Professional Opinions

Paramount's argument is not only weak—it reflects a profound failure of accountability. By asserting that a nude scene with underage actors does not constitute "childhood sexual assault," the company is trying to redefine the issue rather than confront the facts. Let’s break it down: Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting were minors. The scene was sexual. Adults at Paramount knowingly facilitated and profited from this exploitation, which makes it an assault by any ethical and legal standard.

Paramount’s response raises an uncomfortable question: Does the company even have a functional Enterprise Risk Officer who ensures compliance with child protection laws? If Paramount continues to insist they did nothing wrong, they risk exposing themselves as so desensitized to exploitation that they’re incapable of self-governance when it comes to legality and ethics.

The argument that the scene merely contains a “brief glimpse” of nudity minimizes the issue. A “glimpse” is exposure. Would Paramount argue that someone can be "half-pregnant"? This attempt to downplay their actions insults the intelligence of anyone following this case and evades accountability for a clear violation of boundaries.

What’s especially troubling is the generational abuse that occurred within Paramount’s leadership. Every successive CEO and executive had the opportunity to address this exploitation and correct the harm done to Hussey and Whiting—but instead, they perpetuated the cycle of violence through inaction and neglect. Each leader became complicit in the wrongdoing, allowing the company’s profits to grow off the backs of two minors while distancing themselves further from the ethical responsibility to make things right. This is not just a failure of individual leadership; it’s a systemic failure that compounds over time.

Hussey and Whiting have alleged they were pressured into performing the nude scene by Franco Zeffirelli. The fact that they received no royalties while Paramount profited directly from the footage underscores the company’s negligence and greed. Successive executives over the decades inherited this problem but chose to ignore it rather than resolve it.

Paramount’s reliance on legal technicalities—such as pointing out that the actors were based in the U.K. and the filming occurred in Italy—only highlights their desperation. Whether they were the distributor or the producer, Paramount directly benefited from the exploitation of minors. Trying to deflect blame onto a deceased director does not absolve them; it underscores their unwillingness to take responsibility.

Invoking the California anti-SLAPP statute as a defense is equally problematic. Paramount claims the film contributed to a “debate on nudity in cinema,” but this is a distraction. The real debate should focus on how corporations like Paramount will establish and uphold ethical standards to protect children. If they truly care about fostering public discourse, they should lead by example and acknowledge their role in perpetuating harm.

Finally, the notion that the actors “fondly recalled” their participation is irrelevant. This is where cognitive dissonance comes into play—a psychological mechanism that allows individuals to mentally adapt to painful or contradictory circumstances they cannot control. At the time of filming, Hussey and Whiting were powerless to stop what was happening, so they likely found ways to rationalize or reframe the experience in order to survive emotionally. Publicly expressing fondness for their roles in later years may have been an unconscious way to protect themselves from feelings of shame or helplessness. Regardless of their statements, Paramount’s actions remain unequivocally wrong.

Paramount has an opportunity to break this cycle of harm by admitting their wrongdoing, compensating the actors fairly, and establishing stricter policies to prevent such exploitation in the future. Until then, their stance remains shameful and embarrassing—a relic of an era that prioritized profits over principles.