-
Coal Matters — Even in Manhattan
June 25, 2012 | 14 comments
-
An Unprecedented Two-Track Move
March 14, 2012 | 37 comments
-
He Kept His Eyes on the Prize
January 9, 2012 | 83 comments
-
A 2012 Conservative Case for America’s Future
January 4, 2012 | 23 comments
-
Trust, Don’t Verify
November 17, 2011 | 27 comments
Special Report
Child Porn at MTV
The Obama Justice Department must investigate.
The child porn allegations made against MTV for its “Skins” show must be investigated by the Obama Justice Department. Child Pornography is not protected by the First Amendment, and producing child porn is a crime. Whether these allegations are true or not, even allegations of it are something most responsible businesses don’t want to be associated with, and they’re chasing advertisers away from this latest attempt to redefine what’s allowed on television.
The latest TV scandal is over MTV’s new show, “Skins.” The show casts child actors (not adults who play children on camera) with a plot where kids are involved in drugs, sex and reportedly even prostitution. It’s pushing the envelope in terms of coarsening society, evidently going for the shock value of being one of the edgiest shows on cable television.
But MTV might be in colossal trouble, because “Skins” is being accused of involving child porn. Child pornography laws don’t just cover explicit sex between children. Among other things, they include simulated sexual conduct by minors. If the actors were actually adults who just looked young, then the Supreme Court says child porn laws would not apply. But because the actors are really children, if they’re depicted in sexual acts then MTV has crossed the line.
It’s beyond dispute that the child actors are pretending to have sex in this show. The question becomes whether it’s graphic and explicit enough to fall within child pornography statutes, since those statutes don’t require actual and full-view sex. If so, then this is a crime that must be investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice.
In the 1982 case New York v. Ferber, the Supreme Court explains that there are reasons child pornography is unprotected by the First Amendment. Unlike adults making pornography, children by definition do not have the legal capacity to consent to a contract, such as contracting to have sex on camera. Once the pornography is produced and distributed, it can never be completely recalled, so those pornographic visuals can haunt that child for the rest of his or her life. It is inherently exploitative, because a child lacks the mental and emotional maturity to consent to engage in sexual acts.
Only the Justice Department (DOJ) can investigate and enforce these laws. The FCC doesn’t have jurisdiction because this is cable TV; the FCC only has authority over radio and broadcast TV. (Although the FCC doesn’t seem to hold this limitation in high regard, given its vote last month claiming the power to regulate the Internet. But Verizon has already appealed the FCC’s vote, and is very likely to win that lawsuit.)
The reason DOJ must be the one to pursue this matter is because these are alleged crimes. Most lawsuits are civil, where an injured party — usually a private citizen — can ask a court to force the defendant to redress the injury.
But a crime is something a legislature has defined as an injury to society. A criminal’s action harms our entire culture to the detriment of us all. A crime is an immoral action of such a nature that the people’s governmental prosecutors protect us all by punishing the wrongdoer. Only prosecutors can charge someone with a crime, so DOJ is the only entity that can pursue federal child pornography charges.
Not knowing the exact content of the questioned footage, we don’t yet know if these child pornography allegations are true. If so, those responsible must be prosecuted. If not, then MTV must be cleared any suspicion. But the allegations of child pornography at MTV are credible and serious, and as such Attorney General Eric Holder must launch an investigation. If he does not, President Obama should find someone who will.
Recent events show that we don’t need to wait on General Holder, however. Taco Bell has already decided to drop its advertising on “Skins.” While MTV is trying to find someone to fill the void, other advertisers are considering dropping the show as well.
Consumers can drive this show off the air in a hurry. Television is a business, existing to make money. Channels air shows that bring in advertising money to make the channel profitable. TV shows can’t survive without advertisers, because if no one supports a show with advertising dollars, then the channel will cancel the show and substitute a new one. If companies can tell that supporting a show turns off its customers, then that TV show won’t be on the air for long.
But it won’t let President Obama’s DOJ off the hook if “Skins” goes off the air. Child pornography is one of the most serious types of crime. It perverts the most intimate human activity. This particular type of corrupting sexuality permanently damages children in a terrible fashion that’s toxic to our culture.
Attorney General Holder must examine what’s happening at MTV. We should all put on the pressure to ensure that he does.
Mr. Blackwell and Mr. Klukowski are fellows at the Family Research Council, the American Civil Rights Union, and Liberty University School of Law.
About the Author
Ken Blackwell, the former mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio is Vice Chairman of the Republican National Committee’s Platform Committee. He also serves on the boards of the Club For Growth and the National Taxpayers Union.
About the Author
Ken Klukowski is a fellow with the American Civil Rights Union and is on faculty at Liberty University School of Law.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (49) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ken Blackwell
More Articles by Ken Klukowski
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/26/child-porn-at-mtv
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Nunya Bizness| 1.26.11 @ 6:23AM
In case you're not paying attention -- Zionist controlled Hollywood has been exploiting children for a few decades already. And MTV has long been casting their perverted light on America's youth.
That is all.
John Smith | 1.26.11 @ 8:32AM
Sorry, I'm not aware of any Hollywood child exploitation cases having to come to court.
I am aware of certain parts of the world that rapes young virgin girls before stoning them to death.
Seek| 1.26.11 @ 11:37AM
Ah, the Zionists! I KNEW they were behind it all!
Liberty 5-3000| 1.26.11 @ 2:08PM
I didn't think you could make a critique of MTV a blatantly anti-Semitic one, so kudos for stupefying many with that gem of a comment
Impeach Don't Wait| 1.26.11 @ 3:13PM
Like a "non-Zionist" controlled Hollywood would exploit children less? Yeah, sure.
Alan Brooks| 1.26.11 @ 7:40PM
In case you're not paying attention -- Zionist controlled Hollywood has been exploiting children for a few decades already. And MTV has long been casting their perverted light on America's youth."
At least Madrassas are better than our schools-- our child-abusing skoolz are worse than porn. You read the article on math skills here; even Eastern Europeans have better schools than ours.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.26.11 @ 7:31AM
You have to understand that before Holder can commence any investigation the FBI must certify no Muslims or terrorists are involved.
Alan Brooks| 1.26.11 @ 7:42PM
I wish we'd encourage muslims to build more of their schools in America, muslim kids can do math better than ours'.
Their schools are less expensive, too.
Jack Jones| 1.26.11 @ 8:23AM
Child porn laws were devised to prosecute adults who forced kids to have sex. Play acting does not fall within this. What actual harm was perpetrated on the young actors. You know they were acting, we know they were acting. We know the difference between make-believe and reality, even if the law does not.
Doctor Right| 1.26.11 @ 12:23PM
You're obviously a brain-dead teenager.
Come talk to us when you have kids of your own, little boy.
Liberty 5-3000| 1.26.11 @ 2:14PM
Even if he's a teenager, I think it would hold up in court that actors, regardless of their age, understand what defines their profession. Nothing X-rated is going on, since this show (and it's near idential British series of the same name) was made to be consumed by a large audience, and not a handful of creepy men hiding it on the hard drives. Common sense and anyone possessing a remote control will prevail on this whole matter
Jack Jones| 1.26.11 @ 8:23AM
Child porn laws were devised to prosecute adults who forced kids to have sex. Play acting does not fall within this. What actual harm was perpetrated on the young actors. You know they were acting, we know they were acting. We know the difference between make-believe and reality, even if the law does not.
Bob K.| 1.26.11 @ 8:38AM
Jack,
Churchill was actually talking about people like you when he commented about another British politician by noting that: "He had managed to give pederasty a bad name!"
JFGlat| 1.26.11 @ 8:45AM
Do the kids or people watching really understand the difference? To them - they are watching kiddie porn and that's what matters. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - its a duck and not a platypus. This crosses the line but it will be allowed a free pass in the name of art - whatever that means anymore.
tonypal| 1.26.11 @ 9:22AM
Jack, I think your post might be the first one TAS has ever gotten from a member of NAMBLA.
Only Republican at Woodstock| 1.26.11 @ 2:57PM
Where does one start?
First, child porn laws were not designed to prosecute adults who force children to have sex. That's what child RAPE laws are about. Porn is the representation of sex - in print, on film etc. For that reason, the Supreme Court has ruled that child porn is not covered by the first amendment since it involves minors who cannot, by law, consent to participate in making a pornographic video or picture. Real sex doesn't have to have occurred.
Second, since the child cannot consent, and the images can be out there in the world in video or on the internet for years, the child can be embarassed as an adult for something they never wanted to do, regardless of whether they knew they were pretending or not. I come from several generations of actors (not me, but my father, grandmother and great grandparents). My dad was shoved out on a Broadway stage at the age of 7 and he HATED it. Given the emotional damage it did to him just having to bare emotions in public, I shudder to think the emotional damage done to these kids having to bare a lot more than that.
Third, do you really think every idiot watching this drek knows it is not real? If they were all that intelligent, they probably wouldn't be watching. The fantasy that it's real is a major thing for a lot of the sickos who support this.
Fourth, child porn is a major part of the behavior of those who do damage children. The more mainstream a vehicle they see this on, the more of an excuse they have to tell themselves that this is okay, everybody does it.
JFGlat| 1.26.11 @ 8:41AM
Where are the parent's of these child actors? Aren't they pimping out their children as well? While some of this may be going on in the real world, this definitely tries to legitimize it and make it more mainstream - more cool and more acceptable for other kids to think of getting into. The idiots at MTV need to get their heads out of their butts and think about what they are doing other than running to fill their bank accounts. Do they even still play music on that channel?
Too Many Tims| 1.26.11 @ 9:23AM
Is it free speech when the product is created specifically for commercial gain?
Bob Grant| 1.26.11 @ 9:23AM
I'm confused. The writer admits it's not known whether MTV violated laws because the footage hasn't been viewed.
I say before we give this filth any more free publicity, let's cease until a fact-based argument can be established.
Hillel| 1.26.11 @ 10:47AM
Jewish Law holds that "you should not confuse the troops". E.G. Even if you brought Kosher food to a resturant and ate off your own dishes, someone might believe you were eating non-kosher and therefore licensing the behavior. Thus simulated sex by actors who are of age portraying children is wrong.
Jack Jones| 1.26.11 @ 11:15AM
Come on guys! Don't be silly! There's nothing wrong anyway in having sex with a child as long as it is consensual. What you teabaggers call 'child porn' is actually love between generations, it's not equal to rape. JMHO.
Steve A| 1.26.11 @ 12:41PM
Sure thing Jack. Ted Bundy just called in from hell, he wants to meet your kids.
David W| 1.26.11 @ 1:42PM
Mr. Jones, you are obviously someone whose intellect barely rises above swamp muck (I didn't detect any sarcasm in your post). The always thoughtful insult for tea party supporters is very demonstrative of that.
I wonder how shocked your wife or girlfriend would be once they read this post (or maybe it is just your mother who would be shocked since you are still probably living in your parent's basement and hanging around playgrounds wearing a trenchcoat). Hopefully if you carry out your fantasies the father of the girl (or more likely boy) will be a firm believer in the second amendment and will prevent you from abusing a second child.
Oh, was that hateful and violent of me to think that? Oh my, I apologize so much.... not.
Liberty 5-3000| 1.26.11 @ 2:24PM
I hope you're reported to whoever is TAS's sysadmin might be, if a sysadmin exists at all. Comments like these are the reason I'm glad my country passes laws like the Patriot Act.
Alan Brookes| 1.26.11 @ 11:19AM
Are you kidding?
Doctor Right| 1.26.11 @ 12:24PM
Gee, Alan...You're so clever. Using a different name to say idiotic things, and then arguing with yourself!
Bob Grant| 1.26.11 @ 2:34PM
A classic case of projecting.
Jack Jones| 1.26.11 @ 11:21AM
You're right. I meant: love transcending generation barriers.
Anommynous| 1.26.11 @ 11:30AM
And why does this filth persist at the BBC? They say that the MTV version, if anything, is toned down in comparison to the BBC version. Contrary to stereotypes, the British seem to be the vulgar ones.
If the US DOJ indeed does prosecute MTV for child pornography, would the British feel at all shamed by the way we view their entertainment? Or would they just see us as a bunch of stuck-up Yanks for taking offense at the depiction of minors by minors engaging in sex and drugs?
Oldefarte| 1.26.11 @ 11:53AM
This is typical of the Hollywood produced PUSHING OF THE ENVELOPE not only in TV shows but in movies and video games as well. This show is just THE TIP OF THEIR ICEBERG, and has been occurring for quite some time now. Since children are the captive audiences of these Hollywood brainwashing schemes, their mental injury from same are inevitable. Parents need to seriously intervene between this viewed garbage and their children if they truly care about the welfare of their vulnerable children's mental state of mind. As stated, legal authorities also need to DO THEIR JOBS in this regard!!!!!!!!
Doctor Right| 1.26.11 @ 12:27PM
MTV is owned by VIACOM.
Ever seen the disgusting old perv who runs VIACOM? Sumner Redstone?
One look at him, and you understand the whole thing.
I hope they throw the book at MTV.
Bob| 1.26.11 @ 12:38PM
Sumner Redstone looks like Roman Polanski's brother. Are we on to something?
chris haynes| 1.26.11 @ 12:32PM
Western Civilization: Pornography, Child pornograpghy. Abortion, the biggest holocaust in history. Euthanasia.
This stuff is all illegal in Saudi Arabia. Remember that when you sneer at Moslems.
Bob| 1.26.11 @ 12:36PM
Yep, but it's very common elsewhere in the muslim world including Afghanistan and Algeria
Liberty 5-3000| 1.26.11 @ 2:43PM
As taboo a subject as child pornography always is, and as envelope-pushing as Skins might be, I disagree that the show passes the famous Potter Stewart test.
I pose the following to anyone reading this feed:
Have you seen even the show? Not just a clip from cable news, or a still photo, but sat down and watched the show? I doubt it.
I've seen both of the US episodes which have aired, as well as some full episodes of its British predecessor. Although Skins is unquestionably scanadalous in nature, so are many other movies and TV shows featuring the sexual exploits of high schoolers which also fall under its youth genre. If we acknowledge that many high schoolers freely engage in sexual activity with each other, and have done so for quite some time, why does it suddenly become child pornography when child actors portray what some of their peers also have done? When the movie "Superbad" came out a couple years ago, it too portrayed a 17 year old actor in a sexual act (mid-coitus, to be precise), but there wasn't a cry of illegality when it was released.
Condemn the show's immorality, that's perfectly fine, but suggesting it (and others like it) crosses the line into a crime punishable by law and you've gone positively draconian
Bob Grant| 1.26.11 @ 3:24PM
I disagree with all of what you wrote with the exception of:
"...but suggesting it (and others like it) crosses the line into a crime punishable by law and you've gone positively draconian",
At least until all evidence is in. Obviously if the show has broken one iota of the child pornography law, I say throw the book at them.
To write an article using only vague speculation plays right into the hands of the people on the left who portrays social conservatives as uneducated knobs who fly off the handle at the hint of indecency.
chris haynes| 1.26.11 @ 4:08PM
Saudi Arabia's child mortality rate is less than 10% of ours, becuse they punish abortion.
Our enlightened Western way have produced the biggest holocaust in history. In the US, it is guaranteed by the same constitution the brave members of our military have sworn to defend.
We also enjoy enlightened euthanasia, pornography, harvesting of human embryos to manufacture pharmacutecals. two million prisoners, a 40 percent illegitamcay rate, a 50% divorce rate.
President Bush said "They hate us for our freedom" Well, if Bush thinks that barbarism is freedom, he had a good point.
Bob| 1.26.11 @ 4:15PM
abortion, pedophilia are widespread in Middle East and we have muslim albanian thugs harvesting kidneys and livers on serbian prisoners.
Quit defecating on the western world or get back in your filthy madrassa and raise your butt 5 times a day, dhimmi idiot.
Paul| 1.26.11 @ 5:50PM
Not that it will matter, but I will preface this by noting that I support neither MTV nor its program Skins, based upon the prevailing reports of its content. It sounds like another of the increasingly detestable clones of 90210, an original which was bad enough on its own. I admit to having seen neither the American program, nor its British model, and so am venturing an opinion based upon incomplete information, rendering myself vulnerable to a degree of error on that basis.
That said, I have to second "Liberty 5-3000." The message and content of Skins may well be offensive and scandalous in the original sense; that is, they may tend to promote and encourage immoral behavior. This has certainly been true of many television programs, particularly in this genre. But let us suppose that the actors had all been at least eighteen, rather than seventeen: would this aspect of the situation have been improved? No. So what is our problem? Not the promotion of immorality, but the violation of statutory age restrictions?
Immaterial, one might respond. The show employs actors beneath the legal age of maturity to depict sexual situation or acts for the sake of titillation, and is therefore child pornography. Lacking an in-depth background in the relevant case law, I am unable to determine whether this is true in a legal sense. Is it true in a moral sense, however?
Our society has largely abandoned any moral objection to live-action pornography featuring actors of greater than the legal age, as "community standards," as held by the courts, have lately decayed into near-nonexistence. We still object to child pornography, though. But if we do not object to pornography in itself, why is this the case? The odium justly attached to "child pornography" stems largely from a still-widespread belief that children cannot properly understand nor consent to engage in sexual activity, including pornography. True enough, but what do we mean by "children?" The term is clearly defined in a legal sense, but when an eighteen-year-old has sex with a seventeen-year-old, do we consider this as morally objectionable as a case in which an eighteen-year-old has sex with a five-year-old? If not, what is the difference? I would argue that the difference is that the category "child," legally defined as "under 18," does not correspond to the biological and social reality of the prepubescent child unable to properly understand or consent to sex. What about the age of consent, which in many US jurisdictions is below eighteen? While his behavior may be reprehensible, is a twenty-two-year-old who sleeps with a pubescent sixteen-year-old morally and psychologically a "pedophile" in the same sense as one who fondles a four-year-old? What about a rural peasant in a foreign land who marries a seventeen-year-old? What about such a peasant in the West of the early twentieth century? If the answer must be "yes" in all three situations, is not this position blatantly ridiculous? Would not it be more reasonable to create a new legal category such as "adolescent" or "youth" to reflect this complexity? After all, the "age of adulthood" was fixed at eighteen, and the child/adult dichotomy established, relatively recently. Perhaps we've gotten it wrong.
While I would object both to pornography and to scandalous television programs on moral grounds, the use of the term "child pornography" in an instance such as this is only a way of "piling on" opprobium to those whose actions we despise, and of gaining allies who lack the ethical basis to object to anything short of the sexual abuse of prepubescent children. Skins may well deserve disdain for what it is, but even the contemptible may be unfairly slandered.
Paul| 1.26.11 @ 5:50PM
Not that it will matter, but I will preface this by noting that I support neither MTV nor its program Skins, based upon the prevailing reports of its content. It sounds like another of the increasingly detestable clones of 90210, an original which was bad enough on its own. I admit to having seen neither the American program, nor its British model, and so am venturing an opinion based upon incomplete information, rendering myself vulnerable to a degree of error on that basis.
That said, I have to second "Liberty 5-3000." The message and content of Skins may well be offensive and scandalous in the original sense; that is, they may tend to promote and encourage immoral behavior. This has certainly been true of many television programs, particularly in this genre. But let us suppose that the actors had all been at least eighteen, rather than seventeen: would this aspect of the situation have been improved? No. So what is our problem? Not the promotion of immorality, but the violation of statutory age restrictions?
Immaterial, one might respond. The show employs actors beneath the legal age of maturity to depict sexual situation or acts for the sake of titillation, and is therefore child pornography. Lacking an in-depth background in the relevant case law, I am unable to determine whether this is true in a legal sense. Is it true in a moral sense, however?
Our society has largely abandoned any moral objection to live-action pornography featuring actors of greater than the legal age, as "community standards," as held by the courts, have lately decayed into near-nonexistence. We still object to child pornography, though. But if we do not object to pornography in itself, why is this the case? The odium justly attached to "child pornography" stems largely from a still-widespread belief that children cannot properly understand nor consent to engage in sexual activity, including pornography. True enough, but what do we mean by "children?" The term is clearly defined in a legal sense, but when an eighteen-year-old has sex with a seventeen-year-old, do we consider this as morally objectionable as a case in which an eighteen-year-old has sex with a five-year-old? If not, what is the difference? I would argue that the difference is that the category "child," legally defined as "under 18," does not correspond to the biological and social reality of the prepubescent child unable to properly understand or consent to sex. What about the age of consent, which in many US jurisdictions is below eighteen? While his behavior may be reprehensible, is a twenty-two-year-old who sleeps with a pubescent sixteen-year-old morally and psychologically a "pedophile" in the same sense as one who fondles a four-year-old? What about a rural peasant in a foreign land who marries a seventeen-year-old? What about such a peasant in the West of the early twentieth century? If the answer must be "yes" in all three situations, is not this position blatantly ridiculous? Would not it be more reasonable to create a new legal category such as "adolescent" or "youth" to reflect this complexity? After all, the "age of adulthood" was fixed at eighteen, and the child/adult dichotomy established, relatively recently. Perhaps we've gotten it wrong.
While I would object both to pornography and to scandalous television programs on moral grounds, the use of the term "child pornography" in an instance such as this is only a way of "piling on" opprobium to those whose actions we despise, and of gaining allies who lack the ethical basis to object to anything short of the sexual abuse of prepubescent children. Skins may well deserve disdain for what it is, but even the contemptible may be unfairly slandered.
BerlGoetz| 1.31.11 @ 9:23AM
Teens sixteen and under are routinely encouraged to decide whether they are straight or gay. Is this not also unrealistic?
chris haynes| 1.26.11 @ 8:32PM
Poeple who live in glass houses. ....
Yes, abortion is widespread in Middle East. But in well run Moslem countries, like Saudi, it is rare. That's because murder is illegal in Saud. The Saudis ay all are men are creasted equal and have an inalienable right to life. Us enlightened Americans, we know better. We decree some to be inferior. Okay to kill them, if its your fancy.
50,000,000 dead, not counting those of our NATO allies. Brought to you by our political, media, acedemic, business establishment. Part of our vaunted constitution, per the judges of both parties. A freedom defended by our brave military. Legal Abortion. The greatest holocaust in human history.
Go to a holocasut museum. See the message: "Never again" What a hoot.
Maybe what they mean is this: "Never again, a chump change, 6 million man, holocaust"
So sneer at the Moslems. If it makes you feel good. And they have faults. But you cant deny this: America's are far worse. I mean, the greatest holocaust in history, tell us what's worse.
Wayne Wymore | 7.5.11 @ 5:12PM
This is the same garbage in a new skin. Just like they tried 8 times to change the Constitutional requirements (just since '99) to become president. Their bill would fail (Thank God), but next year they are back - same bill - new backer.
This garbage has been tried before. When good decent people put their time, energy and money into defeating it - MOST of the time this vile slime is removed. BUT we cannot stop. Because these people will be back (Sadly) trying again to corrupt good morals.
They know that they can't just jump straight to their goal, so they try to bend the rules. Throw in a "little skin", some "small" change that surely no reasonable person could object to.
We must continue the fight for our childrens innocence. For public morals. For decency. For truth.
(We Must) Never, Never, Never, NEVER, Never, NEVER Give Up! -Churchill
See also:http://bit.ly/NeverNeverGiveUp
Adidas | 8.11.11 @ 4:43AM
is good
العاب | 4.11.12 @ 3:40PM
I hope they throw the book at MTV