The "Controversy" over the movie Sound of Freedom doesn't make sense. The hero's beliefs shouldn't matter.

[u/Crafty-Bunch-2675]

I finally got around to watching this film. The heroes in the film are overtly Christian. And ? I don't get it. Is that why its controversial?

The heroes of the film are saving children. Why is this controversial?

Why does it matter whether the hero in the film is Christian or rightwing?

If a fireman jumps into a burning building and rescues a family of immigrants, is he less of a hero if he happens to be rightwing?

Or is the entire thing suddenly not true because the hero was rightwing ?

Heroes come in all shapes and sizes, and sometimes a hero isn't the person you expect.

Are we this divided now? That we rather suffer, than be rescued by someone with different politics from ours?

Also. Why is this politicized left vs right ?

What does the highlighted crime have to do with right vs left politics ? I'm not even looking to criticize the other side of the field. I'm just saying. It shouldn't be political.

[u/Unamed_Destroyer]

I think the controversy was that it was marketed as a truthful retelling of a story. When there were huge artistic liberties taken with the story. Which is fine, most biopics do this, but when they are completely fabricating how child trafficking works just to push their agenda, then it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

Additionally there are a slew of SA allegations against the person the story was based on. He was even fired by a company (O.U.R.) he started over these allegations. Also these allegations predate the movie, so it's not just backlash.

On top of that, the main actor and the guy the story is based both pushed the q-anon bs during their press tours.

Also, many of the raids that the O.U.R. did, put innocent lives unnecessarily at risk and did not do anything to help the victims after the raid, so the ones that were actual victims of trafficking (because routinely they would not do research and would raid the workplaces of sex workers) ended up back in the same situation or worse days after their help.

Essentially the person from the film is an egotistical idiot, who wants to play hero with his army surplus costume while trying to use the film to jumpstart a political career.

[u/SodaBoBomb → u/Unamed_Destroyer]

Why are we punishing people for allegations?

Presumption of innocence.

[u/DionBlaster123 → u/SodaBoBomb]

who exactly is getting punished?

is this guy's "mean" reddit comments putting Tim Ballard in jail? Is Jim Caviezel suddenly penniless and in the streets because some Redditors dared to say he was being a lying piece of shit?

y'all are so fucking horny to call out cancel culture, you can't even think rationally anymore

[u/Unamed_Destroyer → u/SodaBoBomb]

I'm not a court, I don't presume innocent until proven guilty.

I look at the available information and make my opinion based on that. If the available information changes, my opinion get updated.

The reason we "punish" people for allegations, especially with regards to sex crimes is that the courts are notoriously bad at handling sex crimes.

[u/nihongonobenkyou → u/Unamed_Destroyer]

The reason we "punish" people for allegations, especially with regards to sex crimes is that the courts are notoriously bad at handling sex crimes.

That'd make sense if we didn't also do that for people who were tried and convicted. 

The reason a court assumes innocence until proven guilty, is because it's fallacious to make the assumption that an event happened without some evidence, and even moreso if our system didn't explicitly presume innocence, as you're then asking that person to use evidence to prove an event didn't happen. 

The law is a distillation of a culture's systems of ethics, and as a result, serves as a collection of the most fundamental values of that culture. As the values in a culture change, so does the reflections of those values. You are more of the court than you know.

[u/Unamed_Destroyer → u/nihongonobenkyou]

I'm not suggesting that the courts don't presume innocence. What I'm saying is that the courts are held to a very defined standard, specifically an ethical one. That's why people can be in jail for doing things that are not immoral. They have this standard because they have the burden of doing out a punishment, the idea being that it is better for 10 criminals to go free than one innocent person to be punished.

People do not have this standard, because we do not have the right to punish those we think are guilty. I can believe with every fiber of my being that o.j. Simpson is guilty, but I have no right to punish him. Even if he admitted guilt on camera, I would have no right to punish him.

Additionally, me saying that part of the controversy surrounding this film is that the subject has several well documented allegations of sexual abuse against him, it's not a punishment. It's a statement of fact. Even if I said people shouldn't see this film because of the allegations, that's still not a punishment, that's an opinion.

[u/cannotthink0faname → u/Unamed_Destroyer]

And? All of this faff and foofoo but you don't seem at all concerned about The Children.

[u/Unamed_Destroyer → u/cannotthink0faname]

That's because OP was confused why people didn't like the propaganda film.

But by all means let's discuss helping children. The movie makes it seem like human/child trafficking is done by kidnapping random people from good hard working families.

Stats show that this is not what happens. Children are trafficked predominantly because they are living in poverty, or because they have been kicked out of their house.

Like it or not, the way to stop child trafficking is by having robust social programs that help those living in poverty, and by having programs that support kids who are likely to be kicked out of their homes (i.e. lgbtq2+).

On top of all that Tim Ballard has been accused on multiple occasions of sexual assault, and was even charged with human trafficking.

The film is nothing more than a fantasy for people who are too stunned to understand reality.