A:     Where do you think the paternalistic role of the state begins and ends? I mean, do you think it's the state's business to place legal prohibitions on who can or cannot watch a particular film? Shouldn't that be the prerogative of the parents of the child walking into a cinema?

S:     I suppose an argument could be made for that, but there are also some very real and violent consequences of allowing young children to be exposed to a certain kind of cinema-- glorified violence and all that. It's tricky. And so I do understand the need for placing restrictions and ratings on certain films. Parents can't be there all the time, policing the outsides of cinemas. Kids lie to get away with things. You and I both know that.

A:     It's just such a half measure to save children from premature exposure to the real world, especially when it's all around them. You know what governments should be placing age restrictions on? Newspapers. News channels. Some of the real life stories in there can shatter anyone's faith in humanity. There is so much evil in the world that we cannot protect our children from and so much evil we do nothing to avoid. Putting an age restriction on an action movie is ironic to the core.