You do not denounce the sexual exploitation of young children by sexualizing them!

Criminal justice
1

Hopefully Netflix is found guilty and is fined $500,000,000. If an average person did something like this, produced and distributed, they’d be looking at 2-10 years sentence. It’s time we hold big corporations as accountable as those who commit such offenses. I should note the statue being pursued is a Texas specific child sexual exploitation material statue which requires it to be without serious literary value. This is likely going to be the crux against the lawsuit sadly. Because the degenerates will simply argue that the value is the “criticism” of child sexual exploitation.

netflix indicted by grand jury in Texas
netflix indicted by grand jury in Texas1032×1600 301 KB

I get that the official narrative is to denounce sexual exploitation of minors, but you do not denounce it by literally producing a film which might be considered child sexual exploitation material by a large number of the general public. Yes, it’s probably not as terrible as whatever exists in the dark web, perhaps not even a 0.1% as horrific, but they may have already crossed the line. Portions of the film which have a greater than 10% chance of having violated federal law under USC 2256 should be removed to which to the best of my knowledge, there are at least a couple scenes which might have already crossed the line.

The feds are too busy with the truly horrific content that would be considered slam dunk cases so I doubt there is a need nor desire for them to go after Cuties - which arguably is borderline and is not even clear if it violated federal law. But once the issue of child sexual exploitation material is dealt with and the war on csem is won in around 10-20 years into the future, the feds will have plenty of time to pursue borderline cases like Cuties. Perhaps there could be a valid argument for the Feds to then go after Netflix and start really holding these mega corps accountable.

A question is does this violate Federal Law? I’m a laymen, I don’t know that it does, but I also don’t know that it doesn’t. Just reading the plain text of the legal document leads me to conclude Cuties is borderline. Is it on the right side of the borderline? I have no clue.

(1)“minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2)

(A)Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i)sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii)bestiality;
(iii)masturbation;
(iv)sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v)lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person;

(B)For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—

 (i)graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
 (ii)graphic or lascivious simulated;
 (I)bestiality;
 (II)masturbation; or
 (III)sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
 (iii)**graphic or simulated** lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or **pubic area of any person**;

What is lascivious exhibitions test? To the best of my knowledge, the DOST test is frequently used.

1 Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child’s genitalia or pubic area.
2 Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity.
3 Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child.
4 Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude.
5 Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity.
6 Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

As you can see, it’s not clear that Cuties is in compliance with Federal law. I see is as definitely exploitative regardless.

CONSIDERING THAT THE FILM AND ASSOCIATED CLIPS OR SCREENSHOTS MAY BE A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, EVERYONE SHOULD STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM IT. IF YOU’VE WATCHED IT, DO NOT REWATCH IT. IF YOU HAVE NOT WATCHED IT, ALSO STAY AWAY FROM IT. IF IT IS TO BE RENDERED A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW UNDER USC 2256. YOU WILL BECOME TECHNICALLY CRIMINALLY LIABLE AND WILL BE AT THE MERCY OF THE PROSECUTORS TO USE DISCRETION IF YOU HAVE IN FACT WATCHED IT.

2

I don’t see Netflix crossed any lines, instead, I see someone went crazy to exaggerate the “sexualization” part to sue a company. Cuties has received many positive reviews from movie critics. I hope the court DOES NOT punish the company by unclear definitions and morality thoughts.

3

You obviously have not seen FUCKING it. Trust me, it’s way worse than you think. It’s not just twerking. There were LITERAL SCENES in which it looked like they zoomed in on the pelvis area as they were dancing. What literary value and excuse do they have for that?? NONE. NONE whatsoever other than to appeal to the sick desires of degenerates that really should be in therapy. Yeah their “official reason” is to disgust the audience. But they SHOULD HAD FUCKING KNOWN that paedos would get off on it. IF THEY DIDN’T IT’S PURE FUCKING NEGLIGENCE ON THEIR POINT OR EXTREME FUCKING INDIFFERENCE.

They could have shot the film from afar, they could have shot the film without showing the portion of the dance where the hands go between the legs and (possibly) touching their private parts. Yes, I’m well aware that the “simulated masturbation” that some incensed critics pointed out does not actually exist there in so far as my understanding Federal definition of simulated masturbation is concerned. But There is NO EXCUSE to show this NONE WHAT SO FUCKING EVER to film children like that what the fuck is this excusing going on by the leftist morons. Yes I know they are fucking clothed. But federal child pornography laws for lascivious exhibitions of the pubic region do not fucking require the child to be fucking nude.

I kind of agree, I don’t want the federal government prosecuting them. Because I’d rather have the feds focus on things 1000x worse than cuties. Dark web material that involve minors as young as infants being violently raped by subhuman animals that need to be the focus of prosecution. But that does not mean that Cuties is necessarily in the clear legally.

I want to see those who perpetrate the raping children skinned alive and burned to death. I want to see them suffer in agonizing pain. I want to see them cut into tiny little pieces. Producers of dark web child rape material need to be tortured to death and I want to see them in agonizing pain. I deeply want to torture them so fucking badly you have NO FUCKING IDEA how badly I want to cut them up.

Let the STATES deal with lesser offenses including production offenses that are borderline. As I said I am not sure if cuties is legal or not, but let the states figure it out. I’m personally in favor of a fine of 500 million to Netflix for this.

4

Child pornography isn’t illegal because “paedos would get off on it,” it’s illegal because it is harmful. If anything that “paedos could get off to” was banned, there would be no depiction of children on screen at all. We addressed that point in this article. Child pornography law defines the line that allows art to be banned because it’s harmful, and the prevailing view is that Cuties didn’t cross it. Read our review of Cuties in our last newsletter.

By the way, please tone down the graphic descriptions of your violent desires, or at least use a content warning.

3 Likes
5

At this point, violent threats are essentially expected from Ethical-AI. Barring his banning, I doubt that anything can stop him.

5 Likes
6

We don’t consider “child pornography” as a bad thing by its name or arousal, instead, by the fact that the health and rights of (real) children may be harmed when producing such material. Children may lack necessary knowledge of sexuality due to their age, and they are less likely able to protect themselves from forced/deceived porn filming than adults are.
In Cuties, I see nothing bad likely to have been happened.

7

Here’s a review of Cuties from a child sexual abuse survivor. Actually she inaccurately calls herself a survivor of pedophilia, so here’s a Letter to the Editor that we submitted to correct this:

Caira Conner’s review of the film Cuties, written as a survivor of incestuous child sexual abuse, is poignant and moving. Like many people, Caira uses the term “pedophilia” to describe what happened to her. But language changes, and this is no longer a term that experts recommend to be used as a synonym for child sexual abuse.

Pedophilia is a mental condition, similar in some ways to a sexual orientation (but different in other ways), that makes a person find prepubescent children sexually attractive. It isn’t chosen, can’t be cured, but can be managed—in other words, it’s possible for a person who is afflicted with pedophilia to live their lives without offending. Peer and professional support can help with this, and in cases where the condition causes distress or harmful behaviors, there are drugs that can also be helpful.

What most people don’t realize, however, is that pedophilia isn’t implicated in most cases of child sexual abuse. Almost three quarters of child sexual abuse is committed by people whose primary sexual attraction is towards age-appropriate partners, but who make the choice to abuse a child anyway. In cases of incestuous abuse, it’s even less statistically likely that the perpetrator is a pedophile.

Stating these facts doesn’t excuse the despicable behavior of those who choose to commit child sexual abuse, but it does avoid us misleadingly assuming that such behavior has only one motivation. This is an important first step in creating an enabling environment for the prevention of abuse.

Just as “child pornography” is no longer a favored term for child sexual abuse material, the correct way to refer to child sexual abuse is just that—rather than by using the name of a mental condition that in most cases is more of a scapegoat for the problem, than an explanation of it.

1 Like
8

If the film contains depictions that are zoomed-in shots of children’s asses and crotch areas while dancing in tight, or revealing clothing, then it’s likely those depictions would be viewed as “sexual” and a violation of the DOST test, and thus child pornography.
Child pornography is illegal without regard to its artistic value. Movies and publications have been criminalized for their unsavory or suggestive depictions of actual minors.

1 Like
9

Yes, but most legal experts don’t believe that this film satisfies that test. Either way, we will be getting an answer from the court soon, and that will clarify the law.

2 Likes
10

Even though Canada can be fairly censorious, I see zero chance of the film being considered pornographic here, so I took the liberty (ironic word) of seeing what the fuss was about. Even though it was curious why the filmmaker, Mme. Doucouré, thought it was germane to show a few close-ups of the midriff belly-dance moves, there’s a long French tradition of cinéma vérité that says you don’t avoid the gritty details. Really, the mistake that was made with this film was to dub it into English - if they had put subtitles on and left it in French, people probably would have just said, ‘ah, they’re being French.’ Anyway, the take-home message – that Amy’s rebellion led her to unhappy places and she finally felt a whole lot better just being a kid and skipping rope – could hardly be sweeter. Any judge that would call that pornography would just be following the grand Anglo traditions that drove Oscar Wilde and Gertrude Stein to Paris.

1 Like
11

Further thought about ‘why the closeups.’ I very much doubt this filmmaker’s intention was along the lines of “let’s throw in some lusty wiggles and sell more viewings to those who might get off,” and what I think is a plausible alternative motivation is “by being influenced to get into this sort of thing, these girls are really playing with fire because men know what this does to them” - someone coming from a society where marriages in the teen years were traditionally by no means rare would be under no illusion that heterosexual males - not pedophiles - might be well tweaked by such performances even if their better judgement was shouting ‘no no no.’ The closeups are a metaphor for how perspective on the actual age of the performers can be lost in such moments. In fact, there might even be a slap of wake-up call for men in this cinematography, along the lines of “you know what this does to you, so don’t let it happen.” The take home message is, as I said above, let little girls even in the years of early physiological change continue in their childhood. The theme of Amy’s father getting a younger and more beautiful second wife fits well with this critique.

1 Like
12

There are a lot of factors involved. The minimum for girls this age would be at-least 15 years in federal prison (for possession alone). Adding in distribution and production would bump it up to over thirty years. In reality, the prosecutors are more likely to cut a plea deal than to risk losing on account of the Dost test.

1 Like
14

It does violate the test. If its considered lewd and lascivious by the general public, it violates the dost test.

15

As historical witch trials shows, the general public is often dumb, and their lives are certainly worth much, much less than the “witch” that they are persecuting.

16

That’s not how it works, but since Cuties made it well into the Netflix top 10, I think the public rather liked it.