Doomsought
Well-known member
Obscenity is a FACT question, not a matter of law. That means it is the Jury, twelve random guys picked off the street, that get to determine whether it is obscene or not.
Cuties (Dis)respect Thread: Now on Netflix!
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
I really wonder about the male adult actors of this movie and those idiots on youtube praising it and also happening to be male adults....do they realize people can find out who they are and where they live?
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Stupidity is always in our nature.
Netflix Takes on Texas: Attorneys Analyze the “Outlandish” Fight Over ‘Cuties’
A district attorney in Tyler County, Texas, claims Netflix's 'Cuties' amounts to child pornography. His labyrinthine prosecution will force a federal court to grapple with whether it should intervene to stop the criminal case.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
If the Lord's willing, this could kill Netflix off. One can only dream...
On the one hand free speech, on the other hand the netflix people have been pretty vocal about being against our speech.
Ugh....Some times being a free speech advocate is very hard....so very hard.
Given how tangled up a lot of the precedents are -- child porn laws are aggressively draconian and strict-liability except for bizarre technicalities like the Brooke Shields case -- I would be content with simply getting a SCOTUS ruling that sets a clear line.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
I find it best to pre-draw the line in your own mind after spending some time thinking on the subject. That way when push comes to shove, you already have a firm boundary set and it won't be as easy for somebody to pressure you across it as they would if it was vague and fuzzy.
Back when she was ten years old, actress Brooke Shields was forced to "model" for explicit child pornography for Playboy. When she became an adult, she sued Playboy, the sicko photographer, and her even more depraved mother, but the courts ruled that it didn't count as child porn because she was a "performer" rather than a "model", which somehow meant it was exempt from child porn laws *and* that she couldn't even force the photographer to cease and desist using the photos.
Yeah, child pornography, since it's generally a state level crime, is fucking weird. Note that I doubt the US Supreme Court can set a line, as they don't have the final say on state law, only on if state law/state constitution conflicts with federal law/US constitution.
What the actual hell? Looking this up, it appears to have been a matter of State law, not Federal, and the State in question appears to have been, to nobody's surprise, California.
So yes, it appears in California child porn in not child porn if the kid in question is a "performer"...
Wargamer08
Well-known member
Gotta give the Hollywood producers an out.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Basically this. Certain states give certain industries every imaginable special protection, tax benefit, and etc. and all of that specific industry then clusters there. California is the center for movies because they bend over backwards and sideways to protect moviemakers from all consequences and raise their profits.
I thought it was New York? Eh, either way, no fucking surprise.
Eh, more the reverse (but with a positive reinforcement cycle). Initially, there was a bunch of film done in California because it was as far as possible from Edison and his patents, to frustrate his IP lawsuits. Then they got political power to make their place nice to them, which attracted more, etc, etc.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Correct. New York does the same thing California does, but for live stage performances and musicals, hence why every stage troupe tends to base themselves out of New York and we still call them Broadway musicals/Broadway theatres to this day. Thus New York has special get-out-of-jail-free cards designed for those kind of productions and why designating Brooke Shields a "Performer" rather than a "Model" was so critical to the case.
The romams were right to consider actors on the same level as whores.
In the Roman era they were, a lot of actors and actresses made their money that way as a side hussel because the job was incosistent and didn't always pay well. This remained true for a very long time.
Um, seriously, why say this in this thread? The kids (i.e. the actors) are the victims here. Treating them like "whores", as you say, would be even worse.
I'm not talking about the movie here, I'm refering to Hollywood.