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

[HumanHive]

If Texas loses, then this’ll open the floodgates to “porn with artistic merit” cp.

 

[Captain Manning]

If it's actual obscenity, it doesn't matter where it's made, it's illegal in the U.S. However, past history has shown that, depending on the context, everything from full-frontal nudity to simulating sex acts have managed to qualify as "not obscene" in the U.S. So let's say the bar might be higher than where people around here might be thinking it is.

I already mentioned Puni Puni Poemy, but I think maybe a film more on point would be The Tin Drum. It had a simulated sex scene between an 11 year old and 16 year old. A state judge it Oklahoma determined it was obscene, but he was soon reversed by the Federal courts. They put it through the Miller Test, and it passed.

Cuties is dogshit, but is it illegally dogshit? Probably not.

I think it is important to stress here that the tard cum comes from all the salt that this indictment has and will generate. Not the end result of the potential legal saga. I think legally it will all come to nothing, but seeing the most cringe defenses of this piece of shit is the real reward. It will also be eye opening for those that don't yet grasp the desire by Hollyweird to normalize pedophilia. Netflix is getting more than they bargained for. On some level, I think they're sorry they even bought the distribution rights. Their profits from the film are probably already eaten up, or soon will be.

 

[DumbDude42]

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.

wouldn't responsibility for the corporations actions ultimately lie with the persons who were in control of the corporation at the time it commited the crime?
as in "amazon corporation committed X crime on 20th june" plus "mister bezos was chairman and CEO of amazon corporation on 20th june" equals "mister bezos is criminally liable for this situation"

 

[AlexaAutismo]

Remember that time when The Tin Drum was banned over a similar reason? Not really comparable, but comes to mind. The Tin Drum, unlike Cuties, does have a message and the scenes within are all contextualized in more appropriate ways than this trite.

 

[DumbDude42]

The Germans put paedophile Oskar Dirlewanger in charge of a brigade and set them loose on Eastern Europe

dirlewanger was convicted of rape and sent to a literal concentration camp
later in the war when they were struggling for manpower they started conscripting prison camp inmates into these penal battallions instead and used them as cannon fodder on suicide missions on the eastern front
dirlewangers brigade at some point had attrition rates well over 100%, but the brigade was kept operational by receiving a constant influx of new conscripts taken from prison camps

 

[I can't imagine]

wouldn't responsibility for the corporations actions ultimately lie with the persons who were in control of the corporation at the time it commited the crime?
as in "amazon corporation committed X crime on 20th june" plus "mister bezos was chairman and CEO of amazon corporation on 20th june" equals "mister bezos is criminally liable for this situation"

Corporations are legally individuals on their own, so if they're charged with a crime, they're the defendant. Not the board of directors, chairman or whatever. You can charge them in addition to the corporation if the circumstances so permit, but charging one isn't the same as charging the other.

Now, the fallout from a negative result in the case will fall to the executives to deal with, but the courts don't get to make the CEO go to prison as the corporation's proxy.

 

[Eris!]

wouldn't responsibility for the corporations actions ultimately lie with the persons who were in control of the corporation at the time it commited the crime?
as in "amazon corporation committed X crime on 20th june" plus "mister bezos was chairman and CEO of amazon corporation on 20th june" equals "mister bezos is criminally liable for this situation"

This is literally the exact opposite of the point of corporations.
Corporations are considered "persons" who act of their own volition and can be held responsible. That's their purpose.

 

[Coleslaw]

Dear Netflix,

I'm waiting for you.

Signed: Bubba

What's Bubba in for?

 

[AnOminous]

They can ban it in the state., which would no doubt cause them to lose a good chunk of subscribers.

I am very amused by the idea of them finding the corporation itself to be a sex offender and forcing it not to be able to do business within 100 yards of a school or whatever. That would be hilarious.

 

[Return of the Freaker]

What's Bubba in for?

Anything other than fucking kids or making/distributing cp

 

[AnOminous]

wouldn't responsibility for the corporations actions ultimately lie with the persons who were in control of the corporation at the time it commited the crime?

No. Otherwise why would you even bother forming a corporation?

 

[DumbDude42]

No. Otherwise why would you even bother forming a corporation?

i just thought it worked somewhat like this because a couple years ago they charged a bunch of high ranking dudes from volkswagen after it came out that some of their cars had manipulated emission systems

 

[mr.moon1488]

The Germans put paedophile Oskar Dirlewanger in charge of a brigade and set them loose on Eastern Europe, and Japan had institutional brothels for forcing Chinese girls to serve them.

You have no idea how much we avoided by not having an Axis victory. 1940s fascists were not "conservative" in the American sense and were pretty depraved by today's standards. The western allies were by far the best behaved during the war, since the Soviets also engaged in mass rapes in Germany.

Lol, Have you never read anything about the post-Mongolian conquest Chinese at all? They were possibly the most barbaric group of people in history, and that's mainly why Imperial Japan didn't show them any quarter during WW2. During the first failed Mongolian invasion of Honshu, the Mongolian troops took dead raped children they'd taken from the small islands around Japan, mostly from Tsushima, and then tied them to their ship's masts in order to terrorize the Japanese defenders. The fact that Imperial Japan didn't just entirely wipe out all of the Chinese was a mercy they probably didn't deserve.

As for Oskar Dirlewanger, yeah no shit he was a horrible person. That's why the Third Reich shoved him out on the ass end of the eastern front where he'd mostly only be killing people of his same caliber. Western-allied prisoners were mostly treated well by the Third Reich, and unlike the JewSA who carpet-bombed enemy or enemy-occupied cities, the Germans mostly left any populated areas intact if at all possible.

 

[Eris!]

The Germans put paedophile Oskar Dirlewanger in charge of a brigade and set them loose on Eastern Europe, and Japan had institutional brothels for forcing Chinese girls to serve them.

You have no idea how much we avoided by not having an Axis victory. 1940s fascists were not "conservative" in the American sense and were pretty depraved by today's standards. The western allies were by far the best behaved during the war, since the Soviets also engaged in mass rapes in Germany.

Bruh that sounds way fucking better than what we have now.

 

[mindlessobserver]

A conviction of Netflix in a criminal case would make it liable in civil court for any circumstance resulting from the crime. For example, all the "actresses" in this abomination could sue them. They could face a class action lawsuit from every person with a subscription. The conviction is not the danger for the corporation. It's what comes next.

 

[I can't imagine]

A conviction of Netflix in a criminal case would make it liable in civil court for any circumstance resulting from the crime. For example, all the "actresses" in this abomination could sue them. They could face a class action lawsuit from every person with a subscription. The conviction is not the danger for the corporation. It's what comes next.

I think that's kinda putting the cart before the horse, considering the exceptionally low likelihood of a conviction surviving the appeals if it does occur.

 

[Smug Cat]

The grand jurors had the text of the Texas law and the facts. The facts as they are fit the broad contours of the Texas statute, so their job was to indict. They are not constitutional scholars, jury nullification aside.

Fair. I don't work in law and have never served on a grand jury so I don't actually know how legit such a decision is. My uninformed gut instinct is that a movie that premiered at Sundance on its face doesn't meet a statute that requires a work be without artistic merit, but I am a dumbass posting on a Chris-Chan forum so I don't have any real idea how grand juries are supposed to make these kinds of decisions.

There are a lot of things in the US constitution that get outsized focus becuase the founding fathers were specifically pissed off about something. The third amendment is a good example. Most kids when they learn the bill of rights in elementary school are like "Speech.. Okay got it. Arms... okay got it. Quartering of troops? Wtf?"
It's there because in the various wars against indians in the west, the British would constantly quarter troops in people's villages, and the troops would take whatever they want. This is an extremely foreign experience to modern first world people, but dealing with foraging soldiers used to be a common fact of life. The british took it a step beyond normal, basically foraging off their own people. The founding fathers were like "Fuck you, no one can do this, it fuckin sucks. They ate all my goddamn saltpork for crying out loud."

I remember reading about a 3rd amendment case where the lawyer was super excited to argue it because it absolutely never comes up. Some SWAT team took over a dude's house while trying to get evidence on his neighbor, lmao.

 

[Eris!]

My uninformed gut instinct is that a movie that premiered at Sundance on its face doesn't meet a statute that requires a work be without artistic merit

Their best bet would to make the argument for discrete shots and sequences rather than for the movie as a thing itself. I don't know if they can do that.

 

[HeyYou]

Or how the US imprisoned over 120k Japanese civilians during WWII, or used a nuclear device on a civilian population - twice. The torture and humiliation of Iraqi war prisoners in Abu Graib, MKUltra etc etc.

Getting raped sounds fucking fun in comparison to any of those.

You'd rather be gangraped at age 12 and suffer debilitating back injuries like Hannelore Kohl than be interned? Alright dude.

 

[cypocryphy]

You know what really gets me about Cuties? By far the demographic most aggressively shilling for Cuties and defending it against the "Nazis" are unkempt bearded bugmen with nsfw Twitter accounts, aka obvious sex pests and possible pedophiles and no one on the progressive side of the political spectrum sees anything suspect or suspicious about this.

I bet they'd care if Americans with right of center political beliefs loved a movie that painted Jews in a less than flattering light.

It's not much of a shock who Cuties' biggest fan is...