Imbd doesn’t fact check their trivia sections and they don’t list an R rating for the film. Besides the R & J premired in October of 1968 and Olivia was born in April of 1951. Assuming it had been rated R she still could have attended, since she truned 17 in April '68.
IIRK, childhood pictures in the US, say of young children bathing was found to be acceptable by the SCOTUS or one of the lower courts as long as it wasn’t being distiriputed. I also seem to remember a big deal about the suntan girl, the one that was having her panties pulled down by a dog, to show her tan line being involved in this case. I’ll try to do a web search. Unless someone else chimes in before then.
Opps, my bad!
Actually, in the US it could very well be prosecuted. All depends on the local police and the DA. Who would know, care, or bring up a complaint? One of the partners in a nasty divorce case. Things of this nature have happened before regarding other supposedly private behavior between married couples such as sodomy.
Why would the police get involved in something this bizarre and spiteful? In the US, many local police officials AND judges are elected positions. I imagine an ad campaign would look like this: “Sheriff Johnson/Judge Fred refused to prosecute a child pornography case. Vote Cletus for Sherrif or your child might be the next Traci Lords!”
That page says she had to be 18. Still, I’ve found some webpages that say the rating system was only started in November of 1968. And the Wikipedia page about the history of the rating system says that the original R was only under 16, even.
But if it did have a rating at all, I am certain that is was not G.
For something to be considered porn, I think that there has to be more than just nudity. I think there has to be either sex, or something sexual. If nudity itself was porn, then how could people like Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, or David Hamilton get their books published? Or keep from getting in trouble with the law (US or European)?
The real key is what is “something sexual”? In the US, this is pretty much up to prosecutors (on whether to bring a case) and the jury (on whether to convict.) I would be astounded if there have not been child pornography charges filed on an artist somewhere in the States over nude photos of children that most people would not consider sexual. It really is a risk artists take who use this kind of material.
You mean like Jock Sturges? From that link (which is S.F.W.):
Believe it or not, nudity is NOT required to define child porn. Quite a few photographers have been indicted, and sometimes convicted, of taking snapshots which (in the jury’s opinion) focus on the genital area of FULLY CLOTHED children. One of these cases involved two men who were videotaping children as they came off the slides of a local water park. (I wonder how anyone could tell what they were doing?)
Yes, exactly like that. Thanks for doing the legwork.
I was reluctant to Google “child pornography” while my kids were wandering around nearby.