Yesterday, the senate approved legislation that would require Hollywood studios to provide proof of the ages of actors on sets where simulated sex is being filmed, proving the actors are 18-years or older. I don't disagree, it is a good requirement. My question is, what about scenes of assault and rape? Are the age requirements the same? The reason I'm asking is I heard about a new movie "Houndog" that Dakota Fanning is set to perform in, and she is just 12 years of age, but the script requires her character to be raped in what I've heard is a very explicit manner, and to appear naked or only in underpants in other scenes. Is that even legal? She's not even a teenager yet. I read about it in the New York Daily News yesterday.
2006-07-21 04:29:57 · 4 answers · asked by hhsgrad98 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The child pornography laws prohibit any scene where actual children are involved in sexual activity. This is because of the compelling interest in protecting children from being harmed or exploited.
So, if a 12-year old were actually engaging in sexual activity, that would be prohibited. But if you're only talking about a simulation, a lot would depend upon the context and exactly what occurred.
In a major motion picture, there are a lot of ways to make it appear that a child is engaged in sex, without the child actually ever coming close to actual sexual activity. Where there is no actual sexual activity, and where the child's is fully aware of what's going on and with proper safeguards, there is no harm to the child because of the simulation. Just as there is no harm to making it look like a child was hit over the head and thrown in the trunk of a car. As long as they actually are not harmed.
As to the nudity, I can't imagine that they would actually film any child (over the age of 6 months) naked, or just in panties. They may be able to film a child wearing a swim suit and make it look like she's wearing just panties. But that's just another illusion.
The purpose of the child pornography laws is to protect children from being exploited or harmed. Where no children are in actual prohibited conduct, movie-makers can create any illusion they want. That's why animated child porn is not illegal and why young-looking adults can pretend to be children in movies. In both cases, no actual children are involved.
So, it all depends on exactly what the young actress is doing, and how much is real versus well-crafted illusion.
2006-07-21 04:35:55 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Movies should not display a young girl in that manner, and if they did, they could be prosecuted for child porn. If the movie Hound Dog is really going to show that stuff with a 12 year old girl, then someone needs to notify the authorities before this gets put out in the theaters or on video.
2006-07-21 04:35:13 · answer #2 · answered by anonymous 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it ain't for the purposes of sexual gratification, it's legal.
Remember, at least one reason for Dakota Fanning's performance is to bring the viewers the experience of violence against a child. It is to make us feel the horrorific effects of such violence and cause us to come away with a renewed desire to protect our children. We could all get a pamphlet in the mail "Violence Against Children: It's Bad." But that pamphlet wouldn't be nearly as effective as this movie.
And that's the essence of free speach: the right to make the most convincing argument I can using the most powerful imagery I can to make that point.
And that's a good thing.
2006-07-21 05:02:32 · answer #3 · answered by Loss Leader 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don care u don care nobody cares
2006-07-21 04:32:43 · answer #4 · answered by [Tsuniper-X] 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋