I recently watched a Russian music video by a techno outfit called “Tatu,” which is comprised of two teenage lesbians. The video had one of the members going around in an amusement park, interspliced with romantic scenes with a guy. During these scenes her breasts are bare and visible. Since she is a minor, and this is in a sexual situation, is that child porn in the US? Or would it be covered as art. I know lots of European videos have nudity, but if the nude person is 17…
You should realize that not every country in the world has their age of consent at 21. (You are in the US, right? You don’t know the age of consent in Russia, do you?) The US is the most prudish industrialized nation in the world, and most countries have their AOC’s in the teens.
American AOC varies state to state. In Texas it’s 17. But that’s not what I’m talking about here. Although I’m sure the video is legal in Russia, is it legal in the US, where anyone in porn under 18 is illegal? If the girl is 17, does that make the video child porn in the US?
I remember being in the UK back in 85. Getting a playboy magazine, and seeing, according to Playboy, topless 16 year olds. Although I did not see any totally nude.
The age of consent in most of Europe, AFAIK, is 16. Don’t act shocked. Many people leave secondary school early to get jobs. It is not frowned upon. In fact many companies hire young apprentices to learn trades. I knew a guy in Scotland who was a straight A student who got a job offer at 16. He took it, and is financially way better than I will ever be with my bachelors degree. I think people are expected to grow up faster over there, and they do.
I don’t know the answer to the OP, but I want to reiterate that child pornography is a completely separate issue from age of consent. Okay?
I think the OP is asking whether the video would be legal in the US, and I think the answer is no.
This chart would seem to indicate that not a SINGLE state in the US has an age of consent of 21.
What is considered child pornography varies. THere are sites with young girls fully clothed, sponsored by their parents even, that are legal. They still make me wretch.
I believe in these other countries, a girl being topless is not considered pornography. As with the UK Playboy, the 16 year olds were shown topless, and believe me, they had nice racks. These were not prepubesent girls. They were not shown with their coochie spread out, but definitely a “minor in a sexual situation,” as the OP said.
Speak up, Eurodopers!
In American Beauty, Thora Birch (SP?) is not 18 and is shown topless. There was something about this in an Ebert article.
gasp A European has a wrong impression of the US? I’m shocked.
Anway, the question is whether that video is legal given the laws of the US. It has nothing to do with European AOC laws.
To answer the OP, I don’t think it’s legal. But since the girls are 17 (you sure that’s their age?) it may be a borderline case. And in any case, I don’t think that art is an excuse. I can’t take nude pictures of 12 year olds in suggestive poses and call it art and get away with it.
If the highly controversial Brooke Shields movie Pretty Baby (which showed a not quite 13 year old Brooke fully nude and in some high compromising sexual scenarios) isn’t considered illegal then the music video probably isn’t either.
From this site:
Naturally, this was a very controversial law, and many parts of it (i.e. the provisions for computer-generated and illustrated images) have been struck down by the Supreme Court. I’m not clear if any other parts of the law were trimmed back, except that such types of photo-editing as pasting a child’s head upon a naked adult body remain illegal. Still, notice the parts I bolded – these leave open the door for some images to be illegal EVEN IF THE MODELS ARE OVER 18. In other words, the body doubles used in “Endless Love” and “The Blue Lagoon” would still count as kiddie porn despite the fact that the actual people are over 18.
How this gets enforced, in practice, is very slap-dash, and a lot of it depends on the clout of the artist responsible. Photographers such as Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, and David Hamilton make their living on images of naked children, not necessarily sexual but definitely sensual in many cases, and while they often get harassed by authorities and have their studios raided occasionally, none of them are doing hard time at the moment. (That can’t be said for the thousands of parents who are in jail, or were seriously threatened with jail time, for taking pictures of their babies in the bathtub.)
In other words, a clearly erotic-and-under-18 vision of Thora Birch topless will get “winked at” since it’s in an Oscar-winning Hollywood movie. A little-known Russian music video would be a much harder sell.
If this is the video I am thinking of (I have seen at least 3 different videos by them, this is the one where she blows up the Merry-go-round at the end?) then I think it is legal. In that video the breasts are not “bare and visable”. Yes, there is a scene where she kisses the man and you get a side on view, but it is nothing worse than if she had been wearing a bikini.
They are not half annoying thought. The staged kissing during the performance at the recent Swedish Hit Music Awards (or whatever it was called) was just embarressing.
I also have my doubts that they are actually lesbians.
Oh, the last thing they are is techno as well.
Eurodoper here.
As pointed out, AOC is not the same thing as legal limit for child pronography. In Sweden, mistakenly known as a very slack country re: morality issues, the AOC is 15, which I think is an average in Europe. IIRC the lowest AOC is in Holland, 12. Note that Holland also has the lowest rate of teenage pregnancies and abortions in a “western” country - something that is often argued in favour of lowering the AOC. Me - I think it doesn’t correspond.
However - the Swedish law defines child pornography as depicting minors, i.e. under 18. As a side note, homossexual AOC is 18. Adults, which are in a “position of influence” (legal guardian not being biological parent, caretaker in foster home, teacher and boss at the summer job) is not allowed to touch a minor (under 18).
As to legality - origin of production doesn’t make things legal. Sweden adopted a controversial law against child pornography a few years back, making possesion illegal. People claiming that the material was legal in the country produced didn’t get away with it. IANAL, but a journalist, and I don’t know enough American law, but by the same token, narcotics produced in Holland would be legal in the US. I kinda doubt that.
Not wanting the Feds at my door, I should probably delete this video then, no?
knock knock