Posted by Jay G. on 03/26/07 05:28

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:52:10 -0500, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>There's nothing voluntary about complying with the requirements of an
>>>outside party to receive the desired rating.
>
>>Yes there is; the studios could chose to *not* to comply with the outside
>>party. That they do so is purely voluntary on their part because they
>>desire something from the outside party, namely the rating.
>
> How do you suggest studios get unrated movies exhibited? Shall they set up
> their own chains of theaters?

That's what they used to have actually.

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.

>>>How can there be a free market when the ratings determine whether
>>>unaccompanied children may see movies, rather than their own parents?
>
>>Because the exhibitors chose to restrict access to the films voluntarily.
>>Would you argue that it's not a free market when restaurants require their
>>customers to wear shirts and shoes for service, rather than letting the
>>customer decide for themselves?
>
> No. It's unlikely the restaurant is doing....

Which means that the restaurant is just excersizing its will to provide
what they feel is a better environment for their customers, at the expense
of a few of them. If restaurants have the right to set rules that its
customers must comply to, why don't theaters?

>>>No, it isn't, because stores that sell and rent movies are not subject to
>>>a rating system and some will sell unrated versions of movies.
>
>>Some exhibitors will show unrated movies as well. So by your own logic for
>>video stores, the exhibitors' restrictions aren't mandatory either.
>
> No, that is not my argument. There's competition for video distribution that
> doesn't exist in film exhibition.

Movie theaters don't compete? That'd probably come as news to them. I bet
that local theater breathed a sigh of relief when they found out that the
new multiplex opening just 5 miles away wasn't competing for any of their
customers.

And all this competition in the video market didn't stop Blockbuster from
becoming the dominent franchise in the market for a while despite having a
policy against NC-17 and "pornographic" films. It seems a sizable portion
of the market actually *likes* having their choices sanitized for them.

>>>Again, it's one thing for locals to refuse to see a movie. It's quite
>>>another for them to prevent people from seeing a movie using extraordinary
>>>legal means.
>
>>What's the "extraordinary legal means"?
>
> How many more times do I have to say this? Backlash from a powerful segment
> of the community pressures the municipality into shutting down the
> exhibition of a movie. The municipality suddenly discovers fire code
> violations at the theater. Protesters picketing a theater do not do so
> peacefully, attempting to intimidate patrons from seeing a movie.

These methods are illegal, or at the least unethical, and are wrong. A
peaceful protest isn't.

> 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."

>>I'm not saying they weren't treated harshly. I'm saying the treatment they
>>received, boycotts and bad publicity, was all within the bounds of the free
>>market.
>
> You keep pretending, because of your refusal to acknowledge recent history,
> that it's not possible for protests to go beyond boycotts.

I'm saying that boycotts are within the bounds of the free market. If it
goes beyond that then that's something else.

>>No, again you're really misunderstanding what the term free market means.
>
> If free market doesn't mean freedom for buyers and sellers to form
> contracts, then what does it mean? When third parties prevent buyers and
> sellers from forming contracts, do explain how that's still a free market.

It means freedom from government interference. A third party using legal
methods of discouragement is part of the free market. It's the basis for
unions.

>>You're correct that there is a significant difference between the two
>>situations. 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'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 coersion via bad plublicity 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.


>>>>If someone wanted to create an alternative film classification, they're
>>>>certainly free to do so.
>
>>>That's not how monopolies work. There is no other rating system followed by
>>>exhibitors, so that is why CARA is a monopoly.
>
>>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.

> but it's irrelevant to the point that it's the only rating
> system and thus a monopoly.

It has a monopoly on the MPAA ratings, sure. It doesn't have a monopoly on
ratings though, nor on distribution channels. A studio could release a film
unrated, or create its own ratings, and distribute it to the willing.
That's what happened with the re-cut Passion of the Christ, which got an R
but was released unrated with the expectation that some theaters might
treat the recut film like a PG-13 film.

>>Because I wasn't talking about the past, I was talking about a very current
>>situation.
>
> Current situations like "Passion of the Christ", "Basketball Diaries" and
> more recent movies in which children were imitating violent behavior they
> saw on screen?

Children were imitating "Passion of the Christ"?

> I can't think of anything in the last two years, since Janet
> Jackson's left breast has dominated media nonsense on this issue.

Casino Royale was released in the past two years, and didn't have any
nipples, left or right.

>>>If you don't think that there are still public protests and sometimes
>>>involvement of elected officials in attempts at regulation of popular
>>>culture, then you have your blinders on.
>
>>Did that happen to Casino Royale?
>
> Oh, gosh, I'm sure you could name a thousand movies that weren't
> controversial...

...like Casino Royale? You seem to forget where this conversation stems
from.

> 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.

> Goody, since the curent ratings are allegedly about WHAT MOVIES ARE
> APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN TO SEE, so a movie had to be rated to get a
> recommendation as to age appropriateness for children (G, M-GP-PG and later
> PG-13) or whether children should be accompanies by parents (R). In theory,
> if a distributor chooses not to have a movie rated, then he's making no
> claims of suitability for children.

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 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*. It's simlar to the current Chinese system, in which a film
like Casino Royale is determined to be suitable for people of *all* ages,
or not approved at all.

>>However, only an idiot would've applied the X rating to any film that
>>wouldn't have otherwise received the rating from the MPAA themselves, and
>>the MPAA also applied the X rating to films they reviewed. So X never
>>meant "unrated by the MPAA," since the film could most definitely had been.
>
> Of course you say that, ignoring history again. For the first five years of
> the rating system, studios released specific movies not claiming suitability
> for children applying the X rating. Famous examples were "Last Tango in
> Paris" and "Midnight Cowboy".

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.


>>>This supports my contention that ratings exist out of fear of local or state
>>>film censorship or other actions adverse to theater owners under law.
>
>>It doesn't change it being voluntary.
>
> Just because you are under threat or intimidation, it's still voluntary.
> Perhaps you should try that as an affirmative defense the next time you
> commit robbery or rape.

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.
It's like if you threw your money at a stranger in the street because you
*feared* that he may threaten or intimidate you. You can't later claim
robbery because no actual threat had occured yet.

Similarily, theater owners *volunteer* to enforce the current ratings
system as a pre-emptive measure against any goverment control, local or
otherwise.

>>Fine, they deliberately left the X untrademarked so filmmakers could
>>self-apply the rating if they so chose.
>>They obviously regretting the decision later on.
>
> No. The Spanish Inquisition is never at fault. CARA is not a serious effort
> to get movies aimed at an adult audience into widespread distribution,
> deliberately so. Both the studios and exhibitors are too timid.

How is that CARA's fault exactly?

> Actually, NC-17 was an attempt to appease film critics, particularly Roger
> Ebert who had been using his nationwide syndicated television show for years
> to beg for an "A" rating for movies that weren't pr0n but meant for an adult
> audience. 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?


>>It's still voluntary. "Fear of local censorship" would mean there's not
>>actual censorship, and "action hostile to their business" would be free
>>market forces. Some exhibitors choose to risk it and show NC-17 or unrated
>>fare. That's their prerogative.
>
> Fear of censorship is real because we've had censorship of movies and do
> have censorship of movies on broadcast television, which you would know if
> you didn't refuse to ignore history.

So theater exhibitors are afraid the FCC is going to surpervise their
businesses?

>>>I didn't make that claim.
>
>>Yes you did. You said that "Congress does censor television and radio." I
>>pointed out the errors in that statement, namely that it's the FCC, not
>>Congress, that doesn't the actual censoring, and that said censoring only
>>applies to broadcast television and radio. Your initial statement covered
>>*all* television and radio, an incorrect blanket claim.
>
> Are we having a serious discussion, or are you trying to win little tiny
> points on the semantics of whether the term "television" refers to
> broadcasting or both broadcasting and cable/satelite?

You don't have to be so sore that your original claim was unclear and
misleading, and I pointed it out and corrected it. I was just trying to
clarify the sitation so we don't base our arguments on untrue positions.
It's interesting that you'd attack my motives though instead of admitting
what would've been a minor mistake on your part.

>>>I've stated repeatedly that movie ratings exist
>>>because studios fear laws that would impose censorship.
>
>>It's still a voluntary system. If I chose not to bungie jump because of
>>fear of heights, is my action not voluntary?
>
> I choose not to bungie jump out of fear....

Is your decision voluntary or not though?


>>Of course, selling it for broadcast television is a voluntary action the
>>studio takes with the knowledge of said censoring.
>
> "It's censored but it's voluntary." How do you keep a straight face?

It's voluntary because they could simply *not* sell their film for
broadcast. Or they could mandate that their film be shown unedited, like
what happened with the recent ABC broadcast of Saving Private Ryan:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/11/news/fortune500/savingpvt_ryan/index.htm?cnn=yes

It's a free market, and a studio certainly doesn't *have* to sell their
films to broadcast networks.


>>I initially said that they didn't and you jumped down my throat with the
>>hypothetical "but they COULD!!"
>
> 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.

>>>I honestly don't know if pornography would quality for NC-17. As far as I
>>>know, a movie must still be submitted to receive NC-17 as, unlike X, it is
>>>not self-applied.
>
>>That's what I said. "A porno could get a NC-17 rating if *submitted* to
>>the MPAA." There's no possible film that's so extreme that it wouldn't
>>merit an NC-17.
>
> No, we are saying exactly the opposite. You assume a pornographic movie
> could receive NC-17, and I assume it cannot. I suggest that neither of us
> knows what might happen.

I *do* know though, because the MPAA has it in their policy that NC-17 is
the highest rating that a film submitted to them can get, and their own
rules state that "CARA will rate *any* picture at any time before or after
it is exhibited or distributed in the United States." Ergo, a porno would
get an NC-17 if submitted to the MPAA CARA, provided, of course, it doesn't
receive a *lower* rating.

http://www.natoonline.org/CARA%20Rules%20_ShoWest%202007%20official%20version_.pdf

>>>>>MPAA states that rating are advice TO PARENTS.
>
>>>>No, they say they created the system *for* parents.
>
>>>No. Read the official history.
>
>>http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_history1.asp
>
>>"The Classification and Ratings Board was created in response to a national
>>cry for some kind of regulation of film content."
>
>>"Valenti felt that parents ought to be able to *accompany their children*
>>to any movie the parents choose"
>
> Do you see the word "choose"?

Yeah, I also see the phrase "accompany their children," which is why I
highlighted it.

>>"NATO urged the creation of an adult-only category"
>
>>There's nothing on that page to suggest that MPAA CARA ever felt that
>>parents had the right to let their kid see *any* movie unaccompanied.
>
> Rights? Wrong word, dude. In any event, this is starting to contradict your
> earlier position.

Which was?...

> Valenti is insincere.

He *was* insincere. He doesn't head the MPAA anymore.

> CARA is advice, not enforcement. But he knew he was
> setting up something that would likely be enforced by exhibitors, which was
> the point of setting up the ratings in the first place, a simple system
> that's readily enforceable (at least once they renamed M, which was found to
> be confusing).

And?.... The enforcement is voluntary.

>>>>Up to PG-13, the decision is completely up to the parent. For R and up,
>>>>the theater enforces the rules as they see fit. For example, one theater
>>>>chain I went to banned *all* children 6 and under from R rated films,
>>>>accompanied by parents or not.
>
>>>Good. I hope that theater increased its business.
>
>>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.

>>Shouldn't the rating system allow the *parents* decide whether or not to
>>bring their 2 year old, or even allow the 2 year old to watch
>>unaccompanied? That's what you were claiming a few lines before.
>
> No, I'm agreeing with you that theaters that ban very young children from
> movies are not enforcing ratings but common sense on parents who have no
> sense.

Their enforcement is *based* on the ratings though, since it's only
applicable to R rated films. And "common sense for parents who have no
sense" are pretty much what the enforced age restrictions *are*.

> 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?
Should the theaters just let anyone into any movie and hope the parents
watch their kids 24/7? I already mentioned that growing up some theaters
allowed kids to go unaccompanied to R films as long as the parents bought
the tickets, implying consent. I don't know if this still occurs since
it's not applicable to me anymore. I think the South Park movie showed
this method being exploited to explain how the kids saw an R rated film
though, and that wasn't too long ago.

>>Most theaters do ban the use of cell phones. People can be removed from
>>the theater for excessive cell phone use, just like they can be for any
>>other behavior if the theater chooses to enforce its own rules it
>>voluntarily chose. Kicking out an obnoxious viewer is the exact same
>>restriction of customer "freedom" that the enforce age restrictions are.
>
> Free market doesn't mean freedom to prevent two parties who have entered
> into a contract from getting full benefit from it.

No two parties have "entered into a contract" in the case you're describing
though, since it's the theaters that enforce the age restrictions, so
there's no "contract" that states it's up to the parent to decide.

>>>Depending on the nature of the protest, it could lead to blocking the
>>>theater entrance
>
>>This would be an attempt at persuasion via economic factors, and thus the
>>free market. I'm not saying it's right that people do this in order to
>>persuade the theater to enforce certain rules, but it is the free market.
>
> No, you're saying it's legal means of economic persuassion, rather than
> illegal criminal intimidation.

OK, fine, I am.

>>>or trying to get the municipality to shut down the theater.
>>>All these things have happened, some in recent years.
>
>>Shutting down a theater would be a form of censorship on a local level.
>
> Is this like the voluntary censorship you claimed existed when movies are
> distributed for television braodcast?

> 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?

>>>What is it you don't understand about a free market? In a free market, all
>>>adults are free to enter into contracts, assuming the contract isn't for an
>>>illegal action.
>
>>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.

> If Pastor Cornelius Witchhunter of the Church of the Wacky Christian has
> riled up his congregation against "Chick Flick", a passionate romantic
> comedy that he claims promotes sex outside of marriage, then he might
> instruct them to shut down Roger Friendly's Palace Theater that is currently
> showing the movie. The congregation might block all access to the theater
> during their protest.

If the blockage is forcable and illegal, than that's incorrect. If they're
just making a peaceful and public protest which discourages some people
from frequenting that establishment, than their methods are correct even if
I disagree with their position.

> In a free market, a movie patron is free to contract with a movie exhibitor
> to see a movie showing at a certain time.

Provided they meet the rules the exhibitor has for attendance, including
age restictions on movies with certain ratings.

> In the hypothetical, a third party, Pastor Witchhunter, has created a
> situation in which movie patrons cannot see a particular movie. Does he
> recommend that people don't see the movie? No, he prevents people who don't
> take his recommendation from seeing the movie. He uses illegal means to
> close the theater.

If the means are truly illegal, then that's counter to the free market and
society in general. A protest in and of itself is not illegal though.
Protests have even generated hype for some films, since they draw attention
to the film being protested.

>>When you buy a ticket, you're agreeing to the rules the theater enforces.
>>If one of those rules is the age restrictions, so be it. You can refuse
>>the contract, which would mean not going to see movies at that theater, but
>>you can't dictate they change the contract.
>
> 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?

>>>Some protests are an attempt to interfere with other people
>>>from freely entering into a contract.
>
>>So? Would you be in favor of breaking up labor protests because they
>>interfere with people getting business from the company in question?
>
> 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?


> As long as protests are peaceful, people
> are exercising their rights. But you claim it's legal to prevent someone
> else from exercising his rights.

No I don't. I claimed it's fine for people to protest in an attempt to
dissaude others from frequenting an establishment, provided the protest is
conducted in a legal manner.

> You do keep saying that protestors may block access to someone's business.

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.


>>Saying a theater should have the right to decide what rules to enforce is
>>different from what you originally wrote though: that the parents should
>>have the right regardless of what the theater decides.
>
> 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?

>>> Do you remember the level of sex and violence in "Mystic Pizza"?
>
>>Please, this is veering far enough away from Casino Royale as it is. I'm
>>not going to nitpick every possible error the MPAA has made in the past.
>
> Of course not. You reject any evidence I have in support of my position...

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.

>>>What do you call enforcement of municipal authorities?
>
>>Government censorship, and thus not free market.
>
> Congratulations on seeing the light.

That's always been my stance. I suppose I sould congratulate you for
finally realizing it.

>>>Censorship is an official act. Ratings exist for fear of censorship. The
>>>effect is pretty much the same.
>
>>So if you had a choice between the MPAA being dissolved and the government
>>taking over and it staying like it is, you'd have no problem with the
>>former?
>
> I favor free markets, so those are two bad choices.

That didn't answer my question. Do you truly feel that government
censorship would be the "same" as the current MPAA CARA rating system?

-Jay

[Back to original message]