"Cuties"

Klaus

Would you consider Larry's description of the telephone incident "extreme?"

I don't know. I'd have to actually watch it.

But in any case, many of us are annoyed about how meaningless the word "racism" has become since it has been applied to way too many things that are not actually racist. It would be wise to not make the same mistake with "pedophilia". In both cases it is tempting to misuse the great power this word gives to the speaker.

Copper

It is OK to censor child pornography.

Even if it creates some false-positive racism accusations.

Klaus

@Copper said in "Cuties":

It is OK to censor child pornography.

Yes. It is also OK to object to racism. But both should actually be true. There's no evidence that this movie contains any explicit material that would qualify as pornography, child or otherwise.

Doctor Phibes

Imagine if they started censoring movies that glorified and/or glamourised violence and/or criminal behaviour.

Netflix would be out of business in a week.

Klaus

OK, I watched the trailer now. Calling this "child pornography" is just ridiculous and insults the victims of actual child pornography.

Link to video

Rainman

Well, California just enacted a change in the law, where what used to be a misdemeanor if 4-years between the "couple" is now 10 years. I don't know: is that part of the slippery slope?

Copper

There are various definitions of pornography.

This is within some of them.

Maybe not in others.

Klaus

@Copper said in "Cuties":

There are various definitions of pornography.
This is within some of them.

Then surely you should be able to explain one definition according to which this is pornography.

Copper

OK, I'll give you 2 definitions wiki and google

The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio.[1][2] In explaining why the material at issue in the case was not obscene under the Roth test, and therefore was protected speech that could not be censored, Stewart wrote:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.[3]

https://www.google.com/search?q=pornography+definition&rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS883US883&oq=pornography&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0j69i57j0.3163j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Larry

@Klaus said in "Cuties":

OK, I watched the trailer now. Calling this "child pornography" is just ridiculous and insults the victims of actual child pornography.

Link to video

If that was as bad as it got I would agree with you. Unfortunately, that trailer was so well cherry picked that it makes it look like a Disney movie.