How the MPAA really works. (Read this article!) (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Kleist]

Actually CHuck, they are only consistant with movies put out by major studios

Orgazmo would have gotten a PG-13 or at worst an R (I think they drop that magical 4th Fbomb) had it said "Universal" on it at the time of release

 

[Jan Strnad]

And what would replace the MPAA? How about nothing?

"Nothing" is not an option. "Something" would fill the void because the public demands it.
Keep in mind that, just before the MPAA system was created, there was proposed legislation before 30-some state legislatures creating local film boards that would decide which films could be shown in that state. The public was outraged over recent European imports that were more sexually graphic than the Hollywood fare that had been created under the Hays Code, which had a specific code determining which films could be shown according to its specific criteria for "decency."
The first impulse of government and the general public is not to rate films, but to censor them and ban certain films outright.
The MPAA system effectively stopped all of that pending state legislation in its tracks.
Before we knock down the only wall holding back the waters of governmental regulation, we'd better have a plan for a better wall.
To anyone who thinks that the federal government would do a better job than the MPAA, I have only two words of admonition: Jesse Helms.
Jan

 

[Ted Todorov]

The ratings system exists because the market (studios, exhibitors, viewers) wants it to exist. If it didn't exist, there would be extensive action by Congress and/or the FTC to remedy the situation. The MPAA's ratings board is far from perfect, but it's also much better than a Congressman or FTC administrator having the power to declare what does and does not play.

I completely agree with the first sentence. The ratings system is desired by both the movie business and the public.

As far as the rest is concerned the only thing Congress could possibly do is attempt to repeal the First Amendment. As I stated above, the only constitutionally permissible basis for proscribing what is being shown in movie theaters is obscenity. That (along with with child pornography) is already prohibited. Congress couldn't do a damn thing about anything else, though they certainly may try.

Ted

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I agree that the MPAA stopped local censorship
But what replaces would have to ONLY be an advisory board. Did you know that if the studios catch you not following the MPAA R/NC-17 advisories they will take away your privilege to sell R rated movies? Justl ike with street dates they can refuse to send them to you.
The "new" rating system would say "This film contains X,Y,Z. If you don't like it, you know where to shove it" but possibly in more diplomatic language right up front.
Age restrictions are wrong IMO, and will continue to be. Aboutthe only thing I can say for the MPAA positively right now is that you don't have to be 15 to see someone headbutt or hotwire a car.

 

[Malcolm R]

The ratings system could be abolished tomorrow, and there isn't a damn thing any state government or the feds could do about it.

I'm not so sure. Aren't there still states/counties in this country where it's illegal to have certain, um, mature movies? Most websites dealing with such material have a listing of states/areas where they will not ship to, presumably because of legal restrictions. And that's for material for private use in your own home.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Malcom, nothing that couldn't be challenged and defeated in court. They can try crap under the "community standards" ruling by the supreme court (frankly one of the worst rulings ever IMO) buteventually it'd fall.
http://www.cbldf.org/casefiles/diana.shtml for an example of what it hath wraught

 

[Damin J Toell]

Malcom, nothing that couldn't be challenged and defeated in court. They can try crap under the "community standards" ruling by the supreme court (frankly one of the worst rulings ever IMO) buteventually it'd fall.
http://www.cbldf.org/casefiles/diana.shtml for an example of what it hath wraught

With all due respect, your cite to Mike Diana's situation disproves your point. You claim that any sort of regulation would be defeated in court, but Diana's case proves that the U.S. Supreme Court is apparently quite unwilling to overrule state obscenity decisions.
In the years prior to the implementation of the Hays Production Code 1934, courts upheld the legality of local film boards. However, the First Amendment wasn't held to apply to the individual states until 1931, rather negating prior case law on point. Although I'm not much of a 1st Amendment scholar, it seems to me that modern Constitutional jurisprudence hasn't had much of a chance to tackle the film industry as a whole. Given the Congressional hearings and FTC reports on the marketing of violent content to children in recent years, however, it's rather plain that something would, indeed, replace the MPAA were it to disappear overnight. Whether that replacement would withstand consititutional scrutiny with regard to adults is rather questionable. With regard to children, however, I see it as wholly likely that a local policy of excluding children from viewing certain films would withstand scrutiny. As a general matter, protection of children is seen as a compelling government interest that tends to weigh towards allowing state action that would be disallowed in other contexts. Regulation of the broadcast industry, while premised on the idea that the government needs to control the publically-owned airwaves in trust for the American people, shows that the government has been allowed to do much in the name of protection of children that would otherwise presumably violate the 1st Amendment. I see it as entirely reasonable that a state system of restricting underage access to certain films would be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. While it's comforting to believe that the 1st Amendment is so broad as to prevent this, it seems me that the history of upholding regulations in the name of protection of children tends to lean otherwise.
So what would this result in? Instead of a single national NC-17 rating, there would be 50 different NC-17 equivalents that would be applied to films. The film industry, then, would want to serve the most restrictive of those ratings systems in order to ensure national release of any given film. Or, a national system would be devised, led by the most stringent Congressional factions (e.g., Leiberman). Things would be worse, not better. Self-regulation, insofar as it preempts governmental action, is a good thing. Nothing is perfect, but some options are better than others. I'll take the MPAA over Congress or the States any day.
DJ

 

[Jeff Kleist]

My point was that the Supreme Court has already ruled, and that I think it was a horrible idea.

 

[Jan Strnad]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

A person can now be held for any period of time with no charges being filed against him, with no attorney, and with no right to confront the witnesses against him, all because he is "suspected of terrorism." (The college-aged daughter of a friend of mine was held for 52 hours, incommunicado, for participating in a peaceful demonstration against the WTO...held as a "suspected terrorist.")
How can the federal government virtually repeal the 6th Amendment overnight? Because the people of the USA support it due to the current anti-terrorist hysteria and let them get away with it.
If the people were incensed over "nasty movies," as they would be if there were no rating system, you could expect a wide array of confusing local standards and widespread censorship on the local level and no help from the federal government.
A store owner in Texas was recently convicted, fined, and sentence to jail for selling an adult comic book to an adult. Can "it" happen here? Yes, "it" can, it does, and people not only let it happen, they positively throw the door open and roll out the red carpet for it.
The MPAA system is very flawed and needs overhauling, no doubt. But I sure wouldn't abandon it until I knew what system was going to take its place. And I doubly-sure wouldn't do it in the current political climate.
Jan

 

[Ted Todorov]

Regulation of the broadcast industry, while premised on the idea that the government needs to control the publically-owned airwaves in trust for the American people, shows that the government has been allowed to do much in the name of protection of children that would otherwise presumably violate the 1st Amendment. I see it as entirely reasonable that a state system of restricting underage access to certain films would be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. While it's comforting to believe that the 1st Amendment is so broad as to prevent this, it seems me that the history of upholding regulations in the name of protection of children tends to lean otherwise.

Remember that showing a film in a movie theater is treated like selling a book in a bookstore, not like a public broadcast and therefore the broadest protection of the First Amendment applies.

I agree that regulations protecting children are permissible, but as can be seen from the Supreme Court's forceful ruling that Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional, ANY whiff of side effects from these "child protection" regulations/laws which have the effect of limiting or restricting adult speech, in this case the ability of adults to see a given film, will render the law(s) unconstitutional.

Ted

 

[FeisalK]

old thread resurrection
prompted by revelations that the MPAA is caught pants down making illegal copies of a movie - an especially topical one
MPAA admits to unauthorized movie copying
1/24/2006 11:52:04 AM, by Eric Bangeman
What happens when an organization that is best known for inveighing against the unauthorized copying of movies gets caught doing exactly that? The Motion Picture Association of America was caught with its pants down, admitting to making unauthorized copies of the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated in advance of this week's Sundance Film Festival.
This Film Is Not Yet Rated looks at the motion picture ratings system created and run by the MPAA. Director Kirby Dick submitted the film for rating in November. After receiving the movie, the MPAA subsequently made copies without Dick's permission. Dick had specifically requested in an e-mail that the MPAA not make copies of the movie. The MPAA responded by saying that "the confidentiality of your film is our first priority."
Dick later learned that the MPAA made copies of the film to distribute them to its employees, despite the MPAA's stance on unauthorized copying. Ah, there's nothing like the smell of hypocrisy in the morning-apparently the prohibition against copying films without the copyright owner's consent doesn't apply to the MPAA. (more)

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

There is already an existing thread about this.

 

[FeisalK]

sorry, .. didn't come up in a search of "MPAA"