Comments (10)
sorted by:
RobotHawk 6 points ago +6 / -0

I recall seeing it under the title "mignonnes" or something, so i think it was filmed in france or somewhere, so filmmakers might not be under american jurisdiction, but the distribution side obvious would be.

Pukeahontas [S] 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yes its a French movie. But as you said, distributors and platforms airing it in US jurisdiction obviously are bound by US laws. This is the type of case you need a strong DA to go after, to send a stern message and slap them with a fine large enough for these people to think a dozen times before attempting to air something like this again in the future.

Reading some of the reviews supportive of this, it seems as if its a test to check how much they can get away with. If airing this is acceptable, we should not be surprised to see even more sick movies coming out.

Cuties, Netflix review: a provocative powder-keg for an age terrified of child sexuality


These people want to normalise pedophilia. Nothing more, nothing less.

They want people to think its OK to watch children being sexually exploited.. so they can set the stage to profit from it in the future.

goingbigly 5 points ago +5 / -0

The rule for distribution of child pornography charges for a minor, is that they have to send the pictures to 25 people. For adults, the rule are not even close to that lenient. I use the example of a minor sending pictures of themselves or other minors, because they are the most lenient. Netflix and these production companies have sent this crap to millions. They should be charged. Claiming something is art does not make it legal.

DickTick 2 points ago +3 / -1

Bingo. Exactly what I was trying to say.

IForgotMyPw 2 points ago +2 / -0

The US can block companies involved in the distribution of it, anyone involved with it at all, anyone who so much as viewed it and approved it, from doing business in the US or traveling to and from the US, and much much more.

Our hands aren't entirely tied.

SirPokeSmottington 3 points ago +3 / -0

In order to better determine whether a visual depiction of a minor constitutes a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(B), the court developed six criteria. Not all of the criteria need to be met, nor are other criteria necessarily excluded in this test.[1][2][3] For example, in United States v. Johnson, three Dost factors (sexually suggestive setting, inappropriate attire or unnatural poses, and a suggestion of sexual coyness) were absent from the videos taken by the defendant, but the Eighth Circuit ruled that a reasonable jury could still find that he had acted lasciviously.[4]

  1. Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area.
  2. Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity.
  3. Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child.
  4. Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude.
  5. Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity.
  6. Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
HistoryInvestigator 2 points ago +2 / -0

Don't just do negative action with boycotts and bans, we also need positive action like registering to vote, whether ourselves or others.

LOTS and LOTS of conservatives and Trump supporters have STILL not registered to vote. Even some Democrats who are now switching sides have not registered. Check your status, register yourselves and get others who are passionate about Trump and conservative values if you or they haven't yet registered:

https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote#item-212645 (or check the side bar)

Remember that this is a numbers game and we need to WIN!

A300killdozer 1 point ago +1 / -0

A bigger question what abut the Parents Would ask where are the but I know at the bank cashing the check

DickTick 1 point ago +2 / -1

I thought it was a French film or something?

So it only became illegal here when Netflix posted it. The french can do whatever the fuck they want to do over there