Slashdot Mirror
'Citizenship' not Censorship
ronfar writes "The Latest Senatorial Attack on American Freedom. I'm not sure why I care anymore, except that my freedoms are going down the drain along with everybody elses. I mean, it's pretty obvious that the Leibermans, Gores, Bennets and Bauers of the world feel secure in forcefully turning this country into an authoritarian state. The sad thing is that when people finally realize how much they've lost, they will no longer have the power to do anything about it. Our democracy is committing suicide, I just wish someone would intervene and take the razor away before it slits its wrists. "
Labor Unions don't make any sense unless they are compulsory. Corporations hate unions and they will always create advantages for the workers not in the union, such as firing all of the union workers. Unless everyone is in the Union it is trivial to bust it. Corporations which have unionized labor forces in general deserve it. It's pretty tough to start a Union, and no one would do it unless conditions were bad. I have no sympathy for companies who whine about how much money the Unions are demanding, because if the Union weren't there, the workers would be abused.
If you want to know how Libertarianism really works, go to Indonesia and see the sweatshops. When corporations get free run, people get trampled on. Libertarianism is all about raw use of power for any end.
wish it was true, like any one candidate won't continue to disapoint you in his/her 2/4 years in office. Your choices are:
1. The right wing religious gun nuts!
2. The liberal fascists!
Please forget about emailing your congressperson, the center for democracy and technology did a little experiment and found 90+% of these emails go unread. Its just a nice way of saying "Hey I'm hip and on the web."
The best you can hope for is voting for what SEEMS to be the least of 2 evils and calling your congressman when they're fucking up. Phone calls and letters they tend to listen to, in the way that letters make big piles and phones make ringing noise - hard to ignore.
So please spare me this simple minded "Lets go vote, guys" solution.
Another real concern of mine is that the ratings system in this country will always be completely afraid of anything with sexual content. You can cut off a breast but you'll get a worse rating if you show someone kissing one. So we get the thumbs up on all this violent badly written trash and anything with any merit is suddenly in a ratings level where the producers will lose money from its bad stigma.
You guys really think a rating does nothing? It has a severe economical affect, especially in movies. If you can conform to the R rating, the studio wont back you up and suddenly you have a real form of censorship. Look at the damnable Walmart, anything that doesn't contain X amount of southern hospitality is banned.
The overly-religious have such a stronghold on this country its not even funny anymore.
If you want to effect change, get out and take your voice to the polling booth. We'll have that opportunity once again here in the US this coming November in many cases, and next November for everyone.
I don't have kids, and I agree with most of what you are saying, but the point is that not every parent is going to watch everything their kids do. Not everyone who is a parent is cut out to be a parent. I agree that the best possible solution is prescreening by parents, but I doubt you're suggesting that's actually going to happen, and there's no way to force people to do that. And I don't think that it's right for society to forsake the children of parents who don't care. Now, I understand that this is a point that people might have a reasonable disagreement with, but many government and cultural policies follow it. No single answer (except the parent thing, which will never happen) is perfect--that's the problem. You just have to figure out which one is least bad.
The Libertarian party is the only American political party that is 100% pro-freedom. We support privacy and free speech in all issues, all the time. We support free crypto and zero government regulation of the net and other media. You're exactly right: there's not much difference between the major parties. But the LP *is* different, and it's a great way to send the message that you're fed up with government encroachment on our freedoms.
Since they aren't willing to have everybody's religion represented then they shouldn't represent any. And about the ten commandments effect on this situation. Do they honestly think that these children didn't know the ten commandments? Even if they didn't, they don't mean anything if the kids don't believe in them. What a bunch of self-righteous ignorant bastards we have in congress!!
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
So, basically, you're admitting that the parents' lack of caring is the root problem. (If I am incorrect in this conclusion, flame me via email.)
I'm sorry if you've gotten the impression that I've been flaming you. I hardly think that's true. In fact, I do agree with you. A lack of caring is the root of the problem. However, your proposed solution is not a very good one, I think.
Politicians should instead attack the root of the problem: make parents legally directly responsible for the vast majority of their childrens' actions.
This is generally the case already (many exceptions, though). The problem is not the children's actions, but what they're seeing. The government proposals are mostly to prevent 6-year-olds from seeing porn, not from keeping 13-year-olds from getting bomb plans (though that is probably a concern also).
My point is simply this: you cannot make a person a good parent, you can only make it easier. Your proposal (which does not solve the real problem) just makes it more unpleasant to be a bad parent, which while it might be effective at solving some things, would not be the most efficient way of doing things (resulting in more jail time).
The solution proposed (universal regulation) is too broad
But that's not the proposed solution. The proposed solution is universal classification, not regualtion. This gives parents more information than they otherwise might have. You think this is wrong for some reason?
You must also remember that even the most diligent parent cannot stop everything. There is some point where you have to trust a child on its own--constant shadowing is a bad form of parenting. Human beings are complicated and cannot be programmed like a computer (I get the feeling you don't have kids either). If a family adopts an abused child and that child grows up to be a bully, is it the adoptive parents' fault? If a child has ADD and gets too rambunctious, is it the parents' fault?
Your proposal is far more draconian than the proposed "solution". Again, I must say: I think that the world would be much better off if every parent did a perfect job, but that's impossible--being a parent and making a living is too hard--and even if that did happen, it wouldn't solve everything. The only good way to make parenting better is to make parenting easier, and that's what this proposal is talking about. Making bad parenting harder is not the way to go--negative reinforcement never is.
On second thought, after reading some other comments, I'm inclined to say that a rating system seems to have worked great for movies. Why couldn't something similar work here?
But I believe it's on a state-by-state basis. To the best of my knowledge, it's handled like this in most states: minors can drink with the consent and supervision of their parents.
This extends even to places like restaurants; the parent is free to buy the drink and give it to his kid.
You've got to stop thinking of law in terms of how it benefits people.
Perhaps you should start thinking of laws in those terms. That is why we have laws. Almost every social philosopher since the 18th century has said the exact same thing--we have laws to make society a worthwhile deal. If they were not for that purpose, people would not choose to live in society (the social contract). If you do not like the laws of your country, move to Antarctica or somewhere where there are no laws.
Punishment can serve as a corrective or deterrant. You seem to be proposing using it as a deterrant. This is fine. However, you must remember that courts and jails are overflowing as it is. Any equally effective solution which does not involve judicial authorities (this includes fines) is preferable to one that does. Are you so sure that your solution would work that it is worth that imbalance?
Hmm... I'd have to disagree with you on a few things. First, Hitler didn't target "faithful Christians" exactly. He targeted anyone who wouldn't cooperate with his regime in the destruction of the Jewish people. Included in this were faithful and loyal Catholics, Lutherans, Quakers... anyone who thought that he was wrong. This said, he did, in fact, target some specific religious groups, such as Catholics, since they were more likely not to follow his doctrines.
Hitler always considered his "crusade" against the Jews, as well as his plans for world domination, to be part of God's Will. Listen to his rhetoric. Somehow, he was able to combine Christianity and Nietzche and not look too much like a hypocrite to his own people. What made is worse was that the german Bishops of the Lutheran and Anglican/Episcopalian churches supported him fully in his efforts to eradicate the Jewish people. Christianity has long been advocating the destruction of the Jews, from just after Constantine legitimized the faith, through the Great Schism, through the Inquisition (which was targeted primarlity at the middle class land-owning Jews), all the way through World War 2. In fact, it was the latter that forced most major Christian religions to rethink their ideas about the Jewish people. For Catholicism, that meant a speech from the Pope, for Protestant churches, it was a bunch of councils.
Most of the worst atrocities of the world were caused by those who believed they were doing God's will. Slavery, for example, which last hundreds of years, was started and perpetuated by Christians. The Ku Klux Klan has always claimed to be doing God's will, at least if God is Protestant and White (Blacks, Jews and Catholics were the first added to the KKKs hatred list. Muslim and those of Arab descent were added later). The screams and cries of "whore," "sinner" and "killer" that surround abortion clinics across the country, and the sometimes deadly confrontations outside those same clinics are almost universally organized by "Christian" groups. These daily emotional and physical beatings of people are far worse than the atrocities of the Holocaust, because it creates a culture of hatred and dominance based on faith, color or belief. Look around you. The hatred you see isn't caused by violence on TV, or sex in the movies. It's caused because there is one vocal group that insists on telling everyone else what to do, and refuses to admit that any other view may be valid.
Now, before you start flaming me with bible quotes, I spent a great deal of time studying the Bible and religious history. I know where you're coming from. My point is that we should let everyone live the way they want to. If you feel like trying to convert the entire U.S., that's fine. But legislating it won't work. (If you doubt my words, ask the Romans. Ask Ausonius if he was a devout Christian. I'll give you a hint... you'll find him someplace extremely warm.) Start with the person next to you. And flaming me isn't going to gain you any points.
"137!! Why 137!"
The article is right where it talks about how subjective the ratings are. I think that at least the MPAA has been good about taking each one case by case.
For instance, "Saving Private Ryan", and IIRC Shindler's List also, would probably have been rated NC-17 if they were different movies(in terms of what they were depicting). However, Saving Private Ryan was not showing violence for the sake of violence, it was realistic. Same with th nudity in Schindler's List.
Because of that, the MPAA gave Spielberg a break, and put on R ratings(it was also because the films could be viewed as educational, and an NC-17 would've made sure no kids could see the movies).
Okay, from what I skimmed, this law says that people must properly label their products so that parents, school, etc can make proper and informed decisions.
What is wrong with that?
If I were a parent, I would want to know if a product contained what I judge as inappropriate content for my children to view.
That isn't a limiting of freedom, that is informing the consumer.
Or do you think that a manufacturer has a right to lie to consumers.
Maybe this is overlegislated, but it doesn't sound like an evil removal of freedom.
Or am I missing something?
Unfortunately, this approach doesn't work for the net. Instead of 70 or 80 channels, I have millions of websites. None of the filter companies can keep up. So, I have to watch my son every second on the net.
That's called being a good parent. Are you saying you don't want that, that you'd rather not take personal involvement in your child's life and instead relegate it to some piece of software which will never be adequate?
I agree with you that a simple standard filtering tag would be nice, but you forget: no one will use it. It's not profitable to do so. You can throw as many laws as you want at the problem; they never solve it.
Personally, I see the fact that the Net cannot be controlled by software as a blessing, rather than a curse. Perhaps it'll get more parents to realize that they do have a child, that their responsibility to that child overrides absolutely every single other personal concern, and that they need to start spending time with their kids. Quick-fixes like filters won't do the job.
To you, I can only say the following: Spend the Net time with your kid. Surf the Web together; use the time to learn his interests and get him into yours; the Net is actually very good for things like that. Talk with him, tell him why this sort of thing is wrong in terms he'll understand, rather than the over-puritanical bull we all hear from the religious right and just about every single person in government nowadays. In the end your child will be a better person for it.
NOTE: Despite the semi-inflammatory wording of this post, it is not intended as a flame at all. If it pisses you off, read it again and consider it for a while before you respond. If you're going to flame, please do us all a favor and do it by e-mail rather than waste space on Slashdot.
well-regulated = well maintained
militia = armed citizenry (The militia was basically all able-bodied men from 18 to 45)
...
So the 2nd Amendment means (in modern English)
A well-armed citizenry being necessary for the security of a free state,
Sounds a little different when you actually find out what the words meant back then, doesn't it? In other words, it means that an armed citizenry is a check on government tyranny. I'm amazed by how many people are either ignorant of or deliberately ignore this point.
The government keeps throwing more money at the public schools, and standards keep declining. What is needed to improve the schools is not more money, but more competition. Only when parents have a choice as to the schools their children attend (and the ability to take their tuition with them) will schools have the incentive to clean up their acts. Yes, more money would be nice, but schools already get far more money (adjusted for inflation) than they have in the past, and I don't see any improvement. Private schools typically get the same job done with half the funds, and the expensive private schools provide world-class education for about the same price as your average public school.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, glorified violence in the media is not a problem. It's simply a symptom of a problem far worse.
Ask any moviemaker why they put so much sex and violence in their movies. Most will probably dance around the answer for a while, but every one of them will eventually give it to you straight: people will pay exorbitant prices to see it (and by "exorbitant" I mean the fact that the only thing which hasn't gotten cheaper in the US over the past fifty years, once inflation is accounted for, is movie-theater tickets). The fact is, there's one hell of a lot of profit in violence and sex in movies.
We don't crave violence because we see it; we see it because we crave it. Take the violence and sex out of the media, and you've done nothing to solve the problem. Indeed, if people can't see it in the media they'll turn to other sources, and we could quite possibly be in real trouble then.
So what is the problem? I don't claim to know that. Some cultural thing, probably; the fact is something in the fundamental culture of the U.S. is going to have to change if this problem is to be solved, and frankly I don't know what it is. You can blame any of a million different things. My personal belief is that it has much to do with the breakdown of parenting in recent years; kids aren't taught to respect all people anymore (I suppose one could argue that they never were, but in any case the situation on this has gotten much worse). Couple this with a society which has come to hold strength and physical beauty over real virtues like knowledge and kindness, and you have the recipe for a Really Bad Situation.
And a private school system could go a long ways toward fixing the problems you cite for a simple reason: they can kick kids out.
Yes, that's harsh, but frankly some kids need a good kick in the rear. Particularly if you are dealing with parents that don't give a damn or even take their kid's side, it might give the *parent* a wake-up call to do a better job at their parenting. And if a few kids simply get kicked out and stay kicked out, I'm not sure that's that big a deal. Students who repeatedly disrupt classrooms weren't likely learning much anyway.
Also, it might be profitable to set up private "boot camps" to whip bratty kids into shape. These would concentrate not so much on discipline as on getting kids to behave so they could return to the normal classroom.
The point is not that the above specifically will solve the problem, but that the ingenuity that is sparked by the free market will drive teachers and administrators to find better ways of dealing with these problems. The public schools are restricted in what they can do, and are forced to take all students no matter how atrocious their behavior. This lack of freedom for the teachers makes it much harder for them to deal with the problem students and concentrate on teaching the 80% of students who are somewhat interested in learning.
What freedoms are they taking away? Are they preventing the production of these products? No. Are they preventing the distribution of these products. No, not really. They're trying to prevent them from being sold to minors. Guess what, kiddies. Kids don't have the same rights as their adult comrades. You know why? They don't vote. I see this labeling idea as the same thing as alcohol restrictions. Alcohol is labeled. Minors can't buy alcohol, legally. Is anyone crying about the Constitutional right to drink alcohol at whatever age you want? No, because that's asinine. Let government do some regulation of products that may or may not be harmful to society.
Slashdot needs to get over the "Anytime the US Government passes a bill, it's taking away the freedoms of its citizens" kick that it's on. Unless you're a 16-year-old video game junkie, this isn't going to affect you in the least, and if you are a 16-year-old video game junkie, convince your parents to buy it for you. Or are you afraid that mommy and daddy won't approve of the games you play?
But that's an isolated incident, in which the antagonists were relatively secluded, and in which the governemtn generally had government support. Imagine if every tenth arrest resulted in a Waco-style seige with several government officials getting injured in each seige. It would be hard for the government to get much done then.
So yes, handgun ownership does not guaruntee that the government can't screw you over, but if a large minority of the populace were to arm themselves and refuse to cooperate with the government, it could slow down that government a whole lot. Certainly, it can't hurt, and if they're going to take me off to a concentration camp, I'd rather take a couple of them with me.
The trouble with that is, Ginger toms like to eat mice just as much. You are right though, a two party democracy is a joke and unfortunately the third options have all but disappeared in my country of origin, Britain, as well (actually, the second option seems to be on holiday too). I'm not totally clued up on the American system and forgive me if I'm wrong but most of the campaign energy seems to be towards the president, rather than the party and it's policies. However, he seems to have about as much clout as the Queen of England or the Japanese Emperor which is to say, not a lot (symbolic figureheads with no political power). So who is in power? the house of representatives or the president's party? Cliton asked for gun controls, the NRA's lobbyists start spouting crap and win the day, Cliton asks for an increase in NASA's budget and it gets slashed to hell. As an aside, after the columbine killings, waves were to be expected but looking at it, the groups with the strongest political faction win out and those that don't bother with all that political stuff (i.e. the games industry and Hollywood) take all the flak. Sorry but the question of what doom and nasty films did to those kids minds is one for psychologists and it is difficult to prove either way whether or not that would have prevented the killings. Not having vicious weponary in their cupboard would have prevented it. It doesn't seem to matter in the slightest who you vote for, there are always going to be power groups who are there and there to stay who will veto any good ideas that come along; But anyway, what the hell do I know, I've never even been to the U.S. :) Tim.
Basically, the bill says that every type of entertainment media, be it a Video Game, a TV show, or a Movie, will have a rating. This rating will be universal thoughout all mediums. So for example, if a Movie gets rated R (Under 17 not admitted w/o parent), that could apply to a similarly rated TV show. Mortal Kombat, for instance, would have an R-type rating. (The rating would carry the same symbol throughout the entertainment industry.)
Like the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act it would amend, the bill would also prohibit the sale of labeled products to minors.
This would surely backfire. Guess what? If a minor isn't allowed to buy it, they'll get it another way, opening the door to increased illegal crap. The article goes on to say "The Judiciary Committee report, in part, urges Congress to begin a national media campaign to educate parents and to create a national clearinghouse on children and entertainment violence. It also recommends that the various industries rate their products using a universal system." Parents don't need to be educated. The ones who know how to be parents know how to raise their children. The rest (I.E. That Mother who complained about Kenny on SouthPark) aren't going to listen to "Government Education", so that plan is useless.
The MPAA president summed it up quite well already.
Why? You won't see full nudity on television, and it's rare in video games. So if a movie is rated R, and that rating would apply to a television show as well, would one expect to see the same type of content? Probably not. (Yeah, it's about violence not nudity. I was using an example. If you're that concerned, replace 'nudity' with 'gore'.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
As a teenager, I want better labeling of content so I can tell at a glance while scanning DirecTV's film listings which shows contain nudity, which contain wanton violence, and which are just pansy-ass dramas. With proper and thorough labeling, I can zero in on the shows that have the naughty bits, and not waste my time on other, less entertaining programming.
Bring on the new system!
The whole point of the militia was that it was *not* a standing army and was therefore not a threat to peoples' freedoms. The militia were average citizens-- farmers mostly-- that were only called up in time of national emergency, and who made their living in the private sector the rest of the time. The US army is *not* a militia in the historical sense of the term, and that was not what the 2nd Amendment is talking about. Think about it: why would you write an amendment saying "The US military shall have the right to keep and bear arms?" I don't know of any country that has disarmed its own military. That would be retarded.
What if I choose not to play along? Then they take the gun, put it at my back, and march me off to camp?
What is wrong with this is that it substitutes brute force for thinking.
If you as a (theoretical) parent want to judge if a piece of art is appropriate for your children, you should THINK FOR YOURSELF and choose wisely. Yes, you and your children will bear the consequences if you choose poorly, but that is justice.
The alternative to limited government is unlimited government.
To reiterate the analogy, I regard much of what comes out of our media outlets as moral poison. It teaches is to regard ourselves and our fellow women and men as no better than objects -- the plots degrade men and women with casuol sex and casual murder.
On the flip side, is there any point to this kind of law? I doubt it. Bluntly, I vote with my dollar. If a media network refuses to show some reasonable restraint in what they show, I REMOVE THAT NETWORK FROM MY HOME.
So, my cable service does not include networks such as Comedy Central, or even the Cartoon Network (do you really want kids to learn behaviour from cow & chicken or southpark?)
I realize that, by doing this I am sacrificing my "freedom" to watch these materials. SO WHAT?!?! I regard this whole "adult material" standard as ludicrous. If something is not healthy for my child to watch, then how on earth is it worth my time? I have better things to do (like read kernel source).
Unfortunately, this approach doesn't work for the net. Instead of 70 or 80 channels, I have millions of websites. None of the filter companies can keep up. So, I have to watch my son every second on the net. Why can't offensive web sites show some responsibility? Why will they not actively label themselves as to their content? I would settle for a standard <porn> tag. That's all I ask!
In a world where my son can legitimately find pornography while looking for the president's home page (www.whitehouse.com) -- that is, where pornography is deliberately disguised as legitimate information and resists all attempts to get them to label themselves -- how can I (even as a freedom lover) argue AGAINST mandatory labeling?
Are you an ISP? Exercise some diligence on the sites on your servers before the government has to!
-- Slashdot sucks.
The second amendment is not treated more highly than the first. In fact, the First Amendment is the only amendment that most journalists and politicians really pay any attention to. The Second Amendment has been emasculated to the point where it is now all but meaningless. Leftists have reinterpreted it to mean basically that the National Guard needs weapons, and they say it has nothing to do with private citizens having guns. I wouldn't be too suprised if we started seeing more gun bans in the next few years. The NRA keeps giving in, and pretty soon guns will be outlawed.
It's scary.
Only the government can make their ratings carry the force of law, and only the government is completely immune to market pressures. If an independent rating system started taking bribes, people would find out, they'd get pissed, and they'd switch to a different service. If the government starts taking bribes, there might be an investigation, but if they are clever about it, nothing is likely to come of it. The kicker, though, is that you are forced to pay for their ratings (and likely they will enact laws around those ratings) whether you like it or not. No private organization can force you to use its services. That's why private organizations don't need constitutions. If they mistreat you, you can go elsewhere.
Have a look at this. Try not to laugh too hard.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Of course, the guy also sounds pretty unintelligent(maybe he's not good on TV).
Nope, he's a moron. As a Minnesota resident, I can tell you that you do *not* want Jesse as president. He's a fraud, a disgrace, and an idiot. Allow me to elaborate.
Fraud Jesse ran on a mildly libertarian platform of less government spending, lower taxes, and generally liberal on social issues. He was pro-concealed carry, said he might consider legalizing pot and prostitution, and was generally an ok guy.
After he got elected, he surrounded himself with moderate Democrats, and did a policy about-face. Now he thinks tax cuts are "irresponsible," he wants to spend more money on light rail and education. He's against school choice. We haven't heard a word about vouchers, pot, or prostitution, and he's generally taken the Democratic side on every issue. We might have voted for the Democratic choice for governor.
If you're a Democrat, that may sound good to you, but the point is that the man broke many of his campaign promises and has no compunctions about lying if he thinks it's necessary. And he hasn't done much of anything towards repealing restrictions on social issues. I wish he would, as that's what he campaigned on. In short, he's a fraud.
Disgrace Jesse seems to delight in shocking people. He published a book which features his sex life and drug use. He refereed at a WWF event. At one point he started yelling at a welfare mother during a press conference. He seems to be more interested in the publicity than anything else. I don't think he ever expected to win, so now that he's won, he probably figures he can milk the system for all he can get.
idiot I really don't think he has any sort of political philosophy. He got into politics to bolster his faltering carreer as a talk show host, and he seems to form his political opinions on the spur of the moment. His campaign adds featured action figures showing him "fighting special interests." (which, by the way, he's been courting as badly as any major-party politician) In short, he's got nothing to offer but a simple freak show. His policies are those of a mundane centrist Democrat.
In summary, please don't vote for him if he runs for President. I'm embarrassed enough that he's our governor. I don't want to put up with his crap for another 4 years.
If you want a real alternative, check out the Libertarian Party
Stalin was a priest. You forgot Hitler -- Hitler and the Nazis followed an Aryan-Christian-Mythology; not atheists. Of course, people like you will say "they weren't true Christians" or some shit like that
I dunno, that might make sense, considering that faithful Christians were among the people they explicitly targeted for extermination, as they wouldn't cooperate with the regime.
As for the crusades, yes, those were just an unmitigated mess. Those and the Inquisition are very good examples of why Theocracy is bad -- not just from a political standpoint, but also from a religious standpoint. It corrupts both the state and the religion.
We can argue about whether or not the people involved were "true christians" without any sort of satisfactory resolution, but if you can call them Christians, they certainly were ignoring some rather important moral principles of their faith.
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org
DNA just wants to be free...
IMO, they can't, really. Court decisions have tended to uphold the principle that "obscene" and "violent" are words that can only be defined at a community/local level, and never nationally. FCC rules are intentionally vague in this respect, giving local communities the ability to decide what is appropriate on their airwaves (well, to a certain point).
I personally don't have a problem with a mandatory rating system, but I don't really see how it can work unless you give the communities the ability to set the standards, and that's just impossible to do for widely distributed stuff like this.
Stalin was a priest.
Hrm. Can you offer documentation of this?
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org
DNA just wants to be free...
In theory, this bill has some good points and some bad points. The idea of a ratings system is to keep a child who isn't mature enough to handle certain things from being placed in that sort of situation (with that child's maturity being evidenced by the fact that a third party who is mature enough will buy it).
However, this idea of a "formula" system doesn't work. What's more, it's not going to solve anything; in fact it will probably only make the problem worse. Why? Because filmmakers and such put sex and violence in their movies for one reason and one reason only: it's profitable. People want to see this sort of thing for whatever reason, and taking it away from the media will only force them to seek other sources (which spells real disaster; after the media the only source of sex and violence is reality). Media violence isn't a cause; it's a symptom. At worst, it's a catalyst, but chemistry tells us that a catalyst can't do anything unless all the reactants are present. Already some have developed such a huge craving for these things that they can't get their fix from the media anymore; I see the Columbine killers as a grim example of that. Ratings are a quick-fix; they won't change anything in the long run. What will? I don't know, but it will probably take nothing less than a fundamental shift in our nation's culture, and I don't claim to know what that shift would be (I'd hope it's a shift towards the attitude that all people are to be respected simply by virtue of the fact that they're people, but I doubt that's ever going to happen.)