united-states criminal-law arrest italy child-porn
Does Romeo &amp; Juliet (1968) constitue Child Porn?
<p>In Romeo and Juliet (1968), the actress playing Juliet (age 15 at the time), had her bare chest exposed for a bit after sleeping with Romeo. Romeo's actor (who was also underage) had his naked bottom exposed in the same scene. Basically, two underage actors were shown nude after a (presumed) sexual encounter.</p>
<p>Would this make the film constitute child porn, and would possession of it be cause for arrest? It is a fairly celebrated film that's still openly on sale, so I'd imagine it isn't regarded as CP. I'm just not sure what the relevant standard is for why it wouldn't (or would) be considered CP.</p>

<p>From the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/child-pornography" rel="nofollow noreferrer">justice.gov site</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of
sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18
years old).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So no, the mere showing of a naked chest or bare bottom does not constitute child pornography.</p>

<p>Child pornography laws vary between the federal and state government, and then from state to state, as well. At the federal level, the 1968 version would not constitute child pornography.</p>
<p>Under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256" rel="nofollow noreferrer">18 USC 2256</a>, child pornography only includes depictions of minors (under the age of 18) engaged in actual or simulated &quot;sexually explicit conduct,&quot; which is defined to include only:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;</p>
<p>(ii) bestiality;</p>
<p>(iii) masturbation;</p>
<p>(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or</p>
<p>(v) lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't see a good argument that the film meets any of those criteria.</p>
<p>I'd call it unlikely that the film meets the criteria for child pornography under any state law. I don't believe I've ever seen such a law that both (1) goes beyond prohibiting depictions of sexual conduct to mere depictions of nudity; and (2) contains no exceptions for material with serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value in hopes of avoiding First Amendment problems.</p>
<p>This is not to say that such a law does not exist or that such a law would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://casetext.com/case/new-york-v-ferber#p758" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>New York v. Ferber</em>, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)</a>, a defendant who sold videos depicting young boys masturbating was convicted under New York's child-pornography laws, which imposed felony penalties on anyone who &quot;produces, directs or promotes any performance which includes sexual conduct by a child less than sixteen years of age.&quot; New York's appellate courts overturned his conviction, holding that even if Ferber's videos were not protected by the First Amendment, the entire child pornography law was unconstitutional because it would not protect materials that &quot;deal with adolescent sex in a realistic but nonobscene manner.&quot; But the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the conviction, rejecting Ferber's argument that the First Amendment required such accommodations:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>While some States may find that this approach properly accommodates its interests, it does not follow that the First Amendment prohibits a State from going further. [This] standard, like all general definitions of what may be banned as obscene, does not reflect the State's particular and more compelling interest in prosecuting those who promote the sexual exploitation of children. Thus, the question ... of whether a work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of the average person bears no connection to the issue of whether a child has been physically or psychologically harmed in the production of the work. Similarly, a sexually explicit depiction need not be &quot;patently offensive&quot; in order to have required the sexual exploitation of a child for its production.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>One might therefore write a law broadly enough to include the 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet within the definition of child pornography. For instance: &quot;It is illegal to create, possess, or distribute child pornography. &quot;Child pornography&quot; means any visual depiction of (1) a minor engaged in sexual conduct; or (b) a minor's breasts, genitals, or buttocks.&quot;</p>
<p>There would still be plenty of room to argue about whether it was constitutional, primarily because the state's interest in protecting minors from sexual exploitation is less obviously implicated by a film depicting minors kissing or walking around naked than by a film depicting them engaged in actual sexual conduct.</p>
<p>But if that law did survive a First Amendment challenge, Romeo and Juliet would likely become illegal. Virtually all of the objections raised in the various comments throughout this post would be legally irrelevant, as it would not matter where the film was made, when it was made, whether the children were above the age of consent, whether the actors lied about their ages, that the actors were only partially nude, that the film doesn't meet the standard for obscenity, that the film has serious artistic value, or that the actors suffered no actual injury from participating.</p>
<p>The only things that would matter would (1) whether the film depicts a minor's breasts, genitals, buttocks, or sexual activity; and (2) whether you have created, possessed, or distributed that film.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Would this make the film constitute as child porn, and would possession of it be cause for arrest?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Since the film was made in Italy, Italian law would apply.</p>
<p>The Italian Penal Code, for Articles 528 and 529 contains the word <strong>Obscene</strong> in conection of shows/activities.</p>
<p>It is not clear which Articles covers <strong>softcore porn</strong> in Italy.</p>
<p>Minors cannot give their consent on their own, so it would be a matter of the parents to deside.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In Romeo and Juliet (1968), the actress playing Juliet (age 16 at the time iirc), had her bare chest exposed for a bit after sleeping with Romeo. Romeo's actor (who was also underage) had his naked bottom exposed in the same scene.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is unlikely that a judge would come to the conclusion that the scene was <strong>Obscene</strong>, if anything <strong>softcore porn</strong> would be more likely.</p>
<p>Since, it is claimed that the producers had the parents written consent, it is unlikely that anything would come about in this case if it were held in Italy.</p>
<hr />
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_Italy#Legal_status" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pornography in Italy Legal status - Wikipedia</a><br />
Articles 528, 529, and 725 of the Italian Penal Code, which respectively sanction as felonies &quot;<strong>Obscene</strong> publications and shows&quot;, &quot;<strong>Obscene</strong> activities and objects&quot;, and &quot;Commerce of publications, images or other objects <strong>offending public decency</strong>&quot;.<br />
Minors cannot give legal consent to appear in pornographic productions of any kind, even though the age of consent in Italy varies from 14 to 16 years.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/jan/06/franco-zeffirelli-son-criticises-romeo-juliet-actors-olivia-hussey-leonard-whiting-nudity-lawsuit" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2023-01-06: Franco Zeffirelli’s son criticises Romeo and Juliet actors for nudity lawsuit | Franco Zeffirelli | The Guardian</a><br />
Zeffirelli [son of Franco Zeffirelli] pointed out that Hussey went on to work in Franco Zeffirelli’s miniseries Jesus of Nazareth, and that Whiting attended his funeral.<br />
Zeffirelli said he believed the film’s two producers, John Brabourne and Anthony Havelock-Allan, <strong>had consent forms from the actors’ parents</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p><strong>UPDATE</strong>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65725714" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2023-05-26: BBC News - Actors lose Romeo &amp; Juliet nude scene lawsuit</a><br />
<strong>A Los Angeles judge says she will dismiss a child sex abuse lawsuit brought by the stars of the 1968 film Romeo and Juliet.</strong></p>
<p>Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting alleged the film's director coerced them into filming nude while underage.</p>
<p>A Superior Court judge found the scene <strong>wasn't &quot;sufficiently sexually suggestive&quot;</strong> to overrule First Amendment protections.</p>
<p>Hussey was 15 at the time of filming and Whiting 16.</p>
<p>In a <strong>tentative ruling</strong> issued on Thursday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Alison Mackenzie said the plaintiffs &quot;cherry picked&quot; which statutes applied to their case. She also said <strong>the lawsuit did not meet the requirements for suspending the statute of limitations</strong> for child sexual abuse.<br />
...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I see this as a confirmation of my opinion.</p>
