Would the 1968 film "Romeo and Juliet" be considered child pr*n now because it features underage indecency?

[Investigator]

Recently, the actor and actress (Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey) filed a lawsuit against Paramount Pictures, over sexual harassment and "the sexual exploitation of a child" for the nude scene (s), when they were 16 and 15 respectively. It is widely known that the film contains actual nudity of minors, but there is debate about whether or not the label of "child sexual abuse material" can be retroactively applied to a film from 55 years ago, considering it was not seen as such back then and the two are in their 70s, plus the director of the film died in 2019.

In a purely legal sense, it would only be considered "child sexual abuse material" if it has no artistic value (it does, since it is a culturally-significant film) and "appeals purely to the prurient interest", but that's kind of irrelevant. The more important matter is whether or not the public would now see it as "child sexual abuse", since the sexualization of underage youth in any capacity is seen by today's society as "exploitation", regardless of circumstance, time period or intent. As in, there is no situation where "depiction of a child" and "provocative" are acceptable, even as a method of critique--a lesson the film Cuties learned the hard way.

What do you think? Does this film now count as child exploitation material?

[Anonymous]

No I don't believe so. There is a whole load of movies that would have to be cancelled if this was the case. Remember the blue lagoon with Brooke shields and that guy, they were 14 &16 at the time fully nude. Millia Jonovich was 15 nude in the blue lagoon2. Phoebee Cates was nude age 16 or 17 in Paradise. Thora Birtch was 16 topless in American Beauty. Kiera Knightly was topless in hole at 15. Simonetta Stefanelli was 16 and nude in the Godfather. Jolie Foster was 14 in the girl down the lane. Jennifer Connelly was 12 in once upon a time in America and 17 in the hot spot. I think Natalie Portman was photographed topless on a beach at 16 or 17. Miliey Cyryus appeared nude except for a bed sheet on the cover of vanity fair. Penelope Cruz was 16 in some stuff. Olivia d'Abo was 14 in Bolero. Bo Derek was 16 in Fantasies. Betsy Russell was 17 riding topless on a horse in private school. Katherine hegil was 14 in my father the hero.

There's a whole load of these movies.

[Opinion Owner]

In the uk up until 2000 it was legal to photograph or film a nude 16 year old

[Opinion Owner]

Beau Pere the actress was 15 and nude. There was a big thing in France that they posted pics of the actresses bare breasts

[Opinion Owner]

Ione Sky was 16 nude in the Racheal papers 1989

[Opinion Owner]

Nastassja kinski is another. She was nude all through her early teens

[KostasKouvalis]

Why did they wait THIS long? Sounds like someone needs some quick cash. I'll be surprised if this holds up in court. You can't jail someone for doing something that wasn't against the law at the time they did it.

Also, nudity alone isn't "Child Porn"

[jshm2]

No. don't be fucking stupid.

The film was within the laws of that time and it's only because the director is dead that they can claim "verbal promises" were made.

They are just chancing their luck, is all.

[AviatorTom]

It was 50+ years ago and the director (who would be the person responsible if it ends up being considered child pornography) is dead. This is a pointless lawsuit, probably just to get publicity.

[goaded]

It really was a different time. And even if they had a case, haven't they been profiting off it for decades?

[Investigator]

Yes, they have. Furthermore, it's only because this movie is such a cultural touchstone that there is even a case to be made. If this were a situation where the movie was C-grade schlock, seen only once in an auteur movie theatre prized for its directors' eclectic filmic styles, then it would not be news or relevant.

However, this question pertains more so to the young people of today, who have grown up with no other moral framework than "now", where they are minded to be "socially-critical and bias-observant". "Wrong" transcends age, so "it was a different time" holds no merit. Things that are unacceptable are "obviously" so.

[goaded]

Today's morals are probably better than 50 years ago, but criminal convictions should always be according to the laws of the time the offence occurred.

[joeldalton]

70s were a wild time. Child pornography was mainstream.

[goaded]

Why am I no more surprised about you knowing that than I am that you think holocaust denial is moral? Oh, and that you recognise Hitler quotes.

[joeldalton]

@goaded have you thought about getting some therapy for your unhinged rantings?

[goaded]

It's right here: Is Holocaust Denial Evil or Morally Incorrect? ↗ You said: Neither. (And, yes, I do have a screenshot.)

So, how do you have such knowledge about 1970's child pornography? You weren't even alive then.

[joeldalton]

@goaded I know you're very disappointed that child pornography isn't socially acceptable anymore.

[goaded]

@joeldalton Why do you know so much about child pornography from before you were born? And how does that match up with thinking holocaust denial is not immoral?

[joeldalton]

@goaded I was raiding your dvd collection

[goaded]

@joeldalton Just for clarification, you don't think there's anything immoral in holocaust denial? And you know about 1970's child porn, from 20 years before DVDs existed.

[joeldalton]

@goaded you seem very sad you can't legally watch child porn any more.

[goaded]

@joeldalton You seem very desparate to avoid explaining how you know so much about it, and why you think holocaust denial is moral.

[goaded]

@joeldalton Why? Because I point out your knowledge of child pornography, or because I point out that you find nothing immoral in holocaust denial (by your own words)?

[goaded]

@joeldalton If you like, although it was made illegal before I was, what, 12? You'd know that because you're a connoisseur, just like you "know" there's nothing immoral about holocaust denial.

You can post to my question, if you like: Is there a difference between thinking holocaust denial is moral and holocaust denial? ↗ I'm sure you'd like to explain yourself.

Strangely, nobody has yet tried to justify your position.

[goaded]

Don't you get sick of lying all the time? You're the one who knows so much about child pornography from when I was a child, and the one who thinks holocaust denial is moral.

[goaded]

Oops! @joeldalton Don't you get sick of lying all the time? You're the one who knows so much about child pornography from when I was a child, and the one who thinks holocaust denial is moral.

[goaded]

That's what I was talking about when I talked about tagging you. You don't respond when you have no reasonable response to my posts if you're not tagged. Hence:

@joeldalton Don't you get sick of lying all the time? You're the one who knows so much about child pornography from when I was a child, and the one who thinks holocaust denial is moral.

[goaded]

@joeldalton Ah, so you'll keep lying about the fact that you say there's nothing immoral about holocaust denial Is Holocaust Denial Evil or Morally Incorrect? ↗ and that you know lots about child pornography from before you were born.

[goaded]

Hands up, who thinks @joeldalton isn't a holocaust denialist nonce!

(Nonce: a slang term for a sex offender, especially one convicted of sexual offences against children.)

Here's the first part: Is Holocaust Denial Evil or Morally Incorrect? ↗ this is the second,

[goaded]

@joeldalton Did you say there's nothing immoral about holocaust denial?

[joeldalton]

@goaded were you alive during WWII?

[goaded]

The question was, @joeldalton, Did you say there's nothing immoral about holocaust denial?

[goaded]

@joeldalton No, you don't answer questions that will show who you are. You did say that there's nothing immoral about holocaust denial, and just now you wanted to deflect by asking if I was alive then, as if that would change the facts.

[joeldalton]

@goaded REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[joeldalton]

@goaded I don't answer anything you ask me. I'm under no obligation to do so. It gives me a lot of chuckles to see you have a fit about it. So continue your questions, I'll continue to ignore them and you'll continue to screech about it.

[goaded]

@joeldalton I know you're never going to be honest, but I'll still point out that you've said there's nothing immoral, let alone evil about holocaust denial, and that you seem to know a lot about child pornography. (By the way, deflecting from every question is the opposite of ignoring them.)

[goaded]

Oh, look, you're lying again. @joeldalton I know you're never going to be honest, but I'll still point out that you've said there's nothing immoral, let alone evil about holocaust denial, and that you seem to know a lot about child pornography. (By the way, deflecting from every question is the opposite of ignoring them.)

[goaded]

Haven't you come up with a distraction yet, @joeldalton? I know you're never going to be honest, but I'll still point out that you've said there's nothing immoral, let alone evil about holocaust denial, and that you seem to know a lot about child pornography. (By the way, deflecting from every question is the opposite of ignoring them.)

[goaded]

Nice try at a distraction. @joeldalton I know you're never going to be honest, but I'll still point out that you've said there's nothing immoral, let alone evil about holocaust denial, and that you seem to know a lot about child pornography. (By the way, deflecting from every question is the opposite of ignoring them.)

[joeldalton]

@goaded now back to one. Guess you ran out of steam.

[goaded]

You're not even trying. @joeldalton I know you're never going to be honest, but I'll still point out that you've said there's nothing immoral, let alone evil about holocaust denial, and that you seem to know a lot about child pornography. (By the way, deflecting from every question is the opposite of ignoring them.)

[Investigator]

@goaded @joeldalton I'm getting tired of watching the two of you mindlessly trade blows, like you think it means something. Either you two cease this futile bickering or I will report both of you.

[joeldalton]

NO DONT REPORT ME? OMG! ANYTHING BUT THAT

[goaded]

So, you'll report me for pointing out that @joeldalton thinks there's nothing morally wrong with holocaust denial? Fine. Have at it. There's nothing "mindless" about it.

[goaded]

Do you really think there's any equality, here? There's one liar, and one person pointing it out. Do what you want.

[Investigator]

@goaded Whether or not Holocaust denial is immoral is immaterial. We are well past that point. @joeldalton isn't going to change their mind and your repeated attempts to beat a dead horse until the desired results come to fruition should have already confirmed that reality. Meanwhile, @joeldalton, you are just twiddling away because it amuses you, but it doesn't amuse me. An impasse was reached and nothing of value was gained besides "my ego was hurt".

Frankly, I don't know why I expected better from supposed "adults".

[goaded]

There was also the minor detail of @joeldalton's knowledge about child pornography and his attempt to project it, but OK. I'm done.

[goaded]

Somebody just reported my pointing out that @joeldalton said there was nothing immoral in holocaust denial.

It's literally here: Is Holocaust Denial Evil or Morally Incorrect? ↗

[joeldalton]

@goaded cry about it some, you little bitch.

[goaded]

What, about @joeldalton saying there was nothing immoral in holocaust denial?

Here: Is Holocaust Denial Evil or Morally Incorrect? ↗

[joeldalton]

@goaded about your dumb opinions being removed, lol. Idiot.

[goaded]

As opposed to your opinion that holocaust denial is not immoral, @joeldalton? IGFAF what happens to my account, as long as you're exposed as the monster you are.

[Investigator]

@joeldalton I just checked and it's been removed, so I don't know what was said. How about you explain your position instead of insulting people?

[goaded]

If you mean his response to Is Holocaust Denial Evil or Morally Incorrect? ↗ it was simply "Neither". iirc.

[Investigator]

@goaded Which means he believes it is neither evil nor neutral, correct? It "just is".

[joeldalton]

@Investigator what you don’t understand is Goaded is a mentally ill stalker. I don’t and won’t ever explain myself to him. He’s mentally ill and I don’t owe him anything.

[goaded]

Nope, he believes it's moral. There's no missing middle here, it's either moral, or it's not.

[Investigator]

@joeldalton If I want your opinion regarding someone else and not the topic at hand, I will ask for it. I'm not in the habit of engaging in character assassination and neither should anyone else be, unless it is provable and/or warranted.

[joeldalton]

I don’t need your permission.

[Investigator]

@goaded So, I was recently thinking about this: "what would it mean to say that the Holocaust didn't happen?" Besides the "anti-Semitic Jewish conspiracy" Wikipedia seems to signify as the primary culprit, the Holocaust either happened or it didn't. There's evidence for it (or maybe it's fake, but that's a lot of effort to go to, to fabricate such a monumental event in history), so it isn't fiction come to life.

If it happened (which seems to be the case), then the only reason to say that Holocaust denial is moral is because whatever combination of factors produces the idea of "Holocaust denial" is supposedly better than the reality. Something like the Noble Lie perhaps, "the truth is too unbearable to handle."

[goaded]

I don't think anyone has ever denied the holocaust who wasn't OK with it happening again. Eisenhower understood that, that's why he ordered films and photographic evidence to be collected.

Some admin seems to be deleting posts from this conversation. Fairly randomly, afaics.

www.c-span.org/.../general-eisenhower-documentation-holocaust

[AngryCarl]

No, because it doesn't.

[Investigator]

There is at least one nude scene featuring minors (at least below 18), and that doesn't count as "underage indecency"?

[AngryCarl]

Evidently not when the movie was made. I don't see how they can sue retroactively because the law was changed.

[LiamJHayden]

How could this not be out-of-statute?

[In_Trance]

Nope