Thursday, January 25, 2007

Why hasn't the DA brought child pornography charges against the Dakota Fanning movie?

Because it's not child pornography, according to Torie Bosch at Slate.


Anonymous said...

Hey, I've found this blog through facebook, and saw that there were no comments. Eh, pity, and I'd like to give a real comment, but I don't have much time, and haven't actually read much of the stuff here.

I do find it pretty interesting though, so I bookmarked it. Keep it going, I'll have time eventually =/. I hope.

Anonymous said...

I do not know what the fuss is about. No one can see Ms. Fanning naked, nor do they show the teen milkman on top of her "raping" her like in other movies and shows when women get attacked. They don't show her naked. The "rape" in the movie is implied when she screams "No!" and whatever else a rape victim screams, and you see the fear in her eyes...a few seconds later it's done. Did anyone complain when the black girl in "A Time To Kill" was being "raped" horrifically by those white men? No one saw the "rape" when they saw the movie, but it was implied when the girl screamed and dropped her groceries as the men spread her legs and tied them to the tree. Again, no one could see anything in "ATTK", but it was implied. Child abuse/child rape occurs every minute of our lives, and if we ignore the problem it will never go away. Now, if they showed either of the girls naked and actually see the men "raping" them, then shame on the filmakers for breaking the law.