- Journal Archives
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Below is the Note abstract for Dr. Strange-rating or: How I Learned that the Motion Picture Association of America’s Film Rating System Constitutes False Advertising, coming to you soon in Volume 12, No. 1 of the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), a trade association whose members include film production studios, distributors, and theater chains, administers the most popular system for rating the content contained in the vast majority of publicly exhibited motion pictures in the United States. The stated goal of the rating scheme is to caution parents of any objectionable content that a film contains in order to allow them to make informed decisions about which films they will allow their children to see. While the rating scheme has undergone several changes since its establishment to further its stated goal, a fundamental conflict of interest exists because the MPAA has the dual responsibilities of rating films that are often produced by its own members and simultaneously advancing those members’ commercial interests within the film industry. Despite the criticism that the MPAA’s rating system has received, legislatures and courts have largely refrained from taking action to correct its problems due to the United States’ historical ambivalence toward government-imposed censorship.
This Note examines the United States’ state and federal governments’ past and current attitudes toward censorship of motion pictures. Then, it analyzes the MPAA rating scheme’s flawed attempt at creating an independent means of protecting children from potential infliction of psychological harm from films. Finally, this Note demonstrates that the rating scheme constitutes false advertising and advocates that the Federal Trade Commission, under its congressional mandate to prevent such advertising practices, should order the MPAA to prepare and make available to the public an objective evaluation of each newly rated film’s objectionable content in a manner that is both more detailed and more cognizant of the context in which the objectionable content appears.
Note Author: Jason Albosta
Recent Blog Posts
- The Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law Jumps Thirty-One Spots to Highest Ranking Ever
- Hiding Behind the Computer Screen: James Woods Files Defamation Lawsuit Against a Twitter User
- Let’s Enjoy Fantasy Football…While We Can
- Guest Post: Tweeting Away Patient Privacy
- Naturally Occurring or Mind-made?
- Does China’s 2022 Winter Olympics Song Intentionally Plagiarized ‘Frozen’s’ ‘Let It Go’?
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution