Netflix Why Are You Offering Kiddie Porn???

[Smok3r]

Get called on your bullshit, act like a cunt. I'm sure Jesus is proud of you. What a fucking snowflake.

Damn! That’s some Next-Level Deflecting!

 

[LMP]

Damn! That’s some Next-Level Deflecting!

Now you wanna work your way on completely derailing the thread... shit troll is shit.

 

[Fawlty]

So, the director had no choice but to demonstrate to the audience what a 10 y/o having an “o” looks like?

He couldn’t have possibly just created a scene where the girl is talking to her mother about what happened?


*if anything, this thread will serve as an indicator of who we’re associating ourselves with on the forum.

It was not a good artistic choice imo. There were a lot of ways to imply what was happening (for instance, they could have kept the camera on the sister as she watches, which would actually fit the film perfectly), and the scene was probably a mistake. Definitely not "pornography." It was pushed, but it wasn't obscene.

 

[badascan]

oh virtuous war room posters... helax...

 

[LMP]

It was not a good artistic choice imo. There were a lot of ways to imply what was happening (for instance, they could have kept the camera on the sister as she watches, which would actually fit the film perfectly), and the scene was probably a mistake. Definitely not "pornography." It was pushed, but it wasn't obscene.

That sounds more like the description than the "CP" in thread title.

 

[Smok3r]

It was not a good artistic choice imo. There were a lot of ways to imply what was happening (for instance, they could have kept the camera on the sister as she watches, which would actually fit the film perfectly), and the scene was probably a mistake. Definitely not "pornography." It was pushed, but it wasn't obscene.

According to Section 2256 of Title 18 of the United States Code, child pornography is "any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age)."

 

[Fawlty]

According to Section 2256 of Title 18 of the United States Code, child pornography is "any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age)."

People are free to bring it to the authorities if they think it crossed that line. It didn't. I'll bet a sizable amount of money that no charges are filed.

 

[Quipling]

According to Section 2256 of Title 18 of the United States Code, child pornography is "any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age)."

explicit

 

[Smok3r]

People are free to bring it to the authorities if they think it crossed that line. It didn't. I'll bet a sizable amount of money that no charges are filed.

Typically, the issue people (of all walks of life) will have is never just one particular scene, but what this may open the door to.

Last year, or possibly earlier this year, a movie rolled out where a man has a romantic relationship with a teenage boy. It was either a European or South American flick, but it opened up here in the States.

The limits are being pushed just to see how much can be gotten away with. One can assume they’re slowly, but surely, trying to introduce this to the human psyche as “normal” or “acceptable”.

Go to any pron site, and you’ll see that many of the videos are themed “mother and son”, “brother and sister”, etc.

This is why so many people (again, this is not limited to Reps, Dems, Christians, etc.) are bringing up their concerns.

I will venture to say, however, that those who lean to the Left are typically the ones not batting an eye at these illustrations.

 

[VivaRevolution]

This is one of several tweets that recently went out in response to 'Desire.' Some of the responses supporting netflix on this are amazing. I am a gigantic supporter of free speech, but this would not be included.



Netflix has come under fire for a movie streaming on their site that some viewers say contains a scene that is child pornography.


The opening scene of the Argentinian film "Desire" depicts two young girls under the age of 10 playing around with pillows. The scene takes a sexual turn involving one of the girls....
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...m-critics-say-contains-child-pornography.html



And again, obviously there is no grand conspiracy pushing this crap on our world.

Ummm, doesn't the context matter to this, as in is it part of the story line, and what did they show? Are Shakespear's works unacceptable now because of incest?

 

[Smok3r]

explicit

You mean “stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion, or doubt” as just about any dictionary defines it?

Yeah, based on some of the posts ITT, it was technically explicit.

 

[Fawlty]

Typically, the issue people (of all walks of life) will have is never just one particular scene, but what this may open the door to.

The question here is legality, right? People are free to complain about the scene (though they should actually know what the scene is and how it fits the context of the film, or else they will be reactionary fools). I agree that it was a bad choice, and possibly even gratuitous. I don't worry about a slippery slope.

Last year, or possibly earlier this year, a movie rolled out where a man has a romantic relationship with a teenage boy. It was either a European or South American flick, but it opened up here in the States.

The limits are being pushed just to see how much can be gotten away with. One can assume they’re slowly, but surely, trying to introduce this to the human psyche as “normal” or “acceptable”.

Go to any pron site, and you’ll see that many of the videos are themed “mother and son”, “brother and sister”, etc.

This is why so many people (again, this is not limited to Reps, Dems, Christians, etc.) are bringing up their concerns.

I will venture to say, however, that those who lean to the Left are typically the ones not batting an eye at these illustrations.

I'm debating whether to keep you talking as you descend into the CT stuff for entertainment value, or whether to try to keep you on target. I really don't want to discuss your fears about this.

 

[Smok3r]

The question here is legality, right? People are free to complain about the scene (though they should actually know what the scene is and how it fits the context of the film, or else they will be reactionary fools). I agree that it was a bad choice, and possibly even gratuitous. I don't worry about a slippery slope.


I'm debating whether to keep you talking as you descend into the CT stuff for entertainment value, or whether to try to keep you on target. I really don't want to discuss your fears about this.

I’m debating whether to block you, @Lowmanproblems, and @VivaRevolution, three individuals who continue to ride the fence about whether it’s appropriate to depict a TEN y/o riding a pillow to an “O”.

Screw it! All 3 blocked.

 

[LMP]

I’m debating whether to block you, @Lowmanproblems, and @VivaRevolution, three individuals who continue to ride the fence about whether it’s appropriate to depict a TEN y/o riding a pillow to an “O”.

Screw it! All 3 blocked.

 

[Fawlty]

I’m debating whether to block you, @Lowmanproblems, and @VivaRevolution, three individuals who continue to ride the fence about whether it’s appropriate to depict a TEN y/o riding a pillow to an “O”.

Screw it! All 3 blocked.

I said twice that I didn't think it was appropriate. Your feeble attempt is feeble, it's obvious what you're winding up for. And you'll read this post.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Damage control...can’t blame you.

What damage control? I understood what he was saying all along and it wasn't sinister in any way.

 

[Quipling]

You mean “stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion, or doubt” as just about any dictionary defines it?

Yeah, based on some of the posts ITT, it was technically explicit.

It's a court of law, not a court of merriam-webster. If we're making claims about the law, we use legal definitions. So, from the statute that you cited in post #46:

“sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area

"two young girls under the age of 10 playing around with pillows"
"this scene was filmed using a trick, which was that the girls were copying a cowboy scene from a film by John Ford."

Nope. It was implicit.

 

[all caps]

I’m debating whether to block you, @Lowmanproblems, and @VivaRevolution, three individuals who continue to ride the fence about whether it’s appropriate to depict a TEN y/o riding a pillow to an “O”.

Screw it! All 3 blocked.

You should take all of your virtue to twitter. Youd fit right in over there.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Whatever, perv.

You're being a jackass.

 

[Quipling]

You mean “stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion, or doubt” as just about any dictionary defines it?

Yeah, based on some of the posts ITT, it was technically explicit.

edit: posted this in the wrong thread but im going to let it stand