I just posted to the "Is Porn Becoming Too Young" topic and started thinking about the way the feds here in the U.S. are putting heat on the adult industry.
Now, if a minor is found in the business all hell breaks loose. DVDs are recalled. Producers and male talent may be prosecuted. And the definition of child porn is huge . In essence all nudity before age 18 is illegal.
Well, a few months ago I was killing time at www.allmovie.com (a mainstream movie site I like more than IMDB). I was reading its info on "The Godfather" and went down to the credits to the actress who played Appolonia (Michael's first wife while he was on the lam in Sicily). Do you all remember the wedding night scene where she shyly removes her nightgown, exposing her breasts?
I followed the hot links and found that she was 16 when she made that scene. Now, assuming that the websites (there were more than one) weren't in error, is this not technically child porn? But I've never heard a word about it.
What do you all think?
P.S. I'm not advocating it be prosecuted as such, just why are these laws selectively enforced?
Well not all child nudity is illegal. I just saw a diaper commercial on TV featuring naked toddlers but clearly there wasn't anything sexual about it. In order for it to be considered child porn and illegal under the law, there has to be some lewd and lascivious exihibtion of genitilia and/or sexual activity involving minors.
Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat 3713 Posts 9/01
Posted - Jun 25 2005 : 5:38PM
If I remember correctly, the movie of Romeo and Juliet had a nude scene with teenage sex. The actress was under 18 at that time and she was also suppose to play a sexual encounter as a minor. Where would this fit under the current law? Shakespear is art at the very best.
Likewise, Blue Lagoon had a Brook Shield play an underage part. Is this child porn?
Nudity is not porn. Loads of actors and actresses are nude before they're 18. Kiera Knightly, Thora Birch were i believe. The UK is different though, and extremely unclear.
Ron, those types of movies aren't illegal since no real sexual activity occured - thus they are not considered child porn. But if Bush's moral gestapo headed by Attorney General Gonzales has its way, they will be.
You're right. And I wasn't clear. Here in the states I was under the impression that a mid-teen's bare breasts were a no-no. Especially in the context of the movie.
And there is a difference in the porn discussed here on this website (legally acceptable) and child porn (legally unacceptable), -- the last in response to Asmodeus.
Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat 3713 Posts 9/01
Posted - Jun 25 2005 : 7:13PM
The easiest would be to define child porn as pictures/photographs/videos/recordings depicting clearly visible explicit sexual encounters between one or more minors. Explicit sexual encounters can then be defined as clearly visible sexual penetration or contact between 2 or more persons with one of the persons under the age of 18 at the time of the sexual encounter. Sexual penetration is defined as a penis entering an orifice of another person. Sexual contact is the clear manipulation of the genitals between persons (of whom one is a minor) for the purpose of reaching or attempting to reach an orgasm.
By this definition, playing the role of a minor is not child pornography if the persons are above 18. Likewise, pictures/photography/videos/recordings of full nudity or contact between a minor and a non-minor if not of a sexual nature is not pornography. Such contacts can include a gynecological examination by a doctor, or any other such contact. Computer generated images or computer doctored images would NOT be included as child pornography. Also, pretend(or even real) sexual encounters if not visible or not explicit is NOT child pornography. Unless it is explicit to the extent that it is absolute certain that the sexual encounter occurred, it is not child pornography.
See it is so easy to define child pornography without ambiguity. The current definition would leave a lot of grey areas which is subject to open/ambiguous interpretation.
Oh yes it does! According to my mother even The Victoria Secret's catalog she accidently got in the mail is pornography. That catalog really bothers her for some reason. People these days. Nudity is EVIL!!!
Ron makes a pretty good point of defining child porn but as I stated earlier, simple images of nude children are not technically illegal. Thats why the works of David Hamilton and Jock Sturges continue to exist. The kids have to be posing in a clearly sexual and provocative manner or engaged in sexual activity for it to be considered child porn. They don't even have to be naked as the US Supreme Court ruled some time ago that images that focus on the clothed crotches of children and designed for sexual arousal in the viewer are also against the law. That was brought to the high court a few years ago when a perv used to go to gymnastic competitions and videotape underage girls inappropiately. The court ruled against him and his child porn conviction was upheld.
What if an image doesnt include any identifiable face? For instance, what if a model has a paperbag over her head? Who's word validates the imagery info on file, thus confirming who's body it is? I expect it will be, some 3rd party, private contracting entity, who simply pays the licensing fees, authorizing them jurisdiction to be official photo police, and who within ten years thereafter, will be indicted on pandering charges, relating to kidde porn.
They did try to ban Die Blechtrommel (The Tin Drum in the USA) as childporn in some American states, and in the UK somebody has just been convicted for possession of child porn and his David Hamilton collection was judged indecent, and in reponse WHSmith has removed one of Hamilton's books from their shelves...
If you took a picture of a dog showing it's cock and stuck a child's head on it you could get a child porn convictions as it would be a pseudo-photography.- an idecent picture of a child. If you put a blind man in charge of UK law you get some crazy results.
I remember seeing a Swedish movie, I think it was "My Life As A Dog" but I'm not positive, and there's a brief topless scene with a girl who was maybe 12 or so that made me a little squeamish because you could tell she was just starting to develop. Scenes like the one in "Romeo and Juliet" or "American Beauty" are different because the young girls are pretty much fully developed but in this movie was just slightly creepy for me.
Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat 3713 Posts 9/01
Posted - Jun 26 2005 : 10:13PM
By my definition, where only explicit sexual content with a minor is considered child pornography, pasting a child's head near a dog penis is NOT child pornography. This will make life easy for all concerned as the parameters are known. It sure is bad taste to do something like that, but bad taste abounds in the modern (and for that matter ancient) world.
Jacco, obviously the UK is a hell of alot more restrictive in what they consider obscenity, hence the persecutions over David Hamilton's work. But at the moment, films which feature child sexuality such as Pretty Baby with an underage Brooke Shields are still legal here in the US but the real question is for how long considering how over-zealous the Department of Justice currently is under the guidance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
I was just asking about pretty baby, showing genitals or being nude in a sexual meaning isn't pornography? in that movie Violet was not only a baby but a baby prostitute and the whole movie is about prostitution and she was shown totally naked as far as I remember
it isn't the only movie i can remember, what about Taxi Driver and Jodie Foster (but i don't remember if she was naked or not)she was 14 at the time
What about Christane F in which the whole crew of addicted was minor and prostituting themselves although i don't remember any nude scene in that film it is very crude
I don't remember the age of Jane March in JJ Annaud's the Lover but she was playing a 16 YO and there were sexual explicit scenes but not genitals can be wiewed as far as I can remember
Edited by - Laurie Cameron Fan on 6/27/2005 2:18:37 AM
I suppose this was a way of outlawing pseudo child pornography where people tampered with porn images to make it look like children were involved (eg: superimposing a childs head onto a skinny pornstar).
I guess people who made or distributed these images were using the fact that it wasn't real as a defence.
Brooke Shields was 15 when the Blue Lagoon was released. She is nude in it. I can't remember if she was nude during the "sex scene", but there was one. Only movie of hers I ever liked . . . .
So, NAMBLA could produce a remake of Lord of The Flies with a bunch of nude boys, but as long as the nudity wasn't with the sex, it would be legal? I'd like to see the O'Reilly segment on that one.
Oh, and I own The Lover. Jane March is hot. I'm sure that depictions of underage sex are legal. See Kids, and Lolita.
Off topic: Try Color of Night with Bruce Willis, Scott Bakula, and Jane March.
There was a time not too long ago when Max Hardcore's series Cherry Poppers and Hardcore Schoolgirls were actually banned here in the US. Keep in mind Max was using performers who were 18 and older but in many of the scenes the girls were portrayed as being underage. Of course it wasn't child porn but distributors decided not to incur the wrath of the DOJ and quietly took them off the market for a time.
Well what do you know . . . This answers a question I've had for years about how this movie actually made it to screen. And here I thought we were just lucky.
Posted - Jun 25 2005 : 3:08PM