I'm reasonably certain (knowing the on air personalities involved) that the facts of the story got left in the dust fairly early on, and the on air conversation probably revolved around teens and the 'R' rated movies that they "Shouldn't be allowed to watch".
The fact remains that the theater in question excluded a young couple from bringing a baby into the movie, and does routinely exclude all children under the age of 6 from 'R' rated films at night. I'm certain that the majority of the clientèle thanks them for this, too.
...but not because of their "concern for the children" as these poor misguided souls are:
...All of which amounts to junk science and unsupported theory, and not much else. They've never proved positive linkage between viewing violence on screen and exhibiting violence as a person. My children both played 'first person shooters' while sitting on my knee in front of the computer. Neither of them shows any inclination towards taking a gun out and shooting people.
Yay!! Wish they would do that all over, especially here! IMO no children should be permitted admittance to any rated R movie period! I am sick and tired of going to an R rated movie and dealing with kids of all ages. Forget the yip yap, giggling and the up and down, it is just disgusting and pathetic that their are "parents" that would expose their children to certain movies. And people wonder why kids are now so desensitized and screwed up.
Parenting is the missing link. Most people, Sgt. Sam most prominently, don't know anything about parenting. (Ask Sam's wife if you don't believe me. I doubt he ever changed a diaper. Typical mother/father relationship of his generation? Mother says "Wait till your father gets home!" as a last ditch effort to maintain control) It hasn't got anything to do with control, and everything to do with setting limits, interpreting experience (what 'education' really should mean) and guiding the child to the right behavior. If you have a teenager that doesn't already know the basics (like, "it's not OK to shoot people") it's already too late.
If I want to take my children to an R rated film, that would be my business. I'm sure that the other theaters in the area are glad of the business turned away from "Movies 8".
OTOH, if I want to enjoy a film without distractions, it's good to know a theater that enforces rules concerning them, whether the problem is talking teenagers or crying babies. Too many theaters won't do anything about it.
Alamo Drafthouse and the Galaxy are both pretty good about it.
Which backs up the "junk science and unsupported theory" statement. I put very little credit into current thought on addiction as well. People will say "I'm addicted to X" just to absolve themselves of responsibility for X behavior. Granted brainwave patterns change, I'll point right back to your statement concerning consciousness. The linkage is based on theory and junk science.
You children must have gotten a lot of love. Unfortunately, many children do not get the emotional reinforcement they need.
As far as the "positive" linkage goes, the TRUTH is that science doesn't yet understand consciousness, therefore, to say that there is no definitive linkage between violent media content and violent behavior is incorrect.
I do agree with a movie theater policy that bans young children after a certain time. I wish more people realized that media saturation is not a positive force on a child's psychological development.
There is more proof that evolution exists than there is for violence in media having the broad detrimental effects that it's being blamed for. Or that addiction is the bane that it's being portrayed as. It's rejected there and supported here. I just love unsupported emotional arguments.
OTOH, theaters are free to conduct business however they wish, or they should be. The unattended children will just go somewhere else, do something else, if the theaters are closed to them. Is that really where ya'll want this to go?
What you are talking about isn't addiction. The junk science types have lumped it in with addiction because it gets more play there.
When I talk about addiction, I'm talking about the chemical "habits" that establish cognitive circuits. Ever wonder why people can be addicted to gambling, or sex, video games or consumer spending while no "drug" is being used? What we casually call "addiction" is actually a process by which our neurons form behavior circuits. In other words, addiction helps the brain form behavior habits. This is why so much in our society can be "addictive". Our brains supply "reward" chemicals to correlate chemical experiences. Its these chemicals and how they define consciousness that science doesn't understand. Science does know more about consciousness than you average conscious or semi-conscious American. Let's face it, people are just chemical robots anyway...
Work for a few years on a several pack a day cigarette 'habit' and then try and quit. You'll see what a real chemical addiction is like. For that matter, try eliminating caffeine from your diet for a few days (even more dramatic and doesn't require forming new 'habits') when the lethargy kicks in and the headaches start, remember what it was like to do without that console game for a few days. Pales in comparison, doesn't it? That's because it's not really a chemical addiction.
And let's correlate this properly. You're argument proposes that people can become habituated to doing violence themselves because they watch it on TV. I've watched Looney Toones all my life and I've never once been even tempted to drop an anvil on someones head. The argument is fallacious. It's only because it's 'for the children' that it continues to play.
I submit that 'for the children' we should open theaters to teenagers who are wandering the streets bored looking for trouble. Play whatever movies that will keep their butts in seats and let them watch all night for free (I can hear theater owners heads exploding as I type this) At least they aren't out experimenting with drugs or joining gangs or whatever else they could be out doing while we are 'protecting them' from the violence on the screen...
None of this is what the original article was about anyway. The children that the theater is excluding are under 6. They are trying to cut down on 'crying baby' issues, not protect the children from becoming habituated to violence.