Kids should be restricted because kids these days are stupid, they would do things that they see from the movies. Most of the time kids shoot up schools for no reason, they either was bullied when they were young or they saw it on television. One thing that parents should do is raise your child better and you will know that will never do anything that you wouldn't want them to do.
If an adult, parent, or guardian decides that a minor is allowed to watch a certain video rated NC-17, then there is no problem. However, in the absence of a consenting adult, the movie rental provider must enforce the viewing age, by refusing to rent videos with parental discretion warnings. Perhaps rental establishments should require patrons to enter a birth date and/or present identification when renting a video, much like the law requires cigarette retailers.
NC-17 is an even higher rating then R. That means that it is restricted for anyone under 17. Therefore there is no reason someone under that age should be able to rent or purchase these films. If that person's parents rent it for them, then it's on the parent, but the child should not be able to.
While the age restriction is not a law, such as those for alcohol or tobacco, there is a board that decides that the content is not suitable for those under the age of 17. The standards used by the board may change over time, but the standards represent what is currently deemed acceptable for the age group.
Movies are given ratings for a reason. As a parent, I look to the rating system as a guide for overseeing what content my children observe via movies. When a movie is rated G, for instance, I am comfortable with all members of my family viewing the film. If the movie has a more adult rating, then I research the content before letting my children watch it. So I would expect that if my fifteen-year-old son walks into a movie store, the clerk would ask for identification, should my son try to purchase an NC-17 title. There is simply no purpose of a rating system if no attempt will be made to respect and reinforce the moral views of parents.
The same reason why the R rating exists so that children can't watch movies without adult supervision, the NC-17 rating exists as an even stronger safeguard for their protection. If this rating doesn't carry the necessity of proof of age in order to rent or buy it why even have the rating in place?
If the parents were to deem that their child was mature enough for the material, the parent could purchase the material for them. NC-17 movies are full of crude language, violence, sexual content, and extremely mature jokes. Parents should be able to be secure in the belief that these subjects would be addressed under their advice, with education and understanding. Parents can't decide how the child takes in the material, but they at least need to be the authority to decide if they are ready for it.
The MPAA board reviews all movies based upon a set of criteria and issues their recommendations concerning the proper age of viewers of the material. Psychologists have shown that exposure to certain material at a certain age can have detrimental effects. Until adulthood, a majority of people have not yet developed a full understanding of certain actions and their consequences. Therefore, access to material depicting such actions should be restricted to adults.
NC-17 movies generally deal with a subject that is best viewed by those audiences who are very mature. Generally movies with the NC-17 rating will depict scenes of extreme violence or explicit sexual content. Many feel that this would be inappropriate viewing by those who have yet to reach the age of seventeen years of age.
I believe movies are categorized the way they are because it's general consent that some contents are inappropriate for certain age groups. If a 15 year old is allowed to watch R rated movies, they will be watching things and learning things that are inappropriate for their age. The restrictions should be maintained even while purchasing products other wise the point of categorizing movies is lost. By putting restrictions they can watch it under parental guidance if their parents think their child is mature enough to watch adult content.
They still have a lot of growing and learning to do and I think a book or conversation with an educator can help control urges causing consequences.
Movies are given an NC-17 rating when the content within is too graphic or adult in nature for a child to view. As with any rating, there are guidelines. I believe these guidelines to be fair and ethical. I feel that most parents would agree that they would not want their children watching a movie that closely approaches the pornographic line.
The NC-17 rating definitely should be strictly enforced. This is the level between an R-rating and an X-rating, and people under 17 shouldn't be allowed to see this stuff until they are more mature than a typical 17 year old. The graphic nature of movies in this ratings category, be it violence or sex, really shouldn't be seen by teenagers. It is often glorified and completely unrealistic, but young people may not be able to distinguish this.
No matter how 'savvy' kids are today, no matter how much access the internet gives them to all manner of unsavory things, we can't just open the floodgates and let them have unfettered access to 'adult' films. The argument that 'they will just find some way to see it anyway' is just a way of abdicating responsibility, like so many parents have already done.
The NC-17 distinction was created to cover a section of movies that had themes and content inappropriate for children. These films should be kept out of the hands of children as they would provide a negative influence if not seen under the guidance of a parent. There is no reason why a child under the age of 17 should be able to purchase or rent these titles. If their parents are okay with them watching the film, then the parent should be the one to purchase or rent it. Otherwise restrictions should apply to the purchase or rental of NC-17 movies by children under the age of 17.
Movies are rated NC-17 due to excessive sexual content, violence or other materials deemed unsuitable for immature, under-aged children. Accordingly, they are prohibited from viewing these movies in a movie theatre. The exact same reasons apply to the films whether the movies are viewed in the privacy of one's home or in the theatre. If a parent thinks their child is mature enough to watch an NC-17 movie, they can purchase it for the child. Otherwise, a child should not be able to purchase or rent them.
My Dad allows me to watch movies that are rated r and NC-17. If it is okay with the parent/ guardian then no one else should have a say in the matter. If you don't want to allow your children to see movies like this then don't. Some parents have trust in their kids and allow it, and this decision should be up to them.
While I like the sound of the idea in theory, I can't see any way in practice that it would work, especially when most people buy or rent movies online. You can lie about your age, steal someone else's account, pirate the movie, etc. etc. The only way this can be any use is if someone walks into Blockbusters or something and tries to rent an NC-17 movie, which nowadays isn't tremendously likely to happen.
Nearly any film, of any rating, is available online for anyone to download, if they are willing and able to do so. Restricting NC-17 films for purchase or rental is a useless gesture toward morality, when this same customer can go online and find the movie for free. The rental company has just lost a customer, and the "impressionable" youth will see the film anyway.
If kids can just go watch them in the theatre with a parent and they and their parent like it, they should be able to buy and watch it for their parent or both of them. If their parent is sick or bed ridden they should be able to do something for their parent. It may be the last movie they ever see. Would any of you be able to deny them that?