The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” In 1952 the United States Supreme Court ruled that movies were protected under the First Amendment. Then why are most movie theaters carding young adults, and restricting access to movies under high ratings, when they have no right to? People cannot be kept from seeing a movie because of the ratings, it is unconstitutional, especially when there is no law enforcing such censorship. The only way that the problem in film censorships can be solved is for parents to take a more active role in the content viewed by their children. Parents are aware of film ratings but rarely do they enforce them, and movie theaters cannot replace and be held responsible by the content viewed by minors. Film censorship can have many consequences, not only socially, but economically.
“Courtesy of fresh policy urged by President Bill Clinton in the wake of the Colorado School Shooting – and embraced by the National Association of Theater Owners – patrons to such films must show photo ID or be shown the door”. (Wood). No person can be denied any form of entertainment, especially one that is given such high value in American Society. No person can be denied entrance to see a movie because of its rating, especially since there is no law that specifies this.
In the booklet “Everything You Always Wanted to Know about the Movie Rating System” the MPAA states that: “The rating system is strictly voluntary and carries no force of law.” This document also indicates that the system is… “to provide parents with advanced information on films, enabling parents to make judgements on movies they want or don’t want their children to see” (Roth). And while this decision is purely voluntary from the parent’s side, the majority of theaters follow the system of rating and enforce it in a very serious manner. If the system was created to give parents a sense of awareness as to what their children are watching, then why do theaters feel that they have to control the audiences access to different movies.
In the article “The Verdict is in, R Rating is Hard to Enforce” by Daniel Wood, he writes about a 17-year-old high school boy who was carded while buying a ticket for the movie “Instinct” which was rated R. The boy commented that he thought it was “almost discriminatory” and that movies are “entertainment”. Some legal experts question wether the policy violates free-speech and privacy rights (Wood). In the end, the carding system becomes ineffective, because as soon as the movies come out on DVD they are as easy to purchase as a piece of gum at local convenience store.
The MPAA clearly states that the purpose of its film rating system is to provide information for parental decision making only: “If you are 18 or over or if you have no children, the rating system has no meaning for you. Ratings are meant for parents, no one else” (Roth).
A new survey by the National Institute on Media and the Family has found that parents would rate movies much more strictly than any of the current systems do (Lamb). Like many other aspects of society, it is easier said than done. “Such a policy is easier stated than enforced” (Wood). Parents must play an integral role in the content viewed by their children, whether it be television, music, books or films. President Clinton once stated at a joint announcement that: “When you drop [your kid] off [at the movies] you shouldn’t have to worry about your G-rated kids getting into violent or suggestive R-rated movies”. It is the parents responsibility to make sure that their children are watching movies appropriate for their age.
“Parents have to do their part. We can’t assign someone to police every kid who gets up to go to the concession center” (President of NATO, William Kartozian). Many times parents leave the upbringing of their children to different social organizations, such as schools, churches, and even individuals. Movie theaters cannot be held responsible for the content viewed by children of any age, it requires more work, more employees and constant humiliation for both the employees and the customers. Many parents do not realize the implications that can come from children, pre-teens and teens watching material that may be too explicit for their age. The consequences that can come from overexposure to such themes such as drugs, sex or violence can have serious repercutions when they grow into adults. “Such problems point out the need for more parental involvement” (William Kartozian, President of NATO).
Many adults feel that they are being second-guessed as parents and that it is their responsibility only, and not the movie theaters to restrict their children from certain films, but at the same time some parents are “resistant to the new policy” according to Daniel B. Wood, indicated by reports that parents “attend the theater with their under seventeen children, buying tickets and then sneaking out once the movie begins”. “Parents should supervise their children, but as my experience demonstrates, not all parents accept that responsibility” (Poussaint). Parents often ignore their responsibility for their chidrens’ well-being, not purposely, but simply because it is easier to give in than to go in an ongoing battle with their children because of a simple movie. The problem is that some parents “may not understand that allowing their children to view such movies is harmful”(Poussaint). “The risks faced by children who watch films meant for adults are as real as the risks faced by children exposed to alcohol, tobacco or physical abuse”.
This point of view may sound a bit exaggerated, but a child is a human being in a process of formation, and it is important to emphasize on this crucial stage in a person’s life.
Besides the individual aspect that movie censorship can have on parents and their children’s lives, film censorship has an impact on social and economic aspects. “Critics also say such restrictions may make R-rated movies even more enticing to underage youth and create a new market for fake ID’s” (Wood). Censoring of different items such as music or video games often creates the illusion amongst pre-teens and teens that it is something enticing. If an object is forbidden then there must be something appealing about it. Now, movies rating are being manipulated so they are enticing to young adults, but are seen as acceptable in the publics eyes. Many PG-13 movies often depict very graphic scenes of sexual intercourse, drug abuse and violence, but are edited so that they do not cross the boundary between PG-13 and R.
“Underage teens sneaking into R-rated films has had an unintended consequence: new PG-13 movies are pushing the boundaries of that category with graphic scenes of sex, drug use and violence” (Lamb).
The continued fight to censor admittance into movie theaters will become expensive for movie theaters, having to hire more employees to check tickets or monitor the theater halls so that people will not sneak in from one movie hall to another. “This could mean another boost in ticket prices” (Robert Buckbaum, President of ReelSource). Censorship does not benefit anyone, parents feel they are seen as irresponsible, teens as well as movie theater employees are embarrassed, and economically it does not benefit neither the movie theater nor the parents of the children involved.
Movie theater employees believe that the rules established by movie theaters following the standards set by the MPAA have created an ackward working environment. Movie theater employees are required to be on the\”lookout” for “suspicious-looking” teenagers trying to sneak into R-rated movies”. “People get aggravated because we have to use our own judgement and occasionally were way off”, says an Assistant Manager of a movie theater, Victor Marques. “We don’t like having to check on people who are coming here to have a good time’’.
Film censorship does not benefit any party. Movie theaters, possibly the most “wholesome” of popular entertainment options compared to going to a bar, or a party is seen as a threat to childrens innocence and well-being. At the same time, books aren’t rated, and still any thirteen year-old with twenty dollars in their pocket can go into Borders and purchase a book on Kamasutra. A book can be more impacting than a movie, and it is of very easy access, even easier than getting into a movie theater, or getting a fake ID. What I believe is that the only people responsible for monitoring the content viewed by a child are the child’s own guardian(s). If they cannot take the responsibility of watching over what their children are doing in their free time, then is that to become the governments, a committees, or a movie theaters task? Does that mean that now committees have to be made to put ratings on books and other forms of entertainments? Ratings are already put on video games, and music CD’s, but that doesn’t keep children and teens from buying them. Parents have to know that they are the keeper of their children’s innocence. It is a parents responsibility, and not the governemts or any other entities responsibility to regulate what can or cannot be viewed by a public simply looking for a simple form of entertainment.
First Amendment. www.findlaw.com.
