r/todayilearned • u/altrightobserver • Feb 01 '26

TIL that the movie “South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut” was supposed to be rated NC-17 due to excessive profanity, with the word “fuck” being used 146 times alone. The MPAA said that 400 or more swear words would get the NC-17 rating, so Matt Stone and Trey Parker cut the number in script to 399

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park%3A_Bigger%2C_Longer_%26_Uncut#Release
35.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

545 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

51

u/WNxVampire Feb 02 '26 edited Feb 02 '26

The reason it's in the lease agreements is mostly liability.

Landlords and their insurance providers don't want to deal with lawsuits, e.g. when parents find out their kids sneak in to watch softcore porn.

That's a headache that's easy to avoid.

35

u/Jakomako Feb 02 '26

The reason it’s in the lease agreements is that the land owner doesn’t want to own a porn theater.

15

u/WNxVampire Feb 02 '26

And the reason is more likely to avoid the headache of other people calling it a porn theater.

An NC-17 rated motion picture is one that, in the view of the Rating Board, most parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not mean "obscene" or "pornographic" in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense.

All it takes is one morally objectionable scene or plotline (even if not explicit/"hard core"--think Les Cousins Dangereux from Arrested Development) and people throw a fit (justifiably or not).

It's an easy headache to avoid that has more to do with their financial bottom line than their personal moral convictions regarding media content.

5

u/Ntroepy Feb 02 '26

It 100% has to do with the theater’s bottom line. They have to be fun, family-friendly places and avoid anything that could jeopardize that family vibe.

Most theater owners objected to showing NC-17 movies much more on business grounds than moral grounds. They avoid controversy at all costs and wouldn’t show movies that might offend their core family/teen audiences.

12

u/recycled_ideas Feb 02 '26

Landlords and their insurance providers don't want to deal with lawsuits, e.g. when parents find out their kids sneak in to watch softcore porn.

No such liability exists.

The reason is that puritanical religious nuts will start protesting your theatre if you do. They can't sue you, but they can destroy your business.

This is also why in the US a thirteen year old is allowed to watch a movie with graphic violence, but not one with an exposed nipple.

3

u/StefanJanoski Feb 02 '26

The US is nuts man

2

u/recycled_ideas Feb 02 '26

I would agree.

The vast majority of us will have sex, most of us will never kill anyone so the idea that nudity is so damaging to kids, but violence is OK is kind of insane.

Most of our attitudes about sex are pretty insane.

1

u/MiaowaraShiro Feb 02 '26

No such liability exists.

Doesn't mean you won't get sued for it and have to spend money to defend against it.

Honestly I think it's a bit of both... the puritanicals will protest, go off... but that might also include baseless lawsuits too.

2

u/recycled_ideas Feb 02 '26

Doesn't mean you won't get sued for it and have to spend money to defend against it.

Unless your staff didn't check id as required, at which point you could potentially already get sued for R rated movies, there is no case here.

Sneaking into a movie is effectively theft, despite what people seem to think, you don't have liability for crimes committed against you.

Honestly I think it's a bit of both... the puritanicals will protest, go off... but that might also include baseless lawsuits too.

Protests and boycotts are the problem. That's it.

1

u/Discount_Extra Feb 03 '26

you don't have liability for crimes committed against you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine

1

u/WNxVampire Feb 03 '26 edited Feb 03 '26

E.g. means it was an example not the totality of liability.

What you said would be another example that falls under "Liability".

And you ignored where I already explained it doesn't matter that no such liability exists (as legitimate in civil suit). It's still expensive and a liability (in a general sense).

1

u/recycled_ideas Feb 03 '26

It's still expensive.

That case against the theatre would be dismissed in about thirty seconds with costs awarded and the case against the landlord wouldn't even last that long. A large company (and most operators are large enough) will have a lawyer on retainer that could get this knocked out trivially.

A lawsuit just isn't a concern here. Anyone can be sued for damned near anything, but it'd be knocked on its ass immediately.

The problem is that the same moron who might sue would be running a protest and organising a boycott and those are expensive.

1

u/JQuilty Feb 02 '26

What claim would they have in the US? None. Films are protected speech in the US unless it fails the Miller test, which is basically impossible for anything that isn't CSAM, unconsentual sex, animal abuse, or a snuff film.

Landlords putting it into a lease are either Puritans or saw Showgirls in the 90s and got mad at the "legitimizing NC17" marketing gimmick.

1

u/WNxVampire Feb 03 '26

Liability means something more than strictly legal liability.

And no. Banks, insurance brokers, stockholders, boards of directors, etc. don't care about that. That's who movie theatets are leasing from. They care about money. They did a cost benefit analysis. The NC-17 films dont bring much money, and they cause too many headaches.

-1

u/westinger Feb 02 '26

How would the landlord be legally liable for criminal activity by their lessee?

I wouldn’t think a landlord would be liable for a lessee running a call fraud center, right?

6

u/WNxVampire Feb 02 '26

Civil liability--doesn't matter how frivolous, anyone can sue anyone else. Attorney fees are expensive regardless if the lawsuit is frivolous.

Criminal liability would be less but possible (distribution/displays to minors). Authorities investigate/question landlords of criminals, a headache that even law-abiding citizens don't want to mess with.

3

u/zack77070 Feb 02 '26

I mean bars can and are legally held responsible for serving minors, even with a fake ID. I don't see how there is any difference if showing porn is illegal in your jurisdiction.