Should the makers of "Hounddog" be prosecuted?

Question

There is a independent movie out featuring Dakota Fanning. She is in a couple of controversial scenes. Certain groups are calling for the film makers to be prosecuted under federal law.

I can't into the details here, but this article should make it clear: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54312

After reading this article, do you think that those involved with this movie should be charged with this very serious crime?

Answer 1

No, it's just a movie that brings up real issues in the world, including child sexual assault. It happens, it's absolutely horrible, but it happens. This movie is going above and beyond the typical Hollywood movie, attempting to avoid any "sugarcoating" that Hollywood movies usually have when it comes to controversial subjects such as this.

In the rape scene, you only see Dakota Fanning's face.. no other part of her body.

When the movie was being shot, she wore a full body suit to shoot the scenes, and was in a room with her mother and a social worker.

Dakota and her mother were fully aware of the scene she was shooting. Why would you prosecute someone for that? It's stupid. They took all the appropriate measures to shoot that particular scene.

Answer 2

Without more facts, this analysis is based solely on the news reports, which often contain misinformation.

Under federal law, there is a clear line distinction between child pornography that actually involve children, and images that only appear to involve children.

Quoting the DA, "none of the acts depicted in the film meet the legal definition of 'sexual activity'" and were only "simulated". If that is correct, then there are no grounds for federal charges, because "simulated" conduct (CGI, camera tricks, animation, use of adult body-doubles, etc.) doesn't count.

The child pornography laws are only constitutional because of the need to protect children from harm. If no children were actually involved in any sexual activity, then there is no risk of children being harmed.

It all comes down to exactly what the child was actually present for, what she witnessed, and what she did (or how she was touched). These are all factual questions that are not addressed in sufficient detail in the news article.

A lot of people are going to be unhappy about this. But the bottom line is that if the children weren't actually involved in any sex acts, then it doesn't matter if the film makes it look like they were involved.

BTW, the news article does do a good job of explaining the obscenity standard under constitutional law, and making the distinction between that the the CPPA, which is a different federal law.

Answer 3

I did read the article you referenced, but I had also been aware of the story from news a couple of months ago. I think they purposely picked a state (North Carolina) to film this movie based on their lax child protective laws. I would hope they pursue this to the highest court possible, because if these film makers get away with this, then what other trash will be just around the corner, that involves 12 yr. old little girls. I'm just as upset and disappointed at Dakota Fannings mother! Her and Dakota's agent thought this would be "Oscar" material!

Answer 4

not only the makers of the movie, but her parents!