Supreme Court defends artistic freedom? And/Or kiddie porn?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Hugh Jackes, Apr 16, 2002.

  1. Hugh Jackes

    Hugh Jackes Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2000
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Anaheim. CA
    Real Name:
    Hugh Jackes
    The US Supreme Court has voided a 1996 law that forbade the portrayal of children having sexual relations, even though the actors were above the age of consent.
    http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20020416/D7IU63480.html
    At it's harshest interpretation, the law would made criminals out of the makers of Traffic (the drug czar's daughter), Romeo and Juliet (Romeo and Juliet), Titanic (Rose), and Lolita (Lolita), for their portayal of minors involved in sexual situations.
    Alternatively, the pornograph industry can now legally cast younger looking adults specifcally to appeal to pedophiles.
    Tawk amongst yourselves.
     
  2. Jay E

    Jay E Cinematographer

    Joined:
    May 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,483
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Finally, I can be cast in a porno film!!![​IMG]
     
  3. Brian Perry

    Brian Perry Cinematographer

    Joined:
    May 6, 1999
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This topic is obviously sensitive but I think worth discussing.

    I think Congress's intent --which was admirable -- was to a) make enforcement of child porn laws practical (after all, it would be very burdensome for law enforcement to have to research every image to verify whether it was a real child), and b) to lessen the feeding of prurient desires of child molesters, even though no real children were being harmed.

    However, when you look at the ban closely, I think it went too far. In theory it could have been extended to action movies in which murder or other heinous acts sometimes are glorified or made to look exciting. Even though no one is actually killed in a movie, some might say that the ideas or images provoked someone to commit the act in real life.

    It's a tough balancing act.
     
  4. Adam Lenhardt

    Adam Lenhardt Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2001
    Messages:
    17,987
    Likes Received:
    2,369
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    This isn't defending child porn, just the portrayal of underage sex. Personally, anymore freedom is good freedom in my book.
     
  5. Seth Paxton

    Seth Paxton Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 1998
    Messages:
    7,585
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Freedom is a lot easier and more enjoyable when everyone maintains some kind of social conscience. It's sad that the reason so many thoughtful and upright citizens even have to debate/create such laws are because of a small group of people that are willing to take advantage of whatever freedoms they are given and whatever person it suits their needs to exploit.
    So you end up with artists mixed in with criminals. It just shows how the secondary effects of crimes against the social structure are perhaps even more profound than the more obvious immediate effects on the victims themselves.
    And it's never going to be different as far as I can tell. The spaceships aren't the only thing Sci-Fi in Star Trek. [​IMG]
    I'm glad artistic freedom has been given this small reinforcement. It's too bad that it also means loosening the barriers against criminals at the same time, barriers that shouldn't even NEED to exist.
     

Share This Page