Lawmakers ask for criminal investigation into Netflix show ‘Cuties’ for violating child exploitation laws

Share:

WASHINGTON DC – Recently, Netflix released a movie titled Cuties which centers around 11-year-old girls dancing provocatively. 

The movie has received numerous accolades and according to Netflix, is ranked number 7 out of the movies as of September 11th.  However, not everyone is celebrating the film.

Several Republican lawmakers are asking the Attorney General in their respective states to criminally investigate the film, for, at minimum, child exploitation.

Matt Schaefer, a Republican lawmaker in Texas, asked State Attorney General, Ken Paxton, to open a criminal investigation into the movie.  On Twitter, he said:

“I have asked Texas Attorney General Paxton’s office to investigate the @netflix film “Cuties” for possible violations of child exploitation and child pornography laws.”

Schaefer and others take issue with the movie which has young girls dressed scantly and dancing in a manner seen in strip clubs.  There are also many views of the girls genital areas (clothed) which suggests the movie is sexualizing the children.

Republican House Candidate in California, James Bradley, also agrees that the French movie goes toO far.  Bradley tweeted:

“If you watch 11-year-olds twerk, you’re a pervert.  If you direct 11 year olds to touch themselves on camera, you’re a pedophile.  If you support Netflix making and airing #Cuties, you’re enabling abuse.”

The Daily Caller also reports that Republican Legislators Tom Cotton and Jim Banks have requested the Justice Department pursue legal action against Netflix for the film release.  Cotton told the Caller:

“There’s no excuse for sexualization of children, and Netflix’s decision to promote the film ‘Cuties’ is disgusting at best and a serious crime at worst.  I urge the Department of Justice to take action against Netflix for their role in pushing explicit depictions of children into American homes.”

Banks said:

“As a father of young daughters, I find it sickening.  Not only is this movie fodder for pedophiles, it encourages very young girls to defy their parents’ wishes and share pornographic images of themselves with strangers. 

“Our culture has come a long way in recent years, recognizing the power of television, movies and magazines to affect young girls.  The lessons taught in this film are not ones I want my daughters learning.  The DOJ should be readying charges against Netflix for distribution of child pornography.”

Despite the backlash, Netflix is speaking out in full support of the movie.  According to the Daily Caller, they received a statement from a spokesperson of the streaming company:

“Cuties is a social commentary against the sexualization of young children.  It’s an award winning film and a powerful story about the pressure young girls face on social media and from society more generally growing up – and we’d encourage anyone who cares about these important issues to watch the movie.”

According to the IMDb, the movie is:

“Amy, an 11-year-old girl, joins a group of dancers named “the cuties” at school, and rapidly grows aware of her burgeoning femininity – upsetting her mother and her values in the process.”

The film itself was produced in France and tells the story of a group of young girls.  These girls dance in a sexually explicit manner wearing small clothing, and in some cases of the film, only in underwear. 

Girls can be seen twerking and smacking each other’s buttocks while dancing.  The movie is clearly geared toward sexualizing children and does not appear to be making any statement against sexualization of young children. 

The movie is so disturbing that it received a TV-MA rating, which means that it is only geared toward the adult population.  Most movies and shows with this type of rating are known for sexually explicit scenes.

Mother issues urgent warning after finding sex toy online made in image of her daughter, who is 8

MIAMI, FL – A mother in Florida is living every mother’s worst nightmare after she discovered a sex toy that looked like her daughter advertised online. She’s fighting back by pushing for new legislation to protect children and has gained some national attention. 

Terri, the child’s mother, said she received a message from a friend on August 12 alerting her to the existence of the doll.   Terri went online and saw the sex doll being described as  “a high quality sexy dolly live dolls for men” for sale for $559 on Amazon and other websites of her eight-year-old daughter Kat.

The ad had been listed on Amazon since November 2019.

Kat suffers from CVID also known as Common Variable Immune Deficiency. She is a child model and pageant contestant.

Terri has posted photos of her eight-year-old daughter in a Facebook group. In this particular Facebook group, she shares updates on Kat’s illness, community projects and modeling work. 

The sex doll was modeled after a picture of Kat that Terri had shared in the group. The photo showed the little girl sitting on a couch, with a stuffed animal. Her legs were crossed. The doll in the advertisement had a similar outfit and hairstyle.

Sickest of all is that the doll was even posed in the same manner that her daughter is.

Terri said:

“This image had the same socks as my daughter and the same pose as my daughter on our sofa at home. She had that same sweatshirt and facial features as that image, even the same stuffed animal!

She continued:

“I couldn’t imagine that some sicko would use my daughter’s photo to create something so ugly and evil to be used for abuse by pedophiles.” 

NBC 6 talked exclusively with the girl’s mother to talk about her fight for a federal mandate banning child sex dolls. Currently, child sex dolls are only banned in Florida, Tennessee and Kentucky. Both activists and victims are working together to expose this loophole.

And according to the Amazon ad, it was “a high-quality sexy dolly live dolls for men.”

One review from May from someone who purchased the sex doll read:

“Good item during these times.”

Terry panicked and then contacted Amazon, who decided to remove the ad for the sex doll four days later.

In a statement, an Amazon spokesperson said:

“All sellers must follow our selling guidelines and those who do not will be subject to action including potential removal of their account. This product has been removed.”

Terry said in her interview with Fox 6:

“I knew it right away. I knew it the one site, I saw her and zoomed in on her face and her hair. I was just, I couldn’t believe it. When I saw the one that looks just like my daughter, I clicked on it, and when I saw the face, the poses — I was just, I couldn’t stop.  I started crying. I was just completely in shock and angry.”

The same doll appears naked in other websites. Some show the doll displayed naked and some even have videos showing how to use it.

Terri said, in tears:

“I can’t sleep sometimes because that’s all I can think about, men who have sex with those dolls, and I can’t get them back. I just want to burn them. They should be charged as sex offenders. They should be fined. And these websites need to be shut down.”

Then the anger boiled to fight back. Terry continued:

“I knew at that moment I couldn’t do this fight alone. I knew I needed someone to help me because I can’t get these dolls off 13, 14, 15 websites.”

Terri is partnering with the Child Rescue Coalition, a nonprofit that rescues kids from sexual abuse by building technology for police, pro bono, to track arrest and prosecute child predators.

 

Enter Carly Yoost, the CEO of C.R.C. said in the report:

“This is a real child who’s been affected, this isn’t a hypothetical doll that was created. This is something made out of someone’s own likeness and took images from this mother.”

Now the two are working together to pass a federal law to ban both the sale and purchase of any child sex dolls. 

“The more a predator consumes online images and video of children being abused and purchasing of dolls that act out their sexual fantasies, the more likely they’re gonna be a hands-on abuser of a real kid.”

Terry said in the Fox 6 report:

“I never imagined that I would be in this fight to get sex dolls off the internet. I knew within 35 hours, even though this is the worst thing to ever happen to my family, I knew I had to do something. I knew I had to turn this negative into something more positive and make the best situation out of a nightmare.”

The attention has even garnered attention from Elizabeth Smart, who was once kidnapped. 

The bottom line is that people need to understand the dangers of social media. So many people are lulled into a false sense of security online, and they forget that there are more malicious forces out there that would love to use your innocent photos, posts and memories for evil purposes.  

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Law Enforcement Today reported on a story earlier in the month from California, where a bill has passed to actually protect those who target and have sex with minors.  Here is that editorial.

This editorial is brought to you by a staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.

SACRAMENTO – There’s a lot of buzz over a bill that passed which some argue protects sex offenders.  Here’s everything you  need to know about it.

California state senator Scott Weiner authored bill SB 145, passed this Monday, August 31st, 2020. The bill has more than a few people concerned because of the protection it provides to pedophiles.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Weiner’s bill “would change how the sex offender registry treats gay relationships between young adults and minors.” 

In the context of the bill, this would mean sexual relationships between boys as young as 8 years old and 18 year old young men. Another way to put that is statutory rape. 

SB 145 amends sections 290 and 290.006 of the California penal code.

Under those sections, if an offender is no more than ten years older than a minor victim and commits “certain acts” against the victim, they must register with the state as a sex offender.

State senator Weiner, who is openly gay, views this language of the Sex Offender Registration Act discriminatory against members of the LGBTQ community.

This is because the “certain acts” are more likely to be committed by homosexual offenders, and acts not covered are unique to heterosexual assaults involving a male offender and female victim of statutory rape.

To remedy this, Wiener’s bill states that without limitation, if the age of a minor victim and the offender are no more than ten years apart, the offender does not have to register as a sexual offender, provided it is a first (known) offense and other criteria does not apply, for instance, force or violence was not used.

This removes what Weiner perceives to be a discriminatory additional penalty of homosexual offenses. 

An alternative remedy suggested by attorney Samuel Dordulian, would be to remove the “certain acts” criteria from the existing law.

That would remove the perception of LGBTQ-related discrimination by treating heterosexual and homosexual child rape equally. It would do this without reducing the number of known sex offenders in the sexual offender registry, unlike SB 145.

The effect of this is that all offenses committed against minor children would require mandatory registration in the state sex offender system.

However, SB 145 has passed as of yesterday. Unless vetoed by Governor Newsom, it will become law on January 1, 2021.

A companion bill written by Weiner, SB 384, also passed recently, to take effect on the same date as SB 145. That bill allows sex offenders convicted of offenses against minors to petition for removal from the sex offender registry after ten years.

Dordulian points out a particularly insidious characteristic of SB 384.

“SB 384 does not mandate lifetime registration for lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under 14 years of age. Yet, inexplicably, such conduct with a child over 14 somehow does require automatic lifetime registration. It’s an illogical aspect of the bill that has somehow managed to fly under the radar. “

However one chooses to interpret Weiner’s intentions, the net result of both of these bills is to reduce penalties against the worst of all sexual offenders; pedophiles who assault minors, particularly those under the age of 14.

If Newsom signs bill SB 145, a 19 year-old who rapes a 9 year old will not have to register as a sex offender.

That fact makes a mockery of the sex offenders registry. Surely, if it is designed to protect anyone, it is the most defenseless among us? 

According to Weiner, his agenda is simply the protection and support of California’s LGBTQ community. However, discussion of his bill inevitably describes such things as “relationships” (of a sexual nature) and “consensual” or “voluntary” sex between a legal adult and a minor.

Hello? Minors cannot consent! That is what “statutory rape” is.

These two bills appear to be an attempt at incrementally removing legal obstacles to sex with minors, and they are written by and for the LGBTQ community. Trying to romanticize the crime of statutory rape, and then to remove the social stigma that rightfully should attach to this class of offender, is odious.

Thanks to state senator Weiner, expect to see more of these “relationships” claimed by offenders who have abused children.

To be clear, Wiener is the same senator who wants to make sure that men sentenced to prison get to pick whether they want to be in a men’s or women’s prison.

Biological men who have been sentenced to prison may soon have the ability to identify as a woman and be placed in a women’s prison. 

California Democratic State Senators Scott Wiener, Cathleen Galgiani, and Assembly member Mark Stone sponsored SB-132, which basically allows for biological men to inform prisoner workers of the preferred gender. 

By doing so, it allows the person to be assigned to a prison population of their choice, either men’s or women’s.

The bill requires the State Department of Corrections to ask incoming prisoners during the intake process, in a private setting, what their biological gender is as well as which one they identify with at placement. 

If the person refuses to answer, for any reason, no disciplinary action can be taken against them. 

The bill does not advise what will happen if an inmate refuses to answer any of the questions, like, will the guards have to guess which gender the person identifies with … and what happens if that guess is wrong?

Jonatan Keller, the California Family Council President shares this concern.  He said:

“The legislature should not victimize prisoners, especially biological women, by requiring them to allow members of the opposite sex into facilities that are currently female-only or male-only.  This bill is a recipe for complete chaos in our state’s correctional facilities.” 

This bill also orders all prison staff to refer to the person as their preferred gender identity. 

This means if the person is a biological male, but identifies as female, the staff must call them female pronouns or face some type of discipline. 

In addition, if the person, in this case a biological male, but say they identify as a female, can decide the sex of the officer who will be searching them.  The law says:

“A search of that person according to the search policy for their gender identity or according to the gender designation of the facility where they are housed, based on the individual’s search preference.”

There are many people who would argue that this bill could lead to more danger, especially in the women’s prison setting.  A reason for this is any biological man can simply tell the prison intake staff that he wants to be seen as a woman and entered into that population. 

If that person does not really feel that way, and say, he was arrested for rape, how does the state justify placing women inmates at risk? 

If there is some type of plan for that type of event, that would ensure the safety of the women at the facility, the state has not shared it.

Proponents of the bill, mainly from the LGBTQ community, say that the change is long overdue, mainly because transgender people face a greater risk in an all-male population. 

The San Francisco Chronicle interviewed some men who currently identify as women who have experienced this firsthand.

Jasmine Jones, a transgender woman, spent 17 years locked up in the state prison system. 

Jones alleges as a result, she was the victim of sexual battery and several assaults because of her gender identity. 

Jones also alleges that corrections officials would subject her to embarrassing strip searches which would leave her exposed in a public setting.

Jones said:

“They [prison officials] weren’t going to protect me.  I knew that for a fact.  The only person that was going to protect me was myself.”

Wiener uses this example as to one of the reasons why he co-sponsored the bill.  He said:

“Transwomen, in particular, are at such extreme risk of brutalization in men’s facilities.  We need to treat them with the basic respect and dignity that they deserve.” 

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
 
Facebook Follow First

 

Share:
Related Posts