Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: woman files lawsuit after 12 year old son is admitted to pg-13 film

This is topic woman files lawsuit after 12 year old son is admitted to pg-13 film in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007037

Posted by Paul Goulet (Member # 297) on 07-27-2014, 11:57 AM:

http://empirenews.net/woman-sues-movie-theatre-after-12-year-old-son-is-admitted-to-pg-13-film/

TULSA, Oklahoma - woman files lawsuit after 12 year old son is admitted to pg-13 film

A mother in Tulsa, Oklahoma is suing the local movie theatre after her 12-year-old son was allowed to purchase a ticket to a PG-13 film without her consent. Mary Lambert, whose son Joe is only 12, says that she dropped her son off at the movie theatre to see the PG-rated film Earth To Echo with his friends, but instead they went to see the PG-13 rated film Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

“My son knows that he is not allowed to watch those adult films until next year, and don’t you worry, he’s being punished at home, for sure,” said Lambert. “But someone has to be to blame for letting him into that movie, and that fault lies on the movie theatre itself. These ratings were put into law for a reason, and they’ve broken that law. They are going to pay for the warped mind my son will now have after seeing such adult content.”

“The movie ratings system is not a law, and this woman has no case whatsoever,” said Joe Goldsmith, owner of the Magic Lantern Cinema in Tulsa. “The MPAA, the group that gives these films their ratings, they only created this system to keep people, namely parents, informed about the content. They are not passed into law. Anyone can come in and buy a ticket to see any movie they’d like whenever they like. Our theatre, as well as most, do try and not allow children under 17 into R-rated movies, but that is a policy of our theatre, not a law. Even if the film was NC-17, that’s not law, that’s just a thought.”

Goldsmith is correct in his description of how the ratings system works, but Lambert is not alone in assuming that the MPAA ratings system – G for General Audiences, PG for Parental Guidance Suggest, PG-13 for Parents Strongly Cautioned (May Contain Content Inappropriate for Children Under 13), R for Restricted (Must be 17 or Have A Parent With You in the Theatre) and NC-17 for No Children 17 or Under Allowed – are laws that the movie theatres must follow. Over 85% of movie theatres, both independent and chain-cinemas, follow the rules of not allowing children under 17 to R-rated films, but that’s pretty much the only area the rules are enforced.

“We don’t play NC-17 films, like most movie theatres,” said Goldsmith. “If we did ever play one, we would not let anyone under 18 into that, either. Again, though – not because it’s a law, but because we feel that’s the right thing to do for the parents of this community.”

Lambert has said that she will take the case to the supreme court if necessary, and force them to uphold the MPAA ratings.

“Why make these ratings if you’re not going to enforce what they stand for?” said Lambert. “Why should I have to monitor what my kid watches? Do I actually need to get out of the car, stand in line with him, buy the ticket, and hold his hand all the way into the theatre? My God, next they’ll suggest I actually just watch a movie with him. Obviously these people have no idea that parents just don’t have time to pay that much attention to their kids. I should just expect them to monitor his films for me. He’s 12 – he is not allowed to see PG-13 films. End of story.”

Lambert has brought her case to a local attorney who will be filing the suit against the Magic Lantern at the end of the week.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-27-2014, 12:12 PM:

Unless the state or municipality where the theater is located has statutes to the contrary, movie ratings have no force of law.

Case dismissed.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-27-2014, 12:25 PM:

And no state or locality has that because the ratings are owned by the MPAA and they will be at the legislature faster than you can say "intellectual property" to enforce their copyright.
The ratings are suggestions for parents, and presume the parents are doing their job(though the hilarious quotes from the plaintiff indicate raising a kid is jus too damn much work). It is good to a news story that actually points out the ratings are not law.
The woman, on the other hand, should sue the incompetent lawyer who filed in the first place.

EDIT: Seems to good to be true. Appears Empire News is a The Onion wannabe.
http://empirenews.net/about-disclaimer/

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-27-2014, 12:31 PM:

Well um...YES, you should stand in line to purchase the ticket for your child and even escort them to the theatre, if need be. And if YOUR child is not responsible enough to go into the right movie...then YES, you should accompany him/her into the theatre and watch the movie. That IS the parent's job...not society's and definitely NOT the theatre's.

If you don't have enough time to parent your child, perhaps that is a reflection on your choice on how to be a parent, not the business you seem to think are in partnership with you in parenting.

Posted by Philip Jones (Member # 6677) on 07-27-2014, 12:32 PM:

That is actually a satirical website apparently (I looked it up because I couldn't believe the quotes from the 'mother' were true).

So the whole story, and everything else on the site, is made up.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-27-2014, 01:03 PM:

I realize this is a fake news story, but the reason this story is so believable is right here:

quote:

“Why make these ratings if you’re not going to enforce what they stand for?” said Lambert. “Why should I have to monitor what my kid watches? Do I actually need to get out of the car, stand in line with him, buy the ticket, and hold his hand all the way into the theatre? My God, next they’ll suggest I actually just watch a movie with him. Obviously these people have no idea that parents just don’t have time to pay that much attention to their kids. I should just expect them to monitor his films for me. He’s 12 – he is not allowed to see PG-13 films. End of story.”

This is the attitude of a surprisingly large number of parents these days. [Razz]

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 07-27-2014, 02:49 PM:

Oh lord. My blood was boiling. So glad to see it's fake. WHEW. The main point of my rage was going to be "I feel so, truly, sincerely sorry for that poor child"

It's just so believable. Deal with angry dumbass mothers like this ALL THE TIME.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-27-2014, 04:08 PM:

Another clue is there is not Magic Lantern theatre in Tulsa. At least not as far as I can tell. The only theatre by that name I could find is an art house in Spokane Washington.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-27-2014, 06:43 PM:

Ya, the Empire News website definitely looks like a site that spreads yellow journalism like the good ol' Nat'l Enquirer.

Course, if this story was somewhat true, the mother's push for a lawsuit was probably just to get some drastically needed dough.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 07-27-2014, 06:53 PM:

I don't know what is worse. The attitude of this fictional mom (and "real" people with similar beliefs) or the opposite problem that results in an almost surprising amount of booster seats in movies like "The Purge: Anarchy"?

To the first issue, I once had a parent angry at me for her daughter seeing an R rated movie, even though she acknowledged that her daughter's friend's parents are the ones that took them. But it was my fault because I allowed someone who was not their Legal Guardian take them in. I guess we need to administer DNA tests and check Court Documents before selling tickets.

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 07-27-2014, 07:48 PM:

We deal with this issue at the drive-in as well. While this particular instance is fake, and the MPAA ratings guidelines are indeed guidelines not law, in our state (Tennessee) - admission for "R-ratings" IS THE LAW. Our state legislature passed a "decency law" back in 1989 that restricts admission to R rated features to patrons 18 years old or older unless accompanied by a parent or adult guardian. Enforcement is a pain in the ass, and we turn a lot of cars away because the boyfriend is 18 but the girl friend is not.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-27-2014, 08:05 PM:

You're in luck,kinda. Appears they amended the law in 2013:

quote:
The 2013 amendment deleted the prior version of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-907(b) and replaced it with the following language:
No minor under the age of eighteen (18) years old may be admitted to a movie theatre if the movie has been found to be "harmful to minors" pursuant to § 39- 17-901. It is a deceptive practice under title 47, chapter 18, part 1, to advertise or promote a motion picture as having a rating other than the rating that has been assigned to it.

The new version conforms, more or less to other states. It also says the previous law was unconstitutional. I do like that it didn't apply to single screen theatres.

Here's a .pdf of the Atty Gen's Opinion:
TN Ratings Opinion

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-28-2014, 08:08 AM:

Yah...what is that about...applying to theatres showing two movies? And for all that, what is a theatre supposed to do if it is playing an unrated picture?

So is it age 18 or 17 that need to be protected?

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 07-28-2014, 08:32 AM:

quote: Paul Goulet
"These ratings were put into law for a reason, and they’ve broken that law. They are going to pay for the warped mind my son will now have after seeing such adult content."

That was my first clue this is satire. The "quotes" in such stories are usually very silly and/or extreme, as is the case here. On one hand, I'm glad this is fake. On the other hand, it would be hilarious to see this get thrown right out. [Big Grin]

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-28-2014, 08:44 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
Yah...what is that about...applying to theatres showing two movies? And for all that, what is a theatre supposed to do if it is playing an unrated picture?

I guess they presumed a single screen would not let the kids in to start with, so they didn't have to be kept from sneaking in to the other theatre. Bad law writing is always fun.

As for unrated pictures, you'd be surprised how many people don't get the concept. The MPAA has done a great propaganda job on the public into thinking everything has a rating. It's sorta what makes the fake quotes so believable (that and some of the truly horrendous parents we have to deal with).

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-28-2014, 08:54 AM:

It's kind of fitting the fictional mom would be from Tulsa, Oklahoma.
[Razz]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-28-2014, 11:30 AM:

I think that might be the same site that once published an article about a new version of Soccer being played in Canada -- the game attempted to remove the stigma of competition from the little kids by eliminating the ball.

It was written well enough that I actually almost sent the link to some Canadian friends with a "Only in Canada!" joke, but then I got suspicious and checked it out.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-29-2014, 12:21 AM:

Steven G is exactly right.

We had a porno drive in here that was 100% about keeping under 21s out. A mother snuck her 6 year old in and she sued. Not only was the case thrown out, but the theatre sued to have her declared AN UNFIT MOTHER. No further problems.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-29-2014, 09:37 AM:

I believe the fictional mom would have to demonstrate harm to make it a legal tort. A court might buy it on principle if a kid were to go to XXX but PG-13 vs. PG? How would you prove harm was done?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-29-2014, 01:33 PM:

What is the legal obligation of a theatre to enforce MPAA rules, on the one end of the scale, to the other end where you have swat teams in place to drop any kid asking for a ticket to an R feature.

Aren't these ratings to function as informational guides for PARENTS so they can make informed decisions regarding their spawn?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-29-2014, 01:56 PM:

Yup, that's the intent. But we still get people who think it's a "law" and we could "lose our license" if we let a kid into an R movie, and they also don't realize that it's only R movies (and NC-17) that restrict people by age.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-29-2014, 03:48 PM:

Both PG and PG-13 say "parental guidance" and "parents strongly cautioned" so, even if the MPAA had any force of law, the language would put the burden squarely on the parent.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-29-2014, 03:59 PM:

Another thing is I've always understood the G, PG, and PG13 ratings to be guidelines rather than restrictions. The only time I ever restrict someone from a PG13 is if it's a younger kid (under 10) going without having had a parent come it to buy the ticket.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-29-2014, 04:35 PM:

If I was a theater manager, I would be a little surprised if a parent complained to me about what his/her child was being exposed to in a PG or PG-13 rated movie. Kids can see more intense things in terms of violence or sexually oriented content on free, over the air broadcast television. Some programming on premium cable channels would be rated NC-17 if it was presented to the MPAA as content to play in theaters. Add to this what kids can see in video games or on the Internet.

I'm not saying we should get rid of the movie ratings system, although I think the NC-17 rating and how it's used is a total crock of shit. However, the movie ratings system has lost a great deal of its relevance.

BTW, I think the new graphics design of the movie ratings tags really really sucks. I really don't like them at all.

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 07-30-2014, 02:30 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
So is it age 18 or 17 that need to be protected?

No, kid, you're way too immature and insecure for this. It would damage you severely.

Oh, it's your birthday in 3... 2... 1...?

Yeah, you'll be fine. Go on in. Happy birthday!