Anyone who submitted a movie script that ambiguous would be thrown off a cliff without a stunt double. Valenti's MPAA and the studios seem to feel that their business is impervious to government assault because of the free speech provisions of the First Amendment - although they apparently believe an additional insurance policy is necessary in the form of huge political contributions to their friends in the Democratic Party. They may be wrong. The courts have ruled that when it comes to children, some restrictions can be established. Tobacco companies can't advertise near schools.
Child pornography is illegal.
It is not far-fetched to argue that violence and sex aimed at children could be regulated by the government, just as tobacco advertising aimed at kids is regulated, yet still pass constitutional muster. The industry says some R-rated movies are appropriate for older teens and can be marketed to them. Any parent can testify that kids need little help developing a rationale for doing something they probably shouldn't be doing. In fact, it's parents who need help in holding the line against the kind of sleaze that Hollywood loves to produce and that teens love to tell their friends they've seen. Vague promises from studio officials won't do the job.