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!
I think you're taking things to extremes here. Do I believe that all kids across the board should be allowed in rated R movies, no. But do I believe that a parent should be able to make a judgement call for their own child, yes as they know them best.
Even this isn’t black and white though, I went to Germany in high school and was shocked that I could walk into a bar and order a drink. Even among first world countries there’s shades of gray on when kids are ready for certain things.
That’s a ridiculous argument. Physical harm (which is the result of giving alcohol to a child or a car crash with a child that isn’t wearing a seatbelts) has a much more objective standard, which is why there are many laws that apply to adults and children alike respect to physical harm with criminal liability in a way that isn’t the case with subjective emotional standards.
Another example of taking things to extremes here.
I agree it is not draconian….there is no such rule in place here…. Until then there is no one breaking the law…. Not to mention there has never been a law of such matters… many that grew up with kids of their own… have never known such rules…. as someone who was not able to see rated R movies…. It felt like I was lost at times as I was not able to discuss the movies my peers were discussing…. But as someone who does not have children… it is not my place to make sure other people’s children are being raised how I think they should be raised
But your comfort level, presumably, has never had anything to do with any existing guidelines. It’s about the kids, not the general audience.
Of course. But the point is that, as much as they vary from place to place, very few people question the basic need for such restrictions or consider them an undue burden on parents’ freedoms.