ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2 of 5
< 12 345 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Netflix Indicted in TX for 'CUTIES'
BucEyedPea 08:02 PM 10-06-2020
Lewd Depiction of Kids Alleged

Netflix is being dragged into a criminal courtroom in Texas over the controversial film, "Cuties" ... a film a grand jury believes shows young kids in sexual situations.

The grand jury in Tyler County, TX just handed up the indictment ... and according to the docs, Netflix is being charged with promotion of lewd visual material depicting children. By streaming "Cuties," Netflix allegedly promoted the lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a clothed or partially clothed child younger than 18, appealing to the prurient interest in sex....

Critics have been very vocal about the controversial film -- some feel it encourages the sexual exploitation of pre-teens ... some have even used the word "pedophilia" to describe "Cuties."

https://www.tmz.com/2020/10/06/netfl...hild-sex-lewd/

[Reply]
chieffan09 07:09 PM 10-13-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Engaging in sexually erotic dances is in no way pornography, especially when no nudity is involved.

Well, maybe if you're Amish. :-)
I'm shocked you would defend that crap. Shocked, I tell ya.
[Reply]
JohnnyHammersticks 08:58 PM 10-13-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Engaging in sexually erotic dances is in no way pornography, especially when no nudity is involved.

Well, maybe if you're Amish.
I guess when you've watched half the country bang your whore wife you get kind of desensitized to perverted shit like that, right buddy? Clint, is it?
[Reply]
CarlosCarson88 02:23 AM 10-14-2020
https://youtu.be/GvFyhqSE51A
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 07:41 AM 10-14-2020
Originally Posted by JohnnyHammersticks:
I guess when you've watched half the country bang your whore wife you get kind of desensitized to perverted shit like that, right buddy? Clint, is it?
If you think that movie contains pornography, then you're the type of sensitive cuck who couldn't get laid with an 8-ball and a fist full of hundreds. Not even with the whore ex-wife. :-)
[Reply]
stevieray 07:43 AM 10-14-2020
Bitterbeerface trying to tell people how to feel about child porn again?

:-)
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 07:47 AM 10-14-2020
Originally Posted by stevieray:
Bitterbeerface trying to tell people how to feel about child porn again?

:-)
This, from a guy who thinks leaving the light on is freaky.
[Reply]
Hoopsdoc 08:10 AM 10-14-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
If you think that movie contains pornography, then you're the type of sensitive outstanding citizen who couldn't get laid with an 8-ball and a fist full of hundreds. Not even with the whore ex-wife. :-)
The movie clearly contains pornography involving 11 year old girls. Why do you feel the need to defend it?
[Reply]
WhiteWhale 09:29 AM 10-14-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Engaging in sexually erotic dances is in no way pornography, especially when no nudity is involved.

Well, maybe if you're Amish. :-)
You sure about that when it involves children?

Because nudity isnt required. Only suggestive material.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 09:34 AM 10-14-2020
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
You sure about that when it involves children?

Because nudity isnt required. Only suggestive material.
It's completely subjective. I'm sure there are things on Nickelodeon that someone would call suggestive. I'm obviously not defending child pornography, I just don't agree that the movie contains child pornography.
[Reply]
WhiteWhale 09:37 AM 10-14-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
It's completely subjective. I'm sure there are things on Nickelodeon that someone would call suggestive. I'm obviously not defending child pornography, I just don't agree that the movie contains child pornography.
I cant say. Haven't seen it. I dont care to. I don't need to see someone kill a puppy to know abusing animals is bad.

I just know the laws do NOT require nudity as you stated.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 09:44 AM 10-14-2020
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
I cant say. Haven't seen it. I dont care to. I don't need to see someone kill a puppy to know abusing animals is bad.

I just know the laws do NOT require nudity as you stated.
I may very well be wrong about that. I know where "standard" porn is involved, it's pretty much impossible without nudity.
[Reply]
chieffan09 12:59 PM 10-14-2020
It's easy to get confused if the t.v. is your moral compass.
[Reply]
stanleychief 01:31 PM 10-14-2020
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
I cant say. Haven't seen it. I dont care to. I don't need to see someone kill a puppy to know abusing animals is bad.

I just know the laws do NOT require nudity as you stated.
It definitely runs afoul of the Texas penal code from which the lawsuit arises: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-c...ct-43-262.html

Calling it pornography may not be entirely accurate depending on the definition used. NOLO law defines it as such:

Originally Posted by :
Pornography
Photographs, films, books, or other material depicting erotic or sexual acts designed to cause sexual arousal. Pornography is protected by the First Amendment free speech provisions unless it is found to be obscene.
Was the material erotic or sexual? Was it designed to cause sexual arousal? That's fairly subjective.
[Reply]
Hoopsdoc 02:21 PM 10-14-2020
Originally Posted by stanleychief:
It definitely runs afoul of the Texas penal code from which the lawsuit arises: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-c...ct-43-262.html

Calling it pornography may not be entirely accurate depending on the definition used. NOLO law defines it as such:



Was the material erotic or sexual? Was it designed to cause sexual arousal? That's fairly subjective.
There were underage girls twerking in the film. Twerking is, by definition, a sexually suggestive and erotic dance.

This isn’t complicated. It’s child pornography.
[Reply]
eDave 02:33 PM 10-14-2020
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Yawn. There's no child pornography involved. Some attention-seeking D.A. is looking to pander, even if it means getting crushed in court by Netflix.
Dude, it was gross. Not to mention tone deaf af.
[Reply]
Page 2 of 5
< 12 345 >
Up