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

[peanus weenus]

has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

Uh oh this doesn't bode too well for anime

 

[kiwirevolving]

I hope this will become about more than just the movie itself sexualizing children

Hundreds of children were auditioned for the movie and this "movie" went through multiple departments for approval

 

[Captain Manning]

Uh oh this doesn't bode too well for anime

Anime, in general, is fine (but as the old saw goes, was STILL a mistake).

Lolicon manga, OTOH, has been put through the Miller Test and failed. Some shithead in Virginia (not Ralph) got 20 years back in 2005. There's been about a half dozen cases I know of.

That seems more or less fair to me.

 

[Jet Fuel Johnny]

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:

[/QUOTE]
Well, let's add some stuff you're basically skipping:

Justice Harold Hitz Burton wrote the opinion of the court, issued on February 9, 1953. The ruling reversed the Second Circuit's decision and held that the Attorney General lacked the authority under 8 CFR § 175.57(b) to order the exclusion and deportation of a lawful permanent resident "without notice of the charges against him and without opportunity to be heard in opposition to them." The ruling also held that an alien who "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" retains his rights to procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Oh, he was a lawful permanent resident!

Oh, this happened because he was a SAILOR on an AMERICAN VESSEL that had left the US, gone around the world, then returned ON THE SAME VESSEL!

Basically saying: "This guy is still a lawful permanent citizen if he is a sailor who goes on a long haul" despite the government fucking with him.

So, yeah, he still had his Constitutional Rights because he was a permanent resident AND was on an American registry ship, AND merely wanted to be allowed to leave the ship and return to his home, which was, you know, America.

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:

The majority of that was referring to the War on Terror and Constitutional Rights as they regard to people ON AMERICAN SOIL.

And, that paper is the musings of a Georgetown Legal Professor, not the force of law.

Saying that the Constitution covers people who are not Americans, while not on American soil or carrying out the will of the American government, is basically saying that US Law trumps all other nations laws.

If another country tried that shit on us, we'd laugh at them.

But hell, what do I know, I just read the two papers you linked.

 

[Atatata]

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??

Considering the situation, I doubt it. They'd probably use it to add charges if you were already getting investigated, though.

 

[AnOminous]

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.

The case isn't against the director, though. It's against Netflix, an American corporation. So the First Amendment would apply easily to them. It would apply to the French director, too, if she somehow ended up indicted in Texas, but that hasn't happened and probably will not.

The film itself is almost certainly Constitutionally protected. It is an actual cinematic production with a plot, an apparent message, however hamhanded it may be, and some kind of message beyond merely being 90 minutes of twerking. It's likely to pass the Miller test. Things like the Dost test mentioned in this thread are not likely to apply.

However, a criminal court in a deeply rural Texas county may quite simply disregard this. It is a criminal case, and they generally aren't used to addressing First Amendment concerns, certainly not in regards to claims of child pornography. Netflix can and certainly will raise these issues, but they may not be addressed until appeals, and that won't be for quite some time. Unless they get it dismissed pretrial, there will be substantial litigation.

What else can Netflix do? They could try to cut a deal with the prosecution, pleading to something with a fine or that diverts the case without a conviction, just as a human defendant could. They could attempt to file a lawsuit in federal court seeking an injunction or some sort of writ prohibiting the prosecution as being against the First Amendment. However, something called Younger abstention would probably preclude that. Younger involved a criminal defendant attempting to enjoin, on civil rights ground, a state prosecution. The abstention doctrine named after it essentially means you can't do that. State courts are presumed to be competent to decide such constitutional issues, and challenges at the federal level, such as injunctions or habeas writs, must wait until the criminal proceedings, and any direct appeals, are exhausted.

They could also attempt a similar route after and if dismissal is denied, with some kind of emergency appeal, which in Texas would go to an appeals court and then, instead of the Texas Supreme Court, the specialist Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, a uniquely Texas institution which is the court of last resort for Texas criminal appeals. After that, there's the Supreme Court of the United States.

Similarly, they could attempt a civil lawsuit in Texas court, again seeking some kind of prohibition against the prosecution. And again, this would go to an appeals court and then the Texas Supreme Court and then the Supreme Court of the United States (the last two being able to decline to hear the case).

So what happens if it goes to trial? Who knows? If the trial court judge refuses to dismiss it and it gets in front of a deeply rural Texas county jury, they may decide they don't give a shit about Miller or any of that shit. They'll be sending the foreman to the judge to ask where's some rope.

I think the movie ultimately ends up protected under the First Amendment, whether at the state appeals court level or otherwise, even if there's a conviction. However, this is the movie itself.

There's another wrinkle, though.

The film itself could be protected under the First Amendment while the advertisements are not. This has actually happened in the 2008 Supreme Court case United States v. Williams. The defendant in that case advertised material as containing pornographic portrayals of children, although this was not true. The law criminalizing such advertising was upheld 7-2, even though the law it was replacing, which criminalized the possession of material advertised as such, was found unconstitutional in the previous better known case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

Even if the movie is protected, in context, the advertisements could be seen as promising illegal child pornography content. Additionally, advertising, as commercial speech, is subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than artistic or political speech.

 

[fat ugly sped]

And, that paper is the musings of a Georgetown Legal Professor, not the force of law.

I'm well aware.

Saying that the Constitution covers people who are not Americans, while not on American soil or carrying out the will of the American government, is basically saying that US Law trumps all other nations laws.

If another country tried that shit on us, we'd laugh at them.

But hell, what do I know, I just read the two papers you linked.

Read carefully what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the US laws apply to non-Americans not on American soil. I'm saying that when US laws get applied to non-Americans not on American soil, the US legal system will still mostly apply the same constitutional protections. When an act is not under the jurisdiction of US courts, then obviously what the US constitution has to say about it is completely irrelevant. Like, fucking duh. The US government cannot censor the speech of American citizens, regardless if the speech happens here or abroad, no? Similarly, the US government cannot censor the speech of non-citizens that happen to reside in the US. For obvious reasons, there's very little US precedent weighing in on whether the US government can censor the speech of non-citizens residing abroad, but if there was, US courts would hold that the US government can't do that. The US constitution and legal system speaks very rarely on whether or not it is permissible for the French government to censor French citizens; that's France's business. But if the French government tried to use the US courts to censor French citizens, not only does the 1st Amendment cover that, but the courts are legally obligated under the SPEECH Act to raise 1st Amendment, due process, and section 230 protections.

In other words, the US Courts don't get to ignore the constitution merely because the acts occurred against non-citizens or abroad, or both. They get to ignore the constitution if the court doesn't have jurisdiction in the first place, which in the case of non-citizens doing stuff abroad, it generally lacks.

 

[Jet Fuel Johnny]

I'm well aware.



Read carefully what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the US laws apply to non-Americans not on American soil. I'm saying that when US laws get applied to non-Americans not on American soil, the US legal system will still mostly apply the same constitutional protections. When an act is not under the jurisdiction of US courts, then obviously what the US constitution has to say about it is completely irrelevant. Like, fucking duh. The US government cannot censor the speech of American citizens, regardless if the speech happens here or abroad, no? Similarly, the US government cannot censor the speech of non-citizens that happen to reside in the US. For obvious reasons, there's very little US precedent weighing in on whether the US government can censor the speech of non-citizens residing abroad, but if there was, US courts would hold that the US government can't do that. The US constitution and legal system speaks very rarely on whether or not it is permissible for the French government to censor French citizens; that's France's business. But if the French government tried to use the US courts to censor French citizens, not only does the 1st Amendment cover that, but the courts are legally obligated under the SPEECH Act to raise 1st Amendment, due process, and section 230 protections.

In other words, the US Courts don't get to ignore the constitution merely because the acts occurred against non-citizens or abroad, or both. They get to ignore the constitution if the court doesn't have jurisdiction in the first place, which in the case of non-citizens doing stuff abroad, it generally lacks.

Ah. I missed the "When" part.

Apologies. I seem to have a touch of the 'tism tonight.

 

[fat ugly sped]

Apologies. I seem to have a touch of the 'tism tonight.

Me too man, me too. All good.

 

[RodgerDodger]

On one hand I completely agree it’s softcore child porn.
On the other, obscenity cases are complete bullshit. Either charge them with an actual crime or don’t, but obscenity cases are bullshit stuff like this comic made fun of Jesus or this porno involved poop. In this case it’s warranted but it should be federal investigation not some podunk Texas shithole using obscenity.
Edit: I misread and let my anger about obscenity laws get the better of me. Lmao it looks like they are pursuing child porn charges.

Along with Child endangerment. In particular two scenes in the movie that cross the line. And are pretty clearly across the line. They have 11 year olds watching hardcore porn, and they clearly didn't fake it. and they have them masturbating through clothes in their dance routine. Which goes a bit beyond twerking.

Great news, but will it actually go anywhere? Hate to be a drag, but I feel like anytime some major corporation gets sued like this they either do a bunch of shit to delay the proceedings, or just settle out of court with little to no action being taken against what they were sued for to begin with. I hope this works out and doesn't take like 3 or 4 years only to result in the movie still being up and someone getting a paycheck.

Netflix- Who cares? It's not like Ginsburg is going to die and Trump will replace her with a mother of a soccer team.

2020-Hold my beer for a second 2019.
Edit: In before Netflix's TCPA motion.

This isn't a Civil Lawsuit. Texas isn't Suing Netflix. A Texas Grand Jury just handed down Criminal CP charges against Netflix and it's officers.

 

[AnOminous]

This isn't a Civil Lawsuit. Texas isn't Suing Netflix. A Texas Grand Jury just handed down Criminal CP charges against Netflix and it's officers.

No, just Netflix, Inc.

 

[RodgerDodger]

No, just Netflix, Inc.

Interesting? I've never quite understood how you can arrest and try a corporation for Child Porn or Child Sexual Exploitation? You would think it would be one of those areas where Corporate Shield would not apply?

 

[AnOminous]

Interesting? I've never quite understood how you can arrest and try a corporation for Child Porn or Child Sexual Exploitation?

A corporation can be prosecuted criminally for anything a person can, but it seems fairly pointless to me in most cases, because you can't throw it in jail or put it to death. You could get an injunction of some sort or fine it, that's about it.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Netflix- Who cares? It's not like Ginsburg is going to die and Trump will replace her with a mother of a soccer team.

2020-Hold my beer for a second 2019.
Edit: In before Netflix's TCPA motion.

TCPA is a defense against civil proceedings, not criminal. This is a criminal indictment.

 

[AnOminous]

TCPA is a defense against civil proceedings, not criminal. This is a criminal indictment.

This law firm seems to think the TCPA also applies to criminal cases: Texas Anti-SLAPP Protection Against Police Misconduct. I'm not seeing any actual support for this claim in citations, though. The fact they don't cite any and claim to be seeking test cases makes me even more skeptical of their claim.

In fact, I think it rather clearly doesn't. Under the "exemptions" section:

"(a) This chapter does not apply to an enforcement action that is brought in the name of this state or a political subdivision of this state by the attorney general, a district attorney, a criminal district attorney, or a county attorney." § 27.010(a).

 

[CaesarCzech]

Friendly reminder that the programming director for Netflix is Barack Hussein Obama.

Image meme with Netflix cuties and then Netflix Programing Director: Barack Hussein Obama, Lol

 

[Smithfield Ham]

In the Adult Swim special "Smart Pipe" there was a gag about the titular company being the only corporation to be listed as a registered sex offender. Could Netflix fulfill the prophecy?

 

[Overly Serious]

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.

The year is 2029. The scene: A cheap warehouse on the outskirts of Hollywood. A forty-year old man is preparing to sodomize a twelve year old.
"So, in this scene, we're going to need to you to wear this DNC button and say 'Third term for Kamala!' We're making a political film here, sweetie. There'll be ice-cream for you after if you do."

 

[Homer Simpson]

A corporation can be prosecuted criminally for anything a person can, but it seems fairly pointless to me in most cases, because you can't throw it in jail or put it to death. You could get an injunction of some sort or fine it, that's about it.

I mean, we can jail and kill the CEO and share holders. It's a start.

 

[Hongourable Madisha]

If a normal person was distributing twerking/upskirt videos of 11 year olds to all 50 states, they would most likely be serving time in Leavenworth, so fuck Netflix for being above the law on this.

Isn't that what Austin Jones the YouTube nonce got sent down for? Soliciting twerking videos from children?

Everyone involved in making this film should watch Bend It Like Beckham: it's a film about a young girl from a conservative immigrant culture finding friendship and confidence in doing a competitive activity with other girls, even though their families disapprove (for different reasons). It even deals with sexualisation of kids (Jules's mum keeps creepily trying to buy her frilly lingerie and set her up with boys, because she thinks that's what girls her age do, she represents the western sort of control and manipulation over girls, but she's having none of it and it's not shown in a sexual way) and issues of sexuality with their gay friend, and with the adults assuming Jes and Jules are lesbians. They might learn something about how to tastefully handle difficult issues affecting children and teenagers.
And then after they've finished watching that, they should do a flip.