MovieChat Forums > Hounddog (2007) Discussion > This is Child Pornography...Should it be...

This is Child Pornography...Should it be?

posted 14 years ago by nuazwildcats
23 replies | jump to latest

I agree with most comments, that this is a great movie. However, according to the laws in most states, this is also child pornography.

My question is should it be? I do not believe that it should. Should the public challenge the politicians to change the laws?

For example, the Illinois law on Child Pornogrpahy is:
720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/11-20.1. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Sec. 11-20.1. Child pornography. (a) A person commits the offense of child pornography who: (1) films…any child whom he knows…to be under the age of 18, (and) is: (i)…by simulation, engaged in any act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct with any person

The way this law is written, any simulation of sex that involves a person under 18 is a felony. While some states have an exception for "Serious Literary, Artisitc, Political, or Scientific" works that involve minors, Illinois does not.

reply

[–] SarahBryantfan 14 years ago

The District Attorneys in both Utah and North Carolina saw the film and insisted it did not break the child porn laws of their respective states. The questions that you posed are not easy ones to answer. Personally, I found this film to be much less offensive than the Jena Malone film, "Bastard Out of Carolina" and many others have agreed with my assessment.

reply

[–] nuazwildcats 14 years ago

Utah law says that the film has to appeal to the purient interest of the viewer. This film does not seek to do that, so it would be OK in Utah.

North Carolina law does not mention simulated acts. They must be real acts, which this clearly was not.

To be clear, I am NOT saying that this is child pornography. I do not believe that it should be considered that.

My problem is that it could be considered Child Pornography in many states, such as Illinois, and another 25 or 30 states. I have a problem with that.

reply

[–] hppg 14 years ago

Yeah, it probably technically is in some places. I guess people just don't care. Or it falls into an artistic loophole.

Yes, it was less explicit than "Bastard out of Carolina", but since when was the definition of child porn "more explicit than "Bastard out of Carolina"? LOL

reply

[–] Stickman38 14 years ago

If the government could arrest people for making films and books like this it would have happened a long time ago. But films like this are viewed as artistic and the government won't do anything about it.

I suppose it doesn't matter to me because its not a real sex scene anyhow, its simulated which shouldn't be illegal in the first place. I only agree with going after people that commit REAL crimes not fake ones.

reply

[–] yo_el_padrino 14 years ago

she wasn't visibly nude so it wasn't childporn

reply

[–] nammage 11 years ago

People have been arrested, in the past, for such things.

Read up on history, especially US history.

-Nam

I'm on the road less traveled...

reply

[–] ExAxLxPx12 14 years ago

its not child porn. for one it is a dramatic movie, she wasn't actually naked, and no sex or rape of any kind actually happened. it was scene in a movie. a great dramatic, harsh look on a child's reality. with fantastic acting, beautiful cinematography and an amazing script. people need to chill the *beep* out. if Dakota was ok with it and her parents were ok with it then its fine. people are missing out on an amazing movie because everyone is focusing on one practically 3 minute scene.

reply

[–] davematt1453 14 years ago

Go see "Mysterious Skin" - it makes this movie look like a cakewalk.

reply

[–] persnip 14 years ago

Was she and her rapist even filmed together? It seems that they were filmed separately and edited together. Or at least with their arms together and then it cut to the individual clips. Does that even make sense? Anyway. It seemed to me that it was filmed and edited in such a way to make it look worse.

reply

[–] nammage 11 years ago

But that happened to a guy. ;)

-Nam

I'm on the road less traveled...

reply

[–] boston-rocker 14 years ago

Generally speaking, in order to meet any sort of legal definition of "simulation," a reasonable person would have to find the act to have a probability of actually having happened. I doubt anyone with half a brain would believe anything actually happened to Dakota in this film.

----------------------------------------
Bow to her greatness: http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Magnificence-of-Margo-Harshman

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stagebandman 13 years ago

How about The Ice Storm?

If we all liked the same movie, there'd only be one movie!

reply

[–] critterdhs05 12 years ago

god you people are so well no words for it. this is a movie NOTHING HAPPEN IN THE MOVIE. its all fake its called acting there no way the usa would allow a movie to be flim for having child porn

reply

1
2