You called for the distribution and use of medicinal child pornography, and asked why fucking animals is considered bad.
It's not that complicated.
Netflix facing indictment from Texas grand jury over "Cuties"
- Thread starter Cicada 5
- Start date
- Status
It's not that complicated.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,494
- 3,445
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
USA
They do this with a lot of movies/ shows, this isn't abnormal. Also, there isn't any blockage of free speech/ expression people can freely say what they want, they just cannot use footage that doesn't belong to them. Also, free speech only applies to governments, not private entities or platforms. Also freedom of speech =\= freedom from consequences. People can still sue if you make up shit about them and spread it online.
I was about to go "Oh my sweet summer child...", but yes. We live in a reality in which rape is a thing. Go figure.
That all aside entertaining stuff like buying sheep a dinner, before you fuck it.
In this particular case: The question shouldn't be about restricting freedom of young girls, to dance etc. I am aware that kids irl can do worse stuff, than that depicted in this film.
It should be about restricting the freedom to film it and profit from it.
Well, no, you can be pretty sure, probably. As neither children nor animals can, by definition, consent.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,494
- 3,445
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Yeah, I know there is fucked up abusive stuff out there, I have an annoying habit of stumbling on it.
Yeah, I can agree with that.
Yeah thats my point.
I might as well state my position.
I won't be watching the film (I have no interest in losing my lunch thanks) and have other objections to Netflix as is.
I think there's a case for it having a worthwhile message but being executed badly.
Youtube had a pedophile problem and a number of outlets went after it demanding action be taken etc because such "people" were going on mostly innocent videos and time code tagging certain stuff. So it's literally been shown that Pedophiles will be attracted to said material.
Other films faced backlash E.G. It Chapter 1 got a fair bit of backlash over having a child actress act out some scene meant to be about her being abused and there was a lot of concerns raised over that when from what I've heard it was handled far better.
Twerking by it's very definition is meant to be a sexual form of dance and those familiar with internet stuff will probably have heard about Onison getting underage girls to send him Twerking videos.
It seems kind of hypocritical for this film to be getting this level of defence when youtube was condemned for innocent videos being taken advantage of by said people and other films have had backlash for portraying negative things and handling it better but the potential for said things to have been exploited etc.
I think it was a pretty irresponsible move by netflix given the current state of the internet at present with for example the "MAPs" on twitter openly talking about lets say stuff that would make people stomachs churn.
Oh also Content ID was created by Youtube to allow it to maintain safe harbour and be legally protected by the US government from being sued for people uploading copyrighted works. It's also why they respect most DMCA claims which also is part of the the US government legislation. So yes this would be government level as it would count as an attack on something the government has deemed free expression in the form of criticism. This is an area the government themselves have stepped into basically to make it so yeh you can't face a private company like Netflix being allowed to wipe criticism from the internet or bock it out. They could make deals to have it suppressed in the background, not recommended or promoted, ranked down in searches or youtube just demonitise it. However outright blocking the video is something they can't do for legally protected speech.
I won't be watching the film (I have no interest in losing my lunch thanks) and have other objections to Netflix as is.
I think there's a case for it having a worthwhile message but being executed badly.
Youtube had a pedophile problem and a number of outlets went after it demanding action be taken etc because such "people" were going on mostly innocent videos and time code tagging certain stuff. So it's literally been shown that Pedophiles will be attracted to said material.
Other films faced backlash E.G. It Chapter 1 got a fair bit of backlash over having a child actress act out some scene meant to be about her being abused and there was a lot of concerns raised over that when from what I've heard it was handled far better.
Twerking by it's very definition is meant to be a sexual form of dance and those familiar with internet stuff will probably have heard about Onison getting underage girls to send him Twerking videos.
It seems kind of hypocritical for this film to be getting this level of defence when youtube was condemned for innocent videos being taken advantage of by said people and other films have had backlash for portraying negative things and handling it better but the potential for said things to have been exploited etc.
I think it was a pretty irresponsible move by netflix given the current state of the internet at present with for example the "MAPs" on twitter openly talking about lets say stuff that would make people stomachs churn.
Technically if you're criticising the show or film itself you're allowed to use (under fair use) the amount of footage required to make your point. It's why Ethan Klein (H3H3) won the lawsuit against him by that weird freerunning pick up artist guy because Ethan's video was clear fair use and use only section of the original.
Oh also Content ID was created by Youtube to allow it to maintain safe harbour and be legally protected by the US government from being sued for people uploading copyrighted works. It's also why they respect most DMCA claims which also is part of the the US government legislation. So yes this would be government level as it would count as an attack on something the government has deemed free expression in the form of criticism. This is an area the government themselves have stepped into basically to make it so yeh you can't face a private company like Netflix being allowed to wipe criticism from the internet or bock it out. They could make deals to have it suppressed in the background, not recommended or promoted, ranked down in searches or youtube just demonitise it. However outright blocking the video is something they can't do for legally protected speech.
There should be a comic representing the "free speech zone" as a small strip of sidewalk, or an alleyway between towering, mile-wide buildings that represent Google, Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, etc., to illustrate the absurdity of your argument.
Something like this.
The earth and the communication that takes place on it is being swallowed by "private companies". I literally can't even talk to you without going through one of these private companies, including The Escapist. If any one of these companies facilitating the communication between you and me don't like it, then they can stop it.
Having speech be controlled by private corporations is worse, not better.
Sorry, thought you were referencing Halford's lifestyle. Priest has had some good stuff since Turbo though.
They do block far less all the time tbh. Youtube can legally block any video they want, they are not required to allow any video, it is a private company. Free speech doesn't apply to private companies such as Youtube.
Court confirms that YouTube is not a public platform, and therefore has no obligation to abide by the First Amendment
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the decision that YouTube is not a public platform, and as such doesn't have to abide by the First Amendment.
www.businessinsider.com
Oh I fully agree they have a lot of other good stuff, and yea, I could care less about his lifestyle.
If I am comparing them to Iron Maiden though, I had to count Turbo as a mark against them. XD
This works, but it needs an additional ingredient: when sexual gratification is involved, you can't ever simply trust that someone has their partner/victim's best interests at heart. This is why we require not just willingness and apparent absence of harm but informed, fully-developed rational consent.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,494
- 3,445
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
That's the idea. There should be nothing free from economic exploitation. The commons is inefficiency, misuse and waste, as the research that the laissez-faire will direct you to clearly shows.
Why not sell the air? At a stroke, the government could create a huge new industry with lots of jobs and growth opportunties: you can buy your oxygen, and in return the company will ensure that the oxygen supply in your local area is maintained, hopefully without too many annoying pro-asthmatic particulates, and so on. Or maybe the polluters pay, and the Air Quality Company uses the money to clean the air up. No need for all those EPA regulations: it's all privatised to contracts between private entities, with efficiency and profit.
Companies owning communication is better, not worse. The "invisible hand" of the market will organise to deliver the right amount of speech to each individual that he or she wants. You can have your relatively safe space on Twitter or Facebook, but if you want to tear loose, Gab and whatever else are there for you. There is truly something for everyone, and you merely just need to find the one you like. If there isn't one, an entrepreneur will fill the hole soon enough.
Reminds me of what was supposedly said by a some Somali warlord of something when a reporter asked about people objecting or voicing their disagreement during his speeches.
Youtube can to an extent (that's still being determined by I think it was section 230 protection which is about platforms vs publishers etc) but this was a Copyright content ID claim and Netflix choosing to globally block the video being given control over the option of what happens to said video.They do block far less all the time tbh. Youtube can legally block any video they want, they are not required to allow any video, it is a private company. Free speech doesn't apply to private companies such as Youtube.
Court confirms that YouTube is not a public platform, and therefore has no obligation to abide by the First Amendment
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the decision that YouTube is not a public platform, and as such doesn't have to abide by the First Amendment.
To put it another way it would be like if I were critical of let say BP oil here and used their logi while criticising them and BP oil reached out to The Escapist and the Escapist allowed BP to do what they wanted to my posts here. Deciding to hide them from view globally.
Youtube didn't choose to take the action in this case Netflix content ID claimed the video and chose the action.
Under US law drawings of characters that are underage can be considered the same as actual images of real people to an extent so circling back to the main topic for a moment it could be hot water for Netflix here depending on the ruling as to artistic merit of cuties.
Honestly though everyone should be pissed at Netflix over this.
This film could have been allowed to slip out onto Netflix without much fanfare and possibly would have sat mostly unknown about for a while maybe even quite a while. Netflix chose to push it though. Pushing it with promotional material in the USA that gave a certain impression of the film that is the opposite of the directors intentions. Worse still by advertising it as they have it really will work as a giant sign for pedos to flock there which will get netflix a reputation and more scrutiny as "MAPs" on twitter share screens of more and more NEtflix stuff etc that they find
Now the film has attention on it and no matter what results it's not one to be happy about.
Lets say the film does get deemed not to have artistic merit (bearing in mind it will likely be the general public helping judge this) then it will cause other companies to pull back from trying to explore sensitive issues that should be discussed. The pullback will be extreme so even content such as in IT might be deemed too risky for a studio for fear of legal action.
Lets take the other possible verdict. The film is deemed artistic in nature. Well that opens the flood gates to push the boundary more to see how far it can go. There was a horror film years ago which was covered on Good Bad Flicks about a teen girl who gets a psychotic stalker crush on an adult man and after he rejects her advances she torments him to try and force him to give in and be with her. During the filming at one point a studio executive phoned through to the director and said "We gotta have nudity, some tits and ass" the director explained the character in the film was meant to be 15 and the actress playing her was only 17 so not legal to film any nudity. The studio executive however insisted it be done and the director was extremely annoyed and concerned having to tell the girl and her mother about the decision etc and trying to figure out what to do, when he mentioned it to them the girl and her mother had an easy solution, she had a sister who was 18 turning 19 and looked similar enough they could have her do a scene from behind in place of the younger girl. This might sound like an irrelevant story but now imagine if in the wake of cuties that a studio deems it fine so a scummy studio executive pressures a director to shoot such scenes with a young girl not a stand in? It would open the door for easy exploitation in an industry some child actors (Male and female) have already claimed has people who will exploit them. It's a recipe for disaster and a recipe for films that push it further and further to argue they're artistic merit just to produce material to attract an audience of pedophiles or because the people making it are themselves pedos and just want an excuse to be allowed to film such stuff somehow.
Lets say the
Now the film has attention on it and no matter what results it's not one to be happy about.
Lets say the film does get deemed not to have artistic merit (bearing in mind it will likely be the general public helping judge this) then it will cause other companies to pull back from trying to explore sensitive issues that should be discussed. The pullback will be extreme so even content such as in IT might be deemed too risky for a studio for fear of legal action.
Lets take the other possible verdict. The film is deemed artistic in nature. Well that opens the flood gates to push the boundary more to see how far it can go. There was a horror film years ago which was covered on Good Bad Flicks about a teen girl who gets a psychotic stalker crush on an adult man and after he rejects her advances she torments him to try and force him to give in and be with her. During the filming at one point a studio executive phoned through to the director and said "We gotta have nudity, some tits and ass" the director explained the character in the film was meant to be 15 and the actress playing her was only 17 so not legal to film any nudity. The studio executive however insisted it be done and the director was extremely annoyed and concerned having to tell the girl and her mother about the decision etc and trying to figure out what to do, when he mentioned it to them the girl and her mother had an easy solution, she had a sister who was 18 turning 19 and looked similar enough they could have her do a scene from behind in place of the younger girl. This might sound like an irrelevant story but now imagine if in the wake of cuties that a studio deems it fine so a scummy studio executive pressures a director to shoot such scenes with a young girl not a stand in? It would open the door for easy exploitation in an industry some child actors (Male and female) have already claimed has people who will exploit them. It's a recipe for disaster and a recipe for films that push it further and further to argue they're artistic merit just to produce material to attract an audience of pedophiles or because the people making it are themselves pedos and just want an excuse to be allowed to film such stuff somehow.
Lets say the
Do you think it was different in the time of Ford, Carnegie, Morgan or Hearst? Because I distinctly remember them successfully banning protest and sending troops in. Anyone who disagreed was jailed. Or vilified in the press. You legit have way more freedom to talk now.
Lastly, it's quite clear you don't understand what Free speech is - it is only about the government. No one else has to listen to you or give you a platform. Google and Facebook don't have to give you any free speech whatsoever. Go to Gab - bastion of ’Free Speech’... But make sure anyone who disagrees with the Right Consesus is harrassed, vilified and threatened right off the platform. What beautiful free speech it is
If you want this to apply to companies who have to totally change Free Speech laws. Because what you are suggesting completely breaks them
It's quite clear that I am talking about the idea of free speech, not the first amendment.
I don't know why, whenever someone mentions free speech, there are always several people waiting in the wings who lunge out and say "THAT ONLY APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE COMPANIES CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT!" while missing the point completely. It gets old after the 68th time.
Last edited:
In a weird twist Gab isn't totally tear loose because porn of any kind is banned there lol.
So they still curate to an extent but they don't let the individual curate.
If you want "anything so long as it's legal" you want newtumbl or Minds which focus on allowing people to curate their own experience. Like Twitter very much used to.
With Facebook and twitter curating it's all about algorithms and that's the issue as they ignore context and sometimes just break entirely. E.G. Facebook blocked me from sharing a link to an article before because it has masturbation in the title. It showed nothing graphic or NSFW but Facebook insisted it constituted porn. It was about the effect of masturbation on the immune system.
That's part of the problem and part of the issue because why shouldn't I be able to share stuff (so long as it's legal) with my friends and just them. I know my friends and for the most part will likely not be posting something that they can't handle, hell if there are people who can't handle it I can make it so they can't see that post on there. But yet you're subject to dealing with the standards others want not the ones you and your friends can handle.
To use Xbox Live as an example it's initial idea was to match people based on gaming Zones and their skill.
Two of the zones were:
Family - No mature language, no intimidating others, No super competitive egos.
Underground - For those not easily intimidated. Trash Talk, Human beatboxing, Tea-bagging and insults are a go.
There was the line of no explicit death threats but that was about it in Underground and it was great. I mean you could play insanely well and wake up to an inbox of just insults and laugh it off because it was my choice. Now with the consoles employing algorithms to monitor peoples messages you can't even swear in messages anymore.
- Status