So what’s the deal with censorship?
In the United States we have a thing called the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the freedom of religion (and to practice that religion freely), freedom of press, freedom to protest peacfully, and most well-known, the freedom of speech. Anymore it seems as though institutions have been taking the right to free speech away from the American public.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is responsible for tagging films with a letter to “warn” the public of the content. The rating system consists of 5 rankings.
G “General Audiences”- All ages permitted
PG ”Parental Guidance Suggested”- Some material may not be suitable for children
PG-13 “Parents Strongly Cautioned”-Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.
R “Restricted”- Under 17 requires accompanying parent or guardian
NC-17 “No Children Under 17″- No one under 17 admitted
This system restricts the quality of language and imaging allowed in each film. Ratings G through R are common. Being slapped with an NC-17 could mean the death of a great film. If the ratings board decides that a movie is NC-17, most studios will not release it until the director has edited it enough to get a R rating. Hundreds of films are changed so they can be released. An NC-17 film would get little, if any, advertising opportunities and therefore would lose out on millions of dollars. Directors and producers have to compromise their art for money.
In This Film is Not Yet Rated, a movie about the MPAA’s rating system, different directors and professionals comment on the controvery of the ratings. First of all, there does not seem to be a complete set of guidelines for making the rating decisions. It’s sketchy as to what is appropriate and what is not. Oppossite sex couples are allowed to be shown doing more sexual activity than same sex couples. The amount of thrusting and f***s can send a film up a level. Secondly, the board of raters is completely unknown. The raters are supposedly “average” American parents looking out for the welfare of the public. Who’s to say what an “average” or “normal” parent is? From the little information discovered, there does not seem to have ever been any gay or lesbian parents on the panel. Race and religion is just as unknown. Basically a minority of the population is making decisions that effect the majority of the public. The public deserves to know who the raters are. I understand that the raters need their confidentiality in order to be saved from bribery or criticism, but giving out statistics of the raters could do no harm. If anything, it would reinforce the public’s confidence in the rating system.
In a democracy it is rare for a government to step in and take part in censoring. For films however, it may be more beneficial than the current sytem. The government would back the First Amendment in every case (except child pornograpgy) and great movies would not be limited to advertising and such because of a certain scene. It would be more of the parents’ responsibility to restrict children, not the theatres and studios. Parent restriction is how it should be. Every parent wants to raise their children differently, therefore they should say what their child can and cannot see-not a board of unknown people.
In order for America to recapture it’s freedoms of speech and expression, the MPAA and rating system need a major makeover.
