^This.chemicalreaper said:...I think Americans need to chill out.
Oh noez! Someone's bare arse!? Anything showing people having sex, implying sex, hinting at implying the desire to have sex, or standing in the nip on television must be banned!
Yes, that will definitely stop under-18's from learning about or wanting to experiment with sex. Unless they have access to... the internet.
WHAT xD It's an honest program for sure but it's so blatantly not realistic at all. It's like a live action cartoon.Elizabeth Grunewald said:"Skins may be the most realistic show on television."
Tipsy Giant said:They tried that, but the law was struck down in the courts. I remember someone pointing out that it could be theoretically applied to works of fiction like Romeo and Juliet because it involved minors. You see, wikipedia says so:Wrists said:The issue is also with "appearing to be under the age limit" if you are portraying a person under the limit this is also against the law in america (please correct me if i'm wrong, this was my understanding of US law)
"Simulated child pornography was made illegal with the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. The CPPA was short-lived. In 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, holding that the relevant portions of the CPPA were unconstitutional because they prevented lawful speech. Referring to Ferber, the court stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children.""
My question exactly. But from what you said, it doesn't sound like something I would watch.Irridium said:...
What the fuck is "Skins"?
Clearly you've dodged every front page of every national and local tabloid for the past... forever, for which I salute you.Tipsy Giant said:the british version was shit but 16 is legal here so no outcry of pedophilia, plus we aren't as reactionary as america