We live in societies that continually and in multiple ways tell people how to raise their children, imposing countless restrictions and requirements on parents. Preventing a child from being taken to the cinema to watch a violent slasher movie is hardly draconian or out of keeping with all the other societal safeguards we live with.
I agree that parents need to be more diligent in what they let their kids watch in terms of TV shows and internet content. However that is a different situation then a parent consciously taking a kid to a rated R movie, as the parent is actively involved in that situation.
Except here in the US it would be considered draconian in this situation, as many parents would have an issue with the government now telling them its against the law to do something with their kids. And luckily, at least for now, its not against the law. And I hope that never changes.
It's not about morality, as demonstrated by the fact that such restrictions are in place throughout Western Europe, which is far more socially liberal than the USA.
Agree to disagree on that. Just because there is a law against it in a socially liberal country outside the US doesn't mean its still not a law based on a moral stance.
US law already prevents parents from taking their children to see certain films (those rated NC-17). These same parents already face a host of laws (pertaining to seatbelts, drinking, smoking, education, etc.) telling them what they can and can't do with their children.
And watch how quick that will get backlash. All you have to do is look at how quickly across the nation there was backlash against a certain law from a certain swamp state with a Disney Park, and that was suppose to be "for" parental rights.
Whether a law deserves to be instituted or not shouldn't be based on the level of backlash it may receive.
To me this is an argument over what to prioritize more than an argument over whether there should be safeguards, safeguards are a good thing to a certain point, that point will vary by person though, a kid going to a rated R movie WITH his or her parents is so far down the priority list it just doesn’t warrant much concern for me.
Same, not even at home on HBO until I was actually 17!
Same. If asked, I’ll offer my opinion; but I wouldn’t force that opinion on others via the law.
I'm not sure if this will make sense, but it's almost for the same reason that I feel as I do. Of all the things that could raise a fuss, tweaking the existing age guidelines into a true rule seems very far down the list to me. I can't imagine it would be a particularly difficult or controversial matter to close a loophole that few parents seem to take advantage of anyway. That said, the last several pages have surprised me quite a bit, so I might well be mistaken.
Agree, but it also shouldn't be based on whether someone finds what another person does with their kids as distasteful or wrong based on personal belief. Its a slippery slope at that point. Because how far should someones personal beliefs be used to infringe on another persons right to raise their kid how they see fit? The US has come a long way in fighting for personal freedoms over the last 60-70 years. Putting laws that restrict that just seems to go backwards in my opinion. I know some in the country want that, but I'll fight against it.
Agreed we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this, as this is a matter of personal freedom to me.
Makes sense, in the big picture it would be an easy change, I just don’t think it would affect much, the number of kids seeing rated R movies in the theater with their parents is likely a very small number, my guess is 99% of the kids who see Deadpool will see it online in some form, whether a streaming service or a pirated version, and likely without their parents knowing, changing the theater rules won’t affect that.
I'm happy to disagree, but I wish you would stop implying that my stance is contrary to personal freedom. That argument is invoked all the time by those who oppose all manner of commonsense restrictions and safeguards, many of which I'm sure you agree with. Not wanting to see a seven-year-old at the same screening as me when I go to watch a slasher film does not make me an enemy of personal freedom.
Agreed. I have a massive issue with government restrictions on access to movies, books or other materials in the name of supposed morality as a general matter. Tools like Common Sense Media should certainly be used and available to parents to make their own judgments on what their kids are allowed to watch, but it’s not the job of the *government* to police whether a kid gets to watch an R-rated movie or not.
Except when you suggest that laws should be instituted to prevent a parent from making a choice for their own children to me is an enemy of personal freedom. Whether you think its a "commonsense" issue or not doesn't mean its still not a restriction of personal freedom.
For what it's worth NC-17 is not a legally enforceable rule. It's a rating given by the Motion Picture Association of America and is generally followed by movie theaters, but it's not a law.
Wow, that's one of the worst takes I've read on the boards in a long while. So because you think your kid is advanced enough, that trumps science? I'm not going to tell anyone how to parent because it should be understood that it's not the best for the child. Well at least for a semi functioning person. So who should tell me wether my kid should be able to drink, smoke, go to school, or eat candy for every meal? And please don't say harm to the child because there's plenty out there that says that type of violence exposure to a child is bad for them.
By that logic, one should have nothing to say about parents who choose not to put seatbelts on their children or who choose to give them alcohol.
Thank you for the correction!
