javabytes

flyingeph12

The Avis commercial is my personal favorite

flyingeph12

This thread notwithstanding, I also might have to check out this movie on an upcoming flight. The Wikipedia description actually makes it sound pretty interesting.

JetAway

Fact of Life: Kids have seen and know more than you think.

omaralt

i'm assuming most of yall dont have young kids that you fly with. If my 6 year old daughter was sitting next to somebody that was watching either graphic violence or graphic nudity/sex that would be inappropriate. it's not about "dont watch it if you dont want to", thats obviously not the issue here. it's about having young children subjected to it against their will. unless they add those blinder things where you cant watch the screen from an angle this is highly inappropriate IMO

omaralt

fact of life: no my 6 and 2 year olds have not seen oral sex being performed.

flyerCO

R rated movie aren't to be shown to under 17 without accompanying parent. Also the line between R and X/unrated (due to not wanting X) is a narrow one.

flyingeph12

Let's think about logistics and the probability of this actually being a problem for a minute. In a premium cabin, where the seating is at worst 2-2, this is unlikely to be a problem. Given that a young child in almost all cases will be flying with a parent, guardian, or older sibling, the chances of a young child sitting next to someone watching this type of movie is unlikely—unless the parent/guardian/sibling is the one watching the movie, in which case we have bigger issues.

Even if we assume that someone is watching this in economy (is HBO even available in economy? I don't know), the parent, guardian, or sibling can easily switch seats with the child who happens to be sitting next to a stranger watching an "inappropriate" movie.

In my personal opinion, it is not the airline's job—but that of the parent(s), guardian(s), or sibling(s)—to ensure a child does not view supposedly "inappropriate" material.

flyerCO

Was very funny. I'm just glad I only had adults around me. I have no issue with the material itself. I do have issue that it's not appropriate in an environment with young children.

FlagrantViola

We have all been subjected to things against our will that we'd prefer to avoid. That's part of the price of living in a free society.

omaralt

i'm talking about economy here, since most kids fly back there. As far as i know, there is no difference in the content between business and economy. i will sometimes fly alone with my two kids. i cant control my daughters head movements, especially on longer flights. this is public transport, to have things readily available that many/most parents find inappropriate for their young kids (i'm not talking teenagers here) is not a smart move. i can see somebody suing them when little sally comes home and asks daddy why "did that man kiss that woman in the no-no area"

so definitely not a smart move IMO

you're right. but when it's provided for by the airline it's different. we've all seen the trashy dressed woman at wal mart... but that's not in wal marts control now is it? we've seen the homeless guy pleasuring himself in the back alley, but was that provided by the local hipster coffee shop??

txpenny

I wonder if this thread will get merged into a to fly or not to fly with children master thread. Is there one? We have numerous threads on seat swapping/poaching where a big justification is children, numerous threads on behavior of children at airports and clubs (more appropriately, lack of supervision by parent). Now we're getting a "kids might see a booby thread".

txpenny

Where do you get your coffee? I've never seen that.

flyingeph12

And I would hazard to say that such a person suing would be wasting a lot of money.

But for argument's sake, let's assume that we have a parent traveling with two young kids. The only plane this would be a problem on, I think, would be an A330, where the seating is 2-4-2 (on every other plane there are blocks of 3 seats where no one would have to sit next to a stranger). Even then, if I were concerned about my kids sitting next to someone watching an "inappropriate" movie, I'd be the one sitting next to the stranger. Again, I just don't think realistically, in the vast majority of cases, kids looking around and seeing inappropriate material on other passengers' screens is a problem. And if this actually does happen--i.e., a kid is actually curious enough to be peeking at other people's screens—then that kid has likely seen a lot more than some silent pictures on a 9-in PTV screen.

On the whole, I think it's a little beyond the pale to say that AA must censor its content for everyone because kids might be exposed to "inappropriate" material by peeking at other people's screens.

flyingeph12

Define "provided."

I might argue that AA is at best indirectly responsible and cannot be held liable in the same way that internet service providers and intermediaries like YouTube are not liable for the content that people (in this case passengers) choose to consume.