"Cuties" Texas Indicts Netflix

[calamity]

Where is the line drawn on child exploitation?

IMO, this show is disgusting, certainly not something I plan to watch. But, does it cross the line warranting criminal prosecution of the distributors, as if it were actual child porn?

Texas Grand Jury Indicts Netflix Over Cuties, Doesn’t Understand First Amendment

The frenzy over Cuties was whipped up by, among others, Sen. Ted Cruz, who has never met a moral panic he couldn’t promiscuously embrace.

slate.com

 

[Geoist]

I am curious, do you think Lolita should be banned (the novel and the movies?)

 

[calamity]

I am curious, do you think Lolita should be banned (the novel and the movies?)

of course not.

 

[Geoist]

of course not.

Why not?

 

[calamity]

Why not?

why??

 

[Geoist]

why??

I may have misread your OP, so my apologies.

I have not watched this film nor do I have interest in doing so. Oftentimes the line between artistic expression and exploitation can be blurred, especially in Hollywood. But the 1st Amendment is still fairly strong in this country. Conservatives love to pretend they are all about strict interpretation and refuse to allow emotion play into their stance on the law, but cases like these prove otherwise.

 

[joko104]

People who get off on child porn will claim 1st amendment rights. I am not one of those people.

 

[calamity]

I may have misread your OP, so my apologies.

I have not watched this film nor do I have interest in doing so. Oftentimes the line between artistic expression and exploitation can be blurred, especially in Hollywood. But the 1st Amendment is still fairly strong in this country. Conservatives love to pretend they are all about strict interpretation and refuse to allow emotion play into their stance on the law, but cases like these prove otherwise.

No worries.

My opinion is this rather distasteful series does not violate any of the prohibitions that take imagery outside of the protected speech class. There is no sexual abuse of children, no pornographic images of minors or creepy guys waxing poetically about either. It's a newsy piece pointing to strange behavior of some parents and their kids. It probably has an enticement value for the creepier of our species, but that is what it is.

Now, are the motives of the producers and those promoting this pure? I doubt it. The author of the piece I cited gets into discussing their sins rather well.

 

[skeptic llc]

Sorry, I am too creeped out by the Slate link you posted to comment further. I trust others will make sure all essential freedoms are respected but that anything that goes beyond them is punished adequately.

 

[Court Jester]

Where is the line drawn on child exploitation?

IMO, this show is disgusting, certainly not something I plan to watch. But, does it cross the line warranting criminal prosecution of the distributors, as if it were actual child porn?

Texas Grand Jury Indicts Netflix Over Cuties, Doesn’t Understand First Amendment

The frenzy over Cuties was whipped up by, among others, Sen. Ted Cruz, who has never met a moral panic he couldn’t promiscuously embrace.

slate.com

Obscenity laws may be different in different states. What may be okay in SF, may not be okay in Texas or Wisconsin. Any matter which titillates prurient interests may be deemed to be obscene depending on the community standards. Some will say this is just art. Others have defended the film saying it is actually a commentary on how young girls are sexually exploited. But the problem there is the actresses are in fact YOUNG girls in their early teens--- they are not 18 year olds that look 13---so maybe these girls are to a degree being exploited?

 

[calamity]

Obscenity laws may be different in different states. What may be okay in SF, may not be okay in Texas or Wisconsin. Any matter which titillates prurient interests may be deemed to be obscene depending on the community standards. Some will say this is just art. Others have defended the film saying it is actually a commentary on how young girls are sexually exploited. But the problem there is the actresses are in fact YOUNG girls in their early teens--- they are not 18 year olds that look 13---so maybe these girls are to a degree being exploited?

Every child actor is exploited.

 

[TomFitz]

Where is the line drawn on child exploitation?

IMO, this show is disgusting, certainly not something I plan to watch. But, does it cross the line warranting criminal prosecution of the distributors, as if it were actual child porn?

Texas Grand Jury Indicts Netflix Over Cuties, Doesn’t Understand First Amendment

The frenzy over Cuties was whipped up by, among others, Sen. Ted Cruz, who has never met a moral panic he couldn’t promiscuously embrace.

slate.com

I don’t know anything about “Cuties”, and I am not particularly interested.

But I do like the line about Cruz never seeing a moral panic he couldn’t promiscuously embrace!

 

[Glitch]

Where is the line drawn on child exploitation?

IMO, this show is disgusting, certainly not something I plan to watch. But, does it cross the line warranting criminal prosecution of the distributors, as if it were actual child porn?

Texas Grand Jury Indicts Netflix Over Cuties, Doesn’t Understand First Amendment

The frenzy over Cuties was whipped up by, among others, Sen. Ted Cruz, who has never met a moral panic he couldn’t promiscuously embrace.

slate.com

I agree with you, the show is disgusting. However, that doesn't mean it should be banned. I also do not agree with the three tests created by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

No "speech" should have to conform to any standard, much less a "community" standard. Nor does any "speech" have to have any literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Lastly, it depends on the State law whether or not it should be applied. A State law that blatantly violates the First Amendment could be used to pass this test, and that makes this Supreme Court test both meaningless and unconstitutional in itself.

The only "test" that should be applied, to any individual right, is whether or not the right was used to cause another harm. With regard to the First Amendment "freedom of speech" clause, if they are not using their right to cause slander or libel then it should be permitted. The First Amendment exists to protect speech with which we do not agree. If we agreed with everything that was said or published, then there would be no need for a First Amendment.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Where is the line drawn on child exploitation?

IMO, this show is disgusting, certainly not something I plan to watch. But, does it cross the line warranting criminal prosecution of the distributors, as if it were actual child porn?

Texas Grand Jury Indicts Netflix Over Cuties, Doesn’t Understand First Amendment

The frenzy over Cuties was whipped up by, among others, Sen. Ted Cruz, who has never met a moral panic he couldn’t promiscuously embrace.

slate.com

Pretty sure that doesn't meet the statute, but it's gross as hell and the people that thought this was a good idea should be ostracized for the rest of their lives.

 

[grip]

Pretty sure that doesn't meet the statute, but it's gross as hell and the people that thought this was a good idea should be ostracized for the rest of their lives.

When you're not sure, you shouldn't be so condemning.

 

[Hamish Howl]

When you're not sure, you shouldn't be so condemning.

Pretty sure it's not legally actionable.

That doesn't mean it's acceptable.

 

[grip]

Pretty sure it's not legally actionable.

That doesn't mean it's acceptable.

Acceptable is an individual subjective term. We allow the public market to judge these kinds of subject matter.

 

[truthatallcost]

I am curious, do you think Lolita should be banned (the novel and the movies?)

I've seen multiple lib posters on Twitter making the comparison to Nabokov's novel, and its like you guys all get your talking points sent to you in a newsletter daily. Neither the book nor the two films titled Lolita contain anything remotely resembling the crass display of borderline child porn seen in Cuties.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I am curious, do you think Lolita should be banned (the novel and the movies?)

absolutely. In fact there should be a ministry of propaganda and moral enlightenment with the authority to censor material deemed harmful to public morals.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I agree with you, the show is disgusting. However, that doesn't mean it should be banned. I also do not agree with the three tests created by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

No "speech" should have to conform to any standard, much less a "community" standard. Nor does any "speech" have to have any literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Lastly, it depends on the State law whether or not it should be applied. A State law that blatantly violates the First Amendment could be used to pass this test, and that makes this Supreme Court test both meaningless and unconstitutional in itself.

The only "test" that should be applied, to any individual right, is whether or not the right was used to cause another harm. With regard to the First Amendment "freedom of speech" clause, if they are not using their right to cause slander or libel then it should be permitted. The First Amendment exists to protect speech with which we do not agree. If we agreed with everything that was said or published, then there would be no need for a First Amendment.

The first amendment was never intended to protect such material as pornography. If you went back in time and explained to the founders what porn was it would be explicitly banned.
Pornographic material is not speech, nor is it art, and even if you claimed it was, the state has an obligation to censor art or speech which will degrade public virtue.

 

[Glitch]

The first amendment was never intended to protect such material as pornography. If you went back in time and explained to the founders what porn was it would be explicitly banned.
Pornographic material is not speech, nor is it art, and even if you claimed it was, the state has an obligation to censor art or speech which will degrade public virtue.

The First Amendment's "freedom of speech" clause was intended to protect all forms of expression with which we disagree. You are also mistaken if you believe that the Founding Father's didn't know about pornography. Pornography is several thousand years old. What they specifically did not include with the First Amendment was any need to protect "public virtue." Protecting the delicate sensibilities of others is not something with which the Founding Father's concerned themselves. Nobody cares if you are offended.

As long as it causes no harm, it must be allowed. That is why the First Amendment exists, to protect that which you find offensive.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The First Amendment's "freedom of speech" clause was intended to protect all forms of expression with which we disagree.

blah blah blah, typical libertine banalities spewed by people who’ve never seriously studied the founders

You are also mistaken if you believe that the Founding Father's didn't know about pornography. Pornography is several thousand years old.

no it’s not. Pornography as we understand it has existed for maybe 70 years. Tops. It’s only gotten worse too.

What they specifically did not include with the First Amendment was any need to protect "public virtue."

because it was not intended to allow perversion and the clear text shows this

Protecting the delicate sensibilities of others is not something with which the Founding Father's concerned themselves. Nobody cares if you are offended.

again with libertine banality

As long as it causes no harm, it must be allowed.

pornography, especially that depicting young children as Cuties does, causes the immense harm. And combined with the internet children, who are mentally incapable of consenting to view such conduct are exposed. The very fact the internet allows kids to view it means it must be illegal with ISPs criminally liable if they allow their networks to be used to find it.

That is why the First Amendment exists, to protect that which you find offensive.

no, the first amendment exists to allow speech conducive to good order and governance.

 

[HonestJoe]

IMO, this show is disgusting, certainly not something I plan to watch.

Do you not see the contradiction in those statements? It's essentially the attitude that created the whole mess in the first place.

The controversy was generated largely on hearsay and speculation, while this legal response seems an entirely political reaction to that. They wouldn't be perusing the prosecution if this hadn't blown up on social media due to all the people repeating how disgusting they'd been told to believe the film is. The article you linked is by someone who did watch it and seemed to make a fairly considered and balanced assessment of it. If you don't want to watch it yourself, why not consider their opinion rather than random people reacting to reactions of a poster?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Do you not see the contradiction in those statements? It's essentially the attitude that created the whole mess in the first place.

The controversy was generated largely on hearsay and speculation, while this legal response seems an entirely political reaction to that. They wouldn't be perusing the prosecution if this hadn't blown up on social media due to all the people repeating how disgusting they'd been told to believe the film is. The article you linked is by someone who did watch it and seemed to make a fairly considered and balanced assessment of it. If you don't want to watch it yourself, why not consider their opinion rather than random people reacting to reactions of a poster?

The fair and balanced assessment is that it depicts minor children engaged in sexually provocative acts. That is called child pornography and in the United States of America it is illegal

But go ahead and lecture me more about how the legalization of homosexual deviancy wouldn’t lead to normalization of Of pedophilia and child porn. I think it is pretty obvious now how Jeffrey Epstein got away with his scheme for so long

 

[ASHES]

The first amendment was never intended to protect such material as pornography. If you went back in time and explained to the founders what porn was it would be explicitly banned.
Pornographic material is not speech, nor is it art, and even if you claimed it was, the state has an obligation to censor art or speech which will degrade public virtue.

Where is that enumerated in the constitution? You think there wasn't porn in the 18th century, that the founders couldn't have been explicit if that was their intention?