BLUF: Netflix was criminally prosecuted and then charged under a more serious child pornography statute in Texas, which incited the company to file suit against Lucas Babin in federal court, asking for an injunction to stop Babin’s new prosecutions, which the district court granted after finding that Babin brought the charges in bad faith.
OSINT: Netflix’s French film “Cuties” follows an 11-year-old Senegalese immigrant, Amy, torn between her family’s conservative culture and a more progressive French society who joins a pre-teen dance group, the “Cuties,” whose sexualized routines are heavily influenced by social media. The film is critical of the influence of social media on young girls, but it attracted significant controversy for its scenes depicting the dance group’s provocative performances. One Texas prosecutor, Lucas Babin, criminally prosecuted Netflix for streaming the movie. Babin first brought charges against Netflix under a Texas obscenity law, but during the course of that prosecution, a Texas appeals court in a separate case held that the law Babin had charged Netflix under was itself unconstitutional. Netflix moved to have its case dismissed but Babin changed his legal theory of the case and brought new charges against Netflix under a more serious child pornography statute, which made no sense since there is no underage nudity in the film. Netflix filed suit against Babin in federal court, and the district court granted the injunction to stop Babin’s new prosecutions.
RIGHT: The prosecution against Netflix is a clear violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Babin’s actions to bring charges against Netflix under two separate statutes show that he was acting in bad faith to punish Netflix for its constitutional challenge. The use of the child pornography statute in this case was a clear abuse of power, and the charges should never have been brought in the first place. Governments should not be able to use vague or unconstitutional laws to go after individuals or companies for political gain or as a form of punishment.
LEFT: Even though the charges against Netflix under the child pornography statute were groundless, there is still room for reasonable debate as to whether the film “Cuties” is in good taste. It is important to take into account the impact that sexualized media can have on young girls and how it can contribute to gender inequality. While freedom of speech is vital, it should not be used to justify harmful content that perpetuates harmful stereotypes and narratives. Therefore, there should be regulations in place to ensure that media content is not promoting exploitative or dangerous behavior.
INTEL: The case against Netflix exposes the fragile balance between freedom of speech and responsible content creation. It is essential to understand the impact media content can have on audiences, especially on young and vulnerable children. However, the use of vague and unconstitutional laws, as demonstrated in this case, can have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and discourage the creation of important and sensitive works of journalism and art. It is important to move towards a regulatory framework that balances freedom of expression with responsible content creation while also ensuring that essential works are not suppressed or censored. In the case of the film “Cuties,” the controversy surrounding it highlights the need for critical media literacy education for all individuals, not just young girls, to be able to navigate complex and challenging media environments.