# Why hasn't Colin Farell been charged with rape? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 20, 2006, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861 "2006-01-20T19:07:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![The\_Hook](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@The\_Hook](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hook)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/101 "2006-01-21T20:10:49Z")
I haven’t seen the movie so I tried visiting one of the crazy, Christian, rating sites on the web. Unfortunately, [capalert.com](http://capalert.com) probably won’t review The New World so I’m stuck with a sane review: > [@Kids-In-Mind Review](#): > > SEX/NUDITY 4 > > - A young native woman wearing no top has beads and her long hair draped over her chest covering her bare breasts. Native women wear loincloths that reveal cleavage, bare hips, buttocks, bare abdomen and legs. Native men wear loincloths that reveal bare chests, hips, buttocks and legs throughout the movie. > > - A young woman wears low-cut dresses that reveal cleavage in a few scenes. > > - A husband and wife kiss and hug in a few scenes. A man and a young woman kiss in a few scenes. A man kisses a young woman’s face and they hug in a couple of scenes. In many scenes a man and a young woman caress each other’s faces, hands, backs and shoulders tenderly. > > - Although the scenes of the man and the young woman caressing each other never end up in a sexual encounter (nor is it clear whether or not they have sex) on screen they are romantic and intimate scenes. > > - We hear that a man has many wives and many children by each of them." Well, if that doesn’t say rape, I don’t know _what_ does! ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/102 "2006-01-21T20:30:03Z")
> [@BoBettie](#): > > Sooooo…did you just skip all of the posts by people who actually saw the movie and said that the scenes you imagine don’t exist? What exactly are you ranting about? What you describe isn’t there. No fondling. No groping. A closed lip kiss. No simulated sex. No nudity. So? Who gives a fuck? > > Try the decaf, seriously. Not even a closed lip kiss, not in the version I saw, not with Colin Farrell (Christian Bale is another story). It’s more like when you lightly kiss the corner of someone’s mouth, or the top of the top lip. There is a light kissing of cheek, and a couple of hugs. They touch foreheads and, I believe, cheeks. He never touches her breasts or even begins to touch one (no artful editing is needed). He never touches her thigh. He never touches her waist to make it look like he might be going higher or lower. I can’t stress this enough: There’s no sexual touching whatsoever (with Farrell or Bale). Not simulated. Not implied. As I said, he kisses her bare shoulder (bare because of the costume she wore, not because she took her clothes off), and touches her back. The costume, btw, covers her frontal parts quite adequately. The only time we see any cleavage at all is when she tries on an Englishwoman’s dress. For the most part they hang out together as friends. They teach each other their languages. Princess teaches Smith about the land and their ways. They obviously fall in love, but it’s not the fumbling, groping kissy/sex version of “love” we’re always spoonfed. It’s much more spiritual (in an earthy way, not supernatural) than that. This is Terrence Malik we’re talking about, not John Hughes. This is what Ebert says about Princess [in his review of the film](http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060119/REVIEWS/51220006/1001): > [@](#): > > “The New World” is Pocahontas’ story, although the movie deliberately never calls her by any name. She is the bridge between the two peoples. Played by a 14-year-old actress named Q’orianka Kilcher as a tall, grave, inquisitive young woman, she does not “fall in love” with John Smith, as the children’s books tell it, but saves his life – throwing herself on his body when he is about to be killed on the order of her father the chief – for far more complex reasons. The movie implies, rather than says, that she is driven by curiosity about these strange visitors, and empathy with their plight as strangers, and with admiration for Smith’s reckless and intrepid courage. If love later plays a role, it is not modern romantic love so much as a pure instinctive version. It really is a lovely, medatative movie. This is not an action movie, or even, really, a plot-driven movie. It’s like a moving work of art with bits of plot interspersed. It will bore the tail off of many people, but those who are accepting of its pace and style will be dazzled by its quiet beauty. And Q’Orianka Kilcher will be the biggest Oscar snub since they somehow left Bjork off the ballot. She was remarkable, especially since her character said very few words. It was all in her eyes and body language. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/103 "2006-01-21T20:49:46Z")
Just to clarify some of the quotes that Hook found… > [@](#): > > - A young native woman wearing no top has beads and her long hair draped over her chest covering her bare breasts. That’s not Kilcher’s character. It’s a woman from a tribe encountered when the settlers first arrive, not Princess’s tribe. > [@](#): > > - A young woman wears low-cut dresses that reveal cleavage in a few scenes. He must be talking about her English dress, not the native dress she wears. > [@](#): > > - A husband and wife kiss and hug in a few scenes. A man and a young woman kiss in a few scenes. These are the same characters. That would be Kilcher and Christian Bale, not Kilcher and Colin Farrell. I only recall one kiss between Kilcher and Bale. There might have been more, but I don’t remember. Kilcher and Farrell never kiss, not if you’re paying attention. > [@](#): > > In many scenes a man and a young woman caress each other’s faces, hands, backs and shoulders tenderly. > > - Although the scenes of the man and the young woman caressing each other never end up in a sexual encounter (nor is it clear whether or not they have sex) on screen they are romantic and intimate scenes. I would agree that they’re intimate and romantic, but not in a “nudge nudge wink wink” kind of way. We’re not used to seeing this type of “romantic and intimate” encounter in the movies. > [@](#): > > - We hear that a man has many wives and many children by each of them." Yes, that would be the tribe’s King, Kilcher’s father. Princess (whatever her name is) is his youngest child. An Englishwoman names her Rebecca, btw. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/104 "2006-01-21T21:05:46Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > They obviously fall in love, but it’s not the fumbling, groping kissy/sex version of “love” we’re always spoonfed. It’s much more spiritual (in an earthy way, not supernatural) than that. This is Terrence Malik we’re talking about, not John Hughes. It’s almost like you and Ms. Kilcher are [talking about the same film](http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/111791), or something: > [@](#): > > “Terrence Malick focuses on the emotional rather than the physical aspect of the relationship,” Kilcher said in a phone interview. “It’s innocent and tastefully done.” > [@Equipoise](#): > > And Q’Orianka Kilcher will be the biggest Oscar snub since they somehow left Bjork off the ballot. I thought _I_ was the only one who was still carrying the outrage over that unforgivable oversight around. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/105 "2006-01-21T21:30:49Z")
Why hasn’t Colin Farell been charged with rape? Because he has committed no crime. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/106 "2006-01-21T22:33:11Z")
I just saw the movie this afternoon. I can confirm that there are no love scenes between Farrell and Kilcher and only a single, light, closed-mouthed kiss between Filcher and Bale (at a point in the movie where Filcher’s character is in her 20’s and married to Bale’s character (John Rolfe). The movie does not even really imply a sexual relationship between the Princess and John Smith at all. There’s a close bond, and it’s implied that they are in love, but there’s no implication that it ever goes beyond gazing into each other’s eyes or holding hands. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/107 "2006-01-21T23:30:20Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > Um. You perhaps need to read the quote you used from my post. My point was not that at all. If you fake the death of a child, nobody watching the film ( well, nobody who is old enough to have attained a reasonable sophistication regarding movies ) will really think a child has died. The **Untouchables** example cited is a good one. In fact, if you watch the film frame by frame as the young girl approaches the doorway of the bar, and the cut is made, her body being blown up is not shown. Not in a single frame. Not in any way. It is a death created with an edit and some explosive and sound effects. Scary as hell anyway, but that isn’t even a depiction of a violent death. And what if it showed her body blowing up? Would that make it a crime? It can’t be murder, assualt, or et cetera if it’s a dummy and not a real human body blowing up. > [@](#): > > The point of the OP, buried under the delighted pile-on subsequent to it, was that there is no faking an adult running their hands over a child’s body. Agreed, there is no faking that. But what’s that have to do with this thread? There is nothing to fake, there’s no touching like you’re talking about in this film (I saw it less than a few hours ago.) > [@](#): > > An adult is over 18 ( anyone going to angrily state that Colin Farrell is 15, and therefore should have every right to fondle a 14 year old? No. Didn’t think so. ). A child at 14 is by all accounts- especially in the state where the film was shot- below consent age. Unlike the various acts of violents or action described above, a fondle is a fondle is a fondle. A mouth-kiss is a mouth-kiss. Unless IMDB is wrong, the young lady who was 14 is real. She is not a c.g. creation. She was an under-age person who was on set. One does not use a fake knife, stage blood, explosive squibs that do no harm or any other artifice to create a scene of sexual intimacy. One uses two live humans and a movie camera. Hence, my OP. ( and my use of the examples mis-understood above ). Yes, but a mouth-kiss with a 14 year old isn’t illegal. It’s not the most common thing in the United States, but in a lot of western cultures complete platonic mouth-kisses between relatives of all varying ages is common and definitely not a crime. When a father bathes his infant daughter that isn’t a case of infant-rape. Nor would it be considered rape or a crime if the father was bathing a older daughter who was unable to bathe herself. There **woud** be questions if a father bathed his 14 year old daughter, but not if the 14 year old daughter was severely disabled and unable to clean herself. Exactly identical forms of touching can carry with them quite different moral and legal ramifications. If Mr. Smith a high school English teacher makes a video of himself smacking the bottoms of his female students that isn’t going to be received very well. If a parent spanks their child as punishment that’s not considered incest or sexual battery (though some people do oppose corporal punishment to children on moral grounds, that isn’t the issue here.) > [@](#): > > The point of the OP is that what the producers of the film did was no different than producing **non-explicit** so-called “child porn”. You can pit that point of view all you want. It won’t change my point of view on the manipulation. Was **Interview With A Vampire** the same? **Guin** ’s snarkiness aside, of course not. Ms. Dunst wasn’t making babies. Only if you can demonstrate there is any images/film that has been defined as child porn by some form of legal authority in which the most explicit content involves a man’s lips coming into light contact with non-genital areas of a 14-year old’s skin (shoulders, _vaguely_ the mouth area, but not even explicity) in a situation that is not sexual in nature. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/108 "2006-01-22T11:06:42Z")
A couple of people have pointed out that there is a legitimate seed of debate here, as regards how far a movie can go in showing a minor in sexual ways. Although there’s obviously no longer any question about what happens in this movie, let’s say that the OP’s concerns were actually valid. What if there were a scene where Pocahontas got her breast grabbed? Why is this different from a prosecutable sex offence? If you want to talk about the legality of an act, the first thing to ask is, “Is it consensual?” If the girl is on that movie set against her will for any reason, and she’s being prevented from leaving it, then that’s already a crime, even if no one lays a finger on her. We can safely assume that this is not the case for essentially every movie ever made. So, the girl is there consensually, and has agreed to everything that’s happening to her. But, of course, if she’s a minor, she can’t legally consent! She’s not responsible enough to understand the consequences of her actions when it comes to something as potentially life-changing as sexual intercourse. Except… there isn’t any intercourse going on here. It’s a movie set. Her parents are right there. There are grips and gaffers and interns all over the place. No actual sex is going to happen, ever. If the cops bust some guy in a schoolyard with his hands on a girls breast, the assumption is that he was going to, at some point, do more than feel her up. That’s why that’s illegal: because it’s strong evidence of an intent to do something worse sooner or later. There is no “sooner or later” in the case of a movie shoot: there’s no presumption that, because one actor has his hand on an actress’s boob, he’s later going to have sex with her. ---
**Author:** ![Walter\_Windchill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Walter\_Windchill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walter_Windchill)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/109 "2006-01-22T14:35:18Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > If you want to talk about the legality of an act, the first thing to ask is, “Is it consensual?” When someone is below the age of consent, then by legal definition, the act is not consensual. > [@](#): > > But, of course, if she’s a minor, she can’t legally consent! Then why talk about whether or not the act is consensual? > [@](#): > > If the cops bust some guy in a schoolyard with his hands on a girls breast, the assumption is that he was going to, at some point, do more than feel her up. That’s why that’s illegal: because it’s strong evidence of an intent to do something worse sooner or later. It’s primarily illegal but it is in itself a form of sexual assault, and one that can harm or traumatize a child. “The intent to do something worse sooner or later,” is irrelevent. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/110 "2006-01-22T15:16:43Z")
Seriously… I haven’t seen **The New World** yet, but it doesn’t sound like it is as explicit assome of the scenes in [the 1997 Lolita](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119558/). The actress in question was probably 16 during filming. (And, ironically enough, was the Archer kid in **Face Off**.) Seems to me that the ‘nothing actually happened’ (i.e. no penetration, .: no rape) and ‘not kiddie porn’ (i.e. the movie isn’t just about making love scenes with minors) explanations _still_ apply here. And **Lolita** made sex with minors much more of an issue, and (I imagine) there were more love/sex scenes in **Lolita** than in **The New World**. -Geek, who is nerviously awaiting to see what the Google ads do now… ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/111 "2006-01-22T17:01:58Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > If you want to talk about the legality of an act, the first thing to ask is, “Is it consensual?” If the girl is on that movie set against her will for any reason, and she’s being prevented from leaving it, then that’s already a crime, even if no one lays a finger on her. We can safely assume that this is not the case for essentially every movie ever made. So, the girl is there consensually, and has agreed to everything that’s happening to her. But, of course, if she’s a minor, she can’t legally consent! You kind of defeated your own argument here. When I was an E.M.T., quite a bit of time was spent in class discussing informed consent. It is not enough to have someone give consent to a medical emergency type for them to deliver care. They must give expressed consent. If they do not, then either they are unconscious ( in which case, > [@Brady Emergency Care](#): > > In the case of an unconscious patient, consent may be assumed. The law states that rational patients would consent to treatment if they were conscious. This is known as **implied consent**. ( bolding from original text ) However, the manual which is used as the primary course manual in many states in the U.S.A. goes on to say > [@](#): > > Children and mentally incompetant adults are not legally allowed to provide consent or refuse medical care and transportation. I know, this is medical opposed to sexual consent but the seed of the law is the same. Are you mature enough to be - in the eyes of the law - responsible for the acts you say you wish to participate in. In the case of my OP, it is the real core issue for me. A child was “performing sexual scenes or acts”, shall we say, on a film set with an adult. She is incapable of consent. No argument there? Virginia law is kinda firm on age of consent, and it ain’t 14. Her parents, I fervently hope, are not permitted to consent for her to perform sex scenes on her behalf. If in fact there is legal cite that says that a parent may consent for their underage daughter to act out sexual scenes with an over-21 adult, by all means, show me the cite. For I very much feel it cannot and does not exist. Telling us how many grips and PA’s ( they don’t use interns on film sets. They use production assistants. They use interns in broadcast television. 🙂 ) were standing around is kinda meaningless. Those people are standing around a porn set too, so what’s the point of pointing out witnesses? If her parents felt they were on fine moral and legal ground pimping her out for love scenes with adults, then that makes it legal? And, more to the point, it makes it right for both Mr. Farrell and her parents? Show me the law, folks. Show me case law that permits legal guardians or parents to consent on behalf of a minor dependant so that they must perform, either in reality or by dramatic presentation, sexual acts. OTOH, it’s not very hard to find objections to owning stories or drawings of child porn. Heck, SDMB has had threads about such cases. [Thread 1](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=131989&highlight=Child+Porn+Drawings) [Thread 2](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=52784&highlight=Child+Porn+Drawings) Lest we think that child porn is limited to real-life humans, I [cite this article](http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/article.php?id=7943) discussing a conviction in December, 2005. See, if the movie had been shot in [Germany](http://www.answers.com/topic/child-pornography-1), where the age of consent is 14, I would never have started this thread in the first place. But it wasn’t. So I did. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/112 "2006-01-22T17:22:13Z")
**Cartooniverse** , have you missed all the information conveyed in this thread that there ARE no love scenes in _The New World_? Your entire OP is compltetely invalidated by that fact. ---
**Author:** ![Quint](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/76d3ee/32.png) [@Quint](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quint)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/113 "2006-01-22T17:23:47Z")
So you’re going to continue ignoring all the people pointing out that in this case there was nothing to consent to? Have you even seen the movie? Are you still carrying on with your comparison of Colin Farrel’s “crimes” to Roman Polanski’s very real ones? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/114 "2006-01-22T17:24:40Z")
[Here](http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+TOC18020000004000000000000) is the Crimes against a person section of the Virginia code. Could you point me to the section that you feel was violated? ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/115 "2006-01-22T17:38:35Z")
Oh for crying out loud. In the very first instance, I think it’s safe to assume that if there was anything desperately illegal or actionable about having an underage kid > [@](#): > > perform, either in reality or by dramatic presentation, sexual acts then the movie studio concerned would have spent some time dealing with that before sinking tens of millions of dollars into the film. It’s not as if this is exactly new territory - kids have been working in the industry for decades and while plenty of people still have issues about their [treatment](http://www.minorcon.org/childrenaschattels.html) they tend to be about health & safety, earnings, working hours and so on. And I’ve never heard of a case where any parent has suceeded in agreeing to an enforceable contract for their child to perform an illegal act - whether it is murder or underage sex, any such contract would be laughed out of court. Probably ditto if the contract violates working hours rules etc. Pretending to carry out such an act, for the purposes of making a movie? No idea, but based on [this](http://www.minorcon.org/kidsandlaw.html) > [@](#): > > Cal. Civil Code #197 states: "The mother of an unmarried minor child is entitled to its custody, services and earnings. The father of the child, if presumed to be the father under subdivision (a) of Section 7004, is equally entitled to the custody, services, and earnings of the unmarried minor. So, if I understand “services and earnings” correctly, unless some enlightened court were to strike the contract down for containing something illegal or being likely to traumatise the child, junior is SOL and has to knuckle down to work. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/116 "2006-01-22T17:46:13Z")
> [@Quint](#): > > So you’re going to continue ignoring all the people pointing out that in this case there was nothing to consent to? You know, when even DtC is of the opinion that a consensual (non-)act with a child is _not_ abuse, it’s time to pause and reflect. ---
**Author:** ![imthjckaz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/imthjckaz/32/3223_2.png) [@imthjckaz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/imthjckaz)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/117 "2006-01-22T17:46:58Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > **Cartooniverse** , have you missed all the information conveyed in this thread that there ARE no love scenes in _The New World_? Your entire OP is compltetely invalidated by that fact. A fact that he fails to address. Cartooniverse, did you even see the movie? ---
**Author:** ![DeadlyAccurate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@DeadlyAccurate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadlyAccurate)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/118 "2006-01-22T18:00:01Z")
I’m somewhat disappointed that **Cartooniverse** , whose posts I normally enjoy, has not once commented on the posts by the people who have seen the movie. I’m not pitting him, _per se_, but I would like to see him retract his OP and admit his mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/119 "2006-01-22T19:41:29Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > See, if the movie had been shot in [Germany](http://www.answers.com/topic/child-pornography-1), where the age of consent is 14, I would never have started this thread in the first place. > > But it wasn’t. So I did. If you had actually seen the movie, would you have started the thread then? Hmm? ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861/120 "2006-01-22T20:35:11Z")
I’ve not seen the movie, but I’d like to object to it. :mad: As the prosecuting lawyer in the obscenity trial of ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ said “Would you let your wife or servant read this book?!” :eek: I’d quote the SDMB motto here, but I don’t know what it is. 😕 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-hasnt-colin-farell-been-charged-with-rape/340861.md?page=7)