That was the whole point that I was trying to make all along. I have no problem with letting anyone watch or listen to these things, because some of these things I also like myself. The problem is the suitability for children. I have no intention of banning any recording artists; I just want stricter regulation for designating which recording artists are appropriate for which audiences, and content ratings act as guidelines, similar to movie and video game ratings.
I also have to wonder: if nudity is featured in an R-rated movie, then why can't it be featured in an M-rated game? (Not that I'd ever play such games, but still.) Furthermore, why does the NC-17 movie rating still exist when it's never seen in theaters? I'd say that they should start showing NC-17-rated films in theaters and allowing AO-rated games to be sold in stores; consumers will require an I.D. in order to gain access to these movies and video games.
In Australia, the highest rating that a video game can get is MA15+, as there is no R18+ rating for video games there like there is for movies, and any video game that exceeds MA15+ level is refused classification and effectively banned; games that exceed MA15+ level are allowed the option of being edited in order to gain the lesser MA15+ rating. They also rate music and novels for their content, and while it is somewhat more specific than just seeing a "Parental Advisory" sticker in the United States, it is still somewhat vague, since the ratings are not quite as specific and clear as ratings for movies, video games, and television.
In the case of music, Australia only rates explicit music, which has three levels: 1-moderate impact, 2-strong impact, and 3-high impact. If an album exceeds Level 3 impact, it is not to be sold to the public.
In the case of literature, the ratings that Australia uses are Unrestricted, Unrestricted Mature, Restricted Category 1, and Restricted Category 2; if a novel exceeds Restricted Category 2, it is refused classification and effectively banned.
Australia has been shown on occasion to ban a small number of video games, movies, novels, and music albums over the years for exceeding the maximum content ratings, though they are nowhere near as strict as they are in China and Saudi Arabia, since their censorship standards are outrageous, and have banned many more movies, video games, and music albums (as well as music videos) than Australia has, and I have no intention of adopting standards that are as outrageous as those of China and Saudi Arabia.
If you look at the content ratings for movies and video games in the United States, you'll notice that on the back of the box, you'll see content descriptors, which basically describe the content in a short answer form. These content descriptors are short, but specific. The more detailed description is shown at the websites of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, respectively.
I also think that movies rated PG-13 and games rated Teen tend to have widely varying levels of intensity, ranging from slightly higher than PG/E10+ to slightly lower than R/M. In order to eliminate the ambiguity, I would suggest implementing a "PG-16" movie rating and a "Teenagers 16+" video game rating, which would imply that the film is very intense, and not recommended for children, but is still not severe enough to be legally restricted. In addition, the "TV-14" television content rating should be replaced with "TV-12" and "TV-16" ratings.
With all of that said, I think that movie theaters should start showing NC-17-rated movies (not that I'd ever watch them, but still), and stores should start selling AO-rated games (not that I'd ever play them, but still). No movie, video game, novel, or music album should ever be banned, but I still think that we need stricter regulation to designate appropriate audiences for these things.
Reply With Quote