The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Atheist Fools

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/child-pornography-30604115.aspx

Subject:  child pornography? Date:  3/23/2013  10:42 PM
Author:  1poorguy Number:  419691 of 439187

Superman is on HBO. Christopher Reeve.

When his ship crashes, and the Kents find him, a nude Kalel climbs out of the crater. Full-frontal.

Isn't that illegal? I think it's silly (at least in this case), but in terms of the law I thought nude children were illegal in any context? I recall one of the girlie magazines a couple decades ago got in trouble because one of their centerfolds lied about her age. She was under 18. It was deemed 'child pornography'. There was no depiction of sexual acts, just posing by herself in the usual manner. I don't think anyone went to jail, but it was a big deal at the time.

Wiki says sexual acts need to be involved, in which case I don't think either qualifies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

But then wiki doesn't necessarily reflect what the law says.

Just wondering. One of those curiosity things. I certainly don't think the scene in Superman should get anyone in trouble. But sometimes the law doesn't make such fine distinctions between a girlie magazine and Superman.
Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us