- Joined
- Jun 5, 2008
- Messages
- 5,341
- Reaction score
- 0
Fuckin SJW libs trying to silence free speech
I wonder if she’ll be cool with this scene when she grows up, seeing as how she was essentially deceived into creating a scene, depicting such an act.A 10 year old jumping on a pillow, only understands that, it's not sexual to her. I don't know if they had her panting or something but I'm sure she didn't take it in a sexual way. The director was being provocative, maybe even gratuitously so, but that doesn't make it child porn. That's when kids are actually physically abused and exploited. Having her play out a sexual scene through dialogue would be much more problematic in preserving the actor's innocence.
Don’t get salty, Sniper! I’d NEVER block anyone on here. That’s the biggest puss move one can do.You should take all of your virtue to twitter. Youd fit right in over there.
A 10 year old jumping on a pillow, only understands that, it's not sexual to her. I don't know if they had her panting or something but I'm sure she didn't take it in a sexual way. The director was being provocative, maybe even gratuitously so, but that doesn't make it child porn. That's when kids are actually physically abused and exploited. Having her play out a sexual scene through dialogue would be much more problematic in preserving the actor's innocence.
There is a movie where a thirteen year old Brooke Shields plays a prostitute and is shown naked on screen. That is child pornography.
Regardless of HOW the scene was created, it ULTIMATELY depicts an act by a child which may unequivocally be construed as a sexual act.It's a court of law, not a court of merriam-webster. If we're making claims about the law, we use legal definitions. So, from the statute that you cited in post #46:
"two young girls under the age of 10 playing around with pillows"
"this scene was filmed using a trick, which was that the girls were copying a cowboy scene from a film by John Ford."
Nope. It was implicit.
So this is Fox News/Republican outrage?
Missionary sex preachers who now advocate for cheating on your pregnant wife with porn stars?
Americans have always been church nuns compared to Europe about sex.
Bro, are you seriously ok with tons of movies being released about this stuff, just because it happens in real life???What you're really saying is that, while we know there are real 13 year old girls in this world who are being trafficked as prostitutes, and who are abused in this capacity while nude, no filmmaker should be granted the right to depict such a scene of reality in his art.
What you're really saying is that, while we know there are real 13 year old girls in this world who are being trafficked as prostitutes, and who are abused in this capacity while nude, no filmmaker should be granted the right to depict such a scene of reality in his art.
What you're really saying is that, while we know there are real 13 year old girls in this world who are being trafficked as prostitutes, and who are abused in this capacity while nude, no filmmaker should be granted the right to depict such a scene of reality in his art.
There are things so awful that we do not need to see it re-enacted in film. You may think exploiting children is art, but most of us just think it is needlessly disgusting. The thought of children being used as prostitutes is awful enough. We don't need filmmakers using children to graphically depict what happens in the name of art. There should be limits and taboos and the exploitation of children to make "art" should be forbidden.
It is rather disturbing that the exploitation of children is even being argued about.
There are things so awful that we do not need to see it re-enacted in film. You may think exploiting children is art, but most of us just think it is needlessly disgusting. The thought of children being used as prostitutes is awful enough. We don't need filmmakers using children to graphically depict what happens in the name of art. There should be limits and taboos and the exploitation of children to make "art" should be forbidden.
It is rather disturbing that the exploitation of children is even being argued about.
Not exactly, it should not be illegal to depict rape and the like, see irreversible, but you wouldn't be able to make the Brooke Shields movie today because she is underage. An 18 year old could play the role. Just putting this film into perspective.
Not exactly, it should not be illegal to depict rape and the like, see irreversible, but you wouldn't be able to make the Brooke Shields movie today because she is underage. An 18 year old could play the role. Just putting this film into perspective.
That's interesting, do you think that the famous Napalm Girl photo should have been illegal? I don't want to link the image just in case it's against the rules but it shows a naked 9 year old girl crying and running from a soldier.
http://allthatsinteresting.com/napalm-girl
of art censorship.
By your logic, the entire opening scene of Saving Private Ryan was entirely unnecessary and gratuitous, given that society already understands the gross brutality of war.
How does the movie Saving Private Ryan relate to sexually exploiting young children in a film?
The Napalm Girl photo is the result of something that happened and it is a powerful image displaying the horrors of war. What does it have to do with a movie director sexually exploiting children in a movie? I don't see how the two are even close to being related.
You have to wonder about the mentality of someone who thinks, "I want to do a simulated rape scene and I need to find the right young girl to do the scene." The fact that someone could actually write a scene and film it using a young girl is very disturbing to me. I do not see any reason to be using children in suggestive scenes. I'm not even that thrilled about using children in movies for any purpose. I hate watching child actors in movies.