Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » rant on stupid customers (Page 48)

 
This topic comprises 75 pages: 1  2  3  ...  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  ...  73  74  75 
 
Author Topic: rant on stupid customers
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 06-10-2008 03:24 PM      Profile for Carl Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Carl Martin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
i really doubt that that's a real law, or that such a law would be upheld in an appeal.

in any case, titanic is not rated r.

 |  IP: Logged

Bruce Schneiter
Film Handler

Posts: 10
From: Oldsmar, FL, USA
Registered: May 2003


 - posted 06-10-2008 04:16 PM      Profile for Bruce Schneiter   Email Bruce Schneiter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yup, it is a law. Has been for quite awhile. This is the current version...

The 2005 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 847 OBSCENITY

847.013 Exposing minors to harmful motion pictures, exhibitions, shows, presentations, or representations.--

(1) "KNOWINGLY" DEFINED.--As used in this section "knowingly" means having general knowledge of, reason to know, or a belief or ground for belief which warrants further inspection or inquiry of both:

(a) The character and content of any motion picture described herein which is reasonably susceptible of examination by the defendant, or the character of any exhibition, presentation, representation, or show described herein, other than a motion picture show, which is reasonably susceptible of being ascertained by the defendant, and

(b) The age of the minor; however, an honest mistake shall constitute an excuse from liability hereunder if the defendant made a reasonable bona fide attempt to ascertain the true age of such minor.

(2) OFFENSES AND PENALTIES.--

(a) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to exhibit for a monetary consideration to a minor or knowingly to sell or rent a videotape of a motion picture to a minor or knowingly sell to a minor an admission ticket or pass or knowingly admit a minor for a monetary consideration to premises whereon there is exhibited a motion picture, exhibition, show, representation, or other presentation which, in whole or in part, depicts nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, sexual battery, bestiality, or sadomasochistic abuse and which is harmful to minors.

(b) It is unlawful for any person knowingly to rent or sell, or loan to a minor for monetary consideration, a videocassette or a videotape of a motion picture, or similar presentation, which, in whole or in part, depicts nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, sexual battery, bestiality, or sadomasochistic abuse and which is harmful to minors.

(c) The provisions of paragraph (a) do not apply to a minor when the minor is accompanied by his or her parents or either of them.

(d) It is unlawful for any minor to falsely represent to the owner of any premises mentioned in paragraph (a), or to the owner's agent, or to any person mentioned in paragraph (b), that such minor is 17 years of age or older, with the intent to procure such minor's admission to such premises, or such minor's purchase or rental of a videotape, for a monetary consideration.

(e) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly make a false representation to the owner of any premises mentioned in paragraph (a), or to the owner's agent, or to any person mentioned in paragraph (b), that he or she is the parent of any minor or that any minor is 17 years of age or older, with intent to procure such minor's admission to such premises or to aid such minor in procuring admission thereto, or to aid or enable such minor's purchase or rental of a videotape, for a monetary consideration.

(f) A violation of any provision of this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) INJUNCTIVE PROCEEDINGS.--

(a) The circuit court has jurisdiction to enjoin a threatened violation of subsection (2) upon complaint filed by the state attorney in the name of the state upon the relation of such state attorney.

(b) After the filing of such a complaint, the judge to whom it is presented may grant an order restraining the person or persons complained of until final hearing or further order of the court. Whenever the relator requests a judge of such court to set a hearing upon an application for such a restraining order, such judge shall set such hearing for a time within 3 days after the making of such request. No such order shall be made unless such judge is satisfied that sufficient notice of the application therefor has been given to the person or persons restrained of the time when and place where the application for such restraining order is to be heard. However, such notice shall be dispensed with when it is manifest to such judge, from the allegations of a sworn complaint or independent affidavit, sworn to by the relator or by some person associated with him or her in the field of law enforcement and filed by the relator, that the apprehended violation will be committed if an immediate remedy is not afforded.

(c) The person or persons sought to be enjoined shall be entitled to a trial of the issues within 1 day after joinder of issue, and a decision shall be rendered by the court within 2 days after the conclusion of the trial.

(d) In any action brought as provided in this section, no bond or undertaking shall be required of the state or the relator state attorney before the issuance of a restraining order provided for by this section, and there shall be no liability on the part of the state or the relator state attorney for costs or damages sustained by reason of such restraining order in any case in which a final decree is rendered in favor of the person or persons sought to be enjoined.

(e) Every person who has possession, custody, or control of, or otherwise deals with, any motion picture, exhibition, show, representation, or presentation described in this section, after the service upon him or her of a summons and complaint in an action for injunction brought under this section, is chargeable with knowledge of the contents or character thereof.

(4) LEGISLATIVE INTENT.--In order to make the application and enforcement of this section uniform throughout the state, it is the intent of the Legislature to preempt the field, to the exclusion of counties and municipalities, insofar as it concerns exposing persons under 17 years of age to harmful motion pictures, exhibitions, shows, representations, and presentations. To that end, it is hereby declared that every county ordinance and every municipal ordinance adopted prior to July 1, 1969, and relating to such subject shall stand abrogated and unenforceable on and after such date and that no county, municipality, or consolidated county-municipal government shall have the power to adopt any ordinance relating to that subject on or after such effective date.

History.--ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, ch. 69-10; s. 1055, ch. 71-136; s. 34, ch. 73-334; s. 3, ch. 83-77; s. 4, ch. 86-38; s. 5, ch. 86-238; s. 6, ch. 88-283; s. 1350, ch. 97-102

 |  IP: Logged

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 06-10-2008 04:28 PM      Profile for Carl Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Carl Martin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
that law doesn't refer at all to the mpaa or its ratings. and to violate it, you'd have to show something that "is harmful to minors", which would be hard to prove unless there are bruises. even then, the kid could have fallen down the stairs.

 |  IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007


 - posted 06-10-2008 09:48 PM      Profile for Chris Slycord   Email Chris Slycord   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Robert Crabtree
Chris- If there had been a single adult amongst the thousands of perfect strangers that night who had been entrusted to the care of the kids, someone who could have reported the disappearance of the kids, who could have kept the kids onsite and not wandering out of the mall into highway traffic, who would protect the kids from being victims, like Adam Walsh, to predators, like Jeffrey Dahmer, I'd agree.
Lets cut to the chase: You have picked some arbitrary age where children should never be left alone. Heck, using your reasoning kids shouldn't even be at their own house at that age because they could leave and get run over by a car. Or it should've been seen as abandoning when my mom & dad had to work and I came home on the bus alone (because for all they know, a crazy Dahmer-like person could be hiding in the bushes ready to eat me).

Sure, maybe it'd be better for them to be accompanied by somebody but that doesn't mean that not having someone accompany them is abandoning them.

edit:
I'm done discussing this with you. Both of us clearly disagree on this. Lets leave it at that.

[ 06-10-2008, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Chris Slycord ]

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 06-10-2008 09:54 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Carl Martin
that law doesn't refer at all to the mpaa or its ratings.
Right. That's a standard-issue obscenity law, which exists in a lot of states (or cities) in some form or another. The MPAA rating system is totally voluntary in all 50 states.

 |  IP: Logged

Dustin Mitchell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1865
From: Mondovi, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 06-11-2008 11:04 AM      Profile for Dustin Mitchell   Email Dustin Mitchell   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I seem to recall hearing somewhere that the R rating was given the power of law in Tennessee too, could be wrong I suppose.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 06-11-2008 11:34 AM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
From the MPAA website www.filmratings.org:

quote:
Q. Is the rating system a law?

A. No, the rating system is strictly voluntary and carries no force of law.


 |  IP: Logged

Sean McKinnon
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1712
From: Peabody Massachusetts
Registered: Sep 2000


 - posted 06-11-2008 12:44 PM      Profile for Sean McKinnon   Author's Homepage   Email Sean McKinnon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That Florida law clearly defines what in indecent and would actually be very easy to prove. Basically the spirit of that law is that it is a crime to sell or procure a ticket to an R rated movie to a minor under 17. It does not specify R Rated movies but by thier defenition a movie that had that content would be rated "R".

Chris,

In The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (and I would guess every other state) it is illegal to leave a minor under thirteen years old without adult supervision. Leaving a child under 13 at a movie theatre without a gaurdian is in fact abandonment and is a crime in this State. When I was a manager if I had found a child under 13 alone by himself with no parent or gaurdian you BET I would call the police. Imagine the liability if theatre employees knew the child was alone and did nothing and the child was kidnapped, raped, murduered, or had an accident? Come on.

 |  IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007


 - posted 06-11-2008 01:13 PM      Profile for Chris Slycord   Email Chris Slycord   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You guessed wrong.

Many states have no such rule whatsoever (and leave it up to parents to decide if their kids are mature enough to be unsupervised or not). And other states have sliding scales where the older the kid is the longer they're allowed to be unsupervised. And other areas have guidelines they have introduced but obviously that's different than a rule/law.

Though admittedly I was focusing too much on his use of the word "abandon" since that has a very different connotation (and legal definition) than leaving a child unsupervised.

For instance, Texas, Washington, and Montana have no such law in place (though in WA a bill was introduced this year to change that but it is in the early stages of review). And these I found in a couple seconds of google searching. I wouldn't be remotely surprised if others had similar.

 |  IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004


 - posted 06-11-2008 01:26 PM      Profile for Justin Hamaker   Author's Homepage   Email Justin Hamaker   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Sean McKinnon
That Florida law clearly defines what in indecent and would actually be very easy to prove. Basically the spirit of that law is that it is a crime to sell or procure a ticket to an R rated movie to a minor under 17. It does not specify R Rated movies but by thier defenition a movie that had that content would be rated "R".
That is certainly true. However, there is a large gaping hole where only movies that specifically include "sexual content", "nudity", or similar language in the rating reason would not be included. Because drug use, violence, language, and other reasons are not include in the language of that law, it would make it difficult to enforce such a law for violating the MPAA ratings. Furthermore, the definition of obscene content includes "which is harmful to minors". That is a totally subjective statement and I would challenge anyone to actually prove that any content in an R rated movie is "harmful" to minors - especially teenagers.

Although I don't agree with censorship, I actually wish the MPAA ratings system would be adopted as law. That would actually make it seem like less of a joke when go through all the bullshit with teenagers about R rated movies. And I think that such a law might just be ok as long as it doesn't attempt to define what should or shouldn't constitute a particular rating. The intent of the ratings to prevent minors from seeing inappropriate content without their parent's permission. It is not an attempt to censor the content of the movies or prevent adults from viewing it.

 |  IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007


 - posted 06-11-2008 01:39 PM      Profile for Chris Slycord   Email Chris Slycord   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
For there to be a movie rating law, we'd have to make the movie rating process more transparent. What makes one movie R and another PG-13 is many times murky at best.

 |  IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 06-11-2008 02:03 PM      Profile for Phil Hill   Email Phil Hill       Edit/Delete Post 
The documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" exposes the double-secret-probation type of "standards" and methods and the so-called "experts" and "common folks" the MPAA use in their ratings farce.

 |  IP: Logged

Clint Koch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1435
From: San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 06-11-2008 06:12 PM      Profile for Clint Koch   Email Clint Koch   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
My 2 cents...

I have two daughters and would NEVER EVER have left them alone at a theatre, or anywhere else for that matter, without proper adult supervision. To do so is (IMHO) just plain wrong. To many freaks out there, no matter where you live.

Chris, I am not trying to pick on you but do you have kids?

Mine are now 15 and 17 and come and go pretty much as they please (as long as I know where they are coming and going to). Yet even when they were still say 13 and 15 I made damn well sure there was adult supervision. Hell as late as last year I made sure of this. Maybe I am over protective yet these are my kids and I will do everything in my power to protect them for as long as I can.

 |  IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007


 - posted 06-11-2008 09:08 PM      Profile for Chris Slycord   Email Chris Slycord   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
No I don't and if I had a 9 year old kid I wouldn't leave them at a theater. I just don't think that it should be seen as a crime either.

edit: Though it really depends on maturity. There are plenty of immature 15 year olds who I would trust being on their own less than some 10 year olds.

 |  IP: Logged

Carey Barber
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 143
From: Newport News, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2003


 - posted 06-11-2008 09:46 PM      Profile for Carey Barber   Email Carey Barber   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I have always found it odd that "crying babies" is such a frequently mentioned and stereotypical theater disturbance.

This is almost never a problem for us. I cannot recall any time in the past several years where we got complaints because of a small child.

I DO often see parents in the lobby sitting on benches with their children, presumably because their child was making noise and they did not want to disturb anyone. So it seems that many parents are indeed being courteous. (Although Mike Blakesley is right in saying that even taking them outside causes some disturbance). It may also be the case that people are hesitant to complain about a child, particularly if it is a child-oriented flick.

Our biggest "Silence is Golden" issue is the KIDS THAT ARE OLD ENOUGH TO KNOW BETTER!!! The 14-17 year old range is horrible for us. They cause disturbances in the theater and crowd control issues. Any PG-13 horror flick is a nightmare for our floor staff.

In short, it is not the pre-schoolers, but the high-schoolers that are our problem.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 75 pages: 1  2  3  ...  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  ...  73  74  75 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.