I am confused. How is the fornication and nude painting scene in Titanic, and the scene in American Pie where Jason Biggs is masturbating, not child pornography? They are pretending to be minors (unless Biggs is supposed to be playing an 18 year old). Isn’t that child pornography?
I have read this site, but am confused. Mabye someone can clear this up for me.
If you think Kate Winslett’s a minor in that scene…!
More seriously, Kate’s character was English. In English, a minor is under 16 years of age, not 18. Not sure about the legality of this in the US.
But they are pretending to be minors. Doesn’t that make it child pornography?
Right. Oops.
Would Titanic be considered child pornography in the U.S., though?
What about American Pie?
As far as I can recall, you don’t actually see anything that could be construed as pornographic in either of those films, regardless of the age of the characters. It’s all left to the imagination. Granted, I think Kate gives a brief flash in Titanic, but I never thought she was supposed to be under 18, anyway.
Oh, OK, she was meant to be 17. My mistake.
r_k, two words: Shannon Elizabeth. 
Surely the pornographic nature or otherwise would be down to the acutal age of the actor/s, not the perceived age of the characters?
You do see Kate Winslet’s hand grasp the window of the car. You don’t see anything, but would this be considered simulated ‘‘sexually explicit conduct’’ or do you have to actually see their bodies having sex together?
jjimm,
I have read this: The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 amends the definition of child pornography to include that which actually depicts the sexual conduct of real minor children and that which appears to be a depiction of a minor engaging in sexual conduct.
That is what confuses me. Would Kate Winslet’s hand grasping the window of the car in Titanic be considered something that “appears” to be a depiction of a minor engaging in sexual conduct, or would it have to be more graphic, like I said above … showing their bodies having sex together?
From that definition, it looks like you have a point. Need a lawyer to come along and clarify, I guess.
“Pretending” to be underage is not illegal in the U.S. All that matters is the actual chronological age of the actors when photographed.
Using “Kate Winslett” and “Minor” in the same sentence is just wrong… Im not saying anything, just that when she went to one side of the Titanic the damn thing snapped… nothing MINOR about it.
back to my hole
Perhaps I was mistaken. I found the following:
However, my guess/interpretation is that the final phrase does not refer to actual photographs of adult actors pretending to be underage, but drawings/graphics which APPEAR “to be a depiction of a minor engaging in sexual conduct”.
You could add any rendition of Romeo and Juliet to your list, by the way because they’re supposed to be fourteen and thirteen. In fact, in the 1968 Franco Zeffirelli version, Olivia Hussey was fifteen when she played the role.
IANAL, but the legal defence might hinge on how old the characters appear to be rather than whether or not they appear to be having sex. Would you still think it was child porn if Winslet’s character was being played “as a seventeen-year-old” by Charisma Carpenter (who’s 32), or Jennifer Jason Leigh (who’s 41), or Cybill Shepherd (53), Raquel Welch (62), Angie Dickinson (71)? Your last post makes sense to me ambushed.
Thanks for the input.
Any lawyers out there?
richardc-
I’ve not seen the movie “Titanic”, but why do you think the depiction of a hand grasping the window of a car would be considered “sexually explicit conduct?” Was she in the middle of an orgasm off camera except for her hand reaching for that window?
Pretty much Thin Ice.
They were in the back of a car, and it was getting all hot and heavy.
The window had fogged up and im not too suure but you might have been able to hear sex noises…
I thought I asked if it would be in my above post.
“You don’t see anything, but would this be considered simulated ‘‘sexually explicit conduct’’ or do you have to actually see their bodies having sex together?”
Wait.
No, it wouldn’t be sexually explicit conduct. But Would Kate Winslet’s hand grasping the window of the car in Titanic be considered something that “appears” to be a depiction of a minor engaging in sexual conduct, or would it have to be more graphic, like I said above … showing their bodies having sex together?
The Supreme Court overturned a ban on “virtual” child pornography several months ago. Here is a link to a thread about it.
The decision, in essence, means that it’s not really CP if overage actors are appearing and representing underage characters (which means that some rather steamy scenes involving teenagers and adolescents in Traffic, Lolita, Titanic, American Beauty and American Pie are all off the hook). It also allows for cgi renderings of CP, but that’s not germaine to this thread.