Judge to dismiss ‘Romeo and Juliet’ child sexual abuse lawsuit

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge sided with Paramount Pictures on Thursday in a child sexual abuse lawsuit related to a nude scene in the 1968 film “Romeo and Juliet.”

Judge Alison Mackenzie issued a tentative ruling dismissing the lawsuit, writing that Paramount’s actions in making the film are “protected activities” under the First Amendment, according to court documents reviewed by The Times.

the lawsuit was originally featured in december by Leonard Whiting, who played Romeo Montague when he was 16, and Olivia Hussey, who played Juliet Capulet when he was 15, in William Shakespeare’s adaptation of the classic. Directed by Italian filmmaker Franco Zeffirelli, the film includes a controversial bedroom scene featuring Whiting’s bare buttocks and Hussey’s bare breasts.

Whiting and Hussey, now 72, said they were forced to film the nude scene after Zeffirelli initially assured them that “no nudity would be filmed or exhibited, and that [they] I would wear flesh-colored underwear during the bedroom/love scene.” They said Zeffirelli told them they “must act nude or the movie would flop” and threatened that they “would never work in any profession again, let alone Hollywood” if they didn’t comply.

The lawsuit accused the studio giant of sexual harassment, negligence, intentional tort, fraud, name-taking and likeness, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair trade practices, and child sexual abuse and sought $500 million in damages.

However, Mackenzie wrote Thursday that the plaintiffs did not do enough to show that the scene itself was “sexually suggestive enough” to be deemed unlawful. During the hearing, Mackenzie called the allegations a “serious mischaracterization” of the scene, according to the hollywood reporter.

Solomon Gresen, a lawyer for Whiting and Hussey, told The Times that he argued in court that simply filming a nudity scene with minors with the intent to sell the content is itself illegal under federal law.

“The First Amendment does not protect the conduct of displaying the nudity of minors for commercial sale,” Gresen said, calling the content child pornography.

Mackenzie disagreed with their decision, citing previous cases that found that “not all images of nude children are child pornography” if the images are “in the proper context.” To be child pornography, the images would have to contain “lewd display of the genitalia or pubic area,” she wrote.

The suit was also dismissed for procedural reasons. According to the court, the plaintiffs did not file a “certificate of merit”, which is a letter obtained from a licensed mental health professional, who is required to review the case. The document is required by California law when someone over the age of 40 sues in a child sexual abuse case.

Paramount’s lawyers declined to comment.

Gresen said he and his clients plan to file a separate suit in federal court for name grabbing or likeness and will appeal the state court’s interim ruling.

Whiting and Hussey are “very disappointed” by the decision, the lawyer said. “They waited so long for justice; They can wait another few months or years.”