

Of course, the point should be made that while the Hays code was bad, those were accepted societal standards in 1930.

I would assume that if a similar law were to be enacted nowadays, it would be at least somewhat more tolerant of sexual content, et al.

Not that I condone or would want such a law, of course.

Re:Katz Revisionism

[BugMaster ChuckyD]

Hes talking about e-mails sent directly to him, not AC comments on /. Beleive it or not /. comments are not a representitive sample of the population!

Read, Understand, then post

[BugMaster ChuckyD]

Here is the very first sentance of Katz's post, as you obviously have trouble with the English language I have emphasied the relevant part

"Columns last week on Ticket Booth Tyranny drew well over a thousand e-mail messages, mostly from kids (including many of those ushers) enraged at theater chain restrictions, posturing and hypocrisy, and scrambling to buy DVD's and build home theaters.
"

R-rated movies != crappy movies

[Tim Pierce]

Katz, this is really stupid. You're trying to defend kids' inalienable rights to see crappy movies?

I think American Pie is a bad example to use here, because the crappiness of the movie gets in the way of a more important point. Remember, these restrictions prevent kids from seeing any R-rated movie by themselves.

Any R-rated movie.

What does that include? An awful lot. I pulled some videos from my shelf and came up with a short list of thoughtful and well-made movies that earned an R rating:

• The Color of Money. This movie contains strong language and very brief situations with drugs and nudity (probably ten or fifteen seconds total).
  
• Bull Durham. This movie contains strong language and quite a lot of "sexual situations" (usually defined as frank discussions of sex, or implied sex onscreen without nudity, such as sex under the covers). No nudity except for Tim Robbins' butt.
  
• Boogie Nights. The movie is all about sex, but the only nudity are a few nipples and one incredibly fake penis. A lot of strong language, some violence.
  
• The Big Lebowski. This movie contains strong language and one or two very brief "sexual situations," but no nudity.
  
• The Fabulous Baker Boys. A lot of strong language and sexual situations, no nudity.
  
• Witness. No strong language; some violence, very brief nudity.
  
• Rain Man. Some strong language, one or two sexual situations, no nudity, no violence.
  
• Secrets and Lies. I cannot possibly fathom how this movie earned an R rating. It contains nothing that is traditionally found objectionable by the morality police. I don't think anyone even says "fuck."
  
• Drugstore Cowboy. Strong language, a lot of drug use, a little violence.
  
• To Die For. Strong language, some sexual situations, a little violence, no nudity.
  
• Kiss of the Spider Woman. Strong language and violence, one sexual situation, though it is between two men, which is probably the chief reason this got an R.
  
• Wag the Dog. This movie contains strong language, a few sexual situations (people discussing the President's molestation of an underage girl), a little implied violence.
  
• Network. Strong language, one or two sexual situations, a little violence.
  

The point is that while these movies are not exactly children's fare, neither are they slasherfests, pornos or aimless sex comedies. None of them use violence, sex or language to be gratuitous; without exception they are thoughtful, well-crafted and provoking.

The problem is not that kids are being prevented from seeing crappy movies. The problem is that almost no films worth seeing receive a rating less than an R. Any movie which is sufficiently mature to be interesting winds up getting an R rating. A policy which refuses to allow children under 17 to see movies like these (is it really 18 now?) is a policy which declares children only fit for pabulum. I'm not surprised that kids resent being treated this way.

Open your own theater!

[Arandir]

Here he goes again! For someone who claimed he's on the verge of joining the libertarians, Katz doesn't have clue as to what liberty even means.

If the government were passing laws telling who theaters could and could not admit, then he would have a valid point. But theaters are privately owned businesses. If they don't want to admit children to certain movies, then that is their business. Freedom is not about one group of people telling another group how to conduct their day-to-day affairs.

If you feel so strongly about this, why don't you just go open up your own theatre? It's certainly much more productive than whining.

Re:Open your own theater!

[capntripz]

> But theaters are privately owned businesses. If they don't want to admit children to certain movies, then that is their business.


What if they don't want to admit blacks or jews or gays? Is that just their business?

Perhaps there is a racial minority which has a higher incidence of committing violent crime-- is it then okay to deny members of that group access to a movie because it might make them 'more violent'?
--
I'm a programmer. I have no desire to open my own theater, run my own restaurant, or operate my own bus line. I just don't want my children to have to sit at the back of the bus or use seperate drinking fountains. Discrimination is not okay. People should be judged not by the date of their birth but by the content of their soul. A huge burden of proof falls on someone who wants to discriminate to demonstrate a clear and present danger to society if they don't discriminate.

Re:No, why don't YOU go away, anonymous coward?

[Mike A.]

The phrase "good journalist", to me, implies that we're comparing him with other journalists. By that standard, he is indeed a "good journalist".

Of course, that doesn't make him a good writer. Just less lousy than a lot of people who pass for journalists in the rest of the media. (Off-topic: Am I the only one who finds the phrase "New Media" to be absurdly pretentious? Of course, that's partly an argument against Katz, also...)

Re:JonKatz, I'm impressed for once

[Jim Morash]

Arrgh, sorry the formatting sucks. Forgot I was in HTML mode.

JonKatz, I'm impressed for once

[Jim Morash]

As soon as this article appeared, I thought "Great merciful crap, he's at it again, time to filter JonKatz"... but then I read it. Surprisingly free of the usual grammatical/spelling errors, this article was also written in a much more rational tone than some of your previous work. Of course, I might think this just because I completely agree with you or because I haven't slept enough lately. ;) The cheap trick of using "innocent children" as a ploy to pass censorship legislation is as disgusting as it is unAmerican. It's not just in the Linux community that information wants to be free; more info = better choices not just in operating systems but in all aspects of our lives. Arbitrarily preventing children from watching movies is not going to have any positive effect - all it does is try and cut people off from some aspect of human experience. No one is born with morals - they must be learned, by seeing what goes on in the world and being taught, and deciding for yourself, what's right and what's wrong. Two relevant urls: _The Parking Lot is Full_ on 'protecting' children Salon article on teens using the internet to make informed decisions about sex

Re:JonKatz, I'm impressed for once

[drudd]

Actually you couldn't be more wrong.

First of all, many of these theaters are not allowing any people under the age of 18 in PERIOD. Not with an adult, not with a parent, not at all.

Secondly, it's one thing to prevent minors from viewing content without the knowledge/permission of their parents or guardians, but the government/MPAA/theaters should be superseeded by the will of the parent.

The only form of censorship which is even remotely defendable is that of the parent.

Doug

Re:JonKatz, I'm impressed for once

[Kintanon]

So you're saying you would feel differently if we were censoring library books and not allowing people under 18 to read books that contained violent or sexual material, or foul language?
I fail to see the consistancy in your view point. Either we have free media or we do not. If I opened a nice big private library/movie theatre/convenience store/etc.. could I decide that no blond, blue eyed people would be allowed in? How about no Black people? No Hispanics? No one over 35? No one under 20? Why are movie theatres different from any other business?

Kintanon

Re:Klueless

[napir]

AC, you just don't get it, do you?

I'm 16. I'm a CHILD. I can't wait until I turn 18 and have this huge revelation that will turn me into an ADULT. Which is quite strange, since you would think that by taking college biology I would have heard at least a little about this instantaneous intellectual maturation that occurs at the same time in all human beings.

You want an example? Insurance companies treat male drivers under 18 and male drivers 18-25 as being in the same age category. Maybe they know something you don't. Stupid people, no matter what their age, make stupid decisions. And funny, I haven't heard of anyone in their early twenties being refused a ticket to "Eyes Wide Shut."

Of course we're going to support his position to have more freedom. Look back through history. Anyone under unjust restriction has supported the removal of those restrictions. I might point you to a document titled "The Bill of Rights." Particularly note the section entitled "Amendment I." Note that nowhere does it state that this right is dependent upon age.

And regarding Nicole Kidman's butt, I seem to recall seeing that entire scene in the movie trailer, just before Star Wars. I'm sure all of those little kids were deeply scarred by seeing this scene.

Now, I'm not saying that 8-year old kids should be allowed into "Eyes Wide Shut" without a parent or someone responsible for them. But just how many 8 year olds do you see going to the theatre by themselves? I can't say I see many. Most of the CHILDREN I see being denied tickets for "South Park" and "Eyes Wide Shut" are teenagers -- many of which have done things themselves that are more explicit than anything shown in the censored American version of the movie.

Get a "k"lue.

Re:Of course, kids! (Clockwork Orange rerelease)

[Saint Nobody]

A Clockwork Orange was rereleased either last year or the year before. Tragically, it got very little notice.
The only place around me that showed it was the theater that plays, virtually exclusively, art films that have no popular interest. Unfortunately, that particular theater is not exactly in a nice part of the city, so i generally wait for video release.
BTW it was reviewed by the MPAA and the rating WAS bumped up to an NC-17 for the rerelease.

Re:Excellent parenting.

[Saint Nobody]

Don't let anyone like Katz demonize you for not allowing your children to watch whatever they want whenever they want to.

That's not what Katz is saying. Katz is in no way demonizing good parents. He's talking about theater owners, ushers, etc. who TRY to be substitute parents by making "moral" decisions regarding what a child can or cannot see.
And I agree with Katz. Theater owners shouldn't be taking away a parent's right to decide what children see.
Additionally, they shouldn't be treating MPAA recommendations as law, enforcing them blindly. The recommendations are just that. They are guidelines for parents to decide what children can see. This is a good idea with poor implementation. I don't want to know what somebody else thought of the moral fiber of a movie; I would much prefer facts, such as the RSAC's implementation of a ratings system for software and internet content. It has a rating from 0 to 4 in each of the following categories: Violence, Nudity, Sex, and Language. If somebody sings "Uncle Fucker" it would indicate language. It doesn't just slap on the same rating someting gets if it has pervasive nudity and sexual themes.
In contrast the ESRB has a system that simply says "T" for Teen or "M" for Mature, etc. which is just as bad as the MPAA. While I'm rambling i may as well also complai about the RIAA's rating system for music: a "Parental Advisory" sticker of no parental advisory sticker. That's all-no explanation.
People should be free to make their own moral judgements based on facts, not fed somebody else's moral code and forced to accept it. People need to learn that morals are not universal, and they can't seek to have their moral judgements applied to everyone. People deserve to know more that just opinions: they deserve facts.

*sigh*

[Coda]

Katz, this is really stupid. You're trying to defend kids' inalienable rights to see crappy movies?

I honestly think most kids would benefit from not seeing the crap in the theaters right now. They would be better off going for a walk, hanging out at a coffee house, or reading the newspaper.

You're protesting the petty abuses of middle management, when the real damage is being done on a much grander scale. Are people really better off for seeing Eyes Wide Shut? Should people be complaining about being left out of the entertainment complex?

"Oh damn, I didn't see some trite piece of cinematic crap that I'd have to pay $10 for, which is approximately the price of a book. Bloody hell!"

Instead of sneaking in, how about not seeing movies at all? That would really show the big guys what's up. And think about it: if only a minority of kids saw the crap on screen these days, politicians couldn't attack violent/profane/sexual movies as the cause of all teenage instability.

Kids! Unite! See only independent movies at independent movie theaters! Fight the man!

Re:*sigh*

[netwiz]

Reduce the abortion rate! Change society so that sex isn't such a taboo subject! So that girls aren't called "sluts" for exploring their sexuality while boys are considered "studs" for doing the same! So that buying condoms is _not_ a shameful thing (for teens, or for that matter, anyone)!

Seriously, the issue isn't whether or not kids should see these flicks, it's that the theater is taking the responsibility for those decisions from the persons who should be making them, the parents.

Theatres have the right..

[Rombuu]

...to let whoever they feel like in, and should be able to keep out whoever they want for whatever reason they want. What's the problem with this? Oh, that's right, freedom is a bad thing for corporations, but is good for individuals.

The choice of movie-goers

[CelestialScum]

Here, they are going the other way around more or less. They lifted the restrictive way they had earlier on movies, and allowed for a larger freedom for what people could go to, especially if they were in the company of an adult. If people want to take their kids of 13 to see a movie rated 15, they are perfectly well allowed to. Also, beyond 15, the next age-limit is 18. This is restricted to a very few movies, where the contents are strong and graphic. Movies like Saving private Ryan.
They go by that movies should be shown in their whole, uncut versions, and rather be set at the right kind of age-limit. This is a policy I agree with, since it does not in any way diminish the movie-goers experience.
I simply don't think all movies are suited for everyone, but one should be liberal with the restriction of movies. I don't think American Pie will have a higher than 15 years limit here, since it is not graphically violent and gory, playing on your emotions, like the above mentioned SPR.
Neither do I belive South Park will. These movies are not damaging in any way, and like many other, I never could understand this thing about not seeing nudeness and sex for american youths, while it is perfectly okey to see log 10^10 people die in ultraviolent ways. After all, nudeness and sex is normal, while senseless killing isn't.
Just my 0.02$ worth

Books and Violence

[Mr. Pibb]

It seems like all this new Tech is being a scapegoat for violence. What about Books? I've read some more horribly violent things than i've ever seen on TV or in the movies, even, gosh, in SCHOOL (ie All Quiet on the Western Front)! It's pretty damn hipocritical to have someone read something with imagery worse than what is visible on screen.

Re:Katz doesn't read Slashdot!

[Jburkholder]

Me too? Hell no. Just register and filter him out if you can't stand it anymore. I agree with your comments, I used to like him but now he's off his rocker. But know what? Some of the most interesting discussions take place beneath his rocker-less rantings. Cripes, this is what makes ./ so much fun. Keep him around for target practice.

I think people are missing the point

[Shafik]

I think people are missing his point. His key example was a mother who even though she had no objection to her children seeing the movie had the right to decide taken away from her by the theater. What that is, is people right being arbitrarily taken away at whim because of basically powerful lobbying groups. If people could get read what he is saying, although a bit verbosely is, this is not a singular event and nothing prevents other rights from being taken away virtually by these powerful lobbying groups. Unfortunatlly we really don't live in a free country are rights are seemingly control not by the constitution but by the powerful and even worse in many times a whimsical fashion. In the end it is the non powerful people (read: us) suffer and have to deal with this. What, just because in this instance it is children it is not as important? In most cases these children are going to see these movies with the full permission of their guardians who are in the end who are responsible for them, mainly since they realize that what they are seeing in the movies, well is nothing new to them, any parents that believe otherwise should open their eyes. Yeah children are going to be upset, this is arbitrary and silly if if you bothered to read what many of them wrote they made pretty damn mature points, but it seems so many of you just want to see them as whinning children. It is sad that people wish delegate their rights to whatever powerful lobbying groups wish to control them. This is supposedly a country for the people by the people but in reality it is a country of many controlled by the few. If none of you can see that was mainly his point then you are sadly blind to the world around you. Instead of seeing his point, people have choosen to take the common media presentation of this subject, that the people that are complaining are children that are just upset they can't see the movies, this is a capatilistic free soceity and if you don't like it don't go to the movies and of course since the movie business is not going out of business from people not going then these people complaining are radicals or bratty kids. How can argue with that logic? But this is not simply a text book capatilistic or even a free soceity so the basic premise is already false. For more information read Noam Chomsky , although he does not really talk about issues like this he does talk about how the US soceity really works.

Re: Blind Faith of the Oblivious

[RomulusNR]

Some adults also believe that their kids can't decide what movies to watch without their permission, and HOPE that the theater will help them enforce this decision

Yes, "Passing the buck" is the parenting style of the 90's, isn't it?

On the other hand, some parents have faith in their ability to raise their children to be sensible, good-natured, and morally secure, and able to grow intellectually as a mentally balanced individual. (Mine did.) They HOPE that other people, including movie theaters, will help them enforce this decision by letting their children do what they have allowed them to do.

Regards,

I couldn't agree more

[SendBot]

I went to see the blair witch project yesterday, and I got carded! I mean, it wasn't even scary, and I've seen potty mouths worse than the people in the movie who wouldn't be able to go see it alone. I'm tempted to walk away from any ticket counter that asks for my id and wait for the dvd. I got more pissed and violent at the ticket counter than I did at the movie. It was boring enough to sedate me into a waking sleep :) I love your work, jonkatz. keep it up!

Shameless plug! -- http://blairewitch.com

What about the kid who *was* 17?

[jonathan_b_king]

I haven't seen this point elsewhere, what about the theatre turning away someone *legally* of age (17) with an arbitrary policy of "nobody under the age of 18 can see Eyes Wide Shut."

How can that be legal?

Jon

Re:I care about my kids...

[Wah]

They are good, well-founded rules. I expect the theatres to enforce them, and I decry Katz as irresponsible and infantile for his advocating that children attempt to circumvent them.

Good-well founded rules, created in an environment free from social distress and screaming christians (coalitioners)

The simple fact is that this law was a knee jerk reaction to an event that had nearly *nothing* to do with what it tries to prevent. It was signed into law by our moral leader, Pres. Clinton, to stem the tide of rampaging "Won't someone please think of the children"ers. It is a horrible law that limits the freedoms in a country that more and more thinks of itself, incorrectly, as the land of the "free".

Treating kids like unthinking, unfeeling, "I am what I see" sponges only leads them to act like it. Treating them like intelligent, responsible, accountable adults does the same.

Re:Not a law, a proclamation

[Wah]

So what penalties are involved in breaking it? Does anyone have a link to the actual edict?

Re:Kids know all?

[Penrif]

You have a point. A limited, but valid, point. As always, when applying a generality to a population, there are people caught under a broad stroke of generality that really don't belong there. In this case, you make a claim that the e-mails Katz recieved from kids (16-17 year old kids) should be discounted because they are not adults on the basis that adults always see the whole picture when kids do not. First off, in my experiance with adults, the statement that they all see the whole picture is absolutly absurd. I'm sure we can all think of examples of adults that haven't a clue. I'm also sure that we can all think of some kids (again, talking the 16-17 year old range, right before they make the magic jump to 18) who really handle themselves well and are mature as any normal adult. (I do conceed that on average, adults have experienced more and are much more mature. Just don't blanket the entire group - either one)

Unfortunatly, parenting has been shifted off of the parents shoulders, and this movie junk is just another symptom of that. For instance, the high school I graduated from felt that kids were not being taught to be community minded by their parents, hence they required each student to perform 80 hours of "volunteer" work to graduate. Last I checked, schools taught academics and parents taught social lifestyle and morality. This is changing, and now movie theatres are trying to teach morality also. And my word is something lost in the generality from parent-child to institution-children. Reminds me of an aformentioned generality.

Anyway, this post is long enough.

Penrif - An 18 year old college Junior whos 4th grade teacher wanted to be his parent and hold him back because he wasn't social enough and thought he should be with kids his own age.

(I know my mother won't read this, but thank you mom for standing up to her!)

Re:Requiring your mommy sit with you is != censors

[SlackAttack]

"Censorship" is technically the wrong word. However, "your mommy" shouldn't be required to sit with you for a movie she doesn't want to see if she gives permission. Theaters imposing age limits penalizes many parents out there because a few can't keep their kids in control and want someone else to do it for them.

Re:I care about my kids...

[Seraphii]

..enough to not only place limits on their behaviour, but to see those limits enforced.

Just because you *think* your rules are arbitrary doesn't mean they *are* arbitrary. When you grow up, maybe you'll understand
that.

I would like to clarify something here, do you honestly believe even for a moment that the day before a person turns 18 he is infintesimally less mature than the day after? that *is* an arbitrary barrier, an arbitrary , and in my opinion , nonsensical barrier... it's absurd to think that the passage of a single second (between 11:59:59 and 12:00:00) can so drastically alter a persons ability to judge between reality and fantasy that before that second had passed, seeing a movie like natural born killers would turn them into a raving lunatic who had an uncontrollable urge to pick up the nearest firearm and blow away the general populace. And after that second had passed the aforementioned wouldbe psychopath would be able to take in the content as merely fiction and see into a subtle play on the way the media portrays serial killers. Nay, even more so, perhaps it would be better if previous to that second, the only experience that "Kids" had with serial killers and etc is what the media gives them on the six oclock news every night. If you truly believe that what I've just outlined is sensible, I suggest that if you have any kids, you put them up for adoption. You're painfully unaware of reality and perhaps whilst you're in the process, commit yourself.

Why shouldn't they be able to see restricted movies in a theatre? Because the movies that are restricted are intended for adults,

Who intends them for adults? the producers? the actors? the directors? the politicians? Do all of the aforementioned parties so steadfastly believe in the passage of that single second between 17 and 18 that they're all so desperately worried about the previously mentioned wouldbe serial killer under-the-influence of damaging movies that they would attempt to pass and enforce these draconian regulations? only in America could it be legal to buy and become proficient in the use of a semi automatic and illegal to snatch a glimpse of some titty... (No, I don't think it should be illegal to buy a semi, I just think it's absurd that one is seen as more damaging than the other when it's blatantly obvious that it simply isn't so.)

and have adult themes. Why should parents be required to stay with their children in an adult movie? Because if a parent intends to
allow their child to be exposed to such material, he/she should be there to see exactly what the child is seeing, either to provide guidence after the film, or to remove the child from the film if the parent judges the experience too intense.

Again, do you really believe sheltering someone for the first eighteen years of their lives from fictitious renderings of happenings which are commonly overtaken by their real life counterparts is going to be advantageous to that persons development? I'm sorry, censorship is flat wrong... I don't give a damn about what you think I should or shouldn't be able to see, and If I was under eighteen, I still wouldn't give a damn.. and I still would be no more nor less fit to see it than I am now.

They are good, well-founded rules. I expect the theatres to enforce them, and I decry Katz as irresponsible and infantile for his advocating that children attempt to circumvent them.

They are not good, nor well founded, they were created as a political stunt in order to curry favour with the moral majority of the American public. That isn't a nicely anti-american stab either, I'm perfectly aware that it isn't just America that engages in stunts like this , my country too is guilty of it as well, with the recent pandering to balance-of-power australian senator Brian Harradine to pass their completely unrelated GST tax, and in your own governments case to gain support amongst the frightened and ignorant aforementioned moral majority. People like you, people who are so easily deluded that they think sheltering people under the age of 18 from fictitious imagery (and often fictitious imagery entirely unrelated to the events which this moral majority fears and loathes, i.e. Columbine, Atlanta, ad et all) is going to stop the killing and the violence in "gods own country"..

You people make me sick.

That constructive enough for you, sonny?

Go replace your false teeth, gramps.

Re:I care about my kids...

[Seraphii]

The point isn't the cross-over from "child" to "adult" that you sarcastically propose occurs in that one second,

The reason I so sarcastically propose that it does in fact happen in that one second is because legally speaking, it does... Technically, what I said is 100% correct, before that second they're a minor, after it, they aren't... The person who originally made *that* proposition, wasn't being sarcastic, they were being serious. I find it difficult to talk about that event without sarcasm.

but the age at which the ratings committees deem most people are able to watch this stuff without taking a gun up the nearest bell tower. By the time most people are 18, they have enough of a grasp on reality not to be overly affected by the material.

No, I don't think that's true, I refuse to believe that even though the majority of the problems in the world are caused by people over the age of 18, it's a given and readily accepted fact that at that age most people are ready to handle everything, the fact is maybe "most people" will never be ready to handle everything, what's the solution to that problem? There isn't one really, so why bother attempting to impose restrictions based on an irrelevant arbitrary barrier, like age? I know that you know that I know that we both know quite a significant amount of people who are troglodytes, and I know also that you know that we know that they are troglodytes not particularily due to the age that they are.. Merely that's the type of people they are. Sorry, I don't buy that... Age is meaningless, I can think of several more relevant things to base an arbitrary assessment of whether or not a group of people is prepared to see certain content. Regardless in my view it's pointless to even attempt to restrict it from the view of those who aren't fit to see it, it's not likely to prevent anything that they would have done from occuring anyhow.

Everything else you said is right. But I'm going to spank you when we get home tonight for saying what you said above, and yes... I'd censor you if I had half a chance .... ;)

(for everyone else except him, we live together, don't panic)

Re:I care about my kids...

[kronius]

Just because you *think* your rules are arbitrary doesn't mean they *are* arbitrary. When you grow up, maybe you'll understand that.

Main Entry: arbitrary
Pronunciation: 'är-b&-"trer-E
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 ...
2 ...
3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

If you think the MPAA ratings are based on necessity or that it is the "intrinsic nature" of humanity that before midnight on one's seventeenth birthday watching a movie "intended" for adults will corrupt one, but after midnight that same day it is fine, you are wrong. The MPAA ratings are by definition arbitrary. It is my experience that arbitrary standards are generally bad standards.

Why shouldn't they be able to see restricted movies in a theatre? Because the movies that are restricted are intended for adults, and have adult themes.

This is all well and good in Theory, but, then again, EVERYTHING works in Theory. The problem is, who gets to decide what adult themes are, which movies have them, and who can and can't see them? The MPAA? Well, what if a parent disagrees with the MPAA's arbitrary ruling and thinks a particular movie would be fine for their child to see? That's fine, their child can see it, so long as the parent doesn't mind slapping down an ADDITIONAL $7 ticket fee AND devoting two hours to watch a movie that they may not want to see. Who gets screwed when the parent isn't willing to do that? The kid.

That's why kids are constantly trying to rebel, because they're constantly getting screwed by these arbitrary regulations.

Why should parents be required to stay with their children in an adult movie? Because if a parent intends to allow their child to be exposed to such material, he/she should be there to see exactly what the child is seeing, either to provide guidence after the film, or to remove the child from the film if the parent judges the experience too intense (Emphasis Added).

Excuse me, but when did it cease to be the parents responsibility to choose how he parents his child, and become the MPAA's responsibility. If a parent thinks his child should be able to watch a movie, that parent shouldn't be required to do anything. That ludicrous restriction is one of the main reasons why the whole system is a farse.

And this whole notion of "parental guidence" with regards to film watching is laughable. It may be a good thing for children, but teenagers can tell the difference between fiction and reality.

My only question to you after reading your post is can you tell the difference?

-

Re:No, why don't YOU go away, anonymous coward?

[Betelgeuse]

Katz!?!?! "a good journalist"?!?!? Don't make me laugh. I actually am someone who agrees with Katz sometimes (although, not this time) and generally find that what he says has some merit. But he is most definately not a good journalist. Have you even taken the time to read what he writes? His writing style is dismal.

Re:Kids know all?

[Inspector]

Exactly, mostly kids. As an adult, you should know that kids don't always see the whole picture. You, however should be able to.

What? You're telling me that unjaded, openminded kids are more narrowminded than some ancient, money grubbing, political minded, business man/politician, who is so set in their ways and fears change to the point that they feel they have to strangle anything new or different? Whatever.

Besides, no one sees "the whole picture". Everyone has their own point of view.

Dismal huh?

[Inspector]

And I suppose your prose is a much better candidate for public consumption? Anyway, who are you to judge another's writing skills anyway?

Re:Dismal huh?

[Score:-1]

Who are you to judge Betelgeuse's criticism?

Repeat ad nauseum.

Hee hee...

[Inspector]

Wow, hypocrisy in a single line: The National Slashdot Service also has received reports of highly windy prose coupled with dubious assertions and questionable assumptions.

Re:So, U support pornography 4 minors w/o parental

[Inspector]

Um, are you advocating pedofelia here?

>Do you have children?
>Maybe little girls?
>Don't worry, I'll make sure they have access to
>all aspects of human experience

The tone of your response suggests that you missed the entire point here. Pedofelia is a crime, it is illegal. Pornography is not. My kids can see porno if they like, but I'll have made damn sure that (by the time they're old enough to be curious about that kind of thing) I've taught them enough to know what is and isn't appropriate.

I don't know about you, but when I was at that curious age (~12), I flipped through porn with my friends and some of it we liked, and other stuff we found repulsive because of its degrading or disgusting nature. And guess what we did? Instead of growing up to be immoral, we simple didn't look at what we didn't like.

THEN FOLLOW YOUR OWN FSCKING RULES!

[Inspector]

Don't tell me how to raise my kids! How many times to I have to scream this at the legislature, the schools, the companies?! If you like the rules, then YOU inforce them. YOU stay with your damn kid. YOU instill a sense of responsibility in him/her, so that he/she doesn't go to movies that you ask him/her not to. Do these things YOURSELF, don't foist them on others, ya lazy bum.

Grrr...

Hear hear!

[Inspector]

I couldn't have put it better myself! Parents seems to raise their children less and less.

I wonder who's fault that is? No sarcasm meant, I really am curious. You can't just say that parents are lazy, because I know some well meaning parents that arn't raising their kids the way they wanted to because they're so busy. And they're not busy making millions either, they're busy just getting by.

OK buddy

[Inspector]

Maybe you didn't stop to think about it, but the theatre issue is a symptom of a much larger problem with the raising of our children. This discussion brings light to that issue, and is therefore beneficial.
Of course, maybe you just didn't stop to think at all.

Iteration 2 ...

[Inspector]

Arg! Caught in an infinit if/else loop! Stack ... overflowing ... must ... reset ... brain!
:)

Thanks.

[Inspector]

That is the issue I was addressing. I suppose I should have spelled it out for our BUDDY though. Anyway, he can read my rant on rules further down the list if he wants to know my opinion.

Just a few UKish points...

[Xugumad]

Just for comparison; I take it that the ratings are just recommendations in the USA?

It's just that here in the UK, films are rated U, PG, 12, 15 or 18, and the ones that are ages, it is actually illegal to sell to anyone below that age.

ID for DVD here in Vegas yes...

[HTTP Error 403]

For the last 2 years Nevada has had a law on the books that says no one under the age of eighteen buy, rent, or view anime. All unrated "cartoons" A.K.A Anime, is to conciderd effectively the same as PORN according to "Nevada Revised Satute 201.2595 & 201.265". It's a misdemeanor for someone to even SHOW Anime to a minor. Therefore for Anime there's a legal double standard. You have to show I.D. at the counter when you even buy or rent Pokemon or Dragonball Z! How can this possibly be misconstrued as being PORN? This stuff's been on american T.V. for years! All this includes VHS tapes, Laser Discs, and yes even your stupid DVD's(acursed DVD's, Don't you people realize... one tenth of my LD's video picture quality for about three fourths of the price... AARRRGGG!!!).

Check this out! here's the link to N.R.S. Chapter 201 "EXHIBITION AND SALE OF OBSCENE MATERAL TO MINORS" "http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/CH_201.html"


I'm not kidding, they almost shut down the anime club here at CCSN this spring, It's insane(or asinine).

If any of you know anything about law This should be conciderd legal precident! and all of you know EXACTLY what that could mean!

And if your curious, here's the link to CCSN's Meijin Kenryoku Anime Club. AS far as I know, the only anime club in the ENTIRE state of nevada.
"http://members.tripod.com/~mazoku/mk.html"
If you decide to visit please sign our guest book
and say you came from /.(I waana see how many of you acually read this;)


"The city will NOT be responseable for any deaths caused by bacteral poisoning, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED"

Another incredibly obvious assertation

[El Volio]

...the 20th century, sure to be remembered for monumental advances in technology.

Great, thanks for something we didn't already know.

Why is it, I wonder, that Katz seems totally unable to at least articulate his opponents' viewpoints? Not just the theaters and studios, but the common man? After all, wouldn't that be the best way to refute them?

Wait, I forgot, that only works if your viewpoint is logical...

Oh My God...

[mykey2k]

I've read through some of the comments here and I can't bring myself to think the main demographic here is beings under 18 (most likely 15).

These are the rules. I follow them, they inforce them, you whine when you don't get your own way. You probably blame the cop for giving you a traffic ticket or your teacher for giving you an "F" on that last paper on the Moon.

Whenever I wanted to see an "R" movie, my parents went with me -- National Lampoons movies and Coming to America. For a class we watched an "R" rated movie -- we needed to get a letter signed by our parents before we could watch it in the classroom. There was no getting away from this.

Of course, I learned to **RESPECT** (gasp) the rule rather than rebel against it. I didn't agree with it, but I followed it because I didn't see the need to rebel. I mean, who needed to see it on first release. I could see it sooner or later. Now you whine that you have to wait six months before cable has it. Too bloody bad. I didn't have the luxury of cable, so I had to wait before a superstation had cut the thunder out of it.

The absolute worst (ratings wise) movie I was allowed to see was the (X or NC-17 rated) movie "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover." Watching this movie I came back repulsed and knew why it had such a rating. Would you like your child to see someone getting feces rubbed all over their body. Or perhaps the imagery of canniballism would do better? Both are in this movie. Today, it bothers me no more, but as a teenager, it confused the heck out of me.

I just can not understand why the big hulabaloo over such a petty topic. Maybe it's that I'm "old fashioned," but I am prepared to be an integral part of my child's life. There are rules and no matter what those are the rules. They may be man-made and considered unfair, but believe it or not they're there for a reason.

You may think you are mature enough to watch those images on the screen, but you're not the general population. The whole United States is a prude when it comes to the discussion of that dirty word (sex) and when it comes down to it, parents, the MPAA and everyone shudder about it. Maybe we need a mentality that of Europe and South America where it's open to the point short of showing it on television (sorry if I'm wrong about this point, please forgive and correct, not flame).

Kids need to face that they're kids. You cannot sign a legal document, you cannot vote, you cannot drink or smoke (*opens a can of worms*). What makes you so damn special that the rules should be broken for *you*. Heck with you, I'm better than you are. Rules should be broken for me! Who are you?

It's just a movie. You're just a kid. Deal with it. Grow. Move on. Stop whining. Life isn't fair. Maybe if you stop whining you'll stop looking immature and people will take you seriously.

-m
I want to be president of the world, but we all have our little disappointments.

Re:Oh My God...

[mykey2k]

I hate to have to do this, but I'm going to follow up to my own...

Woodstock 99... looting, rioting, and 4 alleged rapes, not to mention the other sexual assaults (groping and the like).

The main demographic was teenagers.

Way to look mature, people. And you wonder why....


-m

Re:Unbelievable

[Steve B]

I'm so glad Katz is rationally thinking through both sides of the issue and not just taking the easy slam on parents/politians who are trying to determine age-appropriate content for kids!

You ruined your argument with one slash and one word. Parents have the right to make those decisions; politicians do not. By equating the two forms of control, you make yourself look as foolish as Katz did.
/.

Stupid Analogy

[Steve B]

How many pot smokers are in favor of keeping pot illegal? How many people in favor of keeping pot illegal smoke it?

This is one of the most stupid and offensive comments I've seen on /. (including the "First Post" gibberers in the sample).

The only non-medicinal drug I've ever consumed is caffeine, and I'm in favor of ending the War on Some Drugs before it destroys what's left of the Constitution.
/.

American Pie, the Atlanta killings, and stuff.

[Kit Lo]

[Note: I just saw American Pie today. After the movie, I felt a sense of hope for my disused-since-birth love life -- for a millisecond.]

I still can't see why the hell "American Pie" has something to do with the Columbine killings. It's obvious that question has no answer, but the idiotic politicians (and the multiplex managers) have this done to a T. [mumbling: damn PHB's...]

The kind of jerks who are happened to be portrayed in American Pie (The Sherman kid and that Stiffler character), being the typical crap that I might have faced in my Hellmouth days (and would've been shot in an alternative universe), got their just desserts (no pun intended). They lost, and the four kids (even the Finch kid -- kinda reminds me of myself) finally got the chance to do what they wanted to do without killing any of the jerks in revenge.

[Note: when I get back to college, I am going to face a few of those aforementioned turds again. I have to face a pathological liar of a girl who asked me out on a date (and "forgets" that she has a bf), and a Jewish yenta-type who calls me every name on the book. As ED-209 [from the movie Robocop] would say, "I am authorized to use physical force."]

[Regarding the Atlanta killings with that Mark Barton freak:]

Well, day trading sounds like a messy proposition to me. I guess folks in companies really hate it when investors put in money, only to see it taken away a few seconds later. It's not like it's making a movie about a few guys in a learning experience as they try to get laid.

Even worse, the killer [Mark Barton] killed his family because of this idiotic idea to make money. As opposed to the Hellmouth situations [leading to the Columbine incident], Mark did this day-trading-to-killing-everybody stuff all on his own, and blamed everybody else "that greedily sought his destruction." or something. One strike for "mature, responsible adults" out there who do day trading as an extreme sport.

[Regarding the alternative of setting up home theater stuff than going to the multiplex:]

How much is a DVD-ROM drive and the video decoding stuff costs anyways? I can't wait to see "Saving Private Ryan" in my home office. The violence can be unsettling (duh), but we know what's it for, right [being that the movie takes place in WWII]? Should I wait for Plextor to make any SCSI DVD-ROM stuff first?

Re:Life's not so gray.

[Kit Lo]

B) Leave the Jews alone.

Sure. It's just that one jerk of a girl I should face.

What gives you the right?

[antizeus]

I might consider your point valid if:

1. Seeing a restricted movie constituted a violation of another person's right of life, liberty, and property;
2. The restriction of the movie were not based upon the seemingly arbitrary age of 17 and the whim of a bunch of known idiots such as those found in the MPAA;
3. You could somehow convince me that there is something magical about "laws" and "policies" that makes it "bad" to violate them regardless of how idiotic they are.

So in other words I consider your point invalid. Of course, this is to be expected as I am the sort of person who thinks that it is the civic duty of all citizens to violate an unjust law or policy, while my guess is that you are the sort of person who thinks every law and policy should be obeyed no matter how onerous. I shall spare you the typical reference to Nazi Germany as an example of bad law.

I'll conclude with a sound bite. The only valid laws and policies are those which protect the life, liberty, and property of the people. All others deserve to be violated.

Re:I'm providing free clues, here's one for you.

[ODiV]

"Are we all clear on why you need your mommy to watch movies with "bad" words or "naughty" body parts showing or "adult" situations?"

Um... where exactly did you explain this? Or did you just sneak it in while we were nodding our heads to the last statement?

"Yep, it might not be as funny watching American Pie with you MOTHER sitting next to you. But if you can't deal with THAT, then you ARE too immature to deal with the MOVIE."

I'm 19 and there are a number of movies that I would feel uncomfortable watching with my mother. Do you and your mom rent porn together often? Or even "R" rated stuff such as "Basic Instinct"?

Bad comparison

[ODiV]

A better one would be something like:

How many 18yrolds are in favour of keeping the tobacco age restriction in place?

Or alcohol even... You'd get good arguments for both sides from kids.

Re:What if they announced a boycott and nobody cam

[ronfar]

Hey, your virulent hatred of Katz has caused you to add 3 comments to his total. Wow. You know, some people might consider the fact that Slashdot columns with large numbers of comments will cause more people to read them (snowball effect), but not you. Nope, I'm sure he's quaking in his boots reading your intelligent, well thought out criticisms of his writing.

Why hasn't this been moderated down?

Oh, I read you comments about Japan in an earlier post. You can guess what I think of you.

Re:Totalitarianism and Kids

[ronfar]

I don't think this is entirely about 16 year olds, though. I think this is about intimidating filmakers into toning down their art (yes, I know these are popular movies and I'm not trying to say they are "high art" but high art --whatever that is-- will be affected just the same) by using the flimsy excuse that children may see them as ammunition. To illustrate my point, see the following article:

Censorware Article

This article proves that when pushed to the wall, into a position where children will not see the things they object to, conservatives (that's a small c, I mean people who favor the status quo from 10-20 yrs ago, whatever their political affiliation) are still interested in censoring those things. I think they sincerely think that these things are worse for children than adults... but that's only because they think these things are bad for everyone and ought not to exist at all.
If theaters lose money over this, expect the majority movies to be moderated down to PG-13. After all an unfortunate side effect of this new technological age is that the affluent can always see the directors cut on their DVD players and digital TV while the working poor can probably only get the "Blockbuster Version" of the movies. Which creates a side effect that the elitists in our government are probably happy about, unrestricted access to culture may become a province of the upper class in this society while the working class are all treated as children.

Doesn't anyone think....

[ronfar]

... that it is a little ridiculous that in many cases the people enforcing the age restrictions are too young to get into the movies they are restricting. This is counter to the spirit of the Washington edict because those kids can see these movies whenever they want. I only hope that when one of these movie ushers who has seen South Park 4 or 5 times runs amuck and starts murdering people that the movie theaters will institute a new rule forbidding theater employees to be under the age of 18. In fact, I suggest that the some Representative or Senator should propose such a law, before it is too late!! Now, I don't expect the law to pass, but it will put the fear of God into these movie chain owners! Hmm... should I write to Orrin Hatch or Dick Armey. Maybe Tom DeLay.

Incidentally I'm 29 years old, I can see whatever I want. So much for the "everyone against this stupid edict is under 18" theory I've been hearing. I just hate seeing hypocrisy practiced on such a large scale.

Won't somebody please think of the children...-- Mrs. Lovejoy, The Simpsons

Not a law, a proclamation

[ronfar]

This isn't actually a law. There was a law proposed by Henry Hyde but it went down to defeat. This is actually a proclamation, something like when in a monarchy the king says to do something and the people have to do it. An edict passed down from on high, which the people's representatives didn't vote on.

Probably the most chilling thing about the way Washington works these days is that they can use threats to make things happen that wouldn't (probably...) ever become law if they were subject to something as untidy as a vote...

Looking at it in reverse...

[dpdx]

How easy is it, then, for a private movie theatre owner to make admittance decisions of his/her own? From what I've read, the MPAA rating does not have force of law, so what then prevents a theatre owner from deciding to pack his/her own house with underage kids jonesing for a look at American Pie?

We know Blockbuster and the mega-theatres pander to the pro-censorship crowd because it's profitable to them. But it would also be profitable to let every high-school kid with $6.50 into your theatre to see American Pie, would it not? Simple supply and demand.

There's a reason why: Sustained community protest is hard to resist over time, and the religious right knows that. If they write enough letters to the right people, stand outside your theatre with pickets, get media exposure, and start scaring politicians, they'll win. So they do that, and they succeed at rates disproportionate to their actual numbers. The problem with that is that the movie theatre can't stay afloat if it doesn't cater to large numbers of people.

Nothing's gonna change until the people on the other side of the issue (kids or not) start taking up the fight themselves. Technology is one form of protest, but it's not as effective unless the word gets out. My buying a DVD player is not going to affect your range of choices until you know you can do it yourself -- the best way to make sure you know that is to tell you.

People who believe this is wrong need to get their message out, as well, and make it mainstream to think of the issue in those terms.

lousy analogy

[Monkey42]

What I don't understand is how you make this great logical leap from seeing a R movie when 15 to commiting theft and murder. And its not a minor's responibility to not see a movie, its his/her parents responsibilty to decide whether or not said child can see movie. Have you ever seen an R rated movie before you were 17? Or a PG-13 before you were 13, or even a *gasp* PG any time before say, age 10?

No, why don't YOU go away, anonymous coward?

[Analogue Kid]

That would be more constructive than whining about a good journalist just because you disagree with him.

Is it that tough for you to figure it out?

[Analogue Kid]

Some of us actually want everyone to have first ammendment rights.

Re:Is it that tough for you to figure it out?

[Analogue Kid]

I'm not saying I believe that the constitution extends the 1st ammendment to minors... I'm saying it should.

Gentiles couldn't muster much outrage at holocaust

[Analogue Kid]

...until long after WW2. Obviously this restriction of religious and intellectual freedoms isn't nearly so appalling, but don't you think you should at least consult those it affects -- those under 17?

Ok, anonymous dictator...

[Analogue Kid]

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?

Before you reply by simply attacking my character (as some of you did last time I posted this argument), I'll explain my situation. I am a twenty one years old, I earn 80k a year, and I own my own house. I've learned to thrive by educating myself and pursuing my goals. I'm 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 one's own parents') 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. Ditto if they pompously "decide" which religion you believe. Tell them to go watch Dead Poet's Society.

Ah, but MPAA is a monopoly.

[Analogue Kid]

If a competitor offered the movies without censorship, then capitalism might work.

It's different with a monopolised service...

[Analogue Kid]

especially when it's self-regulated only to keep the government from doing the same.

Well, actually I did...

[Analogue Kid]

But it's not as easy as you think. Getting legally separated for 'intellectual freedom' reasons is a very, very difficult process.

As for 'handling advanced material', I feel experience is a better determinant than age. Learning is impeded when material is censored from the would be reader/viewer.

Who are you to judge my maturity based on one post you disagree with? I don't think it's that mature to make such an extemporanious judgement.

1st ammendment rights aid intellectual development

[Analogue Kid]

By censoring minors, you diminish their ability to learn to think for themselves. They might even grow up to discard some of their parents' religious and political views!

I don't really feel that the second ammendment is appropriate, as it was intended to be a protection from an oppressive government. It's doubtful that a militia of children would have the economic or logistic ability to defend themselves without support from any adult citizens. I hope you can see the difference.

What! You judge my genes based on one political view you can't stomach!? That doesn't seem to rational to me. As for pesky kids(or more likely teenagers), yeah, I'd deserve it. :)

Some theatre's don't support MPAA!?

[Analogue Kid]

I didn't know that. United Artists, AMC, and MANN all seem to. What chains don't? I'm very curious about that. If there are a fair number that don't, then this whole discussion and series of articles has been a bit of a waste. Consumer choice could easily drive a change.

P.S. -I wasn't defining maturity by income.

[Analogue Kid]

It's just that last time I posted a similar view, without mentioning the income or house, I recieved a flood of 'helpful' emails. Everybody was giving me advice about how to find a job, how moving out into my own appartment would help, etc...

I'm not sure I prefere your attacks on my maturity and intelligence, but I guess it's the price I pay for posting an unpopular view. My other reply addressed the bit about getting legal separation. As for my intelligence... I learned calculus at the age of 13, was accepted into a university the same semester, scored 35 on my ACT at 14, and have now learned French and Mandarin. To what use have you put your intelligence to? The writing of caustic insults? Judging people's maturity based upon a single view that differs from your own?

Maybe you can explain why the majority of persons incarcerated come from single parent or no parent
homes?

You might want to observe that in my earlier post I said that I felt parents were very important as teachers, role-models, confidants, and as dispensers of discipline.

I'm not trying to piss you off here, I'm just saying to go easy on the flames. You disagree with my view... that's fine. In fact I like to see salient attacks against my arguments; after all discourse itself is a great tool for learning. Just don't attack me.

Please attack the argument, not the poster.

[Analogue Kid]

What the fuck does the Holocaust have to do with children not being allowed into a movie unless accompanied by their parents?
Or are you insinuating that Jews wouldn't have been killed if they had been accompanied by their parents?
Or maybe if we had let the Nazis use derogatory statements regarding other races/religions?
Or if we had desensitized the German people to violence through movies?

Actually, all I was getting at is that most people don't worry too much about a freedom being infringed upon, unless it is their own... even when the situation is much uglier than any in this country.

Your previous respondant missed it.

[Analogue Kid]

One thing that you don't really focus on is that people gain all of these rights at the age of 18. But actually that is more of a reason for the legal system to apply high scrutiny.

Historically, high scrutiny has been applied only for groups which have demonstrated very little ability to change the system legally. For example, women who had limited success in bettering their political situation earned medium scrutiny. Racism, which took a war to deal with garnered high scrutiny, as do immigrants. Children, like racial minorities or immigrants once were, have very, very little legal power to change things. Even worse is that they have very limited incentive! Why go to all of the trouble when you will turn 18 by the time any progress is made anyways?

This is very definately an issue of power. Those with it usually (people such as Katz excepted) fight to maintain it. This is exactly why James Madison opposed a direct democracy, as a tyranny of the masses is difficult to avoid. Fortunately Americans heeded him, and we have power distributed enough to at least check this sort of behaviour. Our judicial system has been effective (though painfully slow) in initiating changes when such tyrannies occur.

The difficulty with children is that they are clearly dependant (at least at very young ages), and so they cannot have all of the freedoms an adult might typically garner. However, some rights, such as protected speech, freedom to choose a religion, due process, and the right to peacfully gather are vital for any thinking person who is past the age of physical and sexual maturity.

Interestingly enough, there is no constitutional mention of decreased rights (in the bill of rights) for minors, except for voting. I'm pretty sure that the control to restrict these rights is not something many parents would willingly give up. Perhaps the internet has pushed this issue to the forfront today, much as television was a catalyst for bringing attention to the rights of racial minorities 40 years ago?

No, they are just less "programmed".

[Analogue Kid]

They have the ability to make judgements... but they are less inundated with what their particular society expects those decisions to be. I think you are an arrogant and foolish person indeed, to think that you should be able to decide who can and cannot think for himself/herself.

I'm afraid you're wrong... Katz is the MAN!

[Analogue Kid]

He's one of the few people out there who truly supports freedom. I'm sorry it's so hard for some of you to stomach.

Noticed a similarity in the Anti-Katz posters?

[Analogue Kid]

They're nearly all anonymous cowards. Appropriate, hmm?

F$CK Censorship

[CiXeL]

I agree with Katz here, kids in japan and scandinavia can take sex on tv and those whole countries arent deranged. This movie code crap is based on puritannical beliefs that now towards the end of the 20th century are being obliterated by new technologies that disseminate control. Besides by doing this movie companies will only lose more money as people download tons of VCDs or better, ASFs which are far smaller in size and more reasonable a download over a 56k. Back in the BBS days I downloaded lots of porn (even the icky nasty stuff for shock value) and I'm not mentally deranged. BBSer's back in the 80's grew up with access to that sort of stuff and they're your classic geeks. We've had a generation grow up on this stuff and few consequences so we check out ok. I think the fact that they edited Eyes Wide Shut at all was rediculous, pisses me off. If anything sex on telivision and discussions about sex stop violent sexual crimes because the knowledge isnt repressed. Censorship is going to die a very bloody death I'm afraid.

Re:What a hypocrite!

[chocko]

i'm not sure i'd go so far as to use the H word. But why is this article on /. ?

It must be a slow news month :-)

from the FAQ: "Why didn't you post my story?

On a normal day, we can get 150-200 article submissions. Typically we post 8 to 12 of them. Also, Since we post the first submission (unless we screw up- it happens occasionally) yours may have just been 2nd. Or 37th. Or else we posted it a few weeks ago and you're late. Or we may not just have found your article interesting enough. Either way, we've gotta reject 10 times more then we post, so please understand.

Re:Where were your parents?

[Field Marshall Stack]

Were they there with you during the movie? If they were not, why were you there? What gives you the right to decide what laws and policies you choose to obey?

His or her independent and internalized moral code?

Will tomorrow you decide to not obey the laws against theft? Against murder?

I certainly hope not! Legality aside, those are deeply immoral acts.

Parents know all?!

[Spyky]

Exactly, mostly kids. As an adult, you should know that kids don't always see the whole picture. You, however should be able to.

Adults like you certainly don't see the whole picture either. Who are you to say no if some parent wants their 14 year old to be able to see R rated movies. Surely you admit that they will anyway when it arrives on VHS or DVD. Why shouldn't they be able to see it in a theater? Why should their parents have to be with them? They might not be when they bring home the same movie on video. As an adult, if you try to place arbitrary (little regard to actual "dangerous" content or maturity of viewer) rules on a teenager, you are more likely to incite him/her to rebel, rather then obey. If they are determined to do something, they will do it, with or without your approval. Sure kids don't know everything, and they certainly don't see the whole picture, but neither do adults. I find your point particuarly worthless, say something constructive.

Spyky

Go John Katz!

Re:Klueless

[Spyky]

It doesn't matter how many thousands of emails you got from CHILDREN. They are still children. They are still the responsibility of their parents. They are NOT adults nor have the achieved the maturity necessary for the decisions on what is good or bad for them. What is a child? Is it 14? 16? 17? At exactly what age do children have the maturity to make decisions about what is good for them. Is it the magical age of 17, or 18, or 21? Seems to me there is increasing responsibility with age. A mature 14 year old can handle a movie like American Pie or even Eyes Wide Shut, maybe an immature 25 year old can't. Who are you to judge? Isn't that a parents job? You want an example? Teenage males are the worst drivers according to insurance records. They make stupid decisions. Even when they've been trained on the correct actions (read safe). Teenage males and females are both "bad" drivers according to insurance records. For a few (this applies to adults too) it is because of agressive behavior. For most, it is due to inexperience, leading to minor fender benders, waiting too long to brake on a wet surface, etc. Would waiting until they are 21 change this, probably not they still, at the age of 21, would have the same lack of experience. Of course they are going to support your position that they have more freedom. Big deal. They can support you all you want but they don't have any authority. No authority. So at that magical age of 18 this authority gets placed upon them. Gee, as a parent, that seems like a great idea, lets dump them out into the real world at 18 with all that responsibility and authority, and see how well they do. Children have authority and responsibility long before then. Look to your example letters. What does helping retarded children have to do with watching erotica (Kidman's butt)? What retarded children? What are you talking about. And is seeing Kidman's butt really going to hurt any 14 year old? A 16 year old? Get a clue. Get a life Spyky

Re:I care about my kids...

[Spyky]

I may be younger then you, but I am not a child, not even in the legal sense. I think that your blanket statement "the movies that are restricted are intended for adults, and have adult themes" isn't terribly useful. How do you define child? Is it up to you do define this age for children other then your own? Who decides what qualifies as an "adult theme"? Surely you don't think that the MPAA isn't the ultimate and unfailing authority when deciding whether a movie is appropriate for children. As for movies like American Pie, I don't think there is anything in that movie that a child of 14 hasn't already seen. Trust me, it wasn't so long ago that I don't remember. Does that mean that you have to let your children see it without your supervision? No. Does that mean that you have a right to require theaters to enforce it. I hope you are not so arrogant as to think that yours is the *only* possible opinion. Please don't treat my like a child by saying that I should "grow up". I am 19 years old. Old enough to drink (well not legally, but that wouldnt' stop me if I wanted to drink), smoke, vote, die in a war, drive a car and make responsible decisions. And most importantly, think for myself. Am I irresponsible because the MPAA placed arbitrary restrictions on me? No, I'm not irresponsible, and the theaters didn't enforce these rules when they applied to me :-)

Spyky

Re:Klueless

[Spyky]

Sorry about the poor format of my post, I forgot to put br's in since I used HTML formatting.

Then the parents should be the only ones allowed to take children into a movie which is rated 'R'. Since it is the parents' job, they should be required to stay with their children throughout the movie.

I agree, its a parents responsibility to decide. Why is a parents permission not good enough? If they don't want to accompany their child, they shouldn't have to, they probably aren't going to offer any constructive guidance anyway. As for the retarded children comment, I forgot about it, yes I did read it. I guess I didn't pick up on that. I think what the original writer was, not so eloquently, trying to say, is that he is responsible enough to offer guidance to mentally handicapped children, yet not judged responsible enough to see a woman's behind. It does seem rather silly to put it that way. But the idea is that the writer is annoyed at the double standard, that judges him mature enough for some things, and not mature enough for something else. I think any 16 year old (or 17 year old in this case) is mature enough to see a movie like eyes Wide Shut, if they are anything but home schooled, they have seen/heard/know about far worse sexual acts. But ultimately it is the parents job, and in the case of a 17 year old, certainly not the movie theaters job.

Spyky

Bravo...

[tssm0n]

I thought this was a damn good article, almost as well done as the last two. Its not just a bunch of children trying to see "grown up" movies, its blocking people's right to information. If the majority of the people feel that people should be kept from seeing movies based on how mature they are, maybe the theaters should be required to give a written exam to everyone who wants to see a movie. I've been an "adult" for several years now and I throw a fit whenever I get carded. Its the idea that these people want to restrict me from doing something just because I might not meet some random standard that some old farts who have no idea what the world is like set up to protect the children that parents should be spending time teaching values to rather then sitting them in front of the TV to learn everything on their own. How does the world expect children to become mature if they're never allowed to make their own decesions?

Re:Klueless

[tssm0n]

"You want an example? Teenage males are the worst drivers according to insurance records."

And older men are most likely to die of prostate cancer. Who cares? It has nothing to do with this topic. They have the worst driving records (BTW, I though it was teenage girls that were the worst) because they haven't been driving very long. If they learned to drive when they were 40, by the time they were 41 they'd be crappy drivers.

"hey can support
you all you want but they don't have any authority. "

Neither did blacks or women when this country was first founded. The world changes. People aren't worthless just because they haven't reached the magic age of 18 yet.

Theaters suck

[as6o]

Home theater is the way to go. My wife refuses to go to a movie theater since we got our home theater. The last one we went to was Eyes Wide Shut opening night. The bitch behind us would not shut up ("Nicole would look so much better in a choker", "What imagery..." at the mask on the pillow scene, "Great way to start the movie!!!" at the first nude scene, "I'm so happy to asked me out", other inane comments, etc), we had to shhh her at least 6 time but they never stuck. She was so bad her date was even getting embarrased (she was middle-aged and I think drunk). This has been happening more and more to us when we go. I really want to see Blair Witch but am afraid it will be ruined by some asshole setting behind us.

So to all you kids who can't get into movies - it sucks anyways because there are too many jerks out there to make it enjoyable. Of course it would be nice if you had the choice....

Go with DVD and a dish. Ask for them for Christmas. And if you do have to go to the movies, give a shhh! to the people behind you for me.

Oh, the choices....

[sleeperservice]

Let's look at the fundamentals of what's going on in the U.S. right now:

It's not OK for kids to watch South Park, Eyes Wide Shut & American Pie because such movies may 'twist' them and make them become anti-social (and what is meant by anti-social? Being non-conformative?).

BUT...

It's perfectly OK for kids to have ready access to guns, even though a small few might use them to kill people.


You can't have the 1st OR the 2nd amendments.

Re:I care about my kids...

[kaniff]

I am 17. I am a child. I need my parents guidance to know what is wrong and what is right. But even my parents know that South Park or American Pie is just harmless humor. I don't need a theater owner or a Washington politican to tell me what is going to harm my fragile little mind.

These are good and well founded rules that have no real use, since parents should deem what is an appropriate age for THEIR children to see these "immoral" movies. Theaters around here require you to be 18 to see an R-rated movie. Yes, I live in the South.. they cater to the Southern Baptists who are convinced that is the worst thing to happen to me since Satan himself.

Being 17 now, I must be totally unable to handle such things. But the minute I turn 18, its all fair game? I don't see the logic in that. My peers are a highly varied group.. I know some 20 year olds who would probably find this movie offensive, and on the other side of the coin, there are some 15 year olds who it wouldn't even faze.

"Just because you *think* your rules are arbitrary doesn't mean they *are* arbitrary. When you grow up, maybe you'll understand that."

An arbitrary rule is one set as a single number and applies across the board, without regard to the actual condition of the child in regard. This is just a useless number used to placate those who have a problem with this immoral content. Refute it if you will, but its true.

It would be impossible to create a law that is beneficial to all involved, there will always be people who get shafted by it or it becomes unfair to. It is the parents responsibility and the parents choice to allow their young to see whatever they deem appropriate, and the legislature and the self-appointed morality industry to stay out of it.

Being 17, I can drive. Thus I am taking charge of my own life and possibly even that of others. I have insofar handled this responsibility just fine. Do you think if I can handle such I can handle seeing a movie that says fuck a lot or maybe shows a few naughty bits. I would say so. If my parents had forbade me to see the movie, I would have thusly respected their wishes. I do not support the circumventing of the rules, and I have not been able to see any of the controversial movies without the backup of my parental units. And I don't think John Katz is advocating such circumvention either, I believe he is preaching free will and the ability to censure yourself or the parents responsibility to do as such.

Thank you for your time. And I hope you understand what I have to say without dismissing me as a child who doesn't like his rules.
kaniff -- Ralph Hart Jr

Me too!

[konstant]

Please let's have another vote, Rob.

-konstant

What if they announced a boycott and nobody came.

[konstant]

Of course Katz won't try to orchestrate a boycott. He'd have to announce it to the broader media for it to be effective, but nobody would pay the least attention to him. He'd be revealed as ineffective the nation over.

-konstant

Re:What if they announced a boycott and nobody cam

[konstant]

You appear to have a somewhat wild impression of me, friend. Regardless, please don't flock to Katz simply because you loathe me. The man enjoys a power none of us enjoy - namely the power to dictate what is news on Slashdot - and he seems to have done very little to merit it. He is using us, plain and simple. Of course I'm upset.

I believe the post hasn't been moderated down because, unlike the Japan post which apparently you misinterpreted (it was tongue-in-cheek), this one has a point people can agree with.

-konstant (who doesn't hate you OR the Japanese)

Re:Katz, PLEASE PLEASE FUCK OFF!!!

[DrMaurer]

I'm sure Mr. Katz loves you comment. Please set your preferences to avoid articles by him in the future.

Can't? Oops, I guess being anonymous isn't a good thing.

Anyone can say anything they want, and so can I, so please, ignore what you don't like and move on, please?

thanks

Re:Flogging a dead horse

[DrMaurer]

Mmm, boobies.

Wait, their gonna remove them from my girlfriend?!? You bastards.

Theatres have a right (as I do) to deny service to ANYONE. I have a right to see a movie. Theirs is private property, if they don't want me there, that's fine, I can go elsewhere, if I still want to see the movie.

They (speech and property) are rights that bump into each other. I would deny service to anyone I pleased. If I owned a theatre, I'd stand by the door and ask people that made fun of me in high school to leave.

Theatres don't make money from movies, they make it through concessions (spelling? soda and popcorn, ya know?). I sure as hell wouldn't want some stinkin' hippie or slobbering Republican on my property.

Thinking about it from the other side:

Boring...

[AndersW]

Yada yada yada...
OK, he's done. Let's bash some Christians!

God damn, they gonna moderate me down for this one...

Oh well.



____

Quickie

[AndersW]

The problem lies in the insane ratings system, not in the fact that the system is being carried out.
Focus, you must focus...



____

Re:I hope so.

[Kintanon]

Stop trying to legislate my morality you fascist.

Re:I care about my kids...

[Kintanon]

One would think that anyone old enough to be allowed to operate a 2000lb piece of machinery would be responsible enough to see any movie around.... I guess we should raise the driving age to 18... Of course, if you can drive and vote, and kill people in foreign countries, then you should be able to drink, so I guess we better move everything up to 21... Of course if you can do all of that you should be able to run for president, so let's move it all up to 35... Sounds good to me, everyone under 35 (Including me) is now considered a Child! >:)

Kintanon

Re:Klueless

[Thbbbt]

AC, to paraphrase... you just don't get it, do you?

Just out of curiousity, when was the last time you came across a good test of maturity? As soon as you find one I'd love to hear about it.

You stated that, "It doesn't matter how many thousands of emails you got from CHILDREN. They are still children."

Because they are under 18 is not an excuse for giving a large section of our society no voice in this society what so ever. A few hundred years ago (and much more recent than that in fact) similar excuses to that which you site, ie., "It doesn't matter what they think, they are only black. They are still black. They are the responsiblity of their owners." was used to oppress and subjugate people, living, breathing, thinking, feeling, human beings.

More recently things such as "It doesn't matter what they think, they are only women. They are still women. They are the responsibility of their husbands." was used as an excuse to prevent women from taking an active role in this society. The new target is anyone under the age of 18 (or is it 21, its so hard to tell these days).

Many supposedly adult people act far less mature than most teenagers I know (Bill Clinton anyone?), and yet we deny this nation's children most of the legal rights the rest of us take for granted.

A lot of people will say that the above examples were completely different circumstances and don't apply. In response I say they do and must apply if we are to ever stop repeating the same mistakes that this society has continued to make throughout its history.



We're applying extremely general rules on members of our own society. You mention male teenaged drivers. Let me give you a counter example: I'm 26 years old and male. I've never been involved in an automotive accident, and I've never had a traffic violation. I've maintained a perfectly clean driving record for 10 years and yet I still pay outrageous sums of money each month for car insurance because I am male and single.

I don't fit and have never fit the generalizations that you are making in your post.

Another point that you made refering to children being the responsibility of their parents is very accurate. The problem is that a lot of parents aren't taking responsibility (not all certainly, but I think it's a safe bet to say a lot, if not most). Those parents are looking to society to make up for their lack of maturity in dealing with their own children (a generalization, I know, but still more accurate than I think most of us want to admit).

You're statement: "Of course they are going to support your position that they have more freedom. Big deal. They can support you all they want but they don't have any authority."

Again, much the same things were said before slavery was abolished in this country, and before women were given the same rights as everyone else. The really sad thing is we're still not where we should be on either of those issues, and we as a society still haven't learned from our own history.

Currently what you say about children not having any authority is very true. I hope I'm not the only person that sees a problem with this. In time hopefully those of us concerned with this issue will be able to bring about some much needed change.

Do I endorse letting everyone into these movies? No, but I certainly don't endose the current methods of defining and measuring maturity, or the abuses caused in the name of protecting children.

If we're all so worried about the influence that violent and sexually explicit movies have on people, how about keeping repeat sex offenders out of these movies, or people with a demonstrated history of violent activity?

I'll leave you all with one last thought. Who's going to be the next target? Perhaps the same people posting today that will inevitably get old?

I can just hear people in 60 years talking about us... "It doesn't matter what they think, they are only old people. They are still old. They are the responsibility of their kids."

Re:Klueless

[Ded Bob]

Would waiting until they are 21 change this, probably not they still, at the age of 21, would have the same lack of experience.

Same lack of experience, yes. Higher maturity, probably, but not guaranteed. Hey, I am honest.

Who are you to judge? Isn't that a parents job?

Then the parents should be the only ones allowed to take children into a movie which is rated 'R'. Since it is the parents' job, they should be required to stay with their children throughout the movie.

Look to your example letters. What does helping retarded children have to do with watching erotica (Kidman's butt)?

What retarded children? What are you talking about.

Did you even read the article?

P.S. Off topic, but I have to say it: please format your comments better. Thank you.

Re:Klueless

[Ded Bob]

Why is a parents permission not good enough? If they don't want to accompany their child, they shouldn't have to

I think a rating of 'R' requires parental supervision. Not necessarily my opinion; that is what the 'R'-rating says.

As for the maturity of the individual who helped mentally handicapped children, I can only tell him that life sucks. He/She may be mature enough to understand the movie, but the rating system does not analyze each individual. This is unlike the interview he must have received before being given the responsiblility of those children.

Re: Lowest common denominator.

[SirSlud]

Incidentally, if my comment didn't make it clear, I though Katz's article barely scratched the surface of the issue. (Which is why I elaborated with my own drivel.) I know where he's coming from, but his arguments are obvious, and mostly moot.

I tend to agree with most people here in that Katz material isn't really all that noteworthy, and probably not worth the space he's given.

Re:Requiring your mommy sit with you is != censors

[SirSlud]

"any (non-X)" is exactly the point. My annoyance comes with the fact that there are more people out there who allow their kids to watch violent films but not films with genetalia. But your kid is gunna have sex someday (well, hopefully) anyhow, so whats the big deal? "Wide Eyes Shut" had to be altered to avoid an X rating. But "The Matrix"? Unscathed. I'll tell you right now I'd rather show my young kid Wide Eyes Shut over The Matrix any day. We judge our art on how it looks - not what it means. This is what bothers me.

SirSlud

Lowest common denominator.

[SirSlud]

The recent talks on censorship have simply gone to show how we've become a lowest common denominator society.

a) We'll gladly deny millions of kids the responsibility of enjoying a movie to ensure that a handful don't use it as a source of twisted inspiration and do anything bad with it.

b) Making something available to the public is far harder than making something unavailable. Ie, the group that /doesn't/ want something will almost invariably win over the (generally larger) group that /does/ want something. This is the lowest common denominator - we seem to be pulling back art, media, culture as fast as we can find slices of the population that have a problem with it.

If you buy into the law of conservation of badness, you can suggest that censoring an experience will cause 10 children to go out and do it themselves out of curiosity, while making the experience avaiable will cause 10 different children to go out and do it themselves out of imitation. To put it more simply, some kids start smoking cause someone lets them try it, others start cause their parents pretented like smoking didn't exist.

Those in favour of censorship are often some of the most hypocritical of the bunch. Ei, a group of judges that would coil in horror when called to judge upon their own private interests.

The other thing that irks me is the complete lack of focus on the responsibility of the artist. To get right to the point we shouldn't /need/ censorship because an artist should create his work with a clear intention to present his or her values. The thing many people can't grasp is that you can support positive moral views by presenting subversive ones. It is up to the consumer to distinguish what is being presented in a 'dont do this' light and what is not. I firmly believe (I'm 21) that kids are able to do this if their parents havn't twisted their minds already with the "monkey see, monkey do" and "see no evil, hear no evil" mentality.

SirSlud

Kids know all?

[-=albert]

Columns last week on Ticket Booth Tyranny drew well over a thousand e-mail
messages, mostly from kids (including many of those ushers) enraged at theater chain
restrictions, posturing and hypocrisy, and scrambling to buy DVD's and build home
theaters. The entertainment industry seems not to grasp the strong message that digital technologies
give kids lots of choices. They can't wait to make them.




Exactly, mostly kids. As an adult, you should know that kids don't always see the whole picture. You, however should be able to.

Totalitarianism and Kids

[capntripz]

I find this whole issue terrifying.

As frightening as the Blair Witch Project is, the film's horror pales in comparison to the terror I feel when viewing the furvor with which people oppose 16 year olds viewing such movies.

I know this may sound melodramatic or trite. Back in my own school days, I asked a history teacher how it was possible for entire nations could lapse into totalitarianism-- how such huge public support for the abolishment of individual rights could ever take place. I never really got a good answer.

The last few years have seen events which are, to me, chilling. As the internet offers children never before seen freedoms of speech, virtual assembly, and religion, the backlash against adolescent freedom is astounding. Politicans are clammoring for laws requiring filtering software in libraries. TVs are govermentally required to have filtering chips to screen programming. I am scared to be an american when most people think the world vision in Orwell's 1984 is disturbing simply because the main characters were over the age of 18.

I find it terrifying to turn on CNN and watch how eager people are to develop and implement censorship, to deny 16 yr olds their inalienable human right to free speech, free listening, and free thought. Even on slashdot, freethinking opensource-advocating forum that it is, you don't have too read too many comments before finding someone vehemently arguing for the disenfrachisement and continued oppression of a 16 yr old who wants to see southpark.

I wasn't in Russa when Stalin came to power, I wasn't in Germany in the 30s, and I missed out on Mao's rise to the top. So I have to wonder. Is this how it starts? Is what we are seeing now the mechanism which makes people argue for the reduction of their own freedom? Is this fundamentally the same phenomenon that, when hugely magnified, fuels the creation of a totalitarian state?

Of course, I'm optimistic. I'm not concerned that we're on the brink of a slippery slope to totalitarism. The US goverment is a robust system which is designed to check, balance, and limit goverment power. It has withstood world wars, mcarthyism, and it will withstand this. I don't think the technology exists to censor; Rather, the technology exists to for the first time truly free everyone from censorship.

-----

"A struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth...Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea."

-Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
(a weak and inconclusive point, but I couldn't resist)

Kids and their parents money

[Head Louse]

I don't think the Movie industry is going to be shaking in it's boots over a few irate kids going out and buying DVD players. Since they are going to be purchasing or at least renting the movies anyway. And once they buy the DVD player and sound system they will go right out and buy some DVDs. They probably will buy a bunch that they normally would never have owned just so they could make there home theater system "worth the $". And since independant stuff doesn't appear on DVD the kids will be permenantly hooked on hollywoods media barrage of (mostly) shit.

Re:Klueless

[Head Louse]

>Teenage males are the worst drivers according to insurance records. They make stupid decisions.

People with above average IQs also tend to be worse drivers then people with average IQs - so maybe the decisions aren't so stupid?

>What does helping retarded children have to do with watching erotica (Kidman's butt)?

A camp counselor who helped mentally disabled would have the patience to sit though Cruise's pitiful acting ability.

Just like this post.

[veldrane]

>:)

Re:I care about my kids...

[aether]

What makes the content of a movie adult? It has sex? F*ck is said more then 3 times? There is violence? Sorry but these things exist in real life for many teens. I heard f*ck more then 3 times a day when I went to a catholic school. At 16 or 17 the majority of teens have had sex. While violence like in the movies does not occure very often in a school I would say it occures very little in the office or home. How are any of these for adults only? I can agree that taking an 8 year old to see Eyes Wide Shut is probably not the best idea in the world but to say to somebody that has experienced some of the themes in the movie that he/she is not old enough or mature enough to go see it is not correct.

Re:My Goodness

[Stonehand]

Some might argue that there is a feedback loop of sorts -- vulgarity and idiocy in popular culture make it seem more acceptable behavior-wise. This behavior is then used to justify exposure to more drivel, the reasoning being that the schools or other foo of your choice are already that bad.

The counter, then, is that perhaps the schools and such should be cleaned up; that a problem does not another problem justify.

Whether or not that's true, eh. I do distinctly remember that while my high school (public, and general ed -- not a magnet or private school) seemed civil and peaceful enough, in the past couple years apparently the situation has deteriorated to the point that incidents have been featured on 20/20. Why? Most likely, cultural reasons -- the demographics are pretty stable.

The overall effects of immersion in a permissive culture may shape personality. A single contested movie is simply one element of the whole mixture: drivel on TV, drivel on the big screen, drivel on CD, whatever. I doubt there's anybody who could plausibly deny that culture has an effect on human psychological development, and that includes immersion in obscenity, inanity or so forth.

From one point of view, it's better for the teen to develop his own set of ethics than have them be taught by the parent; rational justification, thought, discussion and examination would probably be more stimulating and, in the long term, useful than dictating from above. On the other hand, that'll lead to conflicts between rationality and assorted values in the prevailing culture.

As for the movie theatre acting like a parent, perhaps it's not: by establishing a firm policy that basically demands proof of parental consent, they let the parents decide by choosing whether to show up or not. Otherwise, they either have to A) let everybody in, leaving themselves open to lawsuits from latchkey parents (they're *not* going to sue the kid, after all), B) decide on an individual case (such as notes; again, this leaves themselves open to lawsuits in the case of forgeries, etc), C) allow none in, which denies them a decent amount of income. Probably, if they could be convinced that nobody would sue them *and* that the government wouldn't legislate rules, they'd be more than happy to take money from every willing patron. Well, most would, anyway. Perhaps when the current frenzy of juvenile protectionism dies down...

The other argument, regarding violence, is that those who are likely to commit such acts may do so more efficiently in attempting to follow the script. &ltshrug&gt but that's about as applicable for clueless adults as it is for clueless juvies.

Re:Who are these kids anyway, when I was young...

[Stonehand]

I'm almost completely certain his post was satirical...

not ALL movie theaters are bad!

[chocolatetrumpet]

Check out Regal.

Home theater can get pretty good.. but it can never be quite the same as going out to see a movie. :-)

You need to announce a boycot

[TGmentor]

Unfortunately Katz ranting about movie theater tyranny isn't going to do much unless there is an official statement from a group that represents a large number of us.

Somebody needs to make a website that allows registration of individuals who wish to participate in a boycott. Then shoot off a press release to the major papers.

I think getting the movies on DVD is NOT a good idea. I think skipping the movies altogethor would send a SCREAMING message. Hit them in the pocket books... that's ALL the entertainment industry really understands.

Also... don't forget to vote! (if you can) If you can't then do political work for candidates who will give you the right to vote.

Guys, using (abusing) the system is the BEST way to get what you want.

Re:Katz doesn't read Slashdot!

[TGmentor]

ARGH!

There is -no- law against kids been in a movie Rated R. PERIOD. It doesn't matter if a movie theater goes out and GIVES tickets to two year olds! There's nothing that can legally be done about it.

Re:I hope so.

[TGmentor]

"The movie rating system is A Good Thing, and requiring parents to actually sit with their kids in the movie if they wish them to be allowed to watch it is an Even Better Thing."

Hey, does capitilizing stuff make it an official title?

That's Right! Ticket booths BREED violence!

[TGmentor]

That's right! Tickets booths BREED violence, not the movies!! haha. Perhaps we should outlaw ticket booths!

Re:Klueless

[TGmentor]

Kids do have the power to obtain rights in this country. All they need to do is provide free footwork for any candidate that would support equal rights for kids.

Imagine an army of kids handing out fliers to adults for a candidate that had many other agreeable stances, and just happens to have equal rights for kids as a small portion of his/her platform.

This country allows you to use the system to obtain the change you want. So use it, hell... abuse it!

Re:Klueless

[kcsmiff]

It doesn't matter how many thousands of emails you got from CHILDREN. They are still children. They are still the responsibility of their parents. They are NOT adults nor have the achieved the maturity necessary for the decisions on what is good or bad for them.

I don't really consider a 16 year old a child. Not quite an adult, but far from "children" in capital letters.

When I was 17 I got carded for "Boys on the Side" which is a chick flick with no nudity or violence, but adult situations - a woman with AIDS and a *gasp* lesbian. Since I was 17 I got in but I still remember being shocked that "adults" thought that around my age I wouldn't be able to handle it. I always thought I was more mature than other people my age and was quite glad when I hit the magic ages that let me do things I wanted to do (18, 21.. next one is 25 when my car insurance goes down! :-)


Look to your example letters. What does helping retarded children have to do with watching erotica (Kidman's butt)?

I think it speaks for the maturity of the guy who wrote in - he gives up parts of his summer vacation to work at a camp and help children. That's a pretty noble, selfless cause. Sounds to me like this is a guy who can make some mature decisions.

And it more mature to me than lots of people on this thread going out of their way to bash jon katz just because you disagree.

Rated R movies and stuff

[DGregory]

When I was a teenager they didn't enforce the "no one under 17 admitted rule" and it was the parents who decided if their kid could go watch it or not. I don't know why they suddenly decided that my generation was so terrible that enforcing that rule is going to really change anything and make the world a better place. Besides, once kids reach the age of 15-16 years old, watching a dirty movie isn't going to suddenly make them axe murderers. Any kids that are going to try to set farts on fire (or whatever :) by that age would probably try to do it anyways, without the help from a movie. It shouldn't be the movie theater's job (or government's) to try to teach values to kids or shield them from Bad Things. It should be the parent who decides if the kid is mature enough to watch a rated R (or PG-13, or NC-17 -- which these days seems to have little difference from rated R) movie...

And, you can't really compare a theater experience to a home theater/DVD experience. Most theaters use actual film, whereas DVD is digital, so the bigger the image gets, the more pixellated it'll be. Until we get some HD-TV, the theater experience will always be superior. There's also fewer distractions in the theater (even with the babies and kids) so I tend to enjoy the movie there more because I'm able to concentrate on it 100% rather than having to answer the phone, stop halfway through to move laundry, etc. When I get really comfortable on the couch at home, I'll usually fall asleep during a movie whereas it's hard to get that comfortable in the theater. :)

Re:I'm providing free clues, here's one for you.

[DGregory]

It is the movie theater telling you what you can or cannot watch. The theaters decide to not allow kids under 17 in, not the board, who gives the rating.

Barney doesn't have any bad words or naughty body parts, but there is no way I'd sit through a movie with him. If the kids are old enough to be dropped off at the movie, they're old enough to sit through a movie alone. Hell, if they're old enough to DRIVE to the movie, they should be able to watch it without their parents with them on that hot date.

About the screwiest thing though, is that (in my experience) you can't buy more than 1 ticket for a rated R movie if you are under 21. I tried to buy tickets ahead of time for myself and my friends when I was about 19 (since the movie would no doubt be sold out later) and they wouldn't let me.

Kids, violence and sex

[Sirron]

Universal freedom of speech has never been a popular concept within the structure of political, religious or corporate power. Our current concept of universal freedom of speech was not even the goal of the original US Constitution. When the document was drafted and approved, only wealthy White Christian males had freedom of speech. Africans, Asians, The Indigenous (Indians), Women, Children, non-Christian, all were excluded from the right of free speech.

So now as our political, religious and corporate leaders attempt to convince us that they only have the best interests of our children in mind, remember this fact. - In spite of the great increase in accessibility of "violent" and "sexually explicit" media to kids, the rate of teen pregnancy is falling! And school violence is declining! Check the facts for your self.

Technology is finally giving universal freedom of speech to those of us not included the first time around. And a lot of powerful people are attempting to take that freedom away (using the protection of our innocent children as a very potent argument). Let us not sit back and silently give that freedom away.

that is the essense:

[sevenseven]

get parents of the hook. blame everything else but themselves for their kids. this is 100% true and this is one of the main points of the article.

once again - "southpark. the movie" tried to prove the same point.

in addition, i find a parallel to renessainse and industrial revolution quite amusing and interesting.

Who are these kids anyway, when I was young...

[Small Fish]

Kids are idiots incapable of making decisions. That is what we adults are for. Experience shows us this. Kids don't look both ways and are hit by trucks, they kill fellow students at school, and they play Sega and watch crappy movies instead of reading books and reciting poetry in coffee shops. Idiots. I don't even see why this is a ruckus, parents OWN children, why should children have any choices. They should be silent unless spoken too, they should do things because we the wise, "say so". We need not justify our actions, that we would be beneath our stature. Until of course they turn 18 and become mature and logical, when they start making intelligent decisions (but not yet about alcohol that takes 3 more years). Once the reach adulthood no pressure (violent, sex, pimples) can corrupt them, not access to drugs and guns and Porn, at 18 they can handle it. After all when was the last time you saw an adult say or do something stupid? In the late 1800's Laws we implemented protecting child from abuse. The laws applied in court were original written to prevent cruelty to animals. I think this entire debate makes the point that ignorance and stupidity are not exclusively the realm of the young.

And a bountiful Amen to that...

[PHANTOM_X]

Thank you for making that statement so eloquent. Lord knows I couldn't have done it. Blaming such things as movies (among others) for immorality in children is simply symptomatic of the curent social epedemic. I know far too many people who have come from broken/unbroken homes where physical and sexual abuse occured. Children are supposed to be,"normal", and moral coming from situations like this? Its simply easier to blame social groups, in essence, outside forces for a reason why shootings such as the one at columbine occur. Morality in and of itself can't be for everyone. Morality is for each person to discover themselves. Institutions are not able teach this to each individual student. There is far more wieght to what a parent says (im speaking from experience) than what an often distant teacher or counselor says. Thank you for pointing that out Penrif...

Re:I care about my kids...

[biodecay]

I would like to clarify something here, do you honestly believe even for a moment that the day before a person turns 18 he is infintesimally less mature than the day after? that *is* an arbitrary barrier, an arbitrary , and in my opinion , nonsensical barrier... it's absurd to think that the passage of a single second (between 11:59:59 and 12:00:00) can so drastically alter a persons ability to judge between reality and fantasy that before that second had passed

The point isn't the cross-over from "child" to "adult" that you sarcastically propose occurs in that one second, but the age at which the ratings committees deem most people are able to watch this stuff without taking a gun up the nearest bell tower. By the time most people are 18, they have enough of a grasp on reality not to be overly affected by the material. The fact that the people who control the ratings are anally retentive conservative doinks is why they have an idiotic system which places hardcore violence as nicer than sex - probably something which has a large basis in religion.

I'm sorry, censorship is flat wrong...

Very true, it is a pity that moral crusaders so often turn to censorship to destroy what they don't like. It literally comes down to "I don't like this, I can make it go away if I do this". If enough of an outcry is made against the rules, the government will change them. If the rules are fucked up enough, people will break them without thinking twice (i.e. new aust. net censorship law)

They are not good, nor well founded, they were created as a political stunt in order to curry favour with the moral majority of the American public.

Which is exactly what many corporations do, for instance the buffy incidence. It's an unfortunate fact of life that people do what they think will make them liked, whether that is for social, power , money, or spiritual reasons.

A message to all the moron trendoid sheep who blindly take up the banner of censorship and march , zombielike, bleating the praise of their new creed: You can learn to think, instead of following, you can learn that often the best way of getting something isn't forcefully. Of course, because you are stupid, and in the habit of being stupid, you probably won't. Your loss.

That is all,
-Biodecay.

Re:I care about my kids...

[biodecay]

I know that you know that I know that we both know quite a significant amount of people who are troglodytes, and I know also that you know that we know that they are troglodytes not particularily due to the age that they are.. Merely that's the type of people they are. Sorry, I don't buy that... Age is meaningless, I can think of several more relevant things to base an arbitrary assessment of whether or not a group of people is prepared to see certain content. Regardless in my view it's pointless to even attempt to restrict it from the view of those who aren't fit to see it, it's not likely to prevent anything that they would have done from occuring anyhow.

I agree that it's about as useful a reaction as banning many low-end guns after Martin Bryants rampage with a semi-automatic, already-restricted rifle. However, laws, even when easily broken, still have the effect of providing an avenue of prosecution, and act as a filter to those who are less determined to do whatever is being restricted. The American ratings enforcement aren't useless now, (unlike Australia's) they will actually succeed in keeping a fair number of people out of the cinema who aren't "meant" to be there.

The fact that we don't agree that those people should be kept out is irrelevant, the people in control of that do, and they have the say.

Later,
Bio.

Re:Strange, isn't it?

[_Void_]

>Which brings us back to the ORIGINAL issue or
>whether children should have access to material
>that their parents do not wish them to.

Actually, I think you'll find the original issue was (at least in part) whether children should be banned from films that they are "too young" for, even if their parents agree their entry. Certainly it is justified to keep toddlers out of porn theaters, but to deny a 17-year-old access to a film on an adult theme, *even* *with* the permission of their parents to view it? Hmmm.

Frankly, it has always amazed me that people (in many areas) can get married and (legally) have kids themselves at 16, but aren't allowed to watch it on-screen for another two years. Which is more important to the previous poster, stopping adolescents *watching* sexual acts, or stopping them from *doing* them? Right, that's the age of consent raised to 18, then. Where do you stop?

>You grant access to porn for your children.

That's not exactly the same as allowing them to watch films containing adult material. Porn is just one end of a huge spectrum. The argument should be where do you draw the line on that spectrum, not "do you let them access any part of it at all?".

>Your children are not yet adults. You do not
>know the effect your parenting will have on
>them.

No, but assuming you don't totally repress all forms of self-expression, you can generally guess. I have several friends whose parents were more open about sex, and they have without exception failed to turn into psychopaths or perverts. On the other hand, some of the most promiscuous people I know have either very strict parents, or were educated in "repressed" environments (eg, convent school).

You can argue it's down to the individual child, but then that invalidates your own argument - is it right to damage a child's development by stifling their education in this way, simply to avoid damaging another child who hasn't been brought up to be as "stable"?

Or, in fact, is the answer not to leave the decision to the one group who is most qualified to decide on a child-by-child basis - their parents?

>So the theatres have instituted a requirement
>that the parents be present during the movie.
>Simple. The parent's rights are not abridged.
>The children are supervised.

What does this solution have over merely requiring the parents to *buy* the ticket for the child? Or to provide authorisation for the child to buy it themselves?

In addition, requiring the parent to sit-in with the child *does* inconvenience them - they have to sit through a two-hour-plus film which (in all likelihood) they may not wish to see.

Besides, exactly *how* are the parents supervising the child? Why does this argument not work for censoring the internet, or for television? Any good parent should know what their child watches or views, but this is considered inadequate for most other media, so why is it adequate here? If parents (apparantly) can't be trusted to even switch off a television, why should we trust them to go to all the bother of frog-marching their child out of a cinema?

>Now, if you DO support children's access to
>pornography without parental oversight, then
>you DO support pedophilia [sic]. Learn more
>about the crime and how it is perpetrated and
>you'll understand why I say that.

Not at all, the poster may have been merely advocating parents' personal choice in the matter, instead of being dictated to by the theater company. In addition, when was the last time you heard of a paedophile being convicted of showing porn to a minor? It's almost impossible to prove, and so they're usually charged with actual assult (rape, indecent assult, etc) or let go.

Besides, what makes you such an expert on paedophilia? Why do your opinions on the subject count for more than the previous poster's? Paedophiles often use sweets, or stories of lost pets to lure children into cars - does this mean we should ban bubble-gum or kittens? I think not.

Just some thoughts, in my first posting. Why does the phrase "baptism of fire" keep running through my mind?

TTFN,