Should movie theatres enforce an age restriction?

[T-block]

All the active threads in the PG are currently super serious, sometimes borderline-morbid, topics, so I thought I'd bring up something lighter.

As far as I know, enforcement of age restriction is not mandated by law in North America (a quick Google search suggests that it is in Australia), and movie theatres and retailers follow the system voluntarily. Is this the best way to handle this situation? On one hand, enforcing the restriction means that parents who are worried about the content to which their children are exposed do not have to worry as much about what their children are watching, and the enforcement may serve to quell the discomfort with questionable content of concerned parents. On the other hand, some would say that the system is ineffective, and is an unnecessary infringement on the rights of minors.

I'm inclined to argue against enforcing such restrictions, but I would love to hear the thoughts of everyone here. Where do you stand, and why?

This can apply to the sale of games rated as Mature as well. Note that I am not questioning the utility of the ratings themselves, but whether they should be taken as more than just recommendations.

 

[ballin4life]

That restriction shouldn't be enforced (in America), since there is no Constitutional authority for it.

 

[T-block]

I'm not as familiar with the US constitution as I should be. Is it clear that this is an infringement of rights of minors? Doesn't the theatre have the prerogative to enforce a restriction, since they are providing a service?

 

[ballin4life]

I misspoke. I meant there isn't any authority for the feds to enforce it. It's totally fine for the theaters to enforce it if they choose to.

Anyway I was kinda joking ... I think it's a legitimate argument but probably not the direction you wanted this thread to go in

 

[T-block]

Take it wherever you want to take it =P

 

[kataklysm336]

I feel like ultimately it is up to the parents. The movie theaters shouldn't be deciding what is appropriate for everyone's children. If the child wants to see a movie, and their parent or guardian approves, what gives the theatre the authority to overrule that?

 

[Ocean]

I personally do not feel they should enforce it. however, it should be up to each individual movie theatre whether or not they want to enforce it. there shouldn't be any standard on whether they should or not.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well, this of course begs the question: what about any other media? Barring flat-out porn and similar things that you have to be 18 to see legally in the first place (although the morality of that is also highly questionable–I mean, the limit, not the content).

 

[Lord Chair]

Keep in mind that age recommendations on films are set up arbitrarily by an organization which does not deserve any credit whatsoever. The MPAA tries to protect 'our children' against... what exactly? Homosexuality, profane language and contemporary political issues?

Enforcing age restrictions is as silly as the process of constituting a recommended age for a movie, especially if that process is done by anonymous (and therefor quite possibly extremely ignorant) people.

 

[ballin4life]

What's dumb about the way ratings work currently is the "violence ok sex and language bad" aspect to the ratings. You can be pretty violent and get PG-13, but if you say too many bad words or show the human body instant R.

 

[Lord Chair]

Sex is just extremely arbitrary, you can show any sex you want so long as you don't see specific genitals.

I recall a film with a lesbian girl masturbating fully clothed being rated mature, and an almost identical scene in another film being tolerated because that girl wasn't lesbian.

There was some nice documentary on that, all in all MPAA is a terrible organization and implementing any enforcement of their recommendations is equally terrible.

 

[GwJ]

Hey folks, I want to shed some light on this since I work at a movie theatre.

If we don't ID people for R-rated movies, we get fined and the cashier has to get fired.

It's not a question of "Should Theatres enforce it?" but "Why should theatres enforce it?"

 

[ballin4life]

Who do you get fined by?

Also are you in the US?

 

[GwJ]

I'm not totally sure who we get fined by. Tell you what, I'll ask my manager about this Thursday at work and report back what I get.

And yeah, US.

Edit: I just texted him instead. Basically, the rating system is technically voluntary, but most producers go by MPAA standards and require Theatres to agree to sign a form stating they will only let guests in that are 17 and older.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Keep in mind that age recommendations on films are set up arbitrarily by an organization which does not deserve any credit whatsoever. The MPAA tries to protect 'our children' against... what exactly? Homosexuality, profane language and contemporary political issues?

Enforcing age restrictions is as silly as the process of constituting a recommended age for a movie, especially if that process is done by anonymous (and therefor quite possibly extremely ignorant) people.

This is a problem, one that is very often overlooked. The MPAA kinda has a reputation for doing this sort of thing unfairly. I mean, never mind that they're an old institution with old, backwards social values (sex is worse than violence? That's just not right!), they also have the ability to abuse the **** out of it. That any non-government institution (with absolutely no accountability for their actions and no course for "election") would have so much power over the media is a bad thing.

 

[Lord Chair]

I'm not totally sure who we get fined by. Tell you what, I'll ask my manager about this Thursday at work and report back what I get.

And yeah, US.

Edit: I just texted him instead. Basically, the rating system is technically voluntary, but most producers go by MPAA standards and require Theatres to agree to sign a form stating they will only let guests in that are 17 and older.

The producer wants you to reject minors?

That seems a bit off...

 

[_Keno_]

I feel like ultimately it is up to the parents. The movie theaters shouldn't be deciding what is appropriate for everyone's children. If the child wants to see a movie, and their parent or guardian approves, what gives the theatre the authority to overrule that?

The thing is, parents dont get to see the movies and decide whether the material is appropriate for their children, while the MPAA does.
You really just have two choices. An uninformed choice by parents or an informed choice by bias idiots.

To be honest, the whole thing is stupid to me anyways. What exactly are we protecting our children from? Reality? Oh-no!

 

[Lord Chair]

Reality real stark.

Then again, same logic applies to, say, this very forum's rules.

You can protect children against the more severe aspects of reality, it's just the priorities the MPAA sets that are garbage.

 

[GwJ]

The producer wants you to reject minors?

That seems a bit off...

I was just guessing on who it is that signed on with the MPAA, but it's SOMEBODY; that's what's important.

 

[Lord Chair]

That would be the movie theater itself then, I don't think the producer has any reason to destroy his own revenue with the content he himself created.

 

[ph00tbag]

Media ratings in general are pretty nebulous and terrible. The MPAA and the ESRB both need to get their **** together.

That said, it takes a village to raise a child, and those groups are the only yardsticks we have. Ideally, a parent would be able to fully monitor the media their children consume, but that is not a realistic expectation. If someone underage attempts to purchase media that contains inappropriate content without parental supervision, the onus is on the cashier to monitor the child for the parent. Naturally, the cashier can't know the parents mind, but I'd say he or she has a responsibility to assume that the parent would say no. If not to society, then to himself. Let's just look at the outcomes.

1. The cashier lets the child consume inappropriate media. Fines notwithstanding, let's say the parent finds out and does not want the child to see that movie or play that game. Now their authority as the child's guardian has been undermined. If nothing else, they could complain to the cashier's employer, and as a legitimate complaint, the employer would likely take it seriously. Negative outcome.

2. The cashier lets the child consume inappropriate media, and the parent doesn't mind. No harm no foul. Neutral outcome.

3. The cashier does not let the child consume inappropriate media. When the child tells their parent, the parent agrees with the cashier's decision based on the game or movie's rating. The parent commends the cashier for having their back. Positive outcome.

4. The cashier does not let the child consume inappropriate media. The parent purchases it anyway, and is miffed that they had to come all this way just so their kid could play some video game or watch some movie. The parent's authority is not undermined, and any complaints to the employer are laughed off behind the scenes as illegitimate. Neutral outcome.

From a strictly economical standpoint, the cashier has better chances if he or she decides to withhold the game or movie from the child. Same goes for the employer, as they are in the business of ensuring that customer's patronage.

Now some businesses may actually be successful through directly undermining parental authority. Usually, though, these businesses run the risk of running into the law. Not because what they do is explicitly illegal, but because parental authority will always trump business, at least on a municipal level. In almost every case, it's safer to stick on the side of the parents.

This answers the question should the movie theater enforce it--yes they should, if only for their own good. But should it be law? That gets into a lot of first amendment questions. When the government makes a point of enforcing a decision that is ultimately up to a parent, does that go too far? What about the potential negative outcomes on businesses that provide these media? What if it becomes too much of a risk for them simply to carry such inappropriate media?

Ultimately, putting such a decision into law threatens businesses too much and attempts to enforce a status quo that already enforces itself. It's unnecessary, and dangerous. So why bother putting such a law in place?

 

[GwJ]

That would be the movie theater itself then, I don't think the producer has any reason to destroy his own revenue with the content he himself created.

No, I wasn't lying. SOMEBODY does fine us. The company had to sign an agreement that we will card people going into R-Rated movies.

 

[Lord Chair]

I wasn't saying you were lying, I was saying that the person who fines you (note: I acknowledge the existence of a person or group of persons fining you guys) is probably not the producer of the film itself.

How do you interpret that as ''you're lying' >.>

 

[Battlecow]

Now, look here. It's not an issue of rights. It's an issue of mother****ing responsibilities. It's a common view among the relatively young and male (I assume that we all fit that category) that the childrens' parents should be allowed to decide, or that cultural influences against "inappropriate" movies are "enough." Even the most radical high-school anarchists argue only that these movies "don't affect" children, or that it's "none of the government's business, man."

I would argue differently. I say, with all sincerity, that we have a responsibility to expose our children to these movies. Why? Simple. Sex. Young people of our generation are more comfortable with it than any generation before us. We have more sex than our parents. What's more, we have better sex. As we all know, this is a result of our having been brought up in a culture that, finally, accepts sex for what it is- a beautiful thing and, in fact, the pinnacle of human existence, the one thing that truly overrides our desperate, latter-day ennui. Isn't it our responsibility to raise our children to an even higher level of existence? Shouldn't we remove the last scraggly little bits of prudery from our little society's metaphorical velcro? Take, for example, my own life. I'll be blunt here- every woman I've every been with has stated, in no uncertain terms, that I am the best lover she's ever had. Also, I spent most of my very young childhood (3-9 years old) watching hard-core pornography. Coincidence? I think not. I also think that my own kids deserve the same joy and fulfillment that this has brought me, and your kids do too.

 

[GwJ]

Well, sex isn't the only thing that gives movies R ratings. Excessive violence, drug/alcohol usage, and swearing are big factors. Here's the way I see it:

Movie theatres prefer to leave the decisions up to the parents, HOWEVER when they decide to let a minor into an R-rated movie, they play the role as the parent. Children can deceive their parents and tell them that the movie isn't bad or anything like that. What would the parent think when they heard the staff let them into a movie that was full of violence and drugs.

It's safer for movie theatres to just not let them in alone than to try and play the parent here.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't like that argument for it. Children can deceive their parents in millions of ways, about millions of things. Movies are something the parents can actually look up for themselves pretty easily and decide if they are appropriate. I mean, what about sleepovers? Children can deceive their parents by claiming they are going to a friend's house, while they actually plan to go party all night or whatever. But that doesn't mean we should ban sleepovers.



Movie theaters should do it if they think they are going to make more money that way and have more satisfied consumers.

 

[GwJ]

If the kids do drugs at a sleepover, who gets in trouble? The parent of the kid whose house it was. We woukd be responsible for any effects that should come from them seeing the movie. It's safer for us to just enforce the rule.

 

[AltF4]

I have heard numerous times that the movie theaters enforce voluntary age restrictions in order to avoid legislative restrictions. One can easily imagine a large group of angry parents wanting to make viewing movies underage a crime. Of course the theaters don't want laws on the books that they can be subject to if a minor slips through the cracks.

So they set up the current system as a means to claim that there is already sufficient self-regulation, and that legislation is unnecessary. Which so far has been successful.

That's about the only good argument in favor of age restrictions I've heard, tbh.

 

[[FBC] Papa Mink]

I agree that it's completely on the parents. I think they should change the age restriction to 16 though, because 17 doesn't make much sense to me. Alot of the things you see on TV are much worse than in theatres.

As Lord Chair said,

The MPAA tries to protect 'our children' against... what exactly? Homosexuality, profane language and contemporary political issues?

I mean, Deep Blue Sea was rated R. Because of the language. -.-
The age that children (18 and under) are getting involved in sex and drugs now a days are much younger than when i was in school. I know many sexually active kids that are 13+.

I mean, if the majority of kids nowadays are going to be saying and seeing things equivalently as bad in these movies as they see at home/school, it shouldn't be banned. Things such as gore and violence should be only for people above 16 or 18. Violence is something that has an incredibly negative effect on kids, sex and language not so much.

Though, if we were going to discuss what should and should not specifically be in movies for kids under X age, sex presented as lust (as opposed to love) is a mature theme and shouldn't be shown to kids under X age (18 is the legal sex limit, though the 16-24 is legal in FL so, the X age is debatable). In terms of violence, something such as Taken is fine, because it's a man using violence to save his family. Though, something such as Saw/Hostel should not be shown to kids under X age limit due to the mindless violence. Themes such as this DO have an effect on kids.

 

[GwJ]

There's a reason it's 17 and not 16. You can't exactly prove your age unless you have an ID with you. In most if not all states, you can't have a license until you're 17.

 

[[FBC] Papa Mink]

I know in FL you can be 15, but that's only FL.

Not as a counterargument. Just stating.

 

[Battlecow]

God, sometimes I just feel like shooting the stupid *******s who think that violence affects kids. It obviously doesn't.

 

[[FBC] Papa Mink]

Then shoot me. I was incredibly violent when I was a teenager. Alot of the violent stuff I watched on tv made it seem like it didn't impact anyone as nearly as it did.

If you don't have a counterargument and you're just going to talk **** and have nothing productive to say, or have no knolwdge about something, then don't speak.

Even if "well that's just you being a *******" or whatever else kind of thing you could say back to that, it still happened in 1 case I can support fully. And one case is enough to counter "violence doesn't affect kids".

 

[GwJ]

And contrary to what people would like to believe, violent games have repurcussions. They are also shown to desensitize and promote agression.

/irrelevant

 

[[FBC] Papa Mink]

It's true.
Seeing violent things over and over makes it have less of an impact.

 

[eschemat]

Case studies actually show that violent people play violent video games, but violent video games don't create violent people....

 

[[FBC] Papa Mink]

A correlation still exists.

 

[eschemat]

But the results don't turn them into bloodthirsty monsters, it's playing fight that occurs in movies like Kung-Fu movies, which I note, are mostly family friend movies. The effects are minimal. What's even worse is when they don't play video games or such and are then ostracized.

 

[AltF4]

I don't want to weigh in one way or the other on the actual point, but if you guys are going to be claiming that studies suggest something you have to provide links to them. That's just a basic Debate Hall thing.

 

[sooshi shef]

Really it shouldn't matter about age restrictions. Basicly it's parrents job to moderate their children so really no age restriction is required but the parents of younger children should think twice before taking them to something R rated. I went to see the first Spiderman movei when I was 6 and my dad took me. He thought it was allright and it was. I saw My Cousin Vinny (rated R) when I was 9 so my parents didn't have problem with it. So I think that no age limit should be required but parents need to do a better job of screening if it's their choice.

Also while violence in games and movies does have a correlation to "numb" teens it's still the parents job to screen them. So I don't support an age ban in movie theatres, I do support parrents doing a better job of screening things that their kids play or watch.