Netflix indicted for the Cuties thing

AverageJoe1

Catch the Train 47!

Debates

08 Oct 20

no1marauder

Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined: 22 Jun 04
Moves: 42677

10 Oct 20

1 edit

@vivify said
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-43-25.html

Texas Penal Code § 43.25. Sexual Performance by a Child

(1) “Sexual performance” means any performance or part thereof that includes sexual conduct by a child younger than 18 years of age.

(2) “Sexual conduct” means sexual contact, actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual interc ...[text shortened]... ks.

Does the movie meet any of these points? If not, Texas has no case against "Cuties".

That is not the charge in the indictment. Instead it relies on Texas Penal Code 43.262 – Possession or Promotion of Lewd Visual Material Depicting Child which states:

"(a) In this section:
(1) “Promote” and “sexual conduct” have the meanings assigned by Section 43.25.
(2) “Visual material” has the meaning assigned by Section 43.26.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly possesses, accesses with intent to view, or promotes visual material that:
(1) depicts the lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of an unclothed, partially clothed, or clothed child who is younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual material was created;
(2) appeals to the prurient interest in sex; and
(3) has no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony, except that the offense is:
(1) a felony of the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the person has been previously convicted one time of an offense under this section or Section 43.26; and
(2) a felony of the second degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the person has been previously convicted two or more times of an offense under this section or Section 43.26.
(d) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the depicted child consented to the creation of the visual material.

https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/texas/tx-codes/texas_penal_code_43-262#:~:text=B%20%3E%20%C2%A7%2043.262-,Texas%20Penal%20Code%2043.[WORD TOO LONG].26.

Quite obviously, the charge fails the requirements I have put in bold.

Under the theory of the charge, every person in Texas who watched the movie (or maybe even just the dancing clip) is a felon.

no1marauder

Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined: 22 Jun 04
Moves: 42677

10 Oct 20

@averagejoe1 said
Funny, my own post is making me sick to my stomach.

No one is required to watch the movie, Joe.

jimm619

Joined: 27 Sep 06
Moves: 251103

10 Oct 20

@no1marauder
As usual, LESS THAN AVERAGE JOE leads the moronic charge.
Ever visit a museum LTAJoe? Lotsa' nude women huh?
Did you ever question why THE REPUBLICANS covered
the statue of DAVID, by Michelangelo during THE G.W. YEARS?
I understand, LESS THAN AVERAGE JOE,
aren't too many museums near your trailer camp are there?

Earl of Trumps

Pawn Whisperer

My Kingdom fora Pawn

Joined: 09 Jan 19
Moves: 20418

10 Oct 20

@no1marauder said
We already heard from him and I'm sure he'll be on Laura Ingraham or Jeanine Pirro or some such in the near future.

So what do you think he discovered that the other 253 county prosecutors in Texas and 3140 in the US missed?

I defer to the District Attorney to his own questions.

Earl of Trumps