A Serbian Film - 'Child Pornography'?

Two fictional displays of children having sex are considered child porn, and the Sitges Film Festival director is being charged with a crime.

When Angel Hall, director of the Sitges Film Festival in Spain, screened Srdjan Spasojevic's A Serbian Film last October, I'm sure he knew he was showing something controversial. But I'm also sure he never once thought that he was screening child pornography.

However, according to El Pais, Spanish authorities say that's exactly what he did, since the film clearly displays sex with a newborn baby and a child of 5. Barcelon-anian authorities say he violated article 189.7 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes anyone who produces, sells, distributes, or exhibits of "any type" of child pornography by "any means."

This certainly needs a definition of "child pornography", doesn't it? I mean, is child pornography porography in which real persons under the age of 18 are participating in real sex? Because that's not what happens in A Serbian Film. I have a feeling Hall's lawyers will be arguing a LOT about definitions. And can this really be the first time this has been an issue in Spain's child pornography prosecutions?

That's not all - a judge actually banned the film from playing at the XXI Fantasy Film Horror and San Sebastian festivals, also in Spain.

So, I take it to mean by this law, and the prosecution of Angel Hall, that were he to have screened Taxi Driver, The Exorcist, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, 16 Candles, a very special episode of Facts of Life, or just about any depiction of minors engaging in sexual activity, he would also be prosecuted?

For those of you who haven't seen the film, the plot centers around an ex-porn star-turned-family-man who makes one last movie for a private client. Set in Serbia, the filmmaker Srdjan Spasojevic claims that the ensuing pornographic imagery is a political statement about how the Serbian government rapes its own people. Personally, I think that's a cheap ploy to give some meaning to a crass, sleazy, gratuitous piece of filth. A two hour movie about rape, child rape, and sexual domination appeals to people who want to see those things - a political film about Serbia would probably not have been as controversial, or resultingly popular.

In the United States, the Supreme Court makes a huge distinction between virtual child pornography (porn depicting minors having sex) and "movie sex", but acknowledges that there is a huge debate still raging. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled against Ashcroft's attempt to make ALL virtual (simulated) sex with minors, even if they are actors in a movie and are actually over 18, illegal. The law, which was opposed by the Free Speech Coalition and Civil Liberties Union, would have made The Exorcist, and definitely A Serbian Film, "child pornography" and punishable as such. The Courts ruled against this law, THANK GOD, and I can't help but revel in the words of the disappointed attorney arguing Ashcroft's case to Justice Sirkin:

Spain seems to want to imprison even artists who use pornographic imagery involving children, when no real children were involved. I'm not in Spain, nor am I Spanish, but gee whiz - let's let go of the movies with plastic babies being fucked and concentrate on stopping real child pornography - you know - the ones in which children are actually hurt. I'm not "into" child pornography, but I am into free speech and artists being able to express their visions, however atrocious, as long as no real people are being hurt.