MTV Skin's - Child Porn?

countrygrl

King
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
668
Location
University of Pennsylvania
A day after concerns emerged that MTV's sexually charged teenage drama "Skins" may violate child pornography laws, a major advertiser has pulled its ads from the show.

The New York Times reported Friday that Taco Bell decided the racy show was "not fit for our brand." That bomb fell after the paper reported that MTV's executives had asked producers to tone down the show's most explicit content.

The execs were particularly concerned with an episode scheduled to air Jan. 31, in which a naked 17-year-old actor is depicted (from behind) running down a street. The teen's erection is an ongoing joke in the episode.

The show, a mimic of the British hit of the same name, is purposely edgy, with candid scenes of teenage drugs and sex. But the paper reported that most reality shows involve adult actors, while the Skins actors are all teenagers, with the youngest at 15. Reported the NY Times:


Child pornography is defined by the United States as any visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. In some cases, "a picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive," according to the Justice Department's legal guidance. Anyone younger than 18 is considered to be a minor.

The furor has also prompted conservative TV watchdog group, the Parents Television Council, to call for a federal investigation child porn and exploitation laws.

The group has called the show the most dangerous show ever for children.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/archives/236538.asp

So, where to begin with this. I guess the crux of the debate should center around whether this is child porn or not. Are parental groups out of line here? Is the show appropriate? The original New York Times article (that is no longer available without a subscription) indicates that it is targeted for 12-17 year olds. Is it really kosher for MTV to be targeting kids so young with such a racy show? Does the burden of responsibility fall onto the parents? Are US child pornography laws "too stingy" and go beyond reason?
 
You will not believe how much skins racy antics have destroyed the moral fabric of Britain. It's simply disgusting... every day, I see my friends engaging in this shocking behaviour: shagging in public, snorting coke off toilet seats in gay bars, fighting police at massive raves, destroying million-pound houses.

Despicable
 
These Americans remakes are always trash anyway.

Watch the real Skins- it's a great show.
 
If you think the mtv version is shocking, never ever watch the original.

With an objective scale, no, it's not, it's normal television, even if a bit on the scandalous side, but that's wanted ;)

Now you Americans have that distinction between open and closed tv, not, so I guess, it's up to you to determine wether is ok for open tv, but it certainly is for tv in general ;-)

And to add a bit of stereotype, "Americans are prude", (see Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl "scandal")... ;-)
 
My son watches it - the ads on E4 antagonised me so much I hate it to bits, but by all accounts it's edgy but not over the edge. Have you actually seen it, countrygrl?
 
That doesn't sound like porn to me; the kid's erection is meant as a comedic device. I can't imagine anyone getting off on it.
Juno features pretty much the same gag.

Every time people complain about something being indecent, the more attention it receives.
These Family Interests groups ought to be showing more interest in their own families.
 
I heard accusations a while back that the following image was child porn, despite the fully-clothed state of the respectively 24, 28 & 24 year old actors, so I'm a little skeptical...

 
Just FYI, the MTV exec said the whole "we were worried it would violate child porn laws" thing just to grab headlines. It's a bog standard marketing ploy. MTV thanks you for the free publicity.
 
also, taco bell gets more publicity by being reported as the ones that pulled out by every news corporation than they ever would by continuing to advertise.
 
For it to be child porn it would have to feature children (it doesn't) and it would have to be pornography (it's not).

In other news, I was pleasantly surprised by the US Skins. It definitely paled in comparison to its excellent source material and suffered from the US broadcasting restrictions, but the acting quality was nowhere near as low as I was expecting.
 
Why does US television always make worse productions of British TV shows? Top Gear USA, Peep Show USA - why not get the original it is way better.

Anyway Skin is awful - only seen series 1 though and that was its best ever.
 
Why does US television always make worse productions of British TV shows? Top Gear USA, Peep Show USA - why not get the original it is way better.
Americans lack the sarcastic humor that comes naturaly to the Brits.
 
but why not just air the originals instead of making pale rip-offs?

you dont need subtitles, you dont need dubbing, it's the same freaking language already...
 
I don't accept the whole, Americans are loud, brash, never-embarrassed, incapable of subtlety generalisation.

I also don't accept the stiff upper lip, sarcastic, rotting teeth, miserable Brit generalisation either.


US TV executives should try it! Saves costs of making a new series: HIRE ME!
 
I don't accept the whole, Americans are loud, brash, never-embarrassed, incapable of subtlety generalisation.

I also don't accept the stiff upper lip, sarcastic, rotting teeth, miserable Brit generalisation either.
I've seen both the American and British Top Gear, and I have to say I like the British humor found in it alot more. I've always liked sarcastic wit and Clarckson has that nailed.
 
The guy is 17, who cares anyway? It's not like he's 13. I got so sick of how the American media goes into a state of emergency every time Miley Cyrus takes some clothes off. Most Americans aren't prudes, it's just there's a very vocal prudish minority. There's also been an extension of childhood that includes even 17 year olds.

About American versions - I think the networks probably stand to make more money in the long term by making their own versions of the show.

I don't know about British networks but American networks are generally so concerned with the profit that it seriously stifles any creativity in their products. The networks with more freedom such as HBO and Showtime normally produce better shows. The major networks like FOX, NBC, ABC normally make inferior shows.
 
So, where to begin with this.
With the fact that teenagers are sexually adults, not kids. They do have sex. And they allways will have sex.
They are not children.
I guess the crux of the debate should center around whether this is child porn or not.
It's not. At least not more than a zillion other shows. Really short crux there.
Are parental groups out of line here?
Yes. And they are not "parental groups", they are radical activist.
Is the show appropriate?
No, it's trash. Incentivising your kids not to watch it would be a good idea. More with their brains in mind than their privates.
The original New York Times article (that is no longer available without a subscription) indicates that it is targeted for 12-17 year olds.
Which doesn't matter all that much.
Is it really kosher for MTV to be targeting kids so young with such a racy show?
Kids get "targeted" with all kinds of junk. Learning to choose not to consume it is part of growing up.
Does the burden of responsibility fall onto the parents?
Largely, yes.
Are US child pornography laws "too stingy" and go beyond reason?
The U.S. are amazing in being completely horny and sex-obsessed and exceptionally prude at the same time. All the time.
Since i don't know how those laws work exactly i can't judge that specifiacally.
 
Our kids do not need any more influence on TV than they already have. It's bad enough now, why encourage it more? Honestly though, on MTV's end it's more about exploiting it for money than encouraging it, but to the kids who watch it it encourages bad behavior.
 
Top Bottom