The most provident issues of the MPAA comes from its business propaganda which severs ties from public interest. The MPAA force inspires creative individuals into predefined digital confinements in order to line greedy pockets with the donations of those whose political agendas they fulfill. All of which is supposedly in the name of protecting the minds of children. The rating system simply isn’t about content, rather it’s about economic and social power. If the MPAA was truly interested in protecting the innocents of America, they wouldn’t allow children to see R-rated movies even with the accompaniment of an adult. In fact, a small case study by USA Today showed that 12.5% of kids younger than ten have seen R-rated films in theaters and 22.6% viewing them at home. Another study showed that 80% …show more content…
The reason the current subjectivity fails as a system is because it never changes out the MPAA for a new group of members. Ratings of films should be governed by a small board of diverse members that changes frequently similarly to the president 's cabinet. The president of the MPAA should be voted on by regular citizens residing in the Los Angeles area. MPAA presidents can keep their role until they’re fired by public demand or resign. This will ensure that film rating as a whole will always have a fresh perspective. One argument against this notion is that it makes the MPAA a red state or blue state issue and politicizes film ratings. However, the committee has to be appointed by some individual and it’s better off in the hands of citizens than greedy corporations that care more about profit than films. Also, most parents don’t want their young children to see nudity or excessive violence in films. This is a non-political position and is nearly universal. Lastly, like the Supreme Court, each rating board members voting history would be a matter of public record so they can be held accountable by citizens for the decisions they make and shamed in resigning for the