#ROMEO AND JULIET ROMEO RASH DECISIONS MOVIE#

It was represented by Richard Kendall and Nary Kim of Kendall Brill & Kelly.William Shakespeare was born in 1564. Paramount didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. “We waited going on 55 years for justice,” they said in a statement. Hussey and Whiting say they continue to suffer physical and mental pain from the incident. He added, “We believe that there’s no constitutional protection for the nude images of minor children in film.”

#ROMEO AND JULIET ROMEO RASH DECISIONS MOVIE#

Gressen said he’ll appeal the ruling and will file another complaint in California federal court to include allegations that Paramount continues to profit from the movie after rereleasing it in February 2023. She wrote in the tentative ruling that his “interpretation of defies common sense.” Gressen argued that Paramount can’t raise his failure to file the certificate in an anti-SLAPP motion, but Mackenzie disagreed. They’re also barred from naming themselves in the complaints and must file as “Doe” plaintiffs. In order to file a complaint under the California law giving adults more time to sue over childhood sexual abuse, they must provide a so-called certificate of merit from a licensed mental health practitioner attesting there’s a reasonable basis to believe they were subject to sexual assault when they were younger. The suit was also dismissed for procedural reasons. “Nude images is all that’s needed for the crime,” Solomon responded. “You’re saying photos of people under the age of 18 is an illegal act?,” she asked. Mackenzie sided with Paramount, finding that the scene isn’t “sufficiently sexually suggestive.” She pointed to case law concluding that not all nude pictures of children are child pornography, only images containing “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.”ĭuring the hearing, Solomon Gresen, a lawyer for Hussey and Whiting, argued that he only needs to prove that Paramount knew the actors were minors when the scene was shot. In turn, Hussey and Whiting asserted the studio isn’t entitled to First Amendment protections since the bedroom scene from the film amounts to illegal child pornography under federal and California law. Paramount moved to dismiss the suit under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which allows for the early dismissal of claims challenging protected speech. They were allegedly told by Zeffirelli “that they must act in the nude or the Picture would fail” and that they would “never work again in any profession, let alone Hollywood.” The suit claims Paramount profited off of the alleged sexual exploitation and harassment.įranco Zeffirelli, Oscar-Nominated Director for 'Romeo and Juliet,' Dies at 96 The actors accused Zeffirelli of pressuring them into performing nude scenes despite previously telling them that they would be wearing flesh-colored undergarments in the shot. The suit seeking $500 million, which was filed under a California law that suspends the window to file a complaint for childhood sexual assault, revolves around a bedroom scene that briefly shows Whiting’s buttocks and Hussey’s bare breasts. She said in a tentative ruling that the claims “arise from protected activity” under the First Amendment.Īctors Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting, 16 and 17 respectively when the film was shot, starred in the movie directed by Franco Zeffirelli. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Alison Mackenzie signaled on Thursday that she’ll dismiss the suit, finding claims that the movie depicts sexual acts are a “gross mischaracterization” of the scene. Paramount won’t have to face a lawsuit accusing the studio of sexual abuse over a nude scene in the 1968 adaptation of Romeo and Juliet.

Romeo and juliet romeo rash decisions