Netflix INDICTED by grand jury for lewd depiction of children

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.

Your daughter is probably at least 16 and not prepubescent. That's nothing like an 11 year old. *shudders*

It still makes you feel a little on the uncomfortable side, lol. My neighbor's daughter is a cheerleader in high school and looks just like Jennifer Connelly in Labyrinth. I used to catch her looking at me all the time, or doing crap like riding her dad's 4-wheeler when I'd go outside to mow the yard or wash my truck or do yard work. When I'd invite her dad over to watch an LSU game, she'd come with him and I'd notice her looking, it was weird and uneasy. I decided to stop inviting her dad over. I've known her parents since the 80's, they're about 10 years older then me, but I know her mom was real fast at that age and ended up getting pregnant when she was like 15, by a much older dude.

I gotta agree with Augustus on this. Seems quite daft to point fingers down at one thing because it’s the hot topic while not giving a sh*t about it happening elsewhere.

How many people show up to those pageants with their own cameras? There could be any number of pervs out there filming close-ups of whatever they want. At the end of the day, I think there should simply be a line drawn to not allow the chances of that happening to a kid, whether it be in a studio-backed movie or a local pageant. Unfortunately, we live in a world where pervs will exploit any avenue they can to get their jollies off and if kids aren’t protected, someone will exploit that.

Sure, not all pageants or contestants are out there doing the same dance moves/dressing the same way, but hell, when my wife and I would watch AGT and the kid dancers would come on, we’d fast forward it because it’s just f*ckin’ weird to see kids under 10 doing these ultra-close/romantic dance moves, even fully clothed from limb to limb in loose fitting clothing.

If the door is open, someone is going to walk through it. Just shut the f*cking door.

a reply to: LSU2018

My daughter is 18 but some of the girls are freshman so I imagine they range from 14 to 18.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

You sure are kicking up a lot of dust over it, but I'm still not understanding the logic.

I really have no horse in the race, other than I have no interest in the movie just as I have no interest in child pageants. They're both gross and grate against what I believe to be good and right.

If someone wants to make a case against smutty child exploits, what is it to you? Why are you playing devil's advocate? They chose their target to go after and who knows what legal precedent it might set. Why do you think your opinion has any bearing on the validation of their lawsuit? The crusade has to start somewhere.

It's almost like you're saying because pageants exist and haven't been brought to court before, all forms of smutty child media should be considered art and left alone.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The things is "Cuties" was made to expose the exploitation and sexualization of

Specifically yo your statement above

I'll ask 1 question to make this post clear

Can you point to where the Directors intent was to do that?




The writer directors ( Doucoure ) previous short movie


en.wikipedia.org...(s)

The film's plot centers on Aida, an eight-year-old girl, who is adjusting to the introduction of her father's second wife.[3]The film was inspired by director Maïmouna Doucouré's own experiences with polygamy as a young child.[4] The film was premiered at several international film festivals including the 2015 Toronto International Film Festival, 2016 Sundance Film Festival and

I could be wrong but don't quite a few abused young children grow up and become abusers themselves?

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

Let me dumb it down for you then, this is a feel good measure going nowhere because someone in Texas has a boner for Netflix. If they really cared about child exploitation in the vein they are casting the film they'd have been on the other programs years ago.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

It's almost like you're saying because pageants exist and haven't been brought to court, all forms of smutty child media should be considered art and left alone.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

Let me dumb it down for you then, this is a feel good measure going nowhere because someone in Texas has a boner for Netflix. If they really cared about child exploitation in the vein they are casting the film they'd have been on the other programs years ago.

So why is that a problem for you?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: LSU2018

What the hell is "Dance Moms"?

DANCE MOMS

Wait, there's more!

TODDLERS IN TIARAS

I've heard of toddlers in tiaras. That's, if I'm not mistaken, where Honey Boo Boo came from. I never watched it though and it was on TLC. If you've ever watched TLC, you'll learn real fast that it's NOT really The Learning Channel. The Dance Moms show, I'd never heard of. Looking at your provided link, it was a show on Lifetime (which explains why I've never seen it) and the title of Season 1 Episode 2 is "Wildly Inappropriate" and details the episode as such, "The Dance Moms allow their daughters to wear outfits in a competition that are revealing and the scandal threatens to bring down the house."

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
So why is that a problem for you?

Because doing stuff for feelz is not what the law should be doing. It's called pandering.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

"It's because I saw so many things and so many issues around me lived by young girls, that I decided to make this film and sound an alarm and say we need to protect our children," Doucoure explained.

She also argued, "It's bold, it's feminist, but it's so important and necessary to create debate and try to find solutions, for me as an artist, for politicians and parents. It's a real issue."

"Cuties is a social commentary against the sexualization of young children. It's an award-winning film and a powerful story about the pressure young girls face on social media and from society more generally growing up - and we'd encourage anyone who cares about these important issues to watch the movie."
-Netflix Spox-

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

.45 acp is roughly .80 cents a round. Justice need not be expensive. Then we could apply the same punishment to all those who want to hurt kids. easy peasy.

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

They chose their target to go after and who knows what precedent it might set.

I think "Cuties" is the target because it's such a high-profile example. Netflix promoted the crap out of it and the outrage kept it in the headlines. I had never even heard of "Dance Moms" until that Honey BooBoo kid got plastered all over the media and even then I never tuned into the show.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

I'm super liberal and I haven't heard anyone defend this movie.

You just realized that you're not as much liberal as you thought.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: LSU2018

My daughter is 18 but some of the girls are freshman so I imagine they range from 14 to 18.

Some of them look 25. It's not your fault, lol. Hell, 50 years ago it was pretty common for a 35 year old to marry a 15 year old. It's gross to us, but it was normal in their day.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

I'm super liberal and I haven't heard anyone defend this movie.

Oh quite a few defended this on the original thread and elsewhere I'm sure.....ALL on the left....

I'm glad something is actually happening for once....

I pray Trump is reelected and more filth is cleaned up..

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
So why is that a problem for you?

Because doing stuff for feelz is not what the law should be doing. It's called pandering.

It's not for feelz though. It sounds like the movie contains lewd depictions of minors, which is very much the law's concern and will make a judgement on.

lewd depiction of children.

It accuses Netflix of knowingly promoting visual material that depicts "lewd exhibition" of the genitals or pubic area of a clothed or partially clothed child who was under 18

That doesn't bother you eh? Go after the whole elephant or nothing at all, is that your stance? Interesting.

Good, Netflix has gone way past the deep end on a lot of weird stuff.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I too wonder why the hard press against this movie when so much worse is out there. The sexualization of children has been something that many has been fighting about for years. The entertainment and buisness world has been exploiting children for decades, and parents have been purchasing and supporting this trend. So I question too this move. Why now? Why this one movie? Is it just a scapegoat? Because in this case, in for a penny won't come close to making a pound.

Look at almost any children's dance schools performances and you will see almost the same thing, including the costumes, minus the back story.

I don't condone the sexualization of children in any manner, and I don't defend the movie. But it is mild compared to what is going on in the real world. I see children just like this and worse, on a regular basis.

I particularly think it should be noticed how this was going on, and none of the parents even noticed what was happening with their children. Just like in the real world.

The only thing missing, was the part about the children being placed on psychotropic and anti-anxiety medications, to help them cope with their pre-teen angst.

originally posted by: network dude
.45 acp is roughly .80 cents a round. Justice need not be expensive. Then we could apply the same punishment to all those who want to hurt kids. easy peasy.

Don't want to use my $3 a pop .50 AE? It shoots through schools better than Danny Vermin's piece.