MTV Series ‘Skins’ Challenged As “Child Pornography”

MTV SkinsThere’s no such thing as bad publicity. Fox News reports:

Is MTV a purveyor of kiddie porn?

The Parents Television Council wants to find out.

The media watchdog group called on lawmakers and law enforcement officials Thursday to open an investigation regarding possible child pornography and exploitation on the cable network’s new series “Skins.”

“On January 17, the Viacom-owned cable network MTV aired a teenager-based drama, ‘Skins.’ The episode included all manner of foul language, illegal drug use, illegal activity as well as thoroughly pervasive sexual content,” PTC President Tim Winter said in a letter sent to the chairmen of the U.S. Senate and House Judiciary Committees and the Department of Justice. “Many of the actors appearing in the show are below the age of 18. It is clear that Viacom has knowingly produced material that may well be in violation of [several] federal statutes.”

“Since it is not necessary for Viacom or MTV to distribute the material in order to be in violation of the law, we call upon your committees to immediately investigate Viacom and MTV for the production of this material,” Winter said in the statement. “Furthermore, we urge you in the strongest possible terms to compel the attorney general to mount an investigation by the Department of Justice into whether the production of ‘Skins’ has violated federal law meant to protect minors from exploitation.”

The controversial British import series “Skins” made its debut on the cable network last Monday, causing uproar for its frank depiction of teenage sex and drug use. But unlike MTV’s envelope-pushing shows of the past, “Skins” features underage actors engaged in sexual situations. The youngest star of the show is 15…

For more information, see original article.

, , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention MTV Series ‘Skins’ Challenged As “Child Pornography” | Disinformation -- Topsy.com()

  • http://twitter.com/phantom3x Joey Hall

    I don’t get it. This episode was an almost word-for-word rip of the british show of the same name released so many years prior.

    You can’t tell me we’re at the point where the country which coined the terms Big Brother and Thought Police are more lenient than the US. XD

    • Hamsanath437

      Those terms were coined in a manner to cast light on totalitarian and oppressive ideologies, not promote them. It would follow that they are more lenient or less restrictive. Granted I’m sure that isn’t the case.

    • Word Eater

      Are you from the United States?

      When it comes to “think of the children!” and anti-nudity / anti-sex, the US is head and shoulders above the UK.

      On the other hand, if it were a show about kids shooting each other, that would be fine.

    • Tuna Ghost

      They are. Quite a bit so, actually. Most countries are, as a matter of fact.

      • that1guy

        Not entirely true. A cursory look finds the UK regularly bringing people up on obscenity and dangerous literature charges, sometimes handing out lengthy prison sentences in addition to blocking publication.
        But yeah, de facto, the U.S. is probably worse because we’re so socially conservative as a whole and tend to limit ourselves via private organizations, like the MPAA and such.

        • Mjc

          “A cursory look finds the UK regularly bringing people up on obscenity and dangerous literature charges” – I’m British and I can’t recall any of this in the last ten years? Could you cite please….

  • http://twitter.com/phantom3x Joey Hall

    I don’t get it. This episode was an almost word-for-word rip of the british show of the same name released so many years prior.

    You can’t tell me we’re at the point where the country which coined the terms Big Brother and Thought Police are more lenient than the US. XD

  • Hamsanath437

    Those terms were coined in a manner to cast light on totalitarian and oppressive ideologies, not promote them. It would follow that they are more lenient or less restrictive. Granted I’m sure that isn’t the case.

  • Other Mr. T

    Why would any kid watch this crappy fake porn on MTV, when anyone can get loads of crazy dirty porn steamcast online 24/7/365 for free? MTV is boring old crap, everything is a remake of something else (that sucked in the first place). No wonder, no one watches cable tv anymore.

  • Other Mr. T

    Why would any kid watch this crappy fake porn on MTV, when anyone can get loads of crazy dirty porn steamcast online 24/7/365 for free? MTV is boring old crap, everything is a remake of something else (that sucked in the first place). No wonder, no one watches cable tv anymore.

  • Word Eater

    Are you from the United States?

    When it comes to “think of the children!” and anti-nudity / anti-sex, the US is head and shoulders above the UK.

    On the other hand, if it were a show about kids shooting each other, that would be fine.

  • Hypnos1

    I am a full supporter of free speech, but the “free” in free speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. This society has a problem with sexualizing children – if you think thats bullshit look at the clothes elementary school girls are wearing these days. And yet at the same time that popular culture tells our children they need to be “sexy” to be “cool”, we refuse to give them any real education about what sex and its implications really are. Viacom has been profiting on this hyper-sexualization for years, and I for one hope they get dragged into court to explain how this is an okay use of the public airwaves.

    • that1guy

      “I am a full supporter of free speech…I for one hope they get dragged into court”

      That better a civil court or you’re big ole damn hypocrite. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for using my freedom of expression creatively to counter harmful speech, but using the state to speak for you whenever you’re offended sets a REALLY bad precedent.

      Historically, rulings limiting free speech in the interest of public safety and decency have significantly curtailed legitimate political and creative expression. Example one, the ruling that we get the “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” analogy from was a ruling against a group of people opposing the draft in WWI and essentially upholding that era’s Patriot Act. Example two, a litany of banned books or prosecuted books, including Ulysses, The Naked Lunch, Howl, etc, etc, etc.

      You can’t be a proponent of only the free speech you agree with.

    • Jordan

      I agree that MTV is definitely distasteful in airing such a provocative teen series, however, I disagree that our society is ‘sexualizing’ children, if anything it is taboo. It says that the youngest cast member is 15. That means they were born in 1995/96 right when internet usage began to thrive. I believe the perceived objectification of children is a direct result of the Information Age, where anything a child/teen wants to know is available in an instant. You mention the clothes elementary school girls are wearing these days. Curious you believe only girls are subject to objectification. Nonetheless, the supply meets the demand. The clothes are demanded. Sex has been the driving force for all of time and will continue to be, especially in teenagers where it is forbidden. More repression is not the answer. Education is a talking point. The information is there and available with much more ease than the awkward conversation with one’s parents or peers. And regarding the show, I may feel differently if it were not aired on MTV. Also, maybe if the name of it were not Skins… There’s just a lot about this that’s unusual, to say the least. It definitely merits a national awkward discussion.

      • that1guy

        In the original series, “skins” refers to rolling papers, the double entendre likening the near constant drug use etc. of its protagonists to a second skin they all share, a veneer over real and persistent problems and a visceral connection between them as people. I haven’t seen the new show, and probably never will, but I doubt the play on words is established as clearly as it was in the UK’s first episode.

    • Ironaddict06

      Right, and this is the issue of Skins. Some of the children MTV uses is 17 or under. By the laws, that is child pornography.

  • Hypnos1

    I am a full supporter of free speech, but the “free” in free speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. This society has a problem with sexualizing children – if you think thats bullshit look at the clothes elementary school girls are wearing these days. And yet at the same time that popular culture tells our children they need to be “sexy” to be “cool”, we refuse to give them any real education about what sex and its implications really are. Viacom has been profiting on this hyper-sexualization for years, and I for one hope they get dragged into court to explain how this is an okay use of the public airwaves.

  • Haystack

    Does that mean that anyone who has it on their TiVo is guilty of possessing kiddie porn?

  • Haystack

    Does that mean that anyone who has it on their TiVo is guilty of possessing kiddie porn?

    • Andrew

      Yes. Register as a sex offender immediately.

  • Anonymous

    They are simply marketing raunch http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/35004.html at teenagers and even pre-teens, why, as far as mass media is concerned sex sells and they want the money and, damn the consequences.
    Mass media executives are also well known for the desire to establish ‘er’ ‘business’ relations with young hungry performers.
    Is it as bad as it sounds, nah, it is very likely far worse than it sounds.

  • rtb61

    They are simply marketing raunch http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/35004.html at teenagers and even pre-teens, why, as far as mass media is concerned sex sells and they want the money and, damn the consequences.
    Mass media executives are also well known for the desire to establish ‘er’ ‘business’ relations with young hungry performers.
    Is it as bad as it sounds, nah, it is very likely far worse than it sounds.

    • dddjjj

      And it sells even better when you can manage to continually lower the standards of what is acceptable until we’re all sucking on corporate cock and thanking them for the pleasure.

  • Anonymous

    yeah, i totally remember being a teen and getting a boner from teen girls only to realize how wrong it was. Thankfully there was some good ol’ violence charged programing to help me take my mind off of nature.

  • Anonymous

    yeah, i totally remember being a teen and getting a boner from teen girls only to realize how wrong it was. Thankfully there was some good ol’ violence charged programing to help me take my mind off of nature.

    • Jordan

      I don’t understand. It’s not OK to get a boner from teen girls when you are teenager? Fuck!

  • Tuna Ghost

    They are. Quite a bit so, actually. Most countries are, as a matter of fact.

  • Andrew

    Yes. Register as a sex offender immediately.

  • that1guy

    “I am a full supporter of free speech…I for one hope they get dragged into court”

    That better a civil court or you’re big ole damn hypocrite. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for using my freedom of expression creatively to counter harmful speech, but using the state to speak for you whenever you’re offended sets a REALLY bad precedent.

    Historically, rulings limiting free speech in the interest of public safety and decency have significantly curtailed legitimate political and creative expression. Example one, the ruling that we get the “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” analogy from was a ruling against a group of people opposing the draft in WWI and essentially upholding that era’s Patriot Act. Example two, a litany of banned books or prosecuted books, including Ulysses, The Naked Lunch, Howl, etc, etc, etc.

    You can’t be a proponent of only the free speech you agree with.

  • that1guy

    Not entirely true. A cursory look finds the UK regularly bringing people up on obscenity and dangerous literature charges, sometimes handing out lengthy prison sentences in addition to blocking publication.
    But yeah, de facto, the U.S. is probably worse because we’re so socially conservative as a whole and tend to limit ourselves via private organizations, like the MPAA and such.

  • dddjjj

    And it sells even better when you can manage to continually lower the standards of what is acceptable until we’re all sucking on corporate cock and thanking them for the pleasure.

  • dddjjj

    And it sells even better when you can manage to continually lower the standards of what is acceptable until we’re all sucking on corporate cock and thanking them for the pleasure.

  • Jordan

    I don’t understand. It’s not OK to get a boner from teen girls when you are teenager? Fuck!

  • Jordan

    I agree that MTV is definitely distasteful in airing such a provocative teen series, however, I disagree that our society is ‘sexualizing’ children, if anything it is taboo. It says that the youngest cast member is 15. That means they were born in 1995/96 right when internet usage began to thrive. I believe the perceived objectification of children is a direct result of the Information Age, where anything a child/teen wants to know is available in an instant. You mention the clothes elementary school girls are wearing these days. Curious you believe only girls are subject to objectification. Nonetheless, the supply meets the demand. The clothes are demanded. Sex has been the driving force for all of time and will continue to be, especially in teenagers where it is forbidden. More repression is not the answer. Education is a talking point. The information is there and available with much more ease than the awkward conversation with one’s parents or peers. And regarding the show, I may feel differently if it were not aired on MTV. Also, maybe if the name of it were not Skins… There’s just a lot about this that’s unusual, to say the least. It definitely merits a national awkward discussion.

  • Saint Stranger

    did anyone see the original british version? there’s actually tits & they don’t bleep out the fuck word. oh, and the acting doesn’t suck balls.

    • that1guy

      the writing wasn’t too bad for what it was either.

  • Saint Stranger

    did anyone see the original british version? there’s actually tits & they don’t bleep out the fuck word. oh, and the acting doesn’t suck balls.

  • DeepCough

    I don’t get it: it’s perfectly acceptable for MTV to exploit teenage pregnancy, which comes from teenage sex, but it can’t show depictions of teenage sex?

  • DeepCough

    I don’t get it: it’s perfectly acceptable for MTV to exploit teenage pregnancy, which comes from teenage sex, but it can’t show depictions of teenage sex?

  • Liam_McGonagle

    Jays, trust MTV to take the sheen off the old memories of my youth.

    Seeing this lot of imbecilic, gangly, awkward teens makes me wonder what exactly was fuelling all that adolescent lust within my breast so many years ago. These ignorami are utter embarrassments.

  • Liam_McGonagle

    Jays, trust MTV to take the sheen off the old memories of my youth.

    Seeing this lot of imbecilic, gangly, awkward teens makes me wonder what exactly was fuelling all that adolescent lust within my breast so many years ago. These ignorami are utter embarrassments.

  • that1guy

    In the original series, “skins” refers to rolling papers, the double entendre likening the near constant drug use etc. of its protagonists to a second skin they all share, a veneer over real and persistent problems and a visceral connection between them as people. I haven’t seen the new show, and probably never will, but I doubt the play on words is established as clearly as it was in the UK’s first episode.

  • that1guy

    the writing wasn’t too bad for what it was either.

  • 5by5

    I love how they call the PTC a “media watchdog group” Censorship group is more like it.

    The PTC is just pissed that someone is showing people what teens are actually doing — toking out, and having sex, some of it gay — in a realistic way.

    I love tight-arsed groups like this, who think everything will be better, if only we can pretend it doesn’t exist. Meanwhile this series played in Britain to much critical acclaim, and exactly zero immature whining.

  • 5by5

    I love how they call the PTC a “media watchdog group” Censorship group is more like it.

    The PTC is just pissed that someone is showing people what teens are actually doing — toking out, and having sex, some of it gay — in a realistic way.

    I love tight-arsed groups like this, who think everything will be better, if only we can pretend it doesn’t exist. Meanwhile this series played in Britain to much critical acclaim, and exactly zero immature whining.

  • Red Baron

    Sexualization of Children From the Earliest Age Possible:

    Amongst the roles of television is to bring children into contact with sex from the earliest age possible. These people know from decades of research that sexual encounters and activity from an early age leads to the inability to create and maintain long-lasting, meaningful relationships in later life. In other words it demolishes “bonding”. For this reason you see the increased sexualization of children through television programming, and this includes cartoons and films along with music. It is proven that there are subliminal messages hidden in cartoons aimed at stimulating the interest in sex. Music stars specifically are chosen from a very early age, and groomed and prepared to become mega-famous pop-stars which children (out of their human nature) will idolize take as role models. The lifestyles of these people are then given prominence through the TV and these people change partners every year and have morally degraded lifestyles. This makes pop-stars in particular the ideal route to pushing socialist agendas, and every genre will have its “pop-star” who is simply a pawn in the game, used to impart a certain social norm. This very early contact with sex leads to children having experienced, physically and emotionally – by the time they are only 13 or 14 or even younger – what in a normal society, an adult would not have experience well into their 40s. Thus, having got bored of life by the time they are only 14 or thereabouts or younger still, these children end up depressed, sick of life, with no direction and no purpose, and the only thing driving them on is the pursuit of more and more excitement and pleasure. In schools, children from the age of seven (yes, seven!) are now being shown cartoons of explicit sexual encounters as part of their “sex education”. As we said earlier, all the research shows that sexual activity and promiscuity at an early age destroys the ability to form long-term “bonding” in later life.

  • Ironaddict06

    Right, and this is the issue of Skins. Some of the children MTV uses is 17 or under. By the laws, that is child pornography.

  • that1guy

    Ok. I’ll hear you out on this.
    You made the argument, now present the evidence.
    Where were subliminal messages about sex in cartoons “proven?” What empirical support do you have that sexualization before or just at the cusp of puberty demolishes “bonding?” Where’s the research that you refer to media masterminds relying on? And what is material the link between sexy pop idols and “socialist agendas?”
    I’m willing to hear you out hear, but without real evidence this is all speculation and I couldn’t give a rats ass about it if you paid me.

  • Mjc

    “A cursory look finds the UK regularly bringing people up on obscenity and dangerous literature charges” – I’m British and I can’t recall any of this in the last ten years? Could you cite please….

  • that1guy

    Ok. I’ll hear you out on this.
    You made the argument, now present the evidence.
    Where were subliminal messages about sex in cartoons “proven?” What empirical support do you have that sexualization before or just at the cusp of puberty demolishes “bonding?” Where’s the research that you refer to media masterminds relying on? And what is material the link between sexy pop idols and “socialist agendas?”
    I’m willing to hear you out hear, but without real evidence this is all speculation and I couldn’t give a rats ass about it if you paid me.

21
More in Drugs, Government, Media, Pop Culture, Sex, Television
Russian Spy Anna Chapman Reveals ‘The Secrets of the World’ On TV

Remember Anna Chapman, the sleeper spy and Internet sensation? Now that she's safely back in Russia, in addition to becoming a Maxim Mag cover girl, appearing in movies and generally...

Close