By Mark David Blum, Esq.
Oh how I wish I were a young movie starlet. Money would be pouring in and my retirement and future would be all set before I grew my first pubic hair. Young successful child stars like Dakota Fanning are the lucky few whose entire life is financially set before they get their first real kiss. Obviously, they could also go bouncing down Bonaduce Boulevard and squander all their fame and fortune. Or, they could maintain a sober perspective on reality and end up as an Ambassador to the United Nations.
“Whatchew talking ‘bout, Willis?”
At the Sundance Film Festival, one of the most talked about movies stars young Dakota Fanning (age 12) as the victim of family abuse and rape. Apparently the film has graphic scenes of the actual rape of the 12 year old child character in the film.
Many are outraged. States like North Carolina are calling for laws that give the government prior review of all movie scripts to be produced. Federal prosecutors are considering bringing child pornography charges. Though declared to be a great film, nobody of the elite at Sundance is offering to buy and distribute the movie.
Premised upon a presumption that depicting a rape scene involving a child, using an actual child arguably fits the Federal and most State’s statutory definition of child pornography. Showing this, distributing this, and participating in this film could net a defendant a life sentence and a mandatory sex offender registration.
What is art? Does art imitate life? Does life imitate art? Like discussions on the forums involving certain inflammatory ‘words’, where is the line at which a government can declare the difference between pornography and art?
Daily we are all subjected to violence and graphic depictions of horror. Setting aside some of the major “Passion”ate movies made in recent years, how about daily episodes of television. Law and Order has not hesitated to show child victims of rape who then had entire cans of insect repellant sprayed in their mouths. Oprah recently had a child victim of kidnap and rape on her show and they talk openly about the experience.
As boring as it is to constantly return to that worn out of piece of hemp parchment, nevertheless there is a guarantee promised me by my nation’s Founders that I have the right to free speech and expression. You do not have the right to not be offended by my expression. I may put a cross in a jar of urine and display it a museum. You may stand on a street corner and paint a sign that says there was no Holocaust. My soldier friend can say “nigger” in discussion. Dakota Fanning can depict a child victim of incest rape in a movie. Such is the absolute intent of liberty.
Of course seeing a child raped is offensive. It may be very hard for some. For others, it may hit close to home. The loudest voices raised in anger at this film are also the voices of the very organizations best known for causing such harm to children.
Though I have yet to see the movie, my instincts tell me that the rape scene and abuse scenes are not going to be sexually exciting. In all likelihood, the few minutes of celluloid will make viewers uncomfortable, angry, and want to engage the perpetrator. This is the intent of art. It is expression that is both reflective of the mind of the artist and it is intended to bring out passions in the viewer. As subjective as is art, each person exposed has a different experience.
We live in a world where child abuse of all variations is common place. Many nations have drawn hard lines and are rightfully taking steps to halt the practice. No human being should be subjected to any non consensual contact by another under any circumstances. The problem with children is their lack of understanding, inability to defend themselves, and the very significant probability that their attackers are family or friends.
Police and prosecutors have shut down child pornography as an industry. Whatever may be your opinions on this method of proceeding, there is a general rule across most cultures today that children are not involved or to be depicted in pornography. This is a good rule.
With the advent of technology, the issue has gotten murky. There was the case before the United States Supreme Court where the children in the pornography were not real children but computer generated images. This was at least one line that was drawn. Same with the written word: Stories about violence to children, sex with children, and other offensive behaviors are freely available because they do not involve real human children and are just the expressions of the fantasies and emotions of the artist/writer/computer geek.
So why is Dakota Fanning being so ostracized and her movie ignored? Are we as a nation that uncomfortable with the subject of children being victimized that we are just going to ignore the subject and hope it just goes away? If the movie hits your local theater, will police be there to arrest the theater owner and the patrons? Will Dakota, her producers and directors and the hundreds of others who worked on the project end up sharing a cell with Jeffrey Skilling and Ted Kaczinski? What are you more afraid of … harm to your children or to their constitutional freedoms?
It is one thing if the public chooses to express its outrage by not seeing the movie. That is how we Americans vote … with our feet and our dollars. But for our government to be threatening prosecutions has a terrible chilling effect. Colder than even a winter’s day in Syracuse, the chilling is already being felt. Nobody will buy and distribute the film out of fear of prosecution.
This flaming and attack by the religious zealots in government is more threatening to our children than a rape. An act of violence may leave a physical and emotional scar. Yet, the scar across the face of the Constitution would be far more horrifying if this movie is forced from the screens merely for its artistic content.
