The Hollywood Reporter: In two recent high-profile lawsuits — one related to the iconic photograph of a baby used on the 1991 Nirvana Nevermind album cover and the other related to a scene in the 1968 film Romeo and Juliet — courts have addressed statute of limitations issues in connection with lawsuits alleging that an artistic work constituted child abuse.
4 comments:
This article has a surprisingly neutral take on what is such a controversial topic right now, especially within the Hollywood and cinematic world. Typically when you read “news” claiming to report on these events (such as the statute of limitations and abuse) you can easily see how its biases are affecting its writing. I am surprised to see a news source like this taking such a neutral stance. The article doesn’t go into too much detail on the cases themselves but rather focuses on our current judicial climate in which we go about not just filing for lawsuits, but the rights defendants have in how to respond to them. While I am certainly not an expert on the topic of why americans (i should say some americans) want the statue of limitation in child sexual assault/abuse cases to be extended. I do believe that these cases especially ones in hollywood related to material the general public has so much access to very controversial and devastating/influencing to both parties involved no matter how our legal system chooses to go about them because the media would only benefit from these “controversial stories”
I think while extending the statute of limitations on cases like these may help, it’s hard to concretely prove claims of sexual abuse when so much time has passed. A lot of evidence is likely to be circumstantial and without concrete evidence the court will most likely drop the case. I’m not saying that most cases will be like this, however, in the case of the Nirvana kid, it seems like the suit was more of a PR or financial move rather than an actual wholehearted grievance. It is definitely a good thing that California has extended the statute of limitations along with putting safeguards in place to deter frivolous suits, which can tarnish a person's name, both with and without credible claims. I hate that it’s true, but there are definitely cases of people filling sexual assault suits to hurt the reputation of others. It is important to remember though, that most cases filled are actually serious disputes and not frivolous.
It is extremely ironic that this case got thrown out due to “procedural reasons” and is quite comedic considering how long it has been since the original incidents that the case references. In order to bring a case to light this long since the original events the plaintiff has to seriously want to go through all the numerous legal troubles it causes. To be up for all of that and then have your case thrown out must not be fun. But even still, the argument that not all child nudity is child pornography is a fair argument to make. I think it should still be considered that just because something isn’t child pornography doesn’t mean that it isn’t still child abuse and doesn’t still expose the child. The intent is separate from the outcome and if the outcome is a nude child then it should still come with some repercussions.
I definitely found this to be an interesting article, and in particular, the phrase “not all child nudity is child pornography” definitely made me stop and think. I agree with the concept, and I think that the Nirvana cover is a really good example of that. However, I would propose that it might be a good idea to find some sort of ground to use to describe the middle ground between the two. Regardless, if it’s not child pornography, but it is child nudity, and not really child abuse, I think that it is an interesting exploration into what rights parents have over their kids and their kid's images. Presumably, the parents/guardians of the plaintiffs, when the plaintiffs were minors, consented to their child being nude for the sake of artistic work. Is there any other barrier besides parental consent? What if the parents don’t have the greatest intentions? Should there be stricter rules around when child nudity can be used, or should child nudity not be permitted to be used for any sort of commercial work, even if it’s artistic work? It’s hard to imagine things as iconic as the Nirvana album as anything else, but would it be better to prevent any other child nudity situations from being commercialized in the future?
Post a Comment