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.