Netflix INDICTED by grand jury for lewd depiction of children

a reply to: dug88

Exactly

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
A child dancing AND touching themself in a sexually suggestive way is more disturbing to me than a child dancing in a sexual way.

I guess that's an issue you need to work out with yourself than.

Child pornography is also sexualization of children, that's more disturbing than this too.

Guess you didn't read the Original Post too well, first sentence, "Netflix is being charged with violating child pornography laws'. Texas is saying this is child porn. I'm saying this 'child porn' is the same crap you can watch on Dance Moms which Sookie linked for you and gave you which season has the same type of behavior. Go 'investigate'.

TBH your whole interaction with me in this thread has been subtly toxic, playing linguistic games like asking me if I think some depictions of child sexualization are LESS disturbing than others when someone participating in good faith would have said MORE disturbing.

Insinuations abound.

Now you're acting like me thinking some depictions are worse than others is a problem I have, again with the weird insinuation, rather than an obvious statement. I don't thinks kids touching themselves sexually AND dancing sexually AND the adult cameraman zooming in on their genitals (3 sexual things) is equal to kids dancing sexually (1 sexual thing).

And you final paragraph also wilfully misunderstanding what I said, of course there is a scale with child pornography too. There's a difference between cuties and a child being raped on camera and it should have been clear to someone with your intelligence what my statement meant when I said child pornography as a contrast to this. Then putting 'investigate' in apostrophes, another weird insinuation?

You having a bad day fella?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

It's selective outrage.

Well I would wager they have a stronger case against this infamous netflix film. I think it's symbolic more than anything, and I agree with you this suit won't gain much traction.

But you're playing whataboutism here and we all know that doesn't work.

originally posted by: Atsbhct

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

Then you haven't watched 8 season of Dance Moms!

I haven't watched either.
But that's because I don't watch child porn and abuse.
Honestly I don't understand how anyone can justify either one.

I get uncomfortable going to my high school daughter's volleyball games. Some of those girls make me feel like a dirty old man.
Still... Spandex shorts, and I mean short, are part of the uniform.

"Some of those girls make me feel like a dirty old man."

If you sexualize teenagers, and that makes you feel like a dirty old man, that's not on them, that's on you.

Sure sure...

originally posted by: network dude
I guess I'm not understanding your point here. The "authorities" in Texas thought this was bad, so they said something and it's going to court. it was mentioned here, and amazingly enough, others agreed that it was not normal.

Uh-huh, I also agree it's not normal.

Do we need to now investigate all possible sick video to quantify the original opinion?

All? No. But they are charging a company for something that is tacitly approved of by the lack of charges on the other activities mentioned. It's selective outrage.

I also think the defense will argue just this along with using the First Amendment.

a reply to: LSU2018

What the hell is "Dance Moms"?

DANCE MOMS

Wait, there's more!

TODDLERS IN TIARAS

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
TBH your whole interaction with me in this thread has been subtly toxic, playing linguistic games like asking me if I think some depictions of child sexualization are LESS disturbing than others when someone participating in good faith would have said MORE disturbing.

'More disturbing'? Like murdering someone with a machete with forty blows is more disturbing than shooting them in the face? They're both f****** murder, bro.

I

And you final paragraph also wilfully misunderstanding what I said, of course there is a scale with child pornography too. There's a difference between cuties and a child being raped on camera...

That's where you're wrong, child exploitation is child exploitation, there are no degrees. That should be clear to anyone with intelligence. You don't go, 'Oh, they only took nude photos of this kid, it isn't as bad as the one they engaged in sex with'.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

But you're playing whataboutism here and we all know that doesn't work.

The things is "Cuties" was made to expose the exploitation and sexualization of young children in the dance and pageant arenas! "Cuties" is supposed to make you mad. "Dance Moms" and "Toddlers in Tiaras" are targeted entertainment for the masses

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
Well I would wager they have a stronger case against this infamous netflix film.

To be honest I don't think they have a case, it will probably be lost on 'artistic merit'.

But you're playing whataboutism here and we all know that doesn't work.

it's not, it's exactly the same thing. One is charged, the other is not.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I never have understood why that toddler crap hasn't been banned.

We live in a world where me too and sexual liberation coexist.
Vagina hats are fine but I'm more that a vagina.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
That's where you're wrong, child exploitation is child exploitation, there are no degrees. That should be clear to anyone with intelligence. You don't go, 'Oh, they only took nude photos of this kid, it isn't as bad as the one they engaged in sex with'.

Yeah? Who gets more jail time? Someone who took a photo of a naked kid? Or a child rapist?

I suppose you think a priest touching you inappropriately over your clothes is just as bad as being brutally sodomized too?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: trollz

I don't see the suit succeeding. It's not a film that interests me but from what I've seen it's no worse than some of these disturbing beauty pageants with five year old girls done up in outfits that my local stripper would wear.

Well....the local prost-a-tot pageants don't have children humping the floor or full up-close crotch shots or children posting nude pictures online. So yeah...not the same thing. But for what it's worth, I had the misfortune of having to judge a child beauty pageant ONE TIME. It was very uncomfortable and disturbing for me to see kids dressed up like adult women with more make-up than Tammy Fae Baker. No one was dressed like a stripper.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

All? No. But they are charging a company for something that is tacitly approved of by the lack of charges on the other activities mentioned. It's selective outrage.

I also think the defense will argue just this along with using the First Amendment.

it sounds like your gripe is with the folks who got the indictment. As far as I can see, the members here who oppose this, are doing so because it was brought to the forum. If Sookie keeps posting her watch list, I'm sure we can all agree more stuff out there is wrong, as seems to be her taste in what to watch.

But maybe it's me. I'm on my period.

a reply to: trollz

Yet Youtube leaves up clearly weird ass videos of kids working out and comments underneath by clear pedos, who time stamp different places in the video for others of their kind to jump to in the video. Seems like once again, they’re going after the wrong thing and leaving the real problems totally unaddressed.

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
Yeah? Who gets more jail time? Someone who took a photo of a naked kid? Or a child rapist?

I think you might be surprised. Child rapists can get up to 20 years maximum while some pornography statutes mandate up to 30 years. This is owing to Federal sentencing guidelines.

A first time offender convicted of producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251, face fines and a statutory minimum of 15 years to 30 years maximum in prison. Source

Molestation that is pressured is punishable up to fourteen years. When this same sex crime is committed on a minor between the years of 0-10 the prison time can amount to a maximum of twenty years. Source

I suppose you think a priest touching you inappropriately over your clothes is just as bad as being brutally sodomized too?

They're both sexual exploitation but you keep thinking that works in degrees. Touching a child is touching a child, I don't break it down in to degrees like you do.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
They're both sexual exploitation but you keep thinking that works in degrees. Touching a child is touching a child, I don't break it down in to degrees like you do.

I guess we just fundamentally disagree on it then. I'm not putting numbers on it, I'm just saying I think one is worse than the other.

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
Well....the local prost-a-tot pageants don't have children humping the floor or full up-close crotch shots or children posting nude pictures online. So yeah...not the same thing. But for what it's worth, I had the misfortune of having to judge a child beauty pageant ONE TIME. It was very uncomfortable and disturbing for me to see kids dressed up like adult women with more make-up than Tammy Fae Baker. No one was dressed like a stripper.

I'd tell you to watch the videos that Sookie posted about those dance competitions but I'm not about to qualify them.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Well....the local prost-a-tot pageants don't have children humping the floor or full up-close crotch shots or children posting nude pictures online.

I didn't watch Cuties to the end, but I didn't see any nude shots at all, let alone of little girls. The main character in Cuties get shunned because she posted a picture of herself wearing underwear over her leotards.

originally posted by: network dude
it sounds like your gripe is with the folks who got the indictment.

I think it's a bit selective. I also think it's a bit frivolous if you aren't going to go after everyone who does this and there is certainly more low hanging fruit with the production happening here in the United States and not France.

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
...I'm just saying I think one is worse than the other.

There are people on here who have been exploited and have spoken about it, they make no differentiation between the types of activities, just like the Texas statute, and neither should we.