Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Coverage of what is truly interesting in the film world

TOP STORY:

RSS Feeds:All posts by this author|All comments for this post

Decoding The Supreme Court Movie Sex Case

Karina Longworth
By Karina Longworth posted 2 years ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

americanbeauty.pngAs I understand it, the Supreme Court is *not* arguing, as Nikki Finke puts it, to make it a “crime to see American Beauty or Lolita.” The Reuters report is, admittedly, poorly written, so I’m not entirely sure what’s going on. But I *think* the law would not make it illegal to make or see a film depicting an underage person being naked or having sex; I *think* it would ban anyone from promoting such a film as containing teen sex or nudity. So the image from American Beauty to the right would be a-okay within the context of the film, but could not be distributed as an advertisement for the film. Even though Mena Suvari was 20 when the film was released, because the character she plays is underage. Right? Am I wrong? Tell me what’s really going on so I can pick a side.

Add your comments

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

  • Dirty Harry said

    I was equally confused, just too insecure to admit it. Wish I could help.

  • Chris Thilk said

    Actually from what I was hearing on NPR yesterday it seemed to me that even if it was just in the context of the film it would be illegal. More than that, the government solicitor seemed to arguing that even discussing it would be deemed illegal under the law.

    From what I heard and read later I got the idea this was a broad-reaching law where even if I referenced American Beauty or Lolita in a blog post I could be found to have broken the law.

    I’ll admit to being slight confused by all the issues as well but this is what I got out of it.