Netflix facing indictment from Texas grand jury over "Cuties"

[Houseman]

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Yes, they have the POWER to do so, but they do not need to do so.
Kind of like how police have the POWER to serve and protect, but they do not need to.

You aren't being consistent with your arguments. You're all for people not being entitled to private companies when it comes to free speech, but you want grandma to be entitled to insulin and food stamps. This is a double standard.

 

[lil devils x]

Yes, they have the POWER to do so, but they do not need to do so.
Kind of like how police have the POWER to serve and protect, but they do not need to.

You aren't being consistent with your arguments. You're all for people not being entitled to private companies when it comes to free speech, but you want grandma to be entitled to insulin and food stamps.

It is also in the preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."

Just like the US has done so with the grounds for providing social security, Medicare and Medicaid, most western nations also have a general welfare clause, and also have interpreted it as a requirement for the government to provide for the general welfare of the people. As such being interpreted by US courts as the reason for social security, social security disability, Medicare and Medicaid as well as food assistance and other welfare programs, that is the current precedent.

They cannot protect your life, if you will die without access to these things. Denying you access to these things will result in your death, thus being denied life.

 

[Houseman]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."

None of that implies a duty or anything that people should feel entitled to.

You aren't being consistent with your arguments.

So let us say "this is how things ought to be!" without bringing up the "private company entitlement" argument, and we'll let you say "this is how things ought to be!" without bringing up the "private company entitlement" argument. Cool?

Otherwise, you can know what to expect the next time you argue that grandma should have free and easy access to healthcare or medicine.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Not a bad precedent, that precedent was set a long time ago when they allowed people to be tossed from pubs and blacklisted too. You can create your own private server hosting. you can receive checks and money orders without payment processing. You can get checks cashed at check cashing places all over, even some stores these days. You're not making a very good case here.

It is on a platform where they've decided even private talk that would offend people is banned.
Imagine if in the pub you were talking just with your friends about something and suddenly you were being kicked out because the pub had installed mics in the tables and you'd said something deemed offensive. You'd not actually offended anyone because other than the microphone only your friends heard it but some-one else in the pub has told the bar keeper it's a subject that offends them and they don't want being allowed to be done.
You still need a place to pay in the check which all private entities again. Same with money orders.

Lots of people create their own websites, I have in the past as well, it is pretty easy tbh. You can host your own private servers as well, we do that all the time for voice servers for MMORPGS,. You act like there is some reason you have to have access to someone else's site when there isn't.

I've created my own sites from HTML 4 basic language in the past. Just because it can be done doesn't make it easy to do securely. Website hosting services or creation platforms can and will kick people off. Even hosting your own server you then need your own security and on top of that as you can't use private service then Cloudflare won't protected you so that means needing to create your own DDOS protection system which as there's only like 2 service on the entre internet offering it then it's hardly going to be an easy task to pull off and if people hate you enough they only have to slip some script kiddies $50 and your site is down and they try to melt your server.

It is like the guy getting pissed he was tossed from the pub because he thinks he is entitled to put his business cards on the board, they are not entitled to that either. Freedom of speech =\= freedom from consequence.

My people have freedom of speech, they're free to say what they like to me, what happens when they're done speaking however I cannot say

That's free speech not freedom from consequence.

If a person runs up and punches you in the face and keeps punching you to shut you up that's a consequence. Should that be how we conduct things who has the most people willing to protect them vs willing to punch them?

We sell them oil and gas as well as transportation, machinery, computers and all sorts of things, but we buy much more from them instead. STILL Netflix is doing this right.

Trump= giving them money.
Netflix = taking their money.
Who is winning here?

The CCP because they get influence over an internatonal companies productions

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Many studies disagree with you.
This is all I will say on the subject.

 

[Gergar12]

Nearly every "liberal" media organization has ties to China.

Has China Compromised Every Major Mainstream Media Entity?

It seems a number of major US media outlets have financial ties to the Chinese Communist Party, and it shows in their coverage of coronavirus.

thefederalist.com

 

[Trunkage]

I dunno I think we're at a tipping point now on the precipice of a future like Continuum where people don't realise how much is truly lost until it is becoming too late


In the show the downfall truly starts in 2030 -2031 but is implied to have been in the making slowly for years. Considering it was made in 2012 it's worryingly predicted a number of developments over the years.

Anyone for a Halo health Monitor?


Which is a little more advanced than Apple currently does but Apply has got it far enough to get the real life version to be able to detect if you've have a bad fall and I think blood pressure too.

Edit:

Also adding in this.

Your phone provider is a private company should they be allowed to stop you talking to your friend if they set up an algorithm and hear you say a no no word?

Are companies allowed to compel a person to speak? Free speech and other laws applying to the public don't apply to private entities right?

How far do we go with this "Well it only applies to the government doing it". So if Amazon wanted they could drag you into the back room and torture you because it's only governments who aren't allowed to use torture?

Plenty of things do apply to private companies one of which being freedom of religion to greater or lesser extents. They can't fire you based on your religious belief. Free speech should be one of those things that applied unless it's some egregious edge case where some-one is just being a total asshole to customers to try and harm the company or something.

Firstly, if the no no word is 'kidnap a governor'. Yes. They should shut it down and send you speech to the police. Even Gab calls the police.... well the people on Gab do. Gab takes no responsibility for death threats, especially when they lead to actual murders, like has happened on occasions. Because why would you want to stop a murder when the murderer gives you hus plans hours beforehabd.

Secondly, this is not a Facebook/Google problem. I have a breach of contract on my record.... for saying that a government policy was ineffective. On my own time. On Facebook. You only get two breaches before it's an automatic firing. I dont work for a tech company.

You know whats a way big problem than Facebook/Google? THIS. Normal corporations are far more willing to cancel and fire you than FB. How about we do something about that?

Third.. wtf. Not having a platform is torture now? Get outta here with that nonsense. It's not even close to being on target. There are literal laws already against this. And yes Freedom of Speech laws are different because they were specifically only written for countries. If you want to curtail a corporations decisions, gooe luck and you clearly dont know how Capitalism works

Fourth. Compelled to speak? what's that got to do with Free Speech? No one gets to force you to speak. Mainly because its impossible to enforce. And again. How is this related to Free Speech?

Fifth. Remember that mass murderer in NZ? So Australia has put in a law that FB can now get in trouble if someone put put a similar video and they dont pull it down. Fined millions of dollars when they did nothing wrong.

So, in future under your ideas, what will happen is that attacks can happen and appear on social media. No one is allowed to take them down. Because Free Speech.

Which will be very effective at making social media non-existent. No advertising company would ever touch it again. Or, maybe all social media will get paywalls. Which means that the Main Steam Media gets all its power back. Do you work for the MSM? Because it sounds like you do. You are the exact person they have been hoping for

 

[Houseman]

Fourth. Compelled to speak? what's that got to do with Free Speech? No one gets to force you to speak. Mainly because its impossible to enforce. And again. How is this related to Free Speech?

One example from StackOverflow is that you MUST use people's chosen pronouns. For example, if I say that my preferred pronouns are "xur/xhur", you cannot use "he" or "she" or "they". And if you suddenly change around your sentences so that you avoid all use of pronouns and just start calling me "Houseman", that's against the rules too.

And yes, before you say it, they can make you do that because it's a private platform.

 

[Kae]

Could be wrong, but I always saw the relationship between Leon And Mathilda as a paternal one.

Mathilda came from a very damaged home, one in which she felt marginalized if not outright neglected as evidenced during the scene where she first encounters Leon after her family is slaughtered; the only person she feels any loss for is her baby brother.

Leon is the stoic hitman who's come to terms with his lot in life, lonely (or alone) by design, keeping to routines of Spartan simplicity until "business" has to be conducted where his only rule is "no women, no kids."

Suddenly this child in dire need is thrust upon him at a very tense moment, and even then, he considers what it means to upset his routine to help her and get involved. He reluctantly takes her in with the plan to offload her when appropriate, but circumstance dictate that that's to be later rather than sooner. They form bonds as he begins to feel "something" outside of cold, methodical calculation in pursuit of his profession again, and she begins to experience what it feels like to actually matter to someone, to be cared for.

Now, I'm not a young girl, but I've heard tell that young women from troubled homes/situations often try to compensate for damaged emotions and mental states in sometimes not so healthy ways, one of them being unmerited (and unwarranted) attraction to those who demonstrate value in their particular emotional voids, and that can lead them to further misconstrue their own feelings and act inappropriately. There's no doubt Mathilda loved Leon, but I think she misinterpreted it as the romantic love between a man and a women when in fact it was her desire for the love of a father. She tried to prove herself a worthy "lover" by demonstrating her adult side with romantic intimations, obedience, and even wanting to learn to be a "cleaner" like Leon. And I think for Leon's part, he intuited this in some way (being a stranger to certain softer emotions,) but I don't think he was reigning in any unethical desire to requite or take advantage of her; you see in the scene I posted, he's visibly uncomfortable with her sultry advances, and this moment is used specifically to add levity to the otherwise austere film. I think his struggle was more with the idea of his life being irrevocably altered, for the better, having to care for this child he's grown to love as a surrogate father.

I guess if one wanted, they could read into their more intimate exchanges and interpret under/overtones of pedophilia, but given the general universal praise for the film with some not-so-small names in it, I doubt they could have passed that one off as a [then] modern day "Lolita" without a lot of controversy.

TL;DR? Leon loved Mathilda as a daughter he never knew he could handle, and she him as the father she never knew she could have.

In a way you're not wrong as the beauty of art is that it can be interpreted in many ways and this isn't particularly far from what my initial reading of the film was when I didn't have knowledge of the director, but my dad saw it and he didn't like it because of the paedophilic undertones so I researched the film to see if there was actually any of that intent, and there's no confirmation but it's a popular read of the film, so here we ask ourselves, can we read this story as a paedophilic love story without making any leaps in logic or coming up with weird theories to explain it?

In this case I'm afraid that it can, and having the context of the fact that the director is a paedophile it's honestly quite disturbing to have that man instructing a 12 year old girl to do those scenes, especially knowing how much sexual abuse there is in Hollywood, in this case I think the meta-narrative of who made the film and the fact that he recorded those scenes with a child kinda bring a really sinister undertone to the whole thing.

That being said this isn't to say that your interpretation is invalid and that you shouldn't enjoy the film, it's fine to do so, I love Chinatown for example and that's by Roman Polansky not only a paedophile but one that drugs kids to rape them, just saying that it's not the greatest example of how to present children in media.

 

[Gordon_4]

It is on a platform where they've decided even private talk that would offend people is banned.
Imagine if in the pub you were talking just with your friends about something and suddenly you were being kicked out because the pub had installed mics in the tables and you'd said something deemed offensive. You'd not actually offended anyone because other than the microphone only your friends heard it but some-one else in the pub has told the bar keeper it's a subject that offends them and they don't want being allowed to be done.
You still need a place to pay in the check which all private entities again. Same with money orders.



I've created my own sites from HTML 4 basic language in the past. Just because it can be done doesn't make it easy to do securely. Website hosting services or creation platforms can and will kick people off. Even hosting your own server you then need your own security and on top of that as you can't use private service then Cloudflare won't protected you so that means needing to create your own DDOS protection system which as there's only like 2 service on the entre internet offering it then it's hardly going to be an easy task to pull off and if people hate you enough they only have to slip some script kiddies $50 and your site is down and they try to melt your server.






That's free speech not freedom from consequence.

If a person runs up and punches you in the face and keeps punching you to shut you up that's a consequence. Should that be how we conduct things who has the most people willing to protect them vs willing to punch them?








The CCP because they get influence over an internatonal companies productions

Netflix is by my reading agreeing to create and/or host tailor made content for the Chinese market for a Chinese local steaming service to licence and broadcast. It is not likely to affect other Netflix creations or hosted content because it will be separate, probably physically, from US domestic and broader international content servers. They’re not buying a stake in Netflix, they contracting to them.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Firstly, if the no no word is 'kidnap a governor'. Yes. They should shut it down and send you speech to the police. Even Gab calls the police.... well the people on Gab do. Gab takes no responsibility for death threats, especially when they lead to actual murders, like has happened on occasions. Because why would you want to stop a murder when the murderer gives you hus plans hours beforehabd.

So " Did you hear about some-one's plan to kidnap a governor, what an idiot" should see your conversation shut down and sent to the police?

That's the problem with algorithms controlling things and determining if your speech is a problem you'd have still said he words 'kidnap a governor' you're now in violation and now barred from the pub. No questions asked. No appeal for the most part. You're done.

Also Tumblr is responsible for more deaths than 4chan at this point to put things into perspective if internet rumours etc are to be believed.

Secondly, this is not a Facebook/Google problem. I have a breach of contract on my record.... for saying that a government policy was ineffective. On my own time. On Facebook. You only get two breaches before it's an automatic firing. I dont work for a tech company.

You know whats a way big problem than Facebook/Google? THIS. Normal corporations are far more willing to cancel and fire you than FB. How about we do something about that?

Oh but they're allowed to they're private companies they don't have to allow you free speech even outside of work hours of offices and you saying that is all just a consequence of speech right? OR SO I KEEP BEING TOLD.

Third.. wtf. Not having a platform is torture now? Get outta here with that nonsense. It's not even close to being on target. There are literal laws already against this. And yes Freedom of Speech laws are different because they were specifically only written for countries. If you want to curtail a corporations decisions, gooe luck and you clearly dont know how Capitalism works

The Geneva convention was only signed by countries too.

That's why this private company stuff gets dangerous.

I said about torture because it's an extension of the argument that private companies aren't bound to the same laws as governments and the argument being put forward by others that they shouldn't be.

Fourth. Compelled to speak? what's that got to do with Free Speech? No one gets to force you to speak. Mainly because its impossible to enforce. And again. How is this related to Free Speech?

Compelled to say what they want even if it's the opposite of what you think. That would be suppressing free speech would it not?

Fifth. Remember that mass murderer in NZ? So Australia has put in a law that FB can now get in trouble if someone put put a similar video and they dont pull it down. Fined millions of dollars when they did nothing wrong.

Welcome to them being a publisher not a platform.

So, in future under your ideas, what will happen is that attacks can happen and appear on social media. No one is allowed to take them down. Because Free Speech.

No because they'd be able to take action against things that are outright illegal still. Pretty sure Lifestreaming murder is still illegal most places

Which will be very effective at making social media non-existent. No advertising company would ever touch it again. Or, maybe all social media will get paywalls. Which means that the Main Steam Media gets all its power back. Do you work for the MSM? Because it sounds like you do. You are the exact person they have been hoping for

Advertisers will touch it because they want the audiences. Advertisers are notoriously skittish as is and you know one of the things they're super skittish about? Talking about politics and political division. Which is what Twitter and other places are rapidly becoming mostly about.

Social media puts up a pay wall eh? Ok if it fixes the bullshit gets people more freedom on there I'm game if it's priced decently. I mean come on Advertisers wouldn't have backed or supported Game of Thrones until it was suitably huge.

You ever watched the Shannara Chronicles? You can see the difference between the series so clearly because it switched network from one that told advertisers to basically deal with it when they made shows that had any risqué content to one where the advertisers were able to control how far things could go. Hell Advertisers hated the WWE for the longest time and that's why WWE launched their own subscription streaming service

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Netflix is by my reading agreeing to create and/or host tailor made content for the Chinese market for a Chinese local steaming service to licence and broadcast. It is not likely to affect other Netflix creations or hosted content because it will be separate, probably physically, from US domestic and broader international content servers. They’re not buying a stake in Netflix, they contracting to them.

Far easier just to make some shows CCP approved to begin with than spend extra money changing things or editing them though.

 

[Gordon_4]

Far easier just to make some shows CCP approved to begin with than spend extra money changing things or editing them though.

Depends what’s being done. If the shows are being overdubbed then some young party go-getters will be writing the scripts, presumably then approved by a senior party official and as long as the words remotely match the mouth movements then no problem. If they’re just subtitling it then they may ask Netflix to re-record some dialogue since a fair whack of China’s population understand English and will see past any attempts at written Wolseyisms.

Other than that, Netflix is doing what any business does. If someone is buying, then they are selling. The US would need to declare the Chinese an enemy state, not just have President Dipshit screech from his pulpit, but slap down a formal ass declaration. At that stage the Government can demand its big corporations stop doing business with the Chinese full stop. Until then, to make such a demand would be a hideous example of interference in the free market.

And the Americans hate that.

 

[Houseman]

Depends what’s being done. If the shows are being overdubbed then some young party go-getters will be writing the scripts, presumably then approved by a senior party official and as long as the words remotely match the mouth movements then no problem. If they’re just subtitling it then they may ask Netflix to re-record some dialogue since a fair whack of China’s population understand English and will see past any attempts at written Wolseyisms.

That's just audio. What about visuals?
I remember there was a controversy with Rainbow 6 siege, where they had to remove all skulls from the game because the Chinese audience didn't like that.

 

[Trunkage]

Oh but they're allowed to they're private companies they don't have to allow you free speech even outside of work hours of offices and you saying that is all just a consequence of speech right? OR SO I KEEP BEING TOLD.

Funny how you only get worried about ‘left wing’ things when it suits you and then pretend to be anti-corporatists when someone points out that many corporations are way worse at free speech than social media, I don’t believe you think this at all. You’d be very happy if corporations went back to banning all stuff you don’t like AS PER MOST OF YOUR STANCE EARLIER IN THIS THREAD. You literally hoping for government intervention on Free Speech based on the fact you don’t like it

You are the one calling to cancel stuff. Not Facebook or anyone else. Stop pretending you care about any of this

 

[Gordon_4]

That's just audio. What about visuals?
I remember there was a controversy with Rainbow 6 siege, where they had to remove all skulls from the game because the Chinese audience didn't like that.

That’s a value far older than the CCP. Like, way, way older. It’s also down to what content they’re licensing out - I doubt very much they’d ask for The Walking Dead. Most of it will just be insipid tween shows and middle class sitcoms.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Depends what’s being done. If the shows are being overdubbed then some young party go-getters will be writing the scripts, presumably then approved by a senior party official and as long as the words remotely match the mouth movements then no problem. If they’re just subtitling it then they may ask Netflix to re-record some dialogue since a fair whack of China’s population understand English and will see past any attempts at written Wolseyisms.

Other than that, Netflix is doing what any business does. If someone is buying, then they are selling. The US would need to declare the Chinese an enemy state, not just have President Dipshit screech from his pulpit, but slap down a formal ass declaration. At that stage the Government can demand its big corporations stop doing business with the Chinese full stop. Until then, to make such a demand would be a hideous example of interference in the free market.

And the Americans hate that.

China is a far larger market to it they will get control. It will go right down to scripts and plot decisions in the end even before it ends up at subtitling. They will be thinking about selling it to China first and foremost while producing it not as an after thought as they will decide China is the primary market. It's suggested that's why Finn was so downplayed in much of the new trilogy because he didn't play well in China.

Funny how you only get worried about ‘left wing’ things when it suits you and then pretend to be anti-corporatists when someone points out that many corporations are way worse at free speech than social media, I don’t believe you think this at all. You’d be very happy if corporations went back to banning all stuff you don’t like AS PER MOST OF YOUR STANCE EARLIER IN THIS THREAD. You literally hoping for government intervention on Free Speech based on the fact you don’t like it

You are the one calling to cancel stuff. Not Facebook or anyone else. Stop pretending you care about any of this

It's almost like I'm a nuanced person not a blindly loyal tribalist or something?

Also Social media companies and still corporations or parts of them.

If you check my actual comments I pointed out it could be awful no matter what the decision here. While I have a strong position of hating censorship it really can only be pushed so far and I think potential actual exploitation of child actor or turning them into actual pedobait (not saying Cuties does do this) is kind of where I'm ok drawing a line in the sand and saying I'm fine walking away at that point and not dying on that hill. If that's the hill you want to take the fight to and die on by all means go right ahead though.

 

[Worgen]

This is about as slow as I go for music on my must play list... These are the " mild ones" I still must have

How about dis?

 

[Trunkage]

It's almost like I'm a nuanced person not a blindly loyal tribalist or something?

I'm going to need far more proof than what's stated here.

So, Tucker Carlson is anti-Corporate, right. But his aim is to get rid of migrants. Because of course their bad. He talks about how they don't follow conservative or Trump talking points. You know, not 'loyal' enough to America. Some liberals think he's great due to his anti-Corporate stance. But then I point out that he doesn't care about getting rid of corporate power over everyone else or reducing monopolies. He just wants whites in control. Making joining his version of anti-Corporate actually worse for the average person.

Guess where your standing right now in my eyes. Using rhetoric that doesn't match your ideas

 

[Cicada 5]

That isn't the main reason to have children in movies, the main reason is to tell a story. Representation and acknowledgement is the reason why you do interviews on them or having them in commercials. Books, movies, ect are about the actual content here. We want representation in both but we do that by having a variety of points of view. This is just one of those points of view. Some people seem to think the girls point of view going through these things shouldn't be told or something.

This movie was to tell the story of what it is like to be a girl growing up in between worlds with a religious family who physically and emotionally abuses you and having hip hop dance as an escape from that, but even then you can't really escape it because you have religious zealots abuse and humiliate you in public as well as in your own home so what is the point? That a girl cannot even be herself or express herself without someone trying to police every aspect of her life and body shame her and expect her to abide by their religious modesty standards. That is how the story pretty much looked to me. Pretty sad tbh.

I think you have a serious misread of the film. The girls engage in behavior that goes far beyond the realm of expressing yourself and actively cause harm to themselves and each other. The mother might have been more on the conservative side but she wasn't an extremist.