Posted by Jay G. on 03/25/07 11:01

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:40:25 -0500, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> At 9:13pm -0400, 03/24/07, Jay G. <Jay@tmbg.org> wrote:
>>On 22 Mar 2007 14:36:21 GMT, Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute wrote:
>>>Jay G. sprach forth the following:
>
>>>>If there is really film "censorship" in the US, it's a voluntary
>>>>censorship agreed upon by the studios and driven by the free market.
>
>>>You need to watch 'This Film Is Not Yet Rated'.
>
>>I do, but I doubt it's going to change what I wrote. I'm not saying the
>>MPAA system isn't without its problems, and may even be corrupt, but it's
>>still a voluntary system that only has power because the free market system
>>gives it so.
>
> In the strictest sense, it's voluntary only on the part of producers and
> distributors. It's definitely mandatory on the part of exhibitors.

No, in the *strictest* sense, it's voluntary on the part of everyone,
including distributors. In a practical sense, exhibitors are compelled to
adhere to the ratings system by parent and religious groups exploiting free
market methods to impose their will.

> It exists because movie studios fear backlash from those who do not believe
> that the free market should determine which movies people see and instead
> would impose something much worse.

That doesn't change the fact that it's voluntary. If I gave my employees
raises as a preventative measure against them demanding even more, the
raise was still voluntary because I chose to do so.

> Quite frankly, the fact that exactly one rating system exists and that
> producers are compelled to use it by exhibitors....

Not all exhibitors require the use of the rating system. A number of films
have been released over the years in unrated form. Studios and
distributors have the choice between getting a rating from the MPAA or
going alone. Now, some may argue that it's not much of a choice, and going
unrated would be stupid choice if the film would likely get anything under
an NC-17 from the MPAA, but it's still a choice.

HOWEVER, none of that applies to Casino Royale, since the worst it would've
gotten uncut was an R, and no individual theater or theater chain that I
know of would've "compelled" the studio to cut it to a PG-13 before
agreeing to exhibit it.

> Monopolies are not free markets.

Monopolies are totally a product of a truly free market. The reason we
don't get monopolies in our market is because of federal laws that actually
*limit* the free market at work.

You're again confusing the term "free market" to mean "freedom of the
consumer", giving the consumer rights they don't actually have in a free
market. In a true free market, the consumer doesn't have the right to
always have a choice between service/products no matter what.

-Jay

[Back to original message]