Major Lawsuit Involving Smoking In PG & PG-13 Movies Has Surprising Turnout
Parents understandably don't want their children subjected things that can become addicting, like [...]
Parents understandably don't want their children subjected things that can become addicting, like drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes if they can help it, but in the real world, you can't always control that. In the realm of movies though, you can control it by just simply not showing up to the theater. That is the central argument that won a recent lawsuit in Hollywood's favor.
Timothy Forsyth and others filed a lawsuit against the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theatre Owners, which claimed that the use of tobacco imagery in films rated G, PG, or PG-13, caused up to 200,000 children a year to begin smoking. He also claimed that 64,000 died because of their addiction (via THR).
Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the suit on Thursday, citing that ratings are based on opinion and that the rating board can't be held responsible for something so subjective.
"The flaw in Forsyth's reasoning, however, is that while some certification trademarks undoubtedly are merely representations of the characteristics of products and therefore arguably only commercial speech outside the purview of anti-SLAPP and entitled to only limited First Amendment protections, CARA's marks serve a different purpose and arise in a different context," Seeborg writes. "Indeed, the certification statements filed with the [Patent & Trademark Office] when each of the marks was registered plainly explain that CARA is merely 'certifying' that 'in its opinion' the particular film warrants a particular level of parental caution. Furthermore, the underlying 'product' — films — are not mere commercial products, but are expressive works implicating anti-SLAPP concerns and plainly entitled to full First Amendment protection."
Seeborg found flaws within Forsyth's argument that anything under an R rating must be completely devoid of tobacco or any other objectionable content. The various ratings already communicate that caution is necessary.
"Forsyth insists that a rating less stringent than R is a representation that 'the film is suitable for children under seventeen unaccompanied by a parent or guardian,' " continues the judge. "The ratings plainly make no such representations. Rather, the PG and PG-13 ratings caution parents that material in such movies may be inappropriate for children. More fundamentally, the ratings reflect the consensus opinion of CARA board members. As such, neither intentional nor negligent misrepresentation claims are tenable as pleaded."
The plaintiff's attempted to justify their stance in regards to alchaol, violence, and bullying, specifically that if it was proved that exposure to those images did increase those traits in young kids, they would also expect the ratings to take that into account. That did not sway the judge's decision.
