Comments by "Bluebelle51" (@Bluebelle51) on "Romeo and Juliet Actors SUE Paramount Over 1968 Film's Nude Scene" video.

compensation for being sexually exploited as a child isn't a "handout" nor is it ever to late to seek
4
@PinkSoldier2009 and they deserve "free money" for being sexually exploited as children, the rest is irrelevant
2
@kanhaibhatt913 there's no evidence they got "career opportunities" from this movie.
2
@kanhaibhatt913 The billboards didn't feature their names, they featured the director's name and the Paramount name. There is no evidence they got contracts or were referred to other contacts, companies, directors or producers. Now, that could be different if a producer or director came forward and stated they hired them explicitly on the basis of their previous performance (when they were children being sexually exploited) but I seriously doubt that anyone working at that time would come forward and make that statement considering that child sexual exploitation is a crime.
2
never too late to seek compensation for being exploited as a child tho
2
@ilresole603 The film is owned by Paramount, a California company, that's why the laws of Cali apply, also, there's no statute of limitation on civil complaints, so the amount of time that has passed is irrelevant. If it were a criminal case (as it should have been) there's a 15 year limitation (if I remember correctly). The plaintiffs current financial situation is also irrelevant to the case
1
@ilresole603 that's only true for criminal cases, this is a civil case. The person responsible for the sexual exploitation can't be put in jail after 15 years, (even if he were alive) but he (or his bosses, meaning Paramount) can be sued for damages resulting from the sexual exploitation no matter how long ago it was.
1
@ilresole603 Thanks for the clarification on the "you two", it was a confusing sentence. Also, they were minors, underage people have no right of consent, this means that no one had to force them, it's still sexual exploitation of a minor, and because they were minors, they couldn't receive any funds from the movie until they were 21, and from what I know about the era, they probably never saw a dime.
1
@ilresole603 I have no doubt they suffered further abuse because they waited. As minors, their parents would have to sign a contract for them, as minors cannot legally do so. This does not mean that the parents can consent to their children being sexually exploited, (because that's a criminal act) even though they did sign contracts obligating their children to perform in the movie. As minors they had no right to consent, so regardless of whether they willingly performed nude, or if they had a gun to their head, the law sees it as the same.
1
@ilresole603 We know that the abuse is true because it was filmed and left in the movie, so that's not up for debate. Whether the parents knew or didn't know isn't a question either as it was a closed set, meaning only people required to make the scene were allowed to be present. Also, let's not forget that the exploitation of children in movies wasn't really ever addressed until 1982 when John Landis got 2 children killed on set of the Twilight Zone movie.
1
@ilresole603 Third parties are to blame, not the parents, or the victims. Such is the nature of the law. While I do not doubt that the parents saw the finished film, I also do not doubt they were told they consented to their children's sexual exploitation, without realizing that they could not consent to a criminal act being committed on their children. I will guarantee if they complained about it at the time, they were threatened with a lawsuit they could not defend against without a lawyer they could not afford. That's the way corporations work, and that hasn't changed in the centuries we've allowed corporations to exist.
1
@ilresole603 I know how the system worked then and how it works now. It hasn't changed for centuries. You sign a contract with a corporation on behalf of your child, you don't like how your child is treated so you complain, and threaten to break the contract. Then the corporation who has lawyers on stand by to sharpen their lawyers pencils, threaten YOU with constant legal actions. The lawyers know that a case against you won't stand up in court, but they also know that their client has more money so they can force you into court often enough to bankrupt you with legal bills trying to defend yourself. They don't just do it over the contract, they do this to send a message to anyone else who would also try to break their contract. Are you trying to tell me that you believe the parents had more money than Paramount?
1
@ilresole603 They wouldn't have a chance in hell in previous years, because the law wouldn't allow victims of child sexual abuse to go to court. That changed recently, because of the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church. Victims didn't come forward for years after the statute expired and so had no recourse to seek justice for themselves. That law was changed to allow them to sue their abusers decades after the abuse occurred, because the criminal laws do not apply after the statute of limitations has passed (usually 15 years, but it varies state to state). Also, we're not talking about "two old men", we're talking about a woman and a man, and we're also talking about the sexual exploitation of children, because they weren't old when the abuse occurred. It can only be a "matter of money" at this point, because of the laws involved, so that's a moot point.
1
@kanhaibhatt913 I think that's the entire point of the lawsuit, child sexual exploitation is never legal
1
@rft2001 The sexual exploitation of minors (who can't even legally sign a contract, or open a bank account) when filmed for mass consumption is child porn. There's nothing "innocent" about it other than the children involved. You must be a real pervert if you can't understand that. They weren't old enough to even offer consent, (at that time, in particular, the legal age of consent was 21, it has since been lowered to 18)
1
@rft2001 Romeo and Juliet doesn't offend me, child sexual exploitation does. Especially from an industry that's famous for exploiting children in all manner of disgusting ways, harboring and covering for rapists (I'm looking at YOU Harvey Weinstein) and even getting children killed filming.
1
@rft2001 Why did you delete your other comments?
1
@rft2001 It's not a matter of who finds it offensive, it's a matter of child sexual exploitation, (that should be offensive to anyone with more than 3 brain cells) but the victims themselves are offended, wounded and had life long trauma because of it. Also, I have yet to call for "banning" anything, I want to see the victims compensated, I would like to see the perpetrators jailed, but since most of them are dead, that's seriously unlikely
1
@rft2001 The age of consent has been a staple of law since 1275 in England, and American law since 1885. So the "rules I quoted" have been established law for quite some time and certainly a long time before the movie was produced. I have no problems whatsoever with sex workers or pornography, as long as it's consenting adults, it's none of my business. I actually think sex work should be legal and regulated so that the workers and their clients are safer, and protect children from being exploited at the same time.
1
@rft2001 Even Italy has age of consent laws (they in fact invented them, then it carried over to England in 1275 to become "common law", the US didn't enact laws before 1885.) There is never anything "tasteful" about child sexual exploitation
1
maybe it took 54 years for them to understand the damage that was done to them when they were sexually exploited children
1