The argument that MPAA ratings aren't censorship is based on their "voluntary" character. And if ratings is all they were, if they were considered "parental guidance" only, that argument would be valid.

But, of course, that's not the case. The problem is that in reality, the exhibitors use the MPAA ratings as admission guides. That is to say, they are used by exhibitors -- not parents -- to decide under what circumstances they will admit particular patrons. The MPAA board ostensibly doesn't care what the exhibitors, or, for that matter, what patrons think or do -- they're "independent".

In other words, the exhibitors are using ratings determined by someone else to make their admissions policies. That is what makes it censorship.

I propose a relatively simple solution (assuming that for political reasons, we cannot abolish ratings -- which whould be the truly simple solution). Abolish the MPAA board, and establish a ratings board controlled by the exhibitors.

Put the responsibility and accountability where it belongs, with the people that actually interact with the public.

P.S., the same argument obtains for video game and CD ratings...

The parents who laud the MPAA are a perfect example of the selfish near-sightedness and lack of critical thinking skills that have led this country to the brink of totalitarianism and mired us in an endless war.

"The MPAA is a good thing if it even helps one kid:" this seems to be the feeling of "concerned parents," aptly summed up by bird-witted parents who somehow, in their days of uber-parenting, have time to read Salon and post long letters insisting that the wishes of others are secondary, if at all even comparable, to the safety and welfare of their brood.

It seems that parents would vote in fascism, if it would keep their kids safe. Sound familiar?

Parents who are driven by fear are the very worst parents of all. Parents who laud secretive organizations like the MPAA because of some presumed "higher good" are no better than the morality police who burn books. The book burners are actually to be preferred as they seem more forthright and honest in their zeal to censor unacceptable ideas and images.

What sort of lesson are these "concerned parents" teaching their kids?

"Do not judge and evaluate for yourself. Trust anonymous, capricious, and anti-democratic authority."

That's much better than teaching them about sex!

God save us from "concerned parents."

A pretty good example of the MPAA's curious strain of moralism would be the great family movie "Whale Rider" of a couple of years ago.

The film was a genuinely moving thing, could easily be appreciated by people of almost any age... and was given a PG-13 because there were some characters who giggled a lot and who may have had a bong around in one scene, though no drug use was actually depicted that I noticed.

Something's wrong when a movie like that suffers at the box office and is cut off from some share of its audience due to the ratings board's arbitrary standards.

(I would also suggest anyone interested in this topic look into the history of the Hays/Breen code.)

To cal godot -- I find ratings on media products helpful, that does not make me a "concerned parent" doofus censorship advocate.

To Low-Media Leftist Mama -- Bringing political leanings into the debate is probably less about who's a lefty, and more about liberalism. I consider myself fairly liberal, and I want my kid exposed to all kinds of view points, ideas, cultures, peoples, etc., which qualifies as being liberal-minded, I think, and that tends to be synonymous with leftism these days, whether that's right or not.

To Velora -- Not everybody has convenient internet access, so websites help but don't solve the issue for everybody trying to do their job as parents.

To Karrsic -- Exactly. And there's the V-Chip for TV which helps, particularly when a child needs some disciplining: bring home an F, no more 14 year old content on TV for a while.

To TinyBubbles -- Yes, let's preserve adult content. I don't see how ratings themselves threaten that though, only consumer stupidity.

To PamL -- Same boat for me, and really it comes down less to the rating itself as the description of what's in the movie.

When renting movies especially, I rely on the "reasons" in the rating box for why the movie is rated the way it is, and not just the letter. I would like to see that promoted more, as jfriesne suggested. I think perhaps we have Tipper Gore to thank (not really sure though about the movie side), and I'm sorry, as much as I like(d) Frank Zappa, he was wrong, music did not get censored by having "Explicit" stamped on the case. I'm sure it's a badge of honor for most hip-hop releases these days. I like the ratings for video games too. Ratings are useful when the kids constantly try to negotiate how much media zombification they are allowed. I can point to the rating and say, "Hey, see, I'm not the only one thinks this might not be good for you". And sometimes they get to play/watch something that is rated higher than their age because I know exactly what's in it and it passes my "filter". Sometimes I just don't want my kid watching something that is just too damn stupid, like Viva La Bam or Jackass. Sure, it's funny (for a minute or two), but there's so much better material to expose brain cells to, and the rating helps me say no.

Not one mention of why the MPAA exists in the first place. It was created so the industry could police itself for fear of the government stepping in and policing the industry for them. This isn't about assuring parents of a movie's content, it is about self censorship in order to avoid the issues of larger government censorship.

In what other ways are corporations self censoring in order to avoid the government's intrusion?

it's said that if Annie Hall had come out in the 80's instead of the 70's, the coke snorting scene would have gotten it an R (supposedly the pot smoking scene is what warranted John Hughes' The Breakfast Club an R in the mid-80's)

I remember seeing Annie Hall in a theatre, on a date with a boy, with no parents present, when I was 13, after it had just come out. When the cocaine scene came on, I laughed so hard I missed the next two scenes. And part of the reason I've never had any desire to do coke is because of that scene. It made cocaine seem so ridiculous -- you spend $200 on a bit of powder and it can all go away in a sneeze! -- that there was no need for anyone ever to pull any DARE-speak on me to warn me away from it. To this day, just thinking about that scene gives me the giggles.

The pot scene in The Breakfast Club, OTOH, made pot seem very cool, a way for people to relax and be themselves. When I saw it, it made me wonder what I'd been missing, since my own experiences with pot weren't nearly as much fun. I can see how a kid watching that would be more likely to want to smoke pot, not less likely.