Setting the record straight on child exploitation and porn laws

[Confederate Kahanist]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1308764

Since its January 17 debut, MTV's Skins has been plagued with falling ratings, advertiser defection, and a critical panning -- any one of which would be enough to kill any other show. (Can you for a minute imagine a feel-good family show lasting seven episodes under the same circumstances?) But the story that should have secured the show's place on MTV's cancellation list was the New York Times report that "executives at [MTV] became concerned that some scenes from the provocative new show Skins may violate federal child pornography statutes."

 

My years of experience working for the Department of Justice, where I supervised the prosecution of child sex crimes, child pornography, and obscenity, tell me that if a major network on advertiser-supported basic cable even has to ask that question, anything less than a full investigation into the matter is criminally irresponsible.
 
MTV logoMTV has been rightly and roundly condemned for skirting way too close to the line. Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr. observed in his blog shortly after the Times story ran: "It should tell you just about everything you need to know that MTV executives 'wondered aloud' if they might do jail time for child pornography by broadcasting the series. Have you ever worried about that at your office or place of work?"
 
However, many are still missing the point, including Daniel Holloway of Back Stage magazine, who skirted the issue by asking: "Does a 17-year-old's naked rear end count as child pornography?" Whether one particular scene that aired on Skins qualifies as child pornography is not the only issue.
 
In fact, distribution of the content is not even necessary for the law to be broken. Title 18 of United States Code Section 2251 makes clear that production alone is a crime, and distribution is not necessary. One who produces pornography with a minor engaged in "actual" or "simulated" "sexually explicit conduct" can be charged under the law -- whether or not the material is later distributed. The mere possession of child pornography is a crime under that section. In order to establish whether MTV may have violated these laws during the filming process, we need a full investigation.
 
Hollywood and some members of the media would also have you believe that a child must be sexually abused during production to warrant a child porn charge, but in fact they do not even need to be the ones engaging in sexual conduct. Section 2251 makes clear that having a minor in some way assist another person, such as an adult, to engage in even simulated sexually explicit conduct is sufficient.
 
anonymous teen profileIn the eight episodes of Skins that have aired on MTV to date, there have been 462 scenes of sex or nudity, virtually all involving the teenaged stars who range in age from 15 to 19. These child actors have been asked to simulate sex on camera; they've been filmed in various states of undress in the presence of dozens of adults to be seen on screen by thousands more.
 
One has even admitted to having reservations. In an article for the Hudson Reporter, Blaine Morris, the actress who plays the lesbian love interest of Tea (Sophia Black-D'Elia), was asked how she felt about the on-screen sex scenes.  At first, she admitted, the racy sex scenes did bother her, "but I learned to zone out," she said. Morris's account begs the question of how other teen actors were affected by the intense sex scenes. Actress Freya Mavor, who participated in the British version of Skins, said she cried "for hours" about her "first raunchy scene."
 
Whether Skins violates federal child pornography laws has yet to be determined -- but if MTV and Viacom are airing sexual content involving children, they can be charged with more than just bad taste.