Posted by sean at threshold8n.jpmorgan.com on August 08, 2001 at 16:20:09:
In Reply to: Constitutionality posted by erran on August 08, 2001 at 16:04:03:
: There is nothing unconstitutional about a universal system, it would just be a unification of all the *existing* ratings systems into a single set of codes. My suggestion that it would be more restrictive meant that instead of the relatively film friendly MPAA directors, the universal system's board might be made up of people who aren't necessarily in the film business.
: I seriously think this is the way we're headed. The MPAA's days are numbered.
The MPAA is Hollywood friendly, I agree ("Titanic" got a PG-13?? I know I saw bush.), but it has never been movie friendly, as this all too obviously shows.
Need more proof? "The Idiots", a film by a genius like Lars Von Trier, couldn't get distribution here and, when it was finally released on video, had black boxes over every naked penis and half the sex scene.
Still not enough? "Orgazmo" wasn't released by a major studio, and Trey Parker was specifically told there was no amount of cutting he could do to get it an R. "South Park", on the other hand, had jokes like the 'rimjob' one added to fuck with the MPAA who still gave it an R because it was whichever studio it was. (Paramount?)
Now, the plan you described, involving the government forming ANY sort of ratings board, is unconstitutional because the government is not allowed to censor directly. The only form of censorship that's allowed is self-censorship such as the boards as they are now. A universal board would, if it followed the MPAA's example, be just as bad but couldn't be any worse or less film friendly.