The question in communicative justice raised by the film, The Tin Drum, is whether or not or to what extent the film is considered to be a form of child pornography. I claim that The Tin Drum is a form of child pornography since it promotes sexual performances by a child under the age of 16 by taking part in and distributing material which depicts such a performance. According to New York v. Ferber, the statute defines “sexual performance” as any performance that includes sexual conduct by such a child, and “sexual conduct” is in turn defined as an actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sad-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals.
As philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn argues, protecting certain types of speech is not essential to the pursuit of truth. According to him, political speech should be protected while worthless speech or private speech has less protection. Philosophically, The Tin Drum is considered to be unprotected child pornography that does not contribute to worthwhile speech. Historically, The Tim Drum was one of the first occurrences of this type of child pornography. Those who wish to believe that it is not child pornography seem to think that it was made for artistic and historical purposes. However, taking account the context of modern times, a film like this would be banned.
In cases that have followed this film, people have been convicted of child pornography for lesser crimes. Children have been punished for taking photos of themselves and young couples have been prosecuted for sending promiscuous text messages to each other’s cell phones. While these examples are considered to be child pornography according to the law, they do not nearly compare to the offensive material seen in The Tin Drum. Looking at the actual law, the boy in the Tin Drum is participating in “sexual conduct” which means he is simulating sexual intercourse and masturbation.
The creators of this film are promoting and distributing this offensive and illegal material. The specific scene that comes to mind is when the little boy is resting his head on the woman’s genital area while laying in a bed. It is very obvious that this scene exists to re-create or simulate sexual intercourse or oral sex. Because this scene shows a child under the age of 16 participating in sexual acts, it is considered to be lewd and offensive. The majority of our society believes it is wrong for children to participate in sexual acts. It is furthermore even worse for an older person to participate in these acts with a child. For social, philosophical and legal reasons, The Tin Drum is a prime example of child pornography.
Because of the above reasons and grounds, I believe that The Tin Drum is a form of child pornography since it promotes sexual performances by a child under the age of 16 by taking part in and distributing material which depicts such a performance. According to New York v. Ferber, the statute defines “sexual performance” as any performance that includes sexual conduct by such a child, and “sexual conduct” is in turn defined as an actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sad-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals.
have not yet seen the Tin Drum, but from the sounds of it, I too believe its disturbing that a minor is portrayed doing sexual acts, its not a good example to show adults and children.
ReplyDeleteGreat use of examples of cases, specific scenes in the movie and Meiklejohn's arguments.
ReplyDeleteWhile I still need to see the movie to make my final decision on whether or not it should be protected, from reading what you have written, I would be inclined to reason that the film should not receive protection.