Incorrect. Laws have states if mind attached to them. If you can't prove the requisite state of mind then you don't have a crime regardless of the outcome.

Here is the Texas law used to indict Cuties
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-43-262.html
(b) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly possesses, accesses with intent to view, or promotes visual material that:

(1) depicts the lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of an unclothed, partially clothed, or clothed child who is younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual material was created;

(2) appeals to the prurient interest in sex;  and

(3) has no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.



The state of mind listed is knowingly and it has to apply to all three requirements.
1. Does the movie depict lewd exhibition of genitals or public area? I haven't seen the movie but I have read that it does not show this.
2. Appeal to the prurient interest? This is a fairly subjective question
3. Has no serious artistic value? Again fairly subjective and very debate-able.

So the prosecution would have to prove that the director, or production company knew that the film did all 3 of these things. #1 would probably be an easier argument to make if the film did it but good luck overcoming the freedom of speech issues associated with #2 and #3.

Thus proclaimeth the Internet lawyer.   

Thus proclaimeth the Internet lawyer.   

Sounds like you are admitting defeat. 

Sounds like you are admitting defeat. 

So ,far, nothing you "think" was any basis in fact.

Don't confuse a Google search with having a law degree.

So ,far, nothing you "think" was any basis in fact.

Don't confuse a Google search with having a law degree.

I posted the law for you to read yourself and you didn't even bother to show how Cuties violated the law.

Plus the burden of proof is on the side making the claim that a crime was committed. It isn't my job to prove they didn't commit a crime. I just showed you how difficult an argument would be to make. And I don't need to be a lawyer to know the subjective nature of the words used to outline the offense. A basic understanding in the english language is all that is necessary

he came late, stood outside the main group, and then left early IIRC...

Lunchbreak

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I posted the law for you to read yourself and you didn't even bother to show how Cuties violated the law.

Plus the burden of proof is on the side making the claim that a crime was committed. It isn't my job to prove they didn't commit a crime. I just showed you how difficult an argument would be to make. And I don't need to be a lawyer to know the subjective nature of the words used to outline the offense. A basic understanding in the english language is all that is necessary

And it's not my job to placate your little academic debate, especially when you don't understand the law you regurgitated.

Find another playmate.  I'm busy.

And it's not my job to placate your little academic debate, especially when you don't understand the law you regurgitated.

Find another playmate.  I'm busy.

I supported my argument, you have failed to support yours. Stop taking a position just to oppose me when you can't back up your own words.

By the way, I will be sure to remember that you insist we must be legal scholars before commenting on laws. I am sure you never comment on any laws, especially gun ones