Berlatsky said the word “trafficking” is damaging because it “conflates underage people trading sex, consensual sex work, immigration and all kinds of labor exploitation in industries.”
in News
Bloomberg hires p3dophile advocacy spokesman to write hit piece of “Sound of Freedom” (thepostmillennial.com)
predatorpatrol
21 Votes
I watched the movie, unfortunately. A friend invited me to go and I agreed because I thought that it was a documentary. After the tickets were purchased I found out that it was a regular movie…
It was terrible. The child actors were involved in portraying situations just before r*pe was to occur. It was exploitation of the children.
It doesn’t matter if the cause is good. They exploited children in order to make the movie.
Consider this: The main actor is a Catholic and makes his living from ‘Hollywood’ productions. That’s two factors of association that go against him on the subject of child abuse/exploitation.
i haven’t seen the film and not sure i am just bc Jim’s movies are usually boring as hell. (“Infidel” a case in point). However, for you to say because he’s a Catholic he’s complicit is unbelievably wrongheaded.
I”m Catholic and I’m not responsible for what some priests did or their superiors. I am 52 and never once in my life had a bad encounter with a priest and i’ve known plenty. Yes, it happens but the overwhelming majority of priests are simply good men trying to do God’s work. I absolutely despise the bishops on up who moved bad priests around.
And you’re also ridiculous to think that working in Hollywood makes one automatically a problem either. Most stars have nothing to do with these problems, and I was good friend with Jim’s manager at the prior height of his career after “Passion.” He’s extremely devout and takes his roles seriously on a moral level. He turned down MANY big films even bc they had swearing in them, much less refusing to do sex scenes.
I’ll pray for you to someday emerge from your sad bubble.
And for the record, i’ve probably read EVERY VC article since 2009, and fully believe that SOME are doing great evil in Hollywood. I also was a pro standup comic at big clubs and a radio host in Los Angeles and know for a fact that the vast majority of performers are just trying to entertain people. Get a grip.
Child abuse does happen in many different established religious organizations. The SBC has gotten attention in recent times for this. The Catholic system has been widely known to produce this specific type of corruption, however, this doesn’t mean that all Catholics are abusers.
My point is that Jim holds to a religious system that is one of the most widely know to have this issue, and he works in an industry that profits from it. He has a glaring double-standard. The exploitation of the child actors in his movie solidifies my point.
Why would someone think that there is a need to make a movie in the way they made it? There isn’t a need for that. The need is to get the word out on the problem.
A potent documentary could have been made that would have dealt with the issues using tact and respect for the dignity of the victims. Instead, they made Sound of Freedom.
Unfortunately, you couldn’t pay most people to go see a documentary.
A majority of Americans are sound asleep. They had to make something atrocious to wake them up and stick with long after they’ve seen it.
I’m not going to see it bc I’ve known about this stuff for decades and my heart can’t take it.
No, they didn’t have to make anything. They chose to make something, and they chose to make it by exploiting child actors.
Thank you! As a 53 yr old Catholic, I’m tired of the bashing. I haven’t known one bad priest either. I don’t like our current pope and give him the side eye just like most of you.
As a long-time user of the Internet, I’m tired of people trying to shutdown meaningful discussion.
In interviews Ballard said they specifically kept the content of the movie away from the children so as not to exploit them or expose them to such evil.
Did you watch the movie? How about when the boy is brought into a nightclub, to a woman who names him “teddy bear?”
Or how about when the little girl is sitting on the side of a bed and her abuser walks into the room?
Or how about the part where another abuser walks a child into the wooded and secluded area of an island preparing to abuse him?
Or the part where another abuser picks the little girl up, walks her over to a bed, lays her on it then starts unbuckling his pants?
Or the part where the traffickers have a photoshoot with a bunch of the kids? The kids doing “fake” provocative poses are ok if it’s for a movie where they’re being protected from the real thing?
So how else are they going to convey the horror of child trafficking? There was nothing explicit in the scenes but it is alluded that horrible things happened. A war movie shows the fighting even if not the gore to get the point across that war is deadly and painful. Now you’re using a form of virtue signalling. You fail to see the point of the movie, its bringing the painful truth of child trafficking to the consciousness of people everywhere. The exploitation is being exposed. Its being attacked by powerful pedophiles in the industry. And here you are, misguided into doing their work for them
They don’t need to convey the horror of child trafficking in the first place!! How do you not perceive the absolute ridiculousness in that logic? Are there any adults who don’t know what r*pe is? You would tell the real victims of trafficking that the movie had to exploit the child actors in order to get the real-life point across?
You hold an overly simplistic pespective.
exploit? youre saying im holding an overly simple perspective? that applies to you also. .
that even the simplest explanation totally escapes youre overly complicated thinking. there was no exploitation because the scenes you picked didnt show the actual act. yes its shocking that the crimes were alluded to. that was the point! its telling people to take action. many adults are just so preoccupied with just surviving that until something catches their attention, they will ignore it happening. its not they dont care, they are just too distracted. its the hope of the movie’s creators that the movie makes people bothered enough to start a movement to stop child trafficking. im going to be part of that movement because the movie showed the scope of the problem and that people have to care enough to fight the problem. plenty of christians have seen the movie. the Bible Itself is quite descriptive of violence and other acts. It doesnt flinch from exposing evil. alluding to a crime is not the same as exploitation. thats overly simplistic right there.
Depictions of child abuse are not required in order for exploitation of child actors to occur.
Your standard is that the kids weren’t actually abused when making the movie, so no exploitation occured. My standard is that the kids were exploited in order to make the movie.
The Bible didn’t make a movie for entertainment and tell you that you’re helping fight child abuse by paying to watch it. Don’t bring the Bible down to your standard. Let it be its own standard.
your ignorance of the Bible shows. The Bible DESCRIBES but does NOT PROSCRIBE evil. look it up. there is a difference.