MTV Executives Worried Skins May Violate Child Pornography Laws

Elizabeth Grunewald

The Pope of Chilitown
Oct 4, 2010
1,096
0
0
MTV Executives Worried Skins May Violate Child Pornography Laws

Executives at MTV demanded that the producers of the American version of Skins tone down some of the racier content in upcoming episodes.

Skins, the American remake of the British television show, recently premiered on MTV to 3.3 million viewers, 1.2 million of whom were younger than 18. The drama shows the lives of teenagers without sugar-coating sexual activity or drug use. Executives at the network are wondering if they need to shy away from the program's candor, though, as they become concerned that the show may violate United States child pornography laws. To that end, they have reportedly demanded that the show's producers tone down the more explicit content in episodes yet to air.

The New York Times describes such federal statutes, saying, "Child pornography is defined by the United States as any visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct," quoting the US Justice Department guidelines which specify "a picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive." In the US, a minor is anyone under the age of 18. Skins is the rare television show to cast true teenagers, rather than twenty-somethings, as teenagers. Most of the cast, who range in age from 15 to 19, have no prior acting experience.

The concerns are directed towards upcoming episodes, particularly the third episode of this season, which features 17-year-old actor Jesse Carare shown from behind, nude. A running gag in the episode features Carare with an erectile dysfunction pill-induced erection. The Times describes various other episodes as including, "simulated masturbation, implied sexual assault, and teenagers disrobing and getting into bed together."

The Times quotes both the Parent's Television Council, who condemns the show as the "most dangerous program that has ever been foisted on your children," and Newsweek, who called the program, "Skins may be the most realistic show on television." MTV executives declined to comment about the existence of the demands for change, but the Times says one such executive, speaking on the condition of anonymity, described a meeting in which "the executives wondered aloud who could possibly face criminal prosecution and jail time if the episodes were broadcast without changes." No charges have yet been filed against the show, its producers, or the network.

Source: The New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/business/media/20mtv.html?_r=1]

Permalink
 

Celtic_Kerr

New member
May 21, 2010
2,166
0
0
Smart to be cautious if you ask me. Last thing you need is being sued for trying to show realism on your show
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
...
What the fuck is "Skins"?

*American remake of British television show* - oh thats promising...
*Aired on MTV* - not winning me over...
*drama showing the lives of teenagers, but more "real" then other shows that claim to do the exact same thing* - They really don't want me to watch this show.

And after looking it up some more, what kind of parent would let their kids watch it?!
 

Onyx Oblivion

Borderlands Addict. Again.
Sep 9, 2008
17,032
0
0
"Skins" was horrid to begin with. One of the few things on BBC America I won't watch.
 

SimuLord

Whom Gods Annoy
Aug 20, 2008
10,077
0
0
You know, for once I agree with the Parents Television Council, at least in the "if I had kids, I wouldn't let them watch MTV" sense.

Though the most dangerous show ever foisted on children? That "award" still goes to that Teen Moms show, whatever they called it. That was just a fucking travesty. I'd remind my kids that they'd wave bye-bye to their inheritance if they ever turned out like that.
 

Tipsy Giant

New member
May 10, 2010
1,133
0
0
the british version was shit but 16 is legal here so no outcry of pedophilia, plus we aren't as reactionary as america
 

Devil's Due

New member
Sep 27, 2008
1,244
0
0
Who the hell wants to watch a bunch of dumb ass teenagers doing stupid crap, including drugs and underage sex (and actual underage nude persons, as this article states as well). This show should be pulled, honestly. We have enough crap like this on as is, but this is just trying to find some way to push the boundaries and be "cool" for it. Annoying!

EDIT:
Litchhunter said:
As a teenager, I find shows like this to be rather rage-induceing. I know some teenagers get into really bad spots but these shows go rather over-board in trying to point out the bad stuff where it is. Almost no one I know goes through this, I dont go through this, and it's getting anyoing only seeing shows makeing teenagerhood look like a liveing hell. If you want to do something to help teens in a tight spot, then by all means, go for it. But keep your sweeping generalizations out of my television, thank you very much.

OT: Meh, whatever the show thinks it needs to do I guess, see reasons above for why I don't really care if it fails.
Agreed with this on all counts!
 

TheRightToArmBears

New member
Dec 13, 2008
8,674
0
0
Well, the UK Skins has been awful since series 2 and even then it was 'ok' (it was filmed 'round these parts too) so don't get your hopes up. It's just a cheap shot at 'I know, teens will watch this if we put lots of lesbians, drugs and sex in it!'. It's not good, never will be, and the American version will inevitably suck harder than a turtle at tiddlywinks.

If they don't let it air then you Americans are lucky bastards.

The show isn't even realistic! Our debauchery is much different to the stuff shown in the programme. If it was realistic it would just be teens drinking vodka and cheap beer and throwing up in a bush on a golf course.
 

Willis_D

New member
May 27, 2009
404
0
0
I loved the first two season of the UK Skins (the original. Gen 1.)

Gen 2/Next to seasons were okay, not as good, but they really had their moments.

This American one though... I don't know. I just don't really think it looks good. I've heard by some of my mates that it is pretty shit, and isn't as... -what would be the word? Gritty? Mature? That sort of thing- ... the UK version. Can't judge until I watch it, but I do doubt it'd be as good.

Also, Misfits is where it is at! That show is awesome.

EDIT: Also, just saw the trailer for the new UK season, looks pretty shit. Pretty darn shit.
 

vxicepickxv

Slayer of Bothan Spies
Sep 28, 2008
3,126
0
0
Ah, American television. I for one am glad I dropped it for netflix. Almost nothing new is worth watching on cable, and anything else can be watched on network TV.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,595
0
0
The first two seasons I didn't watch much of... the episodes I did watch were okay.

After that they just trivialised the characters ._.

But still the episodes were just about watchable.
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
If this were legit concern for child pornography, should we not be expecting the police to be knocking down their door, confiscating it, and pressing charges, raher than engaging in debate over whether or not it's fit for broadcast?

Last I checked posession was a crime.

-m
 

Buchichu

New member
Apr 2, 2010
87
0
0
I watched the UK version and it was pretty good - great acting anyway - but "realistic"? Not where I come from, anyway. Jesus, if the way those kids acted was in any way representative of the general teen population society would crumble in about 2 generations. It could also be raunchy to the point where I would actually feel uncomfortable, which is rare for me, but I imagine it was the fact that these were kids were seeing. Americans are hugely uptight about just about everything, compared to British or even Canadian TV, they like to be overly cautious while completely ignoring some of the stuff they allow to air on prime time TV and the impact it could have. But in this case they really should be watching their asses.

Does anyone remember that movie KIDS? god damn, I don't know how that WASN'T ripped apart as child porn man, that was just gross.
 

mireko

Umbasa
Sep 23, 2010
2,003
0
0
Matt_LRR said:
If this were legit concern for child pornography, should we not be expecting the police to be knocking down their door, confiscating it, and pressing charges, raher than engaging in debate over whether or not it's fit for broadcast?

Last I checked posession was a crime.

-m
Valid point. Maybe this is a PR campaign.

"Our show is so outrageous, we're practically PEDOPHILES!!!"
 

Lord Kloo

New member
Jun 7, 2010
719
0
0
I never liked skins and I live in middle class rural England

Many of my friends like it and they are respectable people, but seeing teenagers having sex on telly and doing drugs doesn't appeal to me as it reminds me that I'm not getting any..

It is realistic for the scummier areas of urban areas where lots of people attend parties and get laid before 16 but why would I want to watch that..?

It's just another example of channel 4 using sex to intake more viewers..

As for the USA, it's not really porn it's just meant to be steryotyped and trivialised yet funny, like the inbetweeners.. Don't bother watching it..

Misfits is where it's at..
 

BehattedWanderer

Fell off the Alligator.
Jun 24, 2009
5,237
0
0
I say let them go for it. Just because it's violent, or sexual, or drug abusing, or a terrible show, or anything of the like doesn't mean it's not based on something. Out of habit of avoiding anything near the no-longer-correctly-named MTV, I hadn't heard of this. Having not been a teen for several years, I'm not really inclined to go back an live the glory days of high school and improper hormone balances and random fucking drama, and therefore will be avoiding it. But, a show about teens for people who are teens or never grew out of the teenage mindset, involving drugs, sex, comedy, and drama sounds perfect for them. Let them have it, say I. Show the content, using the 17 years olds. (Though, I highly suggest not using any sexual stuff for anyone below 17.)