5/26/23: Last News

+14

Judge tosses ‘Romeo and Juliet’ child sex-abuse suit, actors vow appeal

a lawsuit over a nude scene in “Romeo and Juliet,” finding the 1968 film is protected under the First Amendment.Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting — both 72 and the titular stars of the Franco Zeffirelli flick — claimed they were coerced into performing nude in the film’s bedroom scene while minors.They accused Paramount Pictures of sexual exploitation and distribution of nude imagery of children in their December suit, which sought more than $500 million in alleged damages.Judge Alison Mackenzie granted Paramount’s motion to strike the lawsuit Thursday.Mackenzie rejected Hussey and Whiting’s argument that the nude scene could be considered “child pornography.” The judge also found the pair did not comply with a 2020 California law that temporarily lifted the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse lawsuits.According to court documents obtained by The Post, Mackenzie wrote there was no evidence the film included “sufficiently sexually suggestive as a matter of law to be held to be conclusively illegal.” Paramount requested to dismiss the suit under the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, which allows defendants to move to strike supposedly meritless complaints that could undermine free speech.Solomon Gresen, an attorney for Hussey and Whiting, said he plans to appeal the decision.“I was angry,” Gresen told The Post on Friday. “I think that the anti-female bias in this country is real, and it’s something that I have dedicated my career to trying to right the wrongs.”He added: “It’s abusive to take images of naked children.
nypost.com

All news where 5/26/23 is mentioned

nypost.com
40%
700
Judge tosses ‘Romeo and Juliet’ child sex-abuse suit, actors vow appeal
a lawsuit over a nude scene in “Romeo and Juliet,” finding the 1968 film is protected under the First Amendment.Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting — both 72 and the titular stars of the Franco Zeffirelli flick — claimed they were coerced into performing nude in the film’s bedroom scene while minors.They accused Paramount Pictures of sexual exploitation and distribution of nude imagery of children in their December suit, which sought more than $500 million in alleged damages.Judge Alison Mackenzie granted Paramount’s motion to strike the lawsuit Thursday.Mackenzie rejected Hussey and Whiting’s argument that the nude scene could be considered “child pornography.” The judge also found the pair did not comply with a 2020 California law that temporarily lifted the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse lawsuits.According to court documents obtained by The Post, Mackenzie wrote there was no evidence the film included “sufficiently sexually suggestive as a matter of law to be held to be conclusively illegal.” Paramount requested to dismiss the suit under the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, which allows defendants to move to strike supposedly meritless complaints that could undermine free speech.Solomon Gresen, an attorney for Hussey and Whiting, said he plans to appeal the decision.“I was angry,” Gresen told The Post on Friday. “I think that the anti-female bias in this country is real, and it’s something that I have dedicated my career to trying to right the wrongs.”He added: “It’s abusive to take images of naked children.
nypost.com
61%
775
We adopted a little girl —but now we think she’s a ‘sociopath’ adult
living in a nightmare.  “[Natalia] threatened to stab my sons, drag their bodies outside and bury them under the deck,” Michael Barnett alleges in Investigation Discovery’s new docuseries “The Curious Case of Natalia Grace,” out Monday. “She tried to poison and kill my wife!” he says. “She’s a sociopath.”In the six-part series, Michael details the terror he, Kristine and their biological sons, Jacob, Wesley and Ethan, claim they endured at the hands of Natalia, who was born with a rare form of dwarfism called spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia congenita. “What they’d hoped would be a very happy home life turned into a true-life horror story,” legal analyst Beth Karas, a featured contributor in the doc, told The Post.But was Natalia the perpetrator — or the victim? On April 26, 2010, after retrieving Natalia from the Adoption by Shepherd Care agency in Hollywood, Florida, the Barnetts allegedly made a shocking discovery while bathing their new daughter. “Natalia had full pubic hair,” says Michael. The disturbing find prompted them to believe she was an adult masquerading as a child — despite paperwork showing her date of birth as September 4, 2003. Later, the couple claimed to have discovered she’d been menstruating.“We don’t know who she is.
DMCA