|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: How to stop / discourage kids from making out or more in theaters.
|
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 09-20-2008 11:32 AM
quote: Chad Souder
I know you're no longer affiliated with this theatre, but it is exactly that kind of non-compliance with the MPAA rating system that will ultimately lead to a bored session of congress making it law.
I have a hunch that this would be very difficult to accomplish. Our political system is so fragmented, I think free speech, morality groups and the ACLU would stop any real movement in that direction.
The FCC has this very problem right now. Just because you say a 15-year-old shouldn't see sex on the screen or hear a "dirty word" before 10PM doesn't mean the next person feels the same way. This concept is further confused by people who feel (gasp!) that the parents should be responsible for where their kids are, and not the theatres.
I understand the concern, but this will only come up when some whack job starts shooting up an auditorium full of 11 year-olds, during a showing of Jackass 3. After a month or so, it'll die down, and we'll be right back where we started from.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Master Film Handler
Posts: 405
From: Canton, MI, USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 09-20-2008 12:48 PM
Chris, the problem is that the legal basis for age discrimination among different aged minors needs to be supported. For example, you mention licensing minor drivers. The 16 year old limit has research behind it, both as to an appropriate level of mental faculty and also average physical size. In other words, a 16 year old is thought to be sufficiently mature both mentally and physically to operate a vehicle, within certain constraints. In Michigan, our graduated licensing system allows 17 year olds to have the restrictions on their license regarding times they can drive removed, but the law does not make a legal distinction between the ages of 16 and 17, but rather uses a tenure system. You get your upgraded license after a year, but you can't get your restricted license until you are 16, so you can't get your full license until you are 17. You don't automatically get it because you are 17, you must still meet the tenure requirement. Hence, there is no actual legal distinction granted 17 year olds. I'm not really going to touch on age of consent laws, since they vary more extensively.
This is all to say, unless there is research backing the claim that R-rated movies are okay for 17 year olds, but not 16, the court is going to have a hard time choking it. Age discrimination has become a legal consideration, and a clear distinction is easy to establish legally between 17 and 18 year olds, but not so much between minors among themselves. I doubt the court would accept such a law from the federal government unless it was strongly supported by psychological research.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 09-20-2008 01:10 PM
quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
I doubt the court would accept such a law from the federal government unless it was strongly supported by psychological research.
quote: Jack Ondracek
I have a hunch that this would be very difficult to accomplish.
They did it with music. Yeah, it was just an explicit lyric warning on the label, but essentially that's what we already have with our rating system. Anyone remember Dee Snyder in that congressional hearing vs. Tipper Gore? That warning sticker on music is law and hey, baby steps. I don't know if the video game rating system is required or not.
Point is, self regulation is vital. If theatres are not uniform in supporting the rating system, however flawed or illogical it may be, we're in trouble. And I still hold that if you don't allow under 17 to buy a ticket, you can't (at least on paper) allow under 17 employees to go in that theatre either. My company allows parental consent for R rated features. If they sign a waiver form, the parent can buy the ticket and leave. At the very least, it would be a good idea to have a new employee's parent sign off on a consent form that its ok for their young kid to go into an R rated feature in the course of their job.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Master Film Handler
Posts: 405
From: Canton, MI, USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 09-21-2008 01:55 AM
quote: Chris Slycord
They vary so much because, to an extent, they're arbitrary. There is no research that says that a 17 year old having sex is somehow worse off than an 18 year old who does the same thing. And same thing goes for 16 year olds vs 17 year olds. So if this kind of semi-arbitrary rule is something that the court can "choke" why would it somehow be impossible for the court to "choke" another semi-arbitrary rule?
The thing about age of consent laws is that they're determined by the state. Such a sweeping law as a rating restriction imposed by the federal government doesn't have a Constitutional leg to stand on unless you can definitively prove a public good, and demonstrate that the states individually can't or won't take necessary measures. Barring a compelling argument for public good, the closest thing in the Constitution that could apply is the Commerce Clause, and since the Court is currently in a phase of relatively strict constructionism, I sincerely doubt that it would be upheld on those grounds. Even a foreseeable Court with a broad constructionist bent would be opposed to censorship, and rating restrictions are indeed a form of censorship. Therefore, I don't see a modern Court allowing such a law with that sort of arbitrary age discrimination without supporting research. If the law were to be enacted on a state level, the Court would likely not get involved, since I think we are, with a few exceptions, swinging towards stronger federalism. These things move in cycles, so perhaps somewhere down the line such a law could exist from the federal government, but I do not believe it could right now.
I really think self-regulation is preferable to government intervention, but I think the MPAA way is ludicrous and I doubt we are in a place where the government will intervene. I fully support theaters and companies enforcing the policy as they feel is appropriate, and for patrons to consider the politics of rating enforcement when they choose what theaters to give their business to, and let's allow the market to decide. I'm not going to be an activist about it and flout the policies of whomever I happen to work for, but I think a very reasoned argument can be made that 16 year olds ought to be able to see R movies where no law exists. In Michigan, you can legally drive and have sex at 16, so I don't see what real difference there is here, legally, between 16 and 17 that should afford 17 year olds the right to see Burn After Reading, for example, and deny it to 16 year olds.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
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.
|
Home
![[Shrug]](graemlins/shrug.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic