Nutter Watch US

Perennial whinger Rajan Zedis urging the French Brasserie Des Sagnes microbrewery to apologize and withdraw its Boom Shiva (India Pale Ale) beer; calling it highly inappropriate.

Hindu spokesman Zed said that inappropriate usage of Hindu deities or concepts or symbols for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the devotees. He added that Lord Shiva was highly revered in Hinduism and was meant to be worshipped in temples or home shrines and not to be used in selling beer for mercantile greed.

According to reports, beers produced by Brasserie Des Sagnes, said to be one of the oldest French artisanal breweries still operating, is also sold at various markets, stores, restaurants, etc., in France. Boom Shiva beer said to be brewed with five different hops is available online.

Morality in Media (now calling themselves the National Center on Sexual Exploitation) writes:

This Friday, Netflix will begin streaming a new show, Baby .

Based loosely on the account of the Baby Squillo scandal, the show portrays a group of teenagers entering into prostitution as a glamorized coming-of-age story. Under international and U.S. federal law, anyone engaged in commercial sex who is under 18 years old is by definition a sex trafficking victim. In the real-life scandal that Baby is based on, the mother of one of the teenagers was arrested for sex trafficking.

In January, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, along with 55 other survivors of sex trafficking and/or subject matter experts, social service providers, and advocates for the abolition of sexual exploitation sent a letter to Netflix executives to express their deep concern regarding Netflix's forthcoming Italian drama, Baby, which normalizes child sexual abuse and the sex trafficking of minors as prostitution.

Despite being at ground zero of the #MeToo movement, Netflix appears to have gone completely tone-deaf on the realities of sexual exploitation, said Dawn Hawkins, executive director of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. Despite the outcry from survivors of sex trafficking, subject matter experts, and social service providers, Netflix promotes sex trafficking by insisting on streaming Baby. Clearly, Netflix is prioritizing profits over victims of abuse.

Erik Barmack, VP of International Originals at Netflix, has previously described the new show as edgy.

There is absolutely nothing edgy about the sexual exploitation of minors. This show glamorizes sexual abuse and trivializes the experience of countless underage women and men who have suffered through sex trafficking.

Religious communities in the US have tried several times to introduce technology that sanitises movies, skipping over sex, violence or strong language. Such censorship is totally voluntary and is not inflicted on others, so perhaps at first thought it should not causes any issues. However Hollywood has taken a strong stance against this form of movie vandalism. Presumably Hollywood doesn't appreciate the effects on word of mouth advertising. They wouldn't really appreciate people bad mouthing films that may have been rendered incomprehensible by the cutting of key scenes.

So now the influential religious community have come up with new law proposal to legalise move sanitisation.

Moralists of the Parents Television Council has provided a statement outlining the thinking behind the Family Movie Act Clarification Act of 2018 (HR 6816), which was introduced by Representative Mia Love, a Utah Republican on September 13th. PTC President Tim Winter said:

It is ironic that legislation first passed in the 21st century needs to be brought into the 21st century, but that is exactly what the Family Movie Act Clarification Act will do. This bill is a long-overdue update to the Family Movie Act of 2005 and would give parents the digital ability to plug their kids' ears and cover their kids' eyes to harmful and explicit streaming content, just as the 2005 Act allows them to do via a DVD. We applaud Congresswoman Mia Love for recognizing the need for the law to catch up with technology in order to better serve parents.

Based on stories I've heard from inside the beltway, Love and the bill's cosponsors deserve combat valor medals for weathering an intense, scorched-earth effort by Hollywood lobbyists working to prevent even the introduction of this bill, let alone its consideration.

But why would Hollywood studios object to legislation that would allow their films to make more money? They have claimed that digital filtering is akin to piracy, but there is no piracy taking place. Parents are only skipping past the objectionable content of movies they've purchased and are watching in the comfort of their own homes. The studios raised the same arguments over a dozen years ago when the Family Movie Act of 2005 was being considered. Those arguments were hollow then, and they are hollow now. The only plausible reason why anyone in Hollywood would be opposed to this measure is that some sort of agenda would be obviated by the consumer.

Make no mistake: this is a win-win for Hollywood and for parents. Families would be able to protect their children from harmful content in movies they stream; and Hollywood immediately increases its revenue capacity by broadening the marketplace for its products. Any publicly-traded studio that opposes either the spirit or the letter of this legislation is acting against its own fiduciary interests and, therefore, violating its corporate duty to shareholders.

We call on congressional leadership, both in the House and in the Senate, to deliver a Christmas present to parents and families, and pass H.R. 6816 before the end of this year.

An era of adult television has come to an and, according to a story in the Los Angeles Times , which reported that the Time-Warner owned, pay cable network HBO has spent the summer, quietly and without fanfare, removing its once-prodigious library of erotic documentaries and entertainment programs from the network and the HBO streaming platforms, HBO Go and HBO Now.

Since the 1990s, HBO has produced and broadcast such series as the influential Real Sex , the Las Vegas brothel reality series Cathouse , and recurring instructional sex specials hosted by adult performer Katie Morgan.

But HBO has not produced new adult late night programs for several years, and now the network will no longer offer repeats or archived shows from its adult category either.

While HBO's new owner, the telecom giant AT&T, informed HBO employees earlier this year that it planned big changes for the network, the elimination of HBO's erotic fare, network execs told the Times , was not mandated by AT&T and in fact began well before the telecom conglomerate took over. The reason that HBO is ditching their late night lineup, according to what one spokesperson told the Times , is simply that HBO viewers have lost interest, most likely due to the proliferation of adult content online.

Update: Never enough

3rd September 2018. See article from w2.parentstv.org

US moralists always want more. The Parents Television Council writes:

The Parents Television Council applauds HBO and its corporate parent, AT&T, for removing the pornographic content from its platform -- but urges AT&T to make the same move by removing X-rated pornographic content from DirecTV. PTC President Tim Winter whinged:

AT&T's HBO made a wise decision to remove pornographic content, even citing that 'there wasn't strong demand for this kind of adult programming.' While that is a huge positive step forward, the same logic should also extend to AT&T-owned DirecTV, which still offers hardcore pornographic content to subscribers.

How can a company that says it is built on responsibility continue to deliver and profit from pornography? How much does DirecTV porn really increase the earnings per share? Is this a reasonable tradeoff for a so-called responsible company?

Given that AT&T's CEO Randall Stephenson was the 36th National President of the Boy Scouts, it's hard to reconcile that role with the DirecTV pornographic lineup. Are the explicit pornographic titles on DirecTV about grandmothers, mothers, or stepsisters what he wants his scouts to be thinking of?

The US moralist campaign writes:

This current Schick Hydro Silk TrimStyle ad is extremely inappropriate and vile, plus it is aired early in the evening when children are likely watching. It is so suggestive it's disgraceful. The commercial shows three women in tiny bikinis standing behind small bushes strategically placed in front of their crotches. Two women then proceed to delicately trim these bushes with scissors. The third woman uses her new Schick razor on the bush. She trims it into the shape of a heart and the other two women stand amazed. The advertisement gives the impression they are trimming and shaping their pubic area because of how the trees are placed. You do not have to imagine much to see the implication.

Schick, owned by Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC, needs to know it is not alright to air obscene commercials with highly offensive content, especially when children are likely watching. This is unacceptable!

Show Dogs is a 2018 USA comedy by Raja Gosnell.
Starring Stanley Tucci, Natasha Lyonne and Will Arnett.

Max, a macho, solitary Rottweiler police dog is ordered to go undercover as a primped show dog in a prestigious Dog Show, along with his human partner, to avert a disaster from happening.

The studio behind new family comedy Show Dogs has agreed to a last-minute edit in response to morality groups and bloggers claiming that the film might suggest to children that sexual molestation is something that should be silently endured.

Global Road Entertainment have now confirmed they would be cutting two scenes that some have deemed not appropriate for children. The scenes in question are thought to involve Max, a police rottweiler who has his genitals groped by cop Will Arnett as part of his training to go undercover at dog shows. Initially, Max is upset by the intrusion, but is instructed to go to a zen place. Global Road said:

The company takes these matters very seriously and remains committed to providing quality entertainment for the intended audiences based on the film's rating. We apologise to anybody who feels the original version of Show Dogs sent an inappropriate message. The revised version of the film will be available for viewing nationwide starting this weekend.

In the US, Morality in the Media, now going by the name National Center on Sexual Exploitation, flagged the film for the similarity of tactics used with Max and abusers grooming children, telling them to pretend they are somewhere else and that they will get a reward for withstanding the discomfort.

In the UK, the film was seen by the BBFC some weeks ago and was passed PG uncut. The UK and Irish distributors intend to stick with the BBFC/IFCO approved uncut version. A spokesman for Entertainment One said:

We are taking the BBFC/IFCO guidance on this matter in the UK and Ireland and will be releasing the original version that has been censored and reviewed.

The BBFC said in a statement that:

The scenes in question are entirely innocent and non-sexual and occur within the clear context of preparation for and judging in a dog show. We regard the comments made about the film as suggesting 'grooming' as a misinterpretation of the scenes in question.

Meanwhile in New Zealand, Chief Censor David Shanks made the unusual decision to call the film in for review following a number of complaints. Normally, films rated G or PG arrive in New Zealand without requiring a localised classification. Shanks said in a statement:

We understand the film's distributors are currently re-editing this film in response to public concern. We can confirm that the version distributed in New Zealand will be classified, regardless of any edits made prior to release, the office said in a statement.

Update: Resubmitted to the MPAA

30th May 2018. See article from strangethingsarehappening.com

In the latest rating bulletin, the MPAA have confirmed that the film has been resubmitted after cuts.

It has again been PG rated for suggestive and rude humor, language and some action.

Update: Collective Shout recommends Show Dogs and kindly details the US cuts

5th June 2018. See article from melindatankardreist.com

Open Letter to Australian Cinemas: Don't screen Show Dogs movie

We are writing to you in regards to the children's film Show Dogs, due for release 5 July. Upon its release in the US, it attracted substantial criticism from parents and child advocates over concerns of grooming children for sexual abuse.

The film tells the story of a police dog going undercover at a dog show. There are reportedly several scenes in which the dog, Max, has to have his genitals inspected. When he is uncomfortable and wants to stop he is told to go to a zen place. When he submits and allows his genitals to be touched, he is rewarded by advancing to the next level of the show.

In response to the global backlash, the production company withdrew the film, promising to re-cut it to remove the scenes in question. The film has been re-released, however the scenes remain, with only the encouragement to go to a zen place (essentially, to dissociate) being removed. The meaning remains intact, that unwanted sexual touching is to be endured and may be rewarded.

The film sends a disturbing and dangerous message to children about sexual touching. In Australia, one in five children are thought to be victims of sexual abuse. This film undermines efforts in prevention and education to address the scourge of child sexual abuse.

Collective Shout: for a world free from sexploitation is calling on Australian cinemas to take a stand against child sexual abuse and refuse to screen the film. We hope that cinemas will be prepared to take a role of leadership in the community, to stand up for the rights of children and refuse to profit from this film.

Last August, the American Heart Association and 16 other health and medical groups bought trade ads and sent a letter to the six major movie studios represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, urging them to apply an R rating to any motion picture with tobacco imagery submitted for classification after Friday. The only exceptions would be biographical films about people who smoked or when the film depicted the dangers of smoking.

But with the June deadline here, Chris Ortman, vice president of corporate communications for the MPAA, declined to comment.

Health campaigners always seem to think that their pet issue is the most important thing in the world and to hell with any other opinion. If R ratings are doled out indiscriminately, parents will simply lose faith with the ratings and ignore them. Film ratings need credibility so if parents see examples like 101 Dalmatians being R rated, they will soon concur that R ratings can safely be ignored.

Update: Burnt out thinking

5th June 2018. See article from sj-r.com

Seven U.S. senators sent a letter on Monday to the MPAA to take action to restrict depictions of smoking, including e-cigarette use, in youth-rated movies.

The letter, citing a University of California, San Francisco study claiming that nearly six in 10 PG-13 movies depict tobacco use. The senators wrote:

Although the evidence connecting smoking imagery to youth smoking initiation is strong, MPAA has yet to take meaningful action to discourage tobacco imagery in films or effectively warn viewers and parents of tobacco's presence in a movie. Our nation's dramatic decline in youth tobacco use is a tremendous achievement, but on-screen depictions remain a threat to this progress and threaten to re-normalize tobacco use in our society. We cannot afford to lose any ground in this area.

Republican Representative Diane Black of Tennessee recently claimed pornography, along with the deterioration of the family and violent movies, as a contributing factor to gun violence in schools.

Black made the remarks during a listening session with local pastors last week, according to audio obtained by HuffPost. She spouted:

Why do we see kids being so violent? What's out there? What makes them do that? Because, as a nurse, I go back to root cause. And I think it's a couple things

She then listed deterioration of the family and violent movies, before mentioning pornography. She continued:

Pornography. It's available. It's available on the shelf when you walk in the grocery store. Yeah, you have to reach up to get it, but there's pornography there.

All of this is available without parental guidance. And I think that's a big part of the root cause, that we see so many young people that have mental illness get caught in these places.

Anti-sex work campaigners in Nye County in Nevada are attempting to get legal brothels banned. The campaigners have joined with the the moralist campaign group, No Little Girl, and have announced that they have filed for a local referendum about brothels being banned in the county:

On 17th April 2018, a referendum was filed with the Nye County Clerk by citizens wishing to repeal the county ordinance which allows for legal brothels to operate within the county borders. Nye County, Nevada is home to five legal brothels, including three owned by self-described pimp and Republican State Assembly candidate, Dennis Hof.

Citizens of Lyon County, Nevada filed an identical referendum earlier this month with the help of No Little Girl, a campaign funded and administered by End Trafficking and Prostitution Political Action Committee (ETAP, PAC).

Comment: Proposed brothel ban unjust, won't end exploitation'

18th May 2018. Russell Greer a proud disable brothel customer comments:

With a delirious, misplaced drive that rivals the Nazi Blitzkrieg of World War II, a frivolous group known as No Little Girl (NLG) seeks to abolish the Nevada brothels once and for all. And in doing so, everything will be all heavenly, and these oppressed women will finally be freed from the shackles that hold them back in society and they will be placed into more dignified jobs -- like working at McDonald's.

Ironically, not only does this group lack any sort of standing to bring this bizarre petition, they harm innocent people with their quest for moral cleansing. Specifically, their petition harms me.

...Read the full comment from rgj.com

According to the moralist campaigners of Morality in Meda, Walmart has removed copies of Cosmopolitan magazine from check out aisles. Morality in Media crows:

That's are over 6,000 stores where families and individuals will no longer be automatically exposed to Cosmo's hypersexualized and degrading article titles that regularly promote pornography, sexting, BDSM, group sex, anal sex, and more, all while marketing toward young teens with Disney star cover models.

We at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation have been working behind the scenes with Walmart for months regarding this policy improvement, and applaud Walmart for making their checkout aisles family-friendly and sexploitation-free.