Religious communities in the US have tried several times to introduce technology that sanitises movies, skipping over sex, violence or strong language. Such censorship is totally voluntary and is not inflicted on others, so perhaps at first
thought it should not causes any issues. However Hollywood has taken a strong stance against this form of movie vandalism. Presumably Hollywood doesn't appreciate the effects on word of mouth advertising. They wouldn't really appreciate people
bad mouthing films that may have been rendered incomprehensible by the cutting of key scenes.
So now the influential religious community have come up with new law proposal to legalise move sanitisation.
Moralists of the Parents Television Council has provided a statement outlining the thinking behind the Family Movie Act Clarification Act of 2018 (HR 6816), which was introduced by Representative Mia Love, a Utah Republican on September
13th. PTC President Tim Winter said:
It is ironic that legislation first passed in the 21st century needs to be brought into the 21st century, but that is exactly what the Family Movie Act Clarification Act will do. This bill is a long-overdue update to the Family Movie Act of 2005
and would give parents the digital ability to plug their kids' ears and cover their kids' eyes to harmful and explicit streaming content, just as the 2005 Act allows them to do via a DVD. We applaud Congresswoman Mia Love for recognizing the
need for the law to catch up with technology in order to better serve parents.
Based on stories I've heard from inside the beltway, Love and the bill's cosponsors deserve combat valor medals for weathering an intense, scorched-earth effort by Hollywood lobbyists working to prevent even the introduction of this bill, let
alone its consideration.
But why would Hollywood studios object to legislation that would allow their films to make more money? They have claimed that digital filtering is akin to piracy, but there is no piracy taking place. Parents are only skipping past the
objectionable content of movies they've purchased and are watching in the comfort of their own homes. The studios raised the same arguments over a dozen years ago when the Family Movie Act of 2005 was being considered. Those arguments were
hollow then, and they are hollow now. The only plausible reason why anyone in Hollywood would be opposed to this measure is that some sort of agenda would be obviated by the consumer.
Make no mistake: this is a win-win for Hollywood and for parents. Families would be able to protect their children from harmful content in movies they stream; and Hollywood immediately increases its revenue capacity by broadening the marketplace
for its products. Any publicly-traded studio that opposes either the spirit or the letter of this legislation is acting against its own fiduciary interests and, therefore, violating its corporate duty to shareholders.
We call on congressional leadership, both in the House and in the Senate, to deliver a Christmas present to parents and families, and pass H.R. 6816 before the end of this year.
An era of adult television has come to an and, according to a story in the Los Angeles Times , which reported that the Time-Warner owned, pay cable network HBO has spent the summer, quietly and without fanfare, removing its once-prodigious
library of erotic documentaries and entertainment programs from the network and the HBO streaming platforms, HBO Go and HBO Now.
Since the 1990s, HBO has produced and broadcast such series as the influential Real Sex , the Las Vegas brothel reality series Cathouse , and recurring instructional sex specials hosted by adult performer Katie Morgan.
But HBO has not produced new adult late night programs for several years, and now the network will no longer offer repeats or archived shows from its adult category either.
While HBO's new owner, the telecom giant AT&T, informed HBO employees earlier this year that it planned big changes for the network, the elimination of HBO's erotic fare, network execs told the Times , was not mandated by AT&T and in fact
began well before the telecom conglomerate took over. The reason that HBO is ditching their late night lineup, according to what one spokesperson told the Times , is simply that HBO viewers have lost interest, most likely due to the proliferation
of adult content online.
US moralists always want more. The Parents Television Council writes:
The Parents Television Council applauds HBO and its corporate parent, AT&T, for removing the pornographic content from its platform -- but urges AT&T to make the same move by removing X-rated pornographic content from DirecTV. PTC
President Tim Winter whinged:
AT&T's HBO made a wise decision to remove pornographic content, even citing that 'there wasn't strong demand for this kind of adult programming.' While that is a huge positive step forward, the same logic should also extend to AT&T-owned
DirecTV, which still offers hardcore pornographic content to subscribers.
How can a company that says it is built on responsibility continue to deliver and profit from pornography? How much does DirecTV porn really increase the earnings per share? Is this a reasonable tradeoff for a so-called responsible company?
Given that AT&T's CEO Randall Stephenson was the 36th National President of the Boy Scouts, it's hard to reconcile that role with the DirecTV pornographic lineup. Are the explicit pornographic titles on DirecTV about grandmothers, mothers,
or stepsisters what he wants his scouts to be thinking of?
Eighth Grade is a 2018 USA comedy by Bo Burnham.
Starring Elsie Fisher, Josh Hamilton and Emily Robinson.
An introverted teenage girl tries to survive the last week of her disastrous eighth grade year before leaving to start high school.
Eight Grade is a US film aimed at 8th graders but its 8th grade strong language has resulted in it being rated R by the MPAA. The R rating means that with graders cannot see the film at theatres unless accompanied by their parents.
The film makers from A24 Studio are not impressed by their target audience being disallowed so organised nationwide screenings where the R rating was not enforced (age restrictions are legally voluntary n the US). 50 no-rating-enforced screenings
were organised on August 8. The studio partnered with one theater in every state across America for the screenings.
But US moralist campaigners were not happy. The Parents Television Council called on the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to hold the A24 Studio accountable for those under 17s admitted without a parent. PTC President Tim Winter
Subjective declarations such as the one by A24 -- that some content is 'too important' to be labeled in accordance with the standards set forth by the MPAA and understood, trusted and relied upon by parents -- undermine and negate the entire
purpose of having the content rating system in the first place. In this instance, and based upon empirical data of this film's content, the Hollywood studio at issue here is grotesquely and irresponsibly usurping parental authority. Either the
standard means something or it means nothing. Those who are openly violating both the spirit and the letter of the age-based content ratings system for this publicity stunt should be held to account by the MPAA.