|
|
Posted by Jay G. on 03/26/07 16:46
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 05:03:09 -0500, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> At 1:28am -0400, 03/26/07, Jay G. <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote:
>>On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:52:10 -0500, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>However, some film producers have released films as unrated, and they have
>>gotten limited release. That there's strong economical incentive to get a
>>film rated by the MPAA to make it easier to get it distributed doesn't mean
>>the situation isn't voluntary.
>
> You offer no other option.
I did offer another option, it's in the paragraph directly above. Film
producers and distributors have the option of not adhering to the MPAA and
releasing their film unrated by the MPAA and/or with their own rating or
age recommendation. That it's not a particularly appealing option to most
doesn't mean it's not an option. If I want to go for coffee, I can go to
the 20 Starbucks near me, or go further to find an independent coffee shop
that's more expensive. The fact that I'm going to chose the Starbucks out
of convenience and price doesn't make the Starbucks a "monopoly," or that
I'm not going there voluntarily.
>>These methods are illegal, or at the least unethical, and are wrong. A
>>peaceful protest isn't.
>
> Did I say people acting peacefully aren't within their rights?
You did mention in the past that protests were unfavorable actions in your
opinion, without clarifying what type of protests you were talking about.
>>>Some states had boards of film censors. Studios and exhibitors don't want
>>>these boards set up again, let alone a national board.
>
>>Again, fear of something that hasn't happened yet doesn't make a
>>voluntarily decision "manditory."
>
> Some states had board of film censors. Did you read what I wrote?
That's in the past though. If a local or state censor board still existed
that required theaters to enforce the age restrictions, then they'd be
mandatory. However, a theater deciding to enforce the ratings on its own
without government forcing it to is voluntary. Fear of government doing in
the future what it did in the past is not nearly the same as the government
actually doing it.
> So you just keep repeating the mantra that boycotts and peaceful protests are
> acceptable, ignoring the real threat of censorship at various levels of
> government and methods of intimidation to keep people from seeing movies.
If you can provide an example of the government actually censoring a film,
such as mandating cuts or forbidding a film from being shown, that happened
in the past few years, then I'll condemn it.
> Even though I quoted an explicit statement from Valenti that CARA was set up
> to counter political arguments in favor of censorship.
There's also multiple quotes from Valenti, MPAA, and NATO that all say that
the CARA system is *voluntary*. It was voluntarily adopted, films are
submitted voluntarily, cuts and changes are made voluntarily, and the
ratings system is enforced voluntarily. They set it up so that they
*wouldn't* have a mandatory system, and they don't.
>>It means freedom from government interference.
>
> Then you failed Economics 101 if you believe that. My definition of free
> market is the correct one.
Then why didn't you challenge my earlier post when I said the same thing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy
A "free market" is the polar opposite of a controlled market, one where the
government calls all the shots. We live in a mixed economy, one that's
more free than controlled. People are free to enter contracts with each
other. However, nothing about a free market means that anyone is required
to enter a contract with terms they don't agree with. For example, if a
movie theater imposes age restrictions, people don't have to frequent that
theater if they don't agree to those restrictions. More importantly
though, the theater is under no obligation to remove those age restrictions
if a customer or potential customer demands it.
If a theater initially doesn't enforce the age restrictions, but legal
economic pressures like protest, boycott, and bad publicity cause it to
change its policy to now enforce them, that's not contrary to the free
market since a person can still enter a contract with the theater, the
theater has just changed its terms is all. Those legal economic pressures
used were an exploitation of the free market, not contrary to it.
>>>>You're incorrect in thinking the latter isn't part of the free
>>>>market system, at least the protestor part.
>
>>>A protestor blocking access to a business is an exercise of the free
>>>market? Do you want to explain your insane position, given that the
>>>protestors are using criminal means no different than a mobster offering
>>>protection?
>
>>As long as the protest is legal, it's part of the free market.
>
> I note that you don't answer my specific question.
I did, you just cut it:
I'll explain my "insane position," by using a recent example. Recently
workers at a local restaurant attempted to unionize to get better wages and
working conditions. The owners promptly fired all of them. Now the fired
workers are protesting outside the establishment every day, informing
people of their predicament and trying to legally discourage people from
frequenting the restaurant. It's my "insane position," that they are
within their rights to do so, and their attempt at coercion via bad
publicity and reduced business is a legitimate exploit of the free market
system.
People protesting a theater's age policies are doing the same thing,
provided it's a legal protest. The only difference is that they're
protesting something you or I may not agree with.
You also mangled my original statement from "protesting" to "blocking
access to businesses" I defended my original statement, not the one you
made up.
>>>>How would the MPAA actually stop an alternative rating format?
>
>>>I don't know,
>
>>So it couldn't, and by logic if someone wanted to create an alternative
>>film classification, they're certainly free to do so.
>
> I didn't say that.
You said you have no idea how the MPAA could stop an alternative rating
format. Which means you have nothing to counter the point that an
alternative rating system could be implemented if someone so chose. The
MPAA isn't even a monopoly now, since some films go unrated by the MPAA and
use alternative ratings or age suggestions already.
>>>Oh, gosh, I'm sure you could name a thousand movies that weren't
>>>controversial but that doesn't disprove that the rating system exists
>>>because theater owners fear censorship and municipalities enthusiastically
>>>policing their businesses to shut them down, and in turn, studios fear any
>>>limitations on distribution of their movies.
>
>>Even if everything you said above is 100% true, it doesn't make the ratings
>>system any less voluntary.
>
> I suppose you believe that filing income tax returns is voluntary, too.
No, because the IRS exists to enforce taxation. If the IRS didn't exist
and people sent in taxes, that'd be voluntary, just like how theaters
voluntarily enforce the ratings even though no government agency exists to
mandate that they do so. Even if people sent in taxes for fear of the IRS
being created, as long as it currently didn't their actions are voluntary.
>>In theory, yes. However, the vast majority of "unrated" films released
>>theatrically have some suggestion of age-appropriateness, typically a
>>recommendation not much different than the "official" NC-17 rating.
>
> The ratings they received in their country of origin is known, but every
> country has different standards.
And part of the US standards is that films don't *have* to be rated, and
can get distributed as such.
>>>The old Production Code.... was about enforcing a nationwide standard of
>>>morality of movies exhibited to adults, taking the position that adults
>>>are not free to make up their own mind.
>
>>Actually, it was about enforcing a nationwide standard for movies exhibited
>>to *everyone*.
>
> I don't think they were too worried about what children were exposed to.
Regardless of what you "think" they were worried about, there were no age
restrictions on movies approved under the Hays Code; films were either
decent enough to be seen by *everyone*, or too indecent to be seen by
*anyone*.
>>Both "Last Tango in Paris" and "Midnight Cowboy" were given their X ratings
>>by the MPAA. So you just gave two examples of why X never meant "unrated
>>by the MPAA," contrary to your earlier claim that it did.
>
> Were they classified?
Um, yeah. I just wrote that they were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Cowboy#Controversy
"This resulted in the film receiving an X rating from the MPAA"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Tango_in_Paris
"The film was given an X rating by the MPAA upon initial release. After
revisions were made to the MPAA ratings code, it was classified as an
NC-17, in 1997"
>>You didn't say local or state authorities had used any actual threats or
>>intimidation, you said the local theaters did it out of *fear* of such.
>
> I've said repeatedly that there was both formal censorship (state boards of
> film censors) and censorship disguised as something else (building and fire
> code enforcement to close theaters)....
The important phrase there being "there was." Those censors don't exist
now and theaters aren't mandated by government to enforce the ratings. If
they're not mandated or forced, then their actions must be voluntary.
> I've said repeatedly that there is, today, formal censorship of movies
> on tv.
Formal censorship of movies on *broadcast* TV. Proof of censorship in one
form does not mean it automatically exists in another form. Hell, the
censorship in TV doesn't even extend to *all* TV, since cable and satellite
are free from government imposed censorship.
>>>But MPAA didn't want to embrace Ebert's idea, coming up
>>>with NC-17 which was doomed from the start.
>
>>How is NC-17 different from Ebert's idea of a rating for adult audiences?
>>The letter used?
>
> Yes. Ebert suggested "A" for a positive connotation and was certain that
> pornographers wouldn't use it for marketing.
Well, NC-17 isn't used by pornographers either, because it's trademarked.
The "A" might've been used by pornographers if it had been left
untrademarked like X had been. X initially didn't have any negative
connotations with it either, which is why certain mainstream films were
released with the rating early on.
I also don't see how "A" has a positive connotation, since it means "Adult"
as in "adult films," aka porno. Even the M rating had people confused,
thinking it was worse than an R.
Also, the NC-17 rating has faced resistance because most people knew it was
a renaming of the X rating, and they carried the stigma of the X over to
the new rating. The A rating would've faced the same risk of stigma.
So I don't see how using a different symbol really means that the MPAA
didn't embrace Ebert's idea of a non-porno mature audience film rating.
>>>Yes, that's the point. In the last year or so, criticism led Comcast to
>>>offer "family tier" packages that left out tv shows whose programming
>>>isn't appropriate to young children.
>
>>And that's wrong.... how? That actually seems to be exactly along the
>>lines you want, giving parents the power to decide what programming they
>>receive.
>
> The criticism was by elected officials; Comcast got the message.
No, I mean how is it wrong for parents to have that option made available
to them? It's not like Comcast eliminated their non-family tier.
>>>>This is contrary to your claims of wanting consumer freedoms.
>
>>>No. Little children aren't able to form contracts.
>
>>But their parents are, and you think parents should be able to determine
>>what films their kids can see unaccompanied, so it's the same logic.
>
> I don't believe that they should feel free to inflict very young children on
> an adult audience.
And other people believe that kids shouldn't see certain films
unaccompanied by their parent, or at all. How is your belief that theaters
should be able to impose rules on parents different from theirs?
>>>As I said earlier, parents should have the choice as to whether teenagers
>>>should see R-rated movies unaccompanied since age 17 is an arbitrary
>>>cutoff.
>
>>And how is the parent's choice going to be enforced if not by the theater?
>
> I expect parents to do the best that they can.
Most parents don't agree, which is why the majority of people are fine with
theaters enforcing the rules, and expect as such. Just as most video
stores won't rent out R rated films to minors unless the parent has OK'd
it.
>>>A producer, expecting an adverse
>>>reaction to his movie in parts of the United State, is voluntarily
>>>submitting to censorship and extreme harm to a film exhibitor?
>
>>Are you sure you wrote that part correctly?
>
> I guess not.
Do you want to correct it?
>>>>A free market doesn't dictate that those contracts have to have terms
>>>>favorable to both sides.
>
>>>Absolutely does not in any way address what I just said. Let me repeat
>>>since you cannot understand what a free market is: All adults are free to
>>>enter into contracts (assuming the contracts are not for illegal actions).
>
>>That in no way contradicts what I wrote.
>
> Unless each party finds some favor in the contract, they won't contract with
> each other.
Right. Either a person agrees to the theater's policies in exchange for
viewing a movie, or they don't frequent that theater. The theater isn't
under any obligation to change their policies to ones that the customer
demands.
>>>None of this applies to a free market. You're getting into the area of
>>>"adhesion contracts" which courts have ruled are unenforceable as
>>>unnegotiable contracts means there's been no meeting of the minds and thus
>>>no contract.
>
>>So a person can go into a restaurant that has a "no shirt, no shoes, no
>>service" policy with no shirt, no shoes and demand service, and sue and win
>>if he doesn't get it?
>
> No.
So if a restaurant has the ability to dictate terms of service, why isn't
the theater?
>>>I favor labor organizing as long as no illegal intimidation is involved.
>
>>So you should favor protests of all kinds as long as no illegal
>>intimidation is involved, correct?
>
> Why not? People are free to assemble. Says so right in the First Amendment.
So people protesting a theater's non-enforcement of the MPAA ratings is a
perfectly legitimate action on their part, correct?
>>I don't think protestors may forcably block access. I do think they have a
>>right to be in front of the business though, provided they're assembling in
>>a legal manner.
>
> You're wrong. If the business's main entrance is on the public sidewalk,
> it's not legal to block it in protest. It's legal to picket near the
> business as long as access isn't blocked.
What part of "provided they're assembling in a legal manner" didn't you
understand?
>>>Yes. I said that in an earlier paragraph. Have you forgotten already? Two
>>>seperate but related issues. I didn't say parents have the right
>>>REGARDLESS of what the theater owner decides. For there to be a contract,
>>>both parties have to enter into it.
>
>>OK, so most theaters enforce the age restrictions. Why do you have problem
>>with them doing so?
>
> I object to the reasons why it's done.
Just because you don't agree that theaters should restrict access by age
doesn't mean they don't have a right to do so, or that their actions are
not voluntary on their part.
>>It's not in support of your position at all. Arguing about a film's rating
>>is separate from whether the ratings are voluntary among the studios and
>>exhibitors and whether editing a film to receive a different rating is
>>voluntary or not.
>
> I'm saying it led to a situation in which a movie, appropriate for teenage
> (girls) to see by themselves, got a rating in which they couldn't....
....in your opinion.
> Theater owners and/or parents should have been free to exercise their
> own judgment about whether teenagers should see that movie....
....in your opinion. Why do you think your opinion trumps all others?
Theater owners exercise their own judgment when they decide to follow the
MPAA rating guidelines. That you don't agree with them in a particular
instance doesn't mean the theater wasn't following its own prerogative.
And parents *were* free to exercise their own judgment about whether their
children could see the movie; they could *accompany them* to see it.
Your opinion that theaters shouldn't enforce the MPAA ratings *at all* runs
contrary to the opinion of the majority of the people in the US, and
contrary to the opinion of most theaters, who voluntarily decide to enforce
the rules because that's what the community they're in, and the majority of
their customers, want.
>>>>>Censorship is an official act. Ratings exist for fear of censorship. The
>>>>>effect is pretty much the same.
>
>>Do you truly feel that government
>>censorship would be the "same" as the current MPAA CARA rating system?
>
> I have every confidence that government would come up with something worse.
So they aren't the same then.
-Jay
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|