There's been a lot of furor in the last few days about MTV's adaptation of British teen drama Skins, particularly whether the show crosses the line into "child pornography."Over at The Daily Beast, you can read my latest feature, entitled "Skins Is Not Kiddie Porn!" As you might expect from the title, I examine, whether or not, despite the hype, MTV’s Skins breaks child-pornography laws. While I'm of the firm mind that it does not legally do so, I say that the show, a pale imitation of the original, still has plenty to be ashamed of.
The conversation reminds me that just because you might disagree with something, or find it to be immoral, doesn't mean that it is in fact illegal. And that the parties who are throwing around the term "child porn" might actually have better things to do with their time: such as actually focusing on preventing and prosecuting distributors, producers, and suppliers of actual child pornography, rather than point the finger of accusation at this bargain-basement adaptation. While this is smutty (what isn't on MTV), the assertion that the network didn't have all of these legally vetted ahead of time is absolutely absurd.
But that's just my two cents, really. What do you make of the nontroversy?
Comments