I haven’t watched the Netflix movie “Cuties,” nor do I intend to. Why? The promotional materials that I have seen, including the trailer, displayed images that I do not wish to view in a longer format, and, quite frankly, a female coming of age story typically isn’t my cup of tea, the unsophisticated rube that I am. As such, I will not weigh in on the relative merits of the film.
What I have seen is the online debate regarding the morality and/or immorality of the movie (if vitriolic posts and counter-posts can qualify as debate), and that interests me more than the film probably ever could. The battle lines seem to be drawn between a large and diverse group of people with mainstream conservatives, socially conservative libertarians and even some progressives lining up on one side, claiming that the movie is at a minimum a tasteless glorification of pre-teen sexuality and at worst outright child pornography. The other major group in this rhetorical battle includes intellectuals of various ideological perspectives ranging from woke social justice crusaders to more mainstream liberal writers and observers.
Both sides of this debate have serious and meritorious concerns that warrant thoughtful consideration; however, as with many online battles, thoughtful consideration seems to have taken a back seat to volume and passion. Elizabeth Nolan Brown has done yeoman work tackling the topic of child sexual trafficking and has found that the incidence of and fear about that phenomenon is often overblown and not supported by the most reliable data. Simply put, your children are not nearly as at risk of sexual predation as you might otherwise be lead to believe. That is a good thing and that information will undoubtedly color how one views the most controversial aspects of “Cuties.”
That is not to say that child sexual trafficking doesn’t exist or that child sexual abuse is a made-up concern. Indeed, these are real issues with real victims that should be taken seriously. Yet, many who back the film have taken the position that any critique of it that discusses these issues is either an example of internet conspiracy thinking or the product of a dull mind with little ability or desire to think deeply about difficult subjects. Those notions are dismissive of legitimate concerns and such condescension will only firm up opposition to the film.
Many on the other side of the divide have given in to a reflexive distrust of cultural elites generally and of Hollywood in particular and arrived at the conclusion that the film is morally and legally child pornography. Although there can be good faith debate about the film’s morality and whether it takes certain topics too far, the legal analyses that conclude it is not, in fact, legally child pornography seem to rest on surer ground based on the images everyone agrees are troublesome. The distinction is important, or at least should be, to libertarians, because if the images at issue do not constitute “obscenity,” the libertarian position ought to be that those images, no matter how personally distasteful to individual viewers, should not be censored by the government and should receive protection under the First Amendment and that those who have created and distributed those images should not be prosecuted or otherwise harassed by government agents.
To be sure, the most consistent libertarian reaction seems to be a desire to purchase massive amounts of wood-chippers rather than calls for explicit banning of the film and prosecution of the makers. However, those calls are out there and more than a few libertarians have cheered on opportunistic politicians such as Ted Cruz looking to open another front in the culture wars. Libertarians must resist the impulse to encourage such behavior, because even if we find the movie personally disgusting, we should be loathe to invite the government to censor and punish unless the film clearly violates the law. Such invitations are almost always accepted and usually result in less freedom for everyone with very little other benefit.
It is possible, indeed maybe even probable, that both sides of this dispute have gotten some things right and some things wrong. It is not racist, sexist, or giving in to internet conspiracies to conclude that the film presents images and themes that are morally wrong and that those who create and distribute that content should bear some responsibility for their moral choices. Likewise, it is not engaging in or deriving pleasure from child exploitation to arrive at a different conclusion. That there are serious issues that deserve discussion in the film may be a legitimate conclusion based on the work as a whole.
It is clear, however, that Netflix and the film’s makers did themselves no favors by the manner in which they marketed the movie, including the pictures they used on posters and the title they put on the project. Perhaps they misinterpreted the cultural moment in which they were releasing the film. Perhaps they fully understood the storm this would create and hoped to use the ever growing cultural divide in this country to generate free publicity and more views. Regardless of the motive, these missteps have intensified the inevitable controversy that such a movie would generate and calls for boycotts of the film seem a reasonable reaction under the circumstances. Even if the message at the end of the movie is sincere and worthy of an audience, how much muck one is willing to endure on that journey is a personal choice that we should all respect.
