DakotaFanningpwnedFollow

When I saw this story on CNN yesterday afternoon, they reported that it was a graphic depiction. They also reported that only a handful of people had actually seen the completed film, to know exactly what the scene shows.

I could see an argument about a graphic depiction of child rape. The only reason to graphically depict something so heinous is for sensationalism. If it is in fact only implied, the Minister is just a retarded tWatwaffle.

Guess CNN got a hold of the "Unrated, Directors Cut" version. Or ran with the story before they had all the facts. But the media NEVER would do something link that.

Fixed.



Edited, Jan 25th 2007 5:02pm by Elderon

The difference is that the actors were not 12 year's old. There are some "odd" seeming standards for the film industry. One of them is showing sexual activity involving an "actor" under a certain age (I'd guess 16 given it's the youngest age of consent nationwide), and I don't really feel like looking up the standards atm). That's why in almost all films in which there are "teenagers" engaged in wild/sexual behavior, they're actually played by young looking adults (ok, there are other reasons as well).

The actors in Sleepers were all 16 years old. Swank was 25 when she filmed Boys don't Cry. Dakota Fanning is *actually* 12 years old. The point is that a 12 year old should not even be in a scene depiciting sexual activity, no matter how "obscured" it is. It's an issue with the standards for films. The age of the character isn't nearly as important as the age of the actor in this case...


I'm not sure about whether the claim that this is "pornography" is accurate, but he may very well be correct that there is some violation of film standards in that scene. However, since it appears that they gave it a rating and didn't require that the scene be removed (or perhaps it was trimmed as a result of the process, something we'd never know for sure about), he's on pretty shaky ground.

Doesn't mean that he can't try to boycott the film or something. That's certainly his right. Not sure how successful he'll be though...

Um. No. It has nothing to do with that at all. It has to do with what the law says. Now, I don't agree that it's "child pornography", however it can be argued that if the scene does appear as it's been described so far that it is in violation of federal Child Exploitation Laws

In order for it to be "child pornography", the "sexually explicit conduct" requires that it be "graphic" (genitals are visible), and that it be "indistiguishable from "real sex" (which would fail since she's an actress so we know that no actual sex occured).

This is the counterargument that I've seen. However, it does not have to be "child pornography" to still violate the law. For every other portion of this code, the definition for "sexually explicit conduct" is as follows:



(paragraph B is where it's defined for child pornography in case you're curious)


The key bit is "actual or simulated". Assuming the rape scene is a "simulated sex act", and the person involved is an actual minor, then the scene can be considered a violation of this section of the law. Acting just means that it's not child pornography (although the fact that it's not "graphic" counts that out anyway). Note, that this section does not require that the sex be "graphic". You don't have to see genetalia, or penetration, or any nudity at all for it still to qualify as "simulated sexual intercourse". Presumably, we are lead to believe in the story that the victim is being penetrated, this meets the criteria as simulated sexual intercourse (genital-genital).


Again. This is up to the lawyers to decide. However, if they did include a scene in which she's visually shown to be "raped", even if it's not explicit or graphic, it may violate the law. Interestingly enough, I read another article on this that suggested that the scene has been removed and the "rape" occurs entierly offscreen. If that's the case, then they aren't in violation of the law.

But, again, it's not a "simulated sex act." It's a "simulated assault." There is a difference.

Boy, that's gotta be some good crack.

So you'd hit it?


Perv.

Except that you quoted from the definition of computer-generated child ****. Remember a few years ago when Bush signed a decree that cartoon depictions of kids making the sign of the two-backed ninja was ALSO pornographic? I guess one of his daughters got hold of some hot hentai or whatever.

I'd have to agree with the comment about A Time to Kill... I'm sure the upcoming movie's scene isn't nearly as graphic as that one.

What the f'uck are you smoking over there?

Simulated MASOCHISTIC abuse?



How dare you. How DARE you imply that this is the sort of experience a 12 year old girl being raped (even a fictional one) would have. My God!

You need to seek help, if being raped, whether real or acted, equates to "gratification" in your book. Seriously.

Masochistic doesn't mean you derive pleasure from inflicting pain. Learn to read, then apply the skill to the definition I provided. "Sadism" is the derivation of pleasure from inflicting pain. "Masochism" is the derivation of pleasure from RECEIVING pain. So by calling a rape scene a "masochistic" scene, you are saying the scene depicts a girl ENJOYING being raped.

Idiot.

ETA: "Sadism" derives from the Marquis de Sade, a man who wrote many books about inflicting sexual pain. A "******" is the person who derives pleasure from GIVING pain.

"Masochism" derives from Masoch, an author who wrote a little book called "Venus in Furs," in which the protagonist glories in being humiliated by his ladylove. A "*********" is thus a person who enjoys being on the receiving end of pain.




Edited, Jan 26th 2007 6:43pm by Ambrya