first amendment victory

[detlef]

Haven't had time to catch up, but minors can not buy tickets to R Rated movies and need a parent or adult guardian age 21 or over accompanying them. I got this from the website for AMC Theaters.

 

Here is a C&P of the policy for UA/Edwards/Regal theaters:

 

 

 

 

So it seems you were given bad information regarding theaters selling to minors. Now, the enforcement of these policies by employees may be a different matter altogether.

 

The rarer NC-17 rating is much stricter an no one under 18 is allowed into the theater.

For what it's worth, I don't know if that disputes (I believe) Azz's point that the MPAA ratings are merely guidelines that theaters can enforce at their discretion. Mind you, it also doesn't confirm his point. What you posted is merely a theater's official policy that it will adhere to the suggested standards. Technically, another theater could choose not to enforce the rules as strictly.

 

So, the only way of disproving the theory that these ratings are just guidelines would be to show a law that states theaters who sell R rated tickets to kids will somehow be fined or otherwise punished.

[Yukon Cornelius]

So, the only way of disproving the theory that these ratings are just guidelines would be to show a law that states theaters who sell R rated tickets to kids will somehow be fined or otherwise punished.

up here there are no such laws.

[Clubfoothead]

I'm going to help the Supreme Court out by buying my 7 year old a cell phone and providing the number to EA so they can just call her when she is supposed to purchase a new game. It'll save them a ton of cash on advertising.

 

On the flip side, they said my game, "Abortion Rampage", had no shot but I think it's just what the kids these days have been looking for in entertainment.

[WaterMan]

Are you sure your 7 yr old wouldn't rather play Guantanamo Bay the game in 3D?

[Clubfoothead]

Are you sure your 7 yr old wouldn't rather play Guantanamo Bay the game in 3D?

 

That's not my business anymore, that's between her and EA.

[Yukon Cornelius]

That's not my business anymore, that's between her and EA.

and you do realize that EA will look out for its customers like all businesses do! They are not in it for the money but for the enjoyment of others.

[WaterMan]

EA really took off after they blackmailed SEGA:

 

In the early 90′s Sega charged $8 to $10 for every cartridge produced on the Sega Genesis. For example, NBA Jam sold 1.93 million copies so Midway would have had to pay at least $15.4 million in licensing fees alone. EA didn’t want to pay the fee so they had a team of mad scientists reverse engineer the console to avoid paying those fees. After they were successful, they took their results to Sega and said “How about we pay you $2 a cartridge with a cap of $2 millon?” Sega quickly agreed to the compromise because they saw the potential for losing a lot of money if they didn’t agree to EA’s wishes. If Sega didn’t agree, EA could have sold the knowledge to other developers and Sega would have ceased being a console maker a lot sooner. Obviously, John Madden Football was a huge success and EA saved over $35 millon because of the new deal they struck with Sega. If you ever wondered why EA games had the little yellow tab in the upper corner and were a bit longer than other Genesis games, it was due to the reverse engineering.

[Azazello1313]

For what it's worth, I don't know if that disputes (I believe) Azz's point that the MPAA ratings are merely guidelines that theaters can enforce at their discretion. Mind you, it also doesn't confirm his point.

 

this is a pretty simple concept. the MPAA rating system has no force of law. it is a voluntary system movie producers and theaters adhere to on their own accord. it is an industry standard, not a government one.

[Azazello1313]

Are you sure your 7 yr old wouldn't rather play Guantanamo Bay the game in 3D?

That's not my business anymore, that's between her and EA.

and you do realize that EA will look out for its customers like all businesses do! They are not in it for the money but for the enjoyment of others.

 

well, it's good to see that the three huddle left-wing intellectual giants support the first amendment.

[detlef]

this is a pretty simple concept. the MPAA rating system has no force of law. it is a voluntary system movie producers and theaters adhere to on their own accord. it is an industry standard, not a government one.

Tell that to the person who was disputing your point. I was simply saying that what he posted did not, in and of itself, mean what you said was wrong. Because I was neither aware of a law or lack thereof, I was not going to go any further. But you do realize that I was operating under the impression that you were correct?

 

Regardless, I've got another question for those who see the primary difference between porn and these games being that porn is shot in live action and the games seem more fictional due to their animated and cartoon-like nature. What about a video game where a significant focus of the game is having graphically depicted sex? Are we still protected by "make believe land" or does that now, all of a sudden become obscene?

Edited July 1, 2011 by detlef

[Clubfoothead]

well, it's good to see that the three huddle left-wing intellectual giants support the first amendment.

 

What was inaccurate about my statement?

[WaterMan]

I completely support the 1st. Westboro has their right to be aholes just as much as Fox has their right to completely dismantle journalism. Just like how I support my right to voice my opinions about their opinions.

 

I would support Guantanamo Bay the video game if it was made.

[Azazello1313]

all this hangup regarding porn vs. violent video games...it's important to remember something. the big porn/first amendment case is from the 1970s, Miller v California (why does California hate the first amendment?) the court back then was more liberal in the favoring-big-government sense, but much less "liberal" in the give people liberty and let them do what they hell they want sense. and once an issue is decided, the court doesn't like to go back and overrule itself.

 

so, you ask why porn doesn't have first amendment protection but "mature" video games do? a big part of the answer is simply that porn has been around longer.

[Square]

all this hangup regarding porn vs. violent video games...it's important to remember something. the big porn/first amendment case is from the 1970s, Miller v California (why does California hate the first amendment?) the court back then was more liberal in the favoring-big-government sense, but much less "liberal" in the give people liberty and let them do what they hell they want sense. and once an issue is decided, the court doesn't like to go back and overrule itself.

 

so, you ask why porn doesn't have first amendment protection but "mature" video games do? a big part of the answer is simply that porn has been around longer.

Makes sense (in that f-ed up, society is weird, and things end up strange sort of way).

[Yukon Cornelius]

well, it's good to see that the three huddle left-wing intellectual giants support the first amendment.

sumtimes you out smart yourself. well that is probably many times a day but we wont go into that here at the huddle.

[Yukon Cornelius]

all this hangup regarding porn vs. violent video games...it's important to remember something. the big porn/first amendment case is from the 1970s, Miller v California (why does California hate the first amendment?) the court back then was more liberal in the favoring-big-government sense, but much less "liberal" in the give people liberty and let them do what they hell they want sense. and once an issue is decided, the court doesn't like to go back and overrule itself.

 

so, you ask why porn doesn't have first amendment protection but "mature" video games do? a big part of the answer is simply that porn has been around longer.

boy am i glad you have to time to research inane post on a ff site. you are my new hero!

[detlef]

all this hangup regarding porn vs. violent video games...it's important to remember something. the big porn/first amendment case is from the 1970s, Miller v California (why does California hate the first amendment?) the court back then was more liberal in the favoring-big-government sense, but much less "liberal" in the give people liberty and let them do what they hell they want sense. and once an issue is decided, the court doesn't like to go back and overrule itself.

 

so, you ask why porn doesn't have first amendment protection but "mature" video games do? a big part of the answer is simply that porn has been around longer.

I would be nice to place the pornography ruling at the feet of freedom-hating liberals. Surely the religious right was up in arms about having the civil liberties of the Mitchell Brothers attacked.

[Azazello1313]

I would be nice to place the pornography ruling at the feet of freedom-hating liberals. Surely the religious right was up in arms about having the civil liberties of the Mitchell Brothers attacked.

 

well call me crazy, but I would place the ruling at the feet of, you know, the people who made the ruling.

[Pope Flick]

Like Azz, you seem to be using the logic that, since we've already decided porn should not be sold or marketed to kids and haven't yet done so with violent, crime-related games, that, in and of itself, is justification. Surely there was some time before which "porn" (in whatever form it took back then) was legally restricted to kids. When someone brought up the idea of not selling that to kids, couldn't someone say, "But we've been selling it to kids, so obviously it's fine." I mean, that's your argument in saying that violent games are not on the level of porn, because, thus far, we've been allowing kids to buy them. Well, maybe we've been wrong to do so. That's the point.

 

Here's another thing. One is an interactive situation where things that are not legal for anyone of any age to do are acted out. One depicts acts that are perfectly legal to do once you've achieved a certain age. Yet, we choose to shield our kids from eventually legal one and not the other?

 

So, the only thing in question is what you find to be something offensive enough to shield our children from it. That's really it. You seem to find sex fits that bill, but not graphic games involving violence and crime. I don't see why sex is the worse of the two.

 

Another thing taken from the ruling. They seem to say, "where does it stop?" It's cool to have a game where you smash something with a golden mallet and it disappears, then why not a more graphic depiction of death and violence?" OK, how many scenes on TV or in PG rated movies imply that sex is going to happen or is happening, just without graphic depiction. So, like the golden mallet. The kid knows what's going on in American Pie, so what's the big deal if we just let them watch a more graphic depiction of the same thing?

 

Wow. You sure write a whole lot of nothing. Additionally you are ignorant of he subject at large as you flail to understand how the MPAA works, something a basic google search could help you out in you lack of understanding of publishing and first amenmendment rights.

 

Here's something else for you and those who think this stuff can now be marketed and sold to kids to google: the ESRB. Now go have fun a dn learn something.

[detlef]

Wow. You sure write a whole lot of nothing. Additionally you are ignorant of he subject at large as you flail to understand how the MPAA works, something a basic google search could help you out in you lack of understanding of publishing and first amenmendment rights.

 

Here's something else for you and those who think this stuff can now be marketed and sold to kids to google: the ESRB. Now go have fun a dn learn something.

How does anything you wrote dispute my points?

 

You simply linked to what ratings mean. Azz mentioned that movie ratings were not law but simply guidelines for the theaters and I took him at his word. Perhaps that's not the case? The way NC-17 is worded, seems like more of than simply a guideline, but is there actually a law in place? I don't actually know and, again, was simply taking Azz's word for it.

 

Regardless, the ratings for games sure seems rather undeniably a guideline. Words like "should not play" sort of make that rather clear.

 

So, congratulations for pointing out that both movies and games have rating systems. Now, what does that have to do with the fact that, in one case, we've made it illegal to sell porn to kids and yet it would be an infringement of the 1st amendment to make it illegal to sell a graphically violent game? Despite the fact that, in both cases, we have established a rating system that implies what we think is suitable for kids. Basically another reason why they should be handled the same. So, in both cases we've determined certain types of media are not suitable for kids, but we really only care enough to prevent the sale of one of them? And that somehow disputes my point? Good to know.

 

You seem to have leaned rather heavily on the cartoon nature of games and think it is stupid for anyone to wonder why that matters as much as you think it does.

 

That was before, of course, you implied my mind was in the gutter for not thinking sex is worse than violence.

[Deathpig]

What was inaccurate about my statement?

 

Maybe you should watch the Jon Stewart clip I linked to earlier in the thread. You are making the logical leap that if the Supreme Court denies a state the ability to legislate the prohibition of sale of something to a minor that you, the parent, are now rendered impotent. Never mind that those prohibitions don't actually stop minors (or do you really believe underage kids don't smoke, drink, watch R/NC-17 movies, etc.?).

 

So yes, in this hypothetical scenario, if you can't handle your child and require the state to intervene on your behalf, then you are totally correct. But I think that speaks more to the inadequacies of the parent than it does of the Supreme Court.

[Pope Flick]

How does anything you wrote dispute my points?

 

You simply linked to what ratings mean. Azz mentioned that movie ratings were not law but simply guidelines for the theaters and I took him at his word. Perhaps that's not the case? The way NC-17 is worded, seems like more of than simply a guideline, but is there actually a law in place? I don't actually know and, again, was simply taking Azz's word for it.

 

Regardless, the ratings for games sure seems rather undeniably a guideline. Words like "should not play" sort of make that rather clear.

 

So, congratulations for pointing out that both movies and games have rating systems. Now, what does that have to do with the fact that, in one case, we've made it illegal to sell porn to kids and yet it would be an infringement of the 1st amendment to make it illegal to sell a graphically violent game? Despite the fact that, in both cases, we have established a rating system that implies what we think is suitable for kids. Basically another reason why they should be handled the same. So, in both cases we've determined certain types of media are not suitable for kids, but we really only care enough to prevent the sale of one of them? And that somehow disputes my point? Good to know.

 

You seem to have leaned rather heavily on the cartoon nature of games and think it is stupid for anyone to wonder why that matters as much as you think it does.

 

That was before, of course, you implied my mind was in the gutter for not thinking sex is worse than violence.

 

I've implied nothing. I fail to understand why you want to link this to porn. Really. You could ask this of any publishing matter. The simple fact of the matter is porn has been ruled on (in the "I know it when I see it" ruling) and so have many other things, now including video games. Despite what you might think, linking porn to video games is simply a stretch. Photography, painting, installations and many other types of art and media have rating systems yet you want to obtusley equate them to Dirty Pizza Deliveries Vol 12 and wonder why it isn't considered a documentary. I have no good answer for you other than you must be porn obsessed.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Maybe you should watch the Jon Stewart clip I linked to earlier in the thread. You are making the logical leap that if the Supreme Court denies a state the ability to legislate the prohibition of sale of something to a minor that you, the parent, are now rendered impotent. Never mind that those prohibitions don't actually stop minors (or do you really believe underage kids don't smoke, drink, watch R/NC-17 movies, etc.?).

 

So yes, in this hypothetical scenario, if you can't handle your child and require the state to intervene on your behalf, then you are totally correct. But I think that speaks more to the inadequacies of the parent than it does of the Supreme Court.

 

 

Of course the State does see fit to intervene in parental discipline. Interesting that the State says certain things are still our job as parents, until of course it is not. I'm not saying that the State shouldn't legislate against some discipline, I just find it interesting.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders

[delusions of grandeur]

Of course the State does see fit to intervene in parental discipline. Interesting that the State says certain things are still are job as parents, until of course it is not. I'm not saying that the State shouldn't legislate against some discipline, I just find it interesting.

I hear what you're saying, but I think the key difference is that you can play a violent game or watch a violent movie, and it can still have a message. There are countless examples of movies that appear very violent, but actually have the opposite effect of showing the "cost of war" and things like that. Maybe not so much with video games, but in that case we're going further and further from reality anyway...

 

Conversely, can anyone make the case that any pornographic movie can be beneficial to a kid's development? It's obvious that there is very little value or reason to allow companies to decide whether they want to subject children to it (not to say it's as bad as some make it out to be, but it's not like restrictions are detrimental to youth)... Outside of that, however, it is a highly debateable premise that ALL violent or derogatory films and games are as a whole detrimental to a particular age-group, to the point where we need the government to intervene with arbitrary classifications.

 

Thus, it is left up to the company's choice whether they want to piss off concerned parents or not... Not really sure what's so contradictory about that?

[detlef]

I've implied nothing. I fail to understand why you want to link this to porn. Really. You could ask this of any publishing matter. The simple fact of the matter is porn has been ruled on (in the "I know it when I see it" ruling) and so have many other things, now including video games. Despite what you might think, linking porn to video games is simply a stretch. Photography, painting, installations and many other types of art and media have rating systems yet you want to obtusley equate them to Dirty Pizza Deliveries Vol 12 and wonder why it isn't considered a documentary. I have no good answer for you other than you must be porn obsessed.

And you accuse me of spending words and saying nothing?

 

I'm going to break it down for you one more time because I've been lead to believe by posts you've made on other topics that you're an intelligent person (btw, kindly step away from your unfortunate detour into d-bagdome and understand that I am as well).

 

This, is about what we think we should be exposing our kids to. It's really that simple. And in both movies and video games, we have developed rating systems to advise what kids should and shouldn't be involved with. We've already made the judgment. That's why particularly violent games have ratings that suggest that they are not suitable for children. Just like we do with movies. Only, in one, it's the law, and in the other, it's just a suggestion. Why is that?

 

So, my issue is simply this. Why as a country do we absolutely draw the line at graphic sex and not with graphic violence? I understand that we've done so with one and not the other, but here on the interwebs, we like to delve into the whys.

 

Why, in particular, do you think it is so insane for someone to think that allowing children to play violent games is no better than allowing them to witness movies depicting sex? And, no, saying that the courts ruled one way on one and another way on another is not good enough. Sure, it's good enough in the court of law, but not good enough in the conversation of why. Because that is the topic here.

 

The topic here is why one and not the other. From a societal standpoint. Why do we see sex as taboo and not killing people?