films for viewing by children and adolescents. A report evaluating the rating system was issued jointly by the Broadcasting and Film Commission of the National Council of Churches and the National Catholic Office for Motion Pictures after the system had been in operation for approximately 18 months. The report notes several areas of concern, including the validity of the ratings, the extent of public knowledge of the system, advertising practices, and enforcement of the system, especially at the box office. The Commission had already initiated studies into several of these areas of concern (Abelson, et al., 1970; Randall, 1970).

The rating system utilizes four categories: G indicates that the film is suitable for general audiences, including children of all ages; GP indicates that all ages are admitted to the film but parental guidance is suggested; R indicates that patrons under 17 years of age must be accompanied by a parent or guardian; and X indicates that no patron under 17 years of age will be admitted to the film.

A national survey carried out approximately 15 months after the initiation of the movie rating system (Abelson, et al., 1970) found that 75% of all adults over 21 had heard about this system of rating. Among adults under 40, nearly nine in ten claim to have heard of it. About two-thirds of the families who have children at home and who have heard about the system report using the rating system to select movies for their children.

The regulations of the rating system require that all films produced or distributed by the members of the Motion Picture Association of America, including most of the large American production and distribution companies, be submitted to the MPAA Code and Rating Administration. From November 1968 to May 1970, the Code and Rating Administration had reviewed and rated a total of 655 films (Valenti, 1970). These films included 29% with a G rating, 40% with a GP rating, 26% with an R rating, and 6% with an X rating. These figures do not include self-rated X films. X is the only rating which may be applied by film proprietors to films produced by themselves or by nonmember companies which are not submitted to the MPAA for rating. Approximately 60% of the films rated so far have been released by member companies and approximately 40% by nonmember companies who have, nevertheless, submitted their films for rating. Randall (1970) reports that during the first 10 months of the rating system's operation 460 new feature films were listed in the trade press; 79% of these were rated by the MPAA and 21% were not rated. Randall (1970) estimates that approximately 93% of the exhibitions of feature films in the U. S. since the rating system has gone into effect have been rated by MPAA. Most of the unrated films apparently were minor films which had limited distribution and short runs. Sampson (1970) notes that there are two principal types of films which are not a part of the "general release" film industry. These are the so-called exploitation or "skin flick" films and the super-exploitation or sex art films, each of which has a special limited distribution system. The traffic and distribution section of the Commission Report deals with these categories in more detail.

Randall (1970) examined the percentages of rated films accounted for by exhibitions in 20 metropolitan areas and 20 smaller cities throughout the country during four sample periods in 1969. In the metropolitan areas rated films accounted for 93% of all exhibitions. These figures do not include self-rated X films; if these are included the percentates are 96% and 97%, respectively. The per

centages of exhibitions in these cities accounted for by each rating category during the sample periods are: G, 38%; GP, 41%; R, 20%; and X, less than 2%.

Code approval is required for all advertising and publicity for rated films and such advertising is required to bear the rating symbol. Randall (1970) also examined newspaper advertisements for theater exhibitions in the same 40 cities in the same sample periods. He found that of 16,831 advertisements 34% (not including self-rated X films) did not carry the rating symbols. Of those ads displaying ratings, two percent were in error, showing the wrong symbol. Randall also found that for ads carrying the rating, defects of size, placement, or readability rendered the symbol useless in 13% of the cases. Combined defects (missing rating, incorrect rating, visually defective rating) were apparent in 44% of all advertisements studied. Randall also gathered information regarding the display of rating symbols at theaters by observing 40 theaters in the metropolitan New York area during the summer of 1969. The rating and usually the age limits of admittance were displayed in the box office in 28 of these theaters. In four of the theaters the box office sign stated the age limit only. A large poster-sized sign explaining all of the ratings and the rating system was in evidence at nearly two-thirds of the theaters. Four theaters displayed the rating on the marquee, and one theater displayed an "adults only" sign on the marquee.

The MPAA maintains a special staff for the purpose of reviewing films for rating. The Code and Rating Administration is reputed to be specially cognizant of public opinion, and the rating system is sufficiently flexible to respond to public opinion. Several films have been recalled for a second consideration by the Code and Rating Administration after public outcry had indicated a lack of acceptance of the rating given the movie.

Randall (1970) conducted two separate inquiries comparing the MPAA ratings with outside opinions concerning the suitability for various audiences. In the first study, Randall obtained evaluations of the MPAA ratings given to 31 feature films from 260 newspaper movie editors in 46 states and the District of Columbia. Responses combined for the 31 films indicate that 70% of the evaluations agreed that the MPAA rating was the most appropriate one, in 17% it was felt that the MPAA rating was too restrictive, and in 12% that the MPAA rating was too permissive. In the second study, Randall compared the ratings given by the MPAA to all films rated during the first nine months of the rating system with those given to the same films by eight other agencies: The Dallas Motion Picture Classification Board; The Milwaukee Motion Picture Commission; The British Board of Film Censors; Film Reports (formerly the Green Sheet, a publication of the Film Board of National Organizations); Parents' Magazine; the National Catholic Office for Motion Pictures; and the Southern California Motion Picture Council. The classification categories of the several agencies are not strictly comparable, of course. Nevertheless, Randall found that the ratings given by these agencies to films already rated by the MPAA were consistent with the MPAA rating in 74% of the cases. Of the inconsistent ratings, 24% were more restrictive than MPAA ratings, and two percent were more permissive.

The eight agencies whose ratings were compared with those of the MPAA represent a variety of interests ranging from religious through organized-parental to public-governmental. The degree of inconsistency between the MPAA ratings

and those of the independent agencies differed from agency to agency. The greatest number of discrepancies in ratings was found between the MPAA ratings and the ratings of the National Catholic Office on Motion Pictures. Nearly one-third of the ratings by this organization were inconsistent with those of the MPAA. The greatest degree of consistency was found in comparing the MPAA ratings with those of two municipal agencies which by nature should be more representative of the wide range of viewpoints in society. For example, only 13% of the Dallas Board's ratings were inconsistent with those of the MPAA and in one-quarter of the latter inconsistencies the MPAA was the more restrictive.

Randall (1970) felt that enforcement of the age restrictions on admission was the weakest link in the rating procedure. His conclusion is based on both observations of admission practices and interviews with theater personnel. A trained observer directly observed the admission practices for R and X films at 40 theaters in the metropolitan New York area during July and August 1969. Observations were made on all evenings of the week covering the time range from 5:15 to 11:20 p.m. and on Sunday afternoons from 2:00 to 3:40 p.m., although most of the observing was done between 7:00 and 9:00 p.m. Thirty-one of the theaters were showing R films, two were showing films rated X by the MPAA Code and Rating Office, and seven were showing self-rated X films. The observer was stationed outside the theaters where he could observe both the ticket-selling office and the doorman. He made judgments regarding the customers' ages and recorded the theater's response to each prospective customer whose age in his judgment was questionable. Four categories of questionable age were recorded: clearly under age; probably under age; marginal; and probably over minimum age. Three types of action by the theater were recorded: admitted without questioning; admitted after questioning; and not admitted after questioning.

Two hundred sixty-nine prospective customers were observed about whom the observer felt it was questionable whether they met minimum age requirements. Thirty-six of these were classified as clearly or probably under age, 107 as marginal, and 126 as probably over the minimum age. Of the thirty-six who were clearly or probably under age, half were admitted without questioning, and approximately a quarter were not admitted after questioning. Of the 107 who were judged marginal in age, nearly three-quarters were admitted without questioning, and about half of those who were questioned were admitted. Of the 126 who were judged to be probably over the minimum age, over 90% were admitted without questioning and all but one of the remaining 10% were admitted after questioning.

Enforcement of age limits was more rigorous for the X rated films than for the R rated films. All of the prospective patrons who were clearly under age were not admitted to the X films and one-sixth of those who appeared marginal in age were not admitted. The degree of enforcement of the age restrictions varied greatly, although at several theaters there was evidence of determined enforcement of the ratings.

Ticket sellers, doormen, and some managers were interviewed. Understanding of the rating system and the meaning of individual ratings are generally imperfect and often garbled on the part of ticket sellers and doormen. This is less often the case with respect to theater managers. The ticket sellers and doormen

appeared to be uninterested, or inhibited, in the enforcement. of age restrictions, and also appeared to be poorly instructed by the management regarding the rating system and enforcement policy. In general, the weakness of the enforcement of age restrictions on admission seems to lie in the motivation of the ticket sellers and doormen.

Drive-in theaters present special problems in enforcement of age restrictions on admittance, since the process of checking ages is so difficult in such theaters. In addition, the delays occasioned by the cumbersome checking process causes waiting cars to back up on the highway at times and creates a potential hazard.

Randall (1970) indirectly observed a high level of "self-enforcement" of the age restrictions on admission to R and X rated movies - that is, underage persons did not usually attempt to enter the theaters. Accurate counts of all patrons were kept at 34 theaters; slightly over 3,100 patrons were observed. Only .8% fell into the "clearly under" category, .4% into the "probably under" category, 3.5% were in the “marginal” category, and 4.1% in the "probably over" category. Thus, few underage persons attempted to view these restricted movies.

Other research confirms some of Randall's (1970) observations of the enforcement of age restrictions. These studies have observed the patrons of "adult" movie theaters which show "skinflick" or "sexploitation" movies. These are outside of the MPAA system which deals with "general release" films. These "adult" movie houses apparently enforce their age restrictions very rigorously. There also appears to be a high degree of self-enforcement at these theaters since few underage patrons attempt to enter them. For example, Winick (1970a) observed 5,000 customers of adult movie theaters in nine different cities; only one or two persons who might have been under 18 years old were observed attempting to gain admission. And Nawy (1970) observed 2,791 customers at three adult theaters in San Francisco; very few potential customers appeared to be under 18 years old. Similar observations regarding enforcement of age restrictions by proprietors of adult book stores and self-enforcement by youth have been made by Massey (1970), Finkelstein (1970a), Nawy (1970), and Winick (1970a). In each case the proportion of possibly underage patrons observed entering the stores was less than one percent.

Randall (1970) reports that much of the motivation within the movie industry for the rating system derives from an interest in fending off possible governmental or other external censorship activities directed at movies. A similar motivation was found among the proprietors of adult bookstores and adult movie theaters (Massey, 1970; Finkelstein, 1970a; and Nawy, 1970).

IV. CITIZEN ACTION GROUPS

A. BACKGROUND

Citizen action groups formed to deal with the problem of pornography in their communities exist primarily in large cities rather than in small communities. This probably reflects the fact that explicit sexual materials are more likely to be available in large communities, and also that more opportunity exists in the large community for exposure without censure from a tightly organized peer structure. Two studies completed for the Commission indicate that citizen action

groups tend to attract as members socially and politically conservative individuals, those in the community who are more religiously and traditionally oriented, those who are older, and those who have had less formal education. The members of such groups tend to feel that they represent the sentiment of the entire community, even when they do not. Frequently they engage in activities that are more symbolic than utilitarian. Such groups can be a positive force in the community if they are truly representative of that community and if their goals are positive. Otherwise they can be damaging to the community, if, as sometimes is the case, they harass and intimidate merchants, thereby suppressing the distribution of legitimate materials in the community, or if they try to interfere with the decisions of professionals, such as librarians and school personnel, regarding suitable materials for the community and the schools. The Commission feels that citizen action groups should always emphasize positive goals, such as promoting good reading materials for young people and cooperating in community efforts to implement sex education programs involving parents, school, religious, and medical personnel. These groups can most effectively achieve the goal of limiting interest in explicit sexual materials by contributing to community efforts to educate individuals about the socially approved, positive, and normal aspects of their sexuality.

The Commission staff conducted a national survey of prosecuting attorneys in the summer of 1969 (Wilson, Horowitz, & Friedman, 1970). A questionnaire was sent to 426 District Attorneys in a stratified random sample throughout the United States and to 306 Municipal Attorneys in the county seats of those counties with over 20,000 population in the sample. Two-thirds of the prosecuting attorneys returned the questionnaire.

The first question asked these prosecuting attorneys was, "Are the volume of traffic and pattern of distribution in obscene and pornographic materials within your jurisdiction sufficient to constitute a matter of serious concern in your community?" The weighted response to this question indicates that fewer than one-third (27%) of the District Attorneys in the nation would answer affirmatively. The reason for this perhaps surprising result is to be found in another result of the survey: obscenity and pornography are much more likely to be reported as constituting a matter of serious concern in the community by district attorneys from more heavily populated counties than by district attorneys from counties with small populations. The survey indicates that whereas 72% (96 of 132) of the district attorneys from counties with populations over 100,000 would say, "Yes, it is a matter of serious concern," only 23% (40 out of 163) of district attorneys from counties with populations less than 100,000 would so reply.

What it is about the size of the community that makes such a tremendous difference in whether or not the volume of traffic and patterns of distribution of obscene and pornographic materials constitute a matter of serious concern is only speculative. It is probable that a certain density of population is required for a sufficiently large number of customers for erotic materials to exist before the distribution of these materials becomes profitable. It is also probable that informal sanction systems that operate successfully in smaller communities break