Netflix, Inc. indicted by grand jury in Tyler Co., Tx for promoting material in Cuties film

[gay cowboy]

https://twitter.com/travofoz/status/1313578764408958979?s=21

(Archive)
View attachment 1646321

"Discussion and advocacy"

Advocacy for...what exactly? It's possible to create a coming-of-age film about the sexualization of children without it being softcore CP.

 

[From The Uncanny Valley]

Told my mom about this as part of the pre-work morning news; after I explained Cuties controversy to her, she said that women are allowed to be pedos/rapists cause of "suffering through enough"...got so mad I saw red.

If it continues please ease off associating with your mom

 

[fat ugly sped]

I don't think a French Senegalese Jew has first amendment rights so unless republishing work counts as free speech I don't see that working.

The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the protected rights. It does not mention in the least who these rights apply to. Every goddamn human being on the entire fucking planet is protected from the US government fucking with their 1st Amendment rights.

 

[Cpl. Long Dong Silver]

Told my mom about this as part of the pre-work morning news; after I explained Cuties controversy to her, she said that women are allowed to be pedos/rapists cause of "suffering through enough"...got so mad I saw red.

You should beat your mother to restore your family's honor

 

[UnsufficentBoobage]

If it continues please ease off associating with your mom

I think it is progress, she used to say women can't be rapists at all.

You should beat your mother to restore your family's honor

I wish you saw her, she has weightlifter's physique.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Wait, if the cuties film is legally declared child porn, what about people who watched? Or were in possession of it due to Netflix subscription??

If I had to guess, I think Netflix would have to purge the movie from its site or face criminal charges that would shut down the company. Given the scale and scope of Netflix along with anyone who would've watched out of morbid curiosity or just to trigger and own the chuds, I think the courts would give a special grandfather clause for anyone who watched or were still subscribed to Netflix provided they don't try to get a copy of it again.

AFAIK, there's no physical media release for Cuties, so it'd be fairly easy to get it banished to the dark web if it did get legally declared as CP.

Usually, if a work is declared CP retroactively, they just stop circulating the work or reissue it with the illegal materials cut out of the movie.

 

[Vining]

Hopefully this should serve as a message to the Californians and any other outsider to get the fuck out of my state and crawl back to their own pozzed shithole.

 

[Captain Manning]

I don't know how a film that fails the DOST test multiple times counts as something that should be protected by the first amendment. Isn't DOST's entire point to decide where exactly the line between expression and porn is?

Not exactly. As another poster pointed out, they're going to use the Miller Test. They have to. That's what the Supreme Court set back in 1973.

The DOST test is only useful to determine whether the film will fail the first prong of Miller ("prurient interests"). The other two prongs concern community standards, and whether a work (taken as a whole) lacks serious artistic, literary, scientific, or political value.

The issue with Miller is that you HAVE to pass (fail?) ALL THREE prongs in order for a work to lose 1A protection.

While I hope this goes somewhere, especially since the second prong will concern community standards in Texas (R), I have a bad feeling this will end in a whimper. All they need is one retard hipster imported from California on the jury. Call me jaded.

Told my mom about this as part of the pre-work morning news; after I explained Cuties controversy to her, she said that women are allowed to be pedos/rapists cause of "suffering through enough"...got so mad I saw red.

I hate to tell you this, but per sacred Kiwi law, you are now required to inform your mom that she should kill herself. Please report back when this is done.

You can judge a man by the company he keeps.

"What is the reason Dax Herrera is a piece of shit?"

Was that a Daily Double? Do I win?

 

[Wilhelm Bittrich]

A first step in the eventual Texan occupation of France. God bless.

1. Texas invades France
2. All French are shipped off to Snow Mexico, sorry, Canada.
3. I don't have to fly half around the globe for a T-Bone steak or some Quesadillas or Chimichanga?
When can we expect your arrival?

Now I'm curious about the judge presiding over this case.

Judge Ruth Bader-Goneburg!
I'll get my coat.

The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the protected rights. It does not mention in the least who these rights apply to. Every goddamn human being on the entire fucking planet is protected from the US government fucking with their 1st Amendment rights.

Actually it does, it is called "The Constitution of the United States " for a reason. As long as you're inside the borders of the USA you're statement is correct. The Power of the Constitution ends when you leave the borders of the USA, simple as that.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Eris!]

Actually it does, it is called "The Constitution of the United States " for a reason. As long as you're inside the borders of the USA you're statement is correct. The Power of the Constitution ends when you leave the borders of the USA, simple as that.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Imagine thinking the Iraqis we bombed had constitutional rights.

 

[Cat_Piss_and_Vinegar]

Christians doing something agreeable and supportable? Shit fam, it really is the endtimes.

 

[Juan But Not Forgotten]

What are the chances they're gonna wiggle their way out of this? I'm asking, because Elon Musk called someone a pedophile out of spite, then in court admitted, that he hired private investigator to dig some dirt on the innocent man and still he fucking won the case.

 

[Wilhelm Bittrich]

Imagine thinking the Iraqis we bombed had constitutional rights.

Imagine if they had, what they could have made in a out of court settlement. Would have bankrupted the US over night.

 

[Vining]

1. Texas invades France
2. All French are shipped off to Snow Mexico, sorry, Canada.
3. I don't have to fly half around the globe for a T-Bone steak or some Quesadillas or Chimichanga?
When can we expect your arrival?

If you're comfy with spice, we got Chimichangas drenched in Green Tomatillo Chile sauce. That shit fuckin hits the spot.

 

[Virtual Boring]

I can’t rate you drink so accept my drink.
Edit: Am retard don’t know how to fix this

 

[HitchWunter]

I gave this wretched CP garbage one chance too many. I was willing to accept that some degenerate at Netflix gave this film the most sexed up, Dan Schneider-esque description and poster art for what was supposed to be some artsy fartsy coming of age film about a girl's conflict with her family's conservative Muslim values which came from the film maker's own experiences. Nope. It's just softcore CP that glorifies real little girls as sex symbols and it's fucking disgusting. Fuck Netflix, fuck those metrosexual pedo reviewers and fuck France for letting this happen.

Also check out this video if you want some more insight into the degeneracy of this film without having to watch it.

 

[Captain Manning]

What are the chances they're gonna wiggle their way out of this? I'm asking, because Elon Musk called someone a pedophile out of spite, then in court admitted, that he hired private investigator to dig some dirt on the innocent man and still he fucking won the case.

IIRC, Elon claimed (with apparently some credibility) that he was shit talking, and pedo is sort of a generic slur in South Africa. Like calling somebody a fucktard. IOW, he didn't mean the guy is literally a pedophile.

Don't know what this has to do with a criminal grand jury indictment. That was a civil defamation case.

 

[fat ugly sped]

Actually it does, it is called "The Constitution of the United States " for a reason. As long as you're inside the borders of the USA you're statement is correct. The Power of the Constitution ends when you leave the borders of the USA, simple as that.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That is laughably wrong. It's coincidentally true in that US courts generally do not assert jurisdiction over things like British people saying mean things about each other on the internet, but it doesn't mean that US courts will refuse to assert first-amendment protections for said Brits should it somehow acquire jurisdiction over the matter. Suppose said hypothetical Brit had US-based assets, and the plaintiff was trying to domesticate their British judgement in the US in order to get at them. The US courts would surely apply the text of the SPEECH Act and apply First Amendment scrutiny on the case. The plain text of the act is a restriction on what civil law the US court system is allowed to enforce. Similarly, the 1st Amendment is a restriction on how the US government is allowed to restrict speech.

Or if you want some legal precedent, check out Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding. If you're too dumb to click links:

if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and also is a seaman who has gone outside of the United States on a vessel of American registry, with its home port in the United States, and, upon completion of such voyage, has returned on such vessel to the United States and is still on board, he is still, from a constitutional point of view, a person entitled to procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.

If you want to read some actual opinions from some actual lawyers instead of some autist rambling on the internet, you might as well read some actual legal scholarship like this. Spoilers for the conclusion:

Thus, there is little reasoned support for the widely held notion that noncitizens are entitled to substantially less constitutional protection than citizens. While not identically situated in all respects, foreign nationals should enjoy the same constitutional protections for fundamental rights and liberties as United States citizens. The areas of permissible differentiation - admission, expUlsion, voting, and running for federal elective office - are much narrower than the areas of presumptive equality - due process, freedom of expression, association, and religion, privacy, and the rights of the criminally accused.

 

[Wilhelm Bittrich]

That is laughably wrong. It's coincidentally true in that US courts generally do not assert jurisdiction over things like British people saying mean things about each other on the internet, but it doesn't mean that US courts will refuse to assert first-amendment protections for said Brits should it somehow acquire jurisdiction over the matter. Suppose said hypothetical Brit had US-based assets, and the plaintiff was trying to domesticate their British judgement in the US in order to get at them. The US courts would surely apply the text of the SPEECH Act and apply First Amendment scrutiny on the case. The plain text of the act is a restriction on what civil law the US court system is allowed to enforce. Similarly, the 1st Amendment is a restriction on how the US government is allowed to restrict speech.

Or if you want some legal precedent, check out Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding. If you're too dumb to click links:



If you want to read some actual opinions from some actual lawyers instead of some autist rambling on the internet, you might as well read some actual legal scholarship like this. Spoilers for the conclusion:

Whatever dude, you're right and I have my peace.

 

[Juan But Not Forgotten]

pedo is sort of a generic slur in South Africa

Yeah, sure. But that wasn't my point. That time I also thought "there is no way he will find a way out of this" and here it can play out the same way. I fucking hope it won't, but I doubt Netflix wasn't ready for this. After all, that shit caught attention right from the first trailer, but they still pushed it into their streaming service.