Is it okay to buy/wear Balenciaga given the controversy related to children? They have apologized.

[Anonymous]

Did the apology they posted on IG have any positive impact??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did the apology they posted on IG have any positive impact??

For me? No. Their lawsuit also is ridiculous and attempting to pass the buck — it makes me think even worse of them, not better. There was no way this was not approved and vetted internally.

I’m done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the apology they posted on IG have any positive impact??

For me? No. Their lawsuit also is ridiculous and attempting to pass the buck — it makes me think even worse of them, not better. There was no way this was not approved and vetted internally.

I’m done.

Me too. I'm done buying Balenciaga! LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the apology they posted on IG have any positive impact??

For me? No. Their lawsuit also is ridiculous and attempting to pass the buck — it makes me think even worse of them, not better. There was no way this was not approved and vetted internally.

I’m done.

What do you think the chances are that the lawsuit was just for show and they drop it?

It seems the defendants could have some rich material showing that Balenciaga had many internal approvals green lighting the ads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the apology they posted on IG have any positive impact??

For me? No. Their lawsuit also is ridiculous and attempting to pass the buck — it makes me think even worse of them, not better. There was no way this was not approved and vetted internally.

I’m done.

+1

[Anonymous]

Horrible that these kids will have these images of them on the internet forever. They're just kids. Where are there parents in all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the apology they posted on IG have any positive impact??

For me? No. Their lawsuit also is ridiculous and attempting to pass the buck — it makes me think even worse of them, not better. There was no way this was not approved and vetted internally.

I’m done.

What do you think the chances are that the lawsuit was just for show and they drop it?

It seems the defendants could have some rich material showing that Balenciaga had many internal approvals green lighting the ads.

The law suit is about the first campaign, luxury handbags photographed with documents. If they signed off on “generic paperwork”, the suit will at least confirm that, and maybe explain where the props came from. Something reused from a procedural drama is the theory. Again, this is a campaign from last summer that didn’t involve children. As it happens, the document is the decision saying there’s no first amendment right to child pornography. How is that pro pedophilia? Balenciaga wanted gobbledegook and instead got something that’s easily misconstrued. They shouldn’t have a case, but given this tempest, kind of seems like they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the apology they posted on IG have any positive impact??

For me? No. Their lawsuit also is ridiculous and attempting to pass the buck — it makes me think even worse of them, not better. There was no way this was not approved and vetted internally.

I’m done.

What do you think the chances are that the lawsuit was just for show and they drop it?

It seems the defendants could have some rich material showing that Balenciaga had many internal approvals green lighting the ads.

The law suit is about the first campaign, luxury handbags photographed with documents. If they signed off on “generic paperwork”, the suit will at least confirm that, and maybe explain where the props came from. Something reused from a procedural drama is the theory. Again, this is a campaign from last summer that didn’t involve children. As it happens, the document is the decision saying there’s no first amendment right to child pornography. How is that pro pedophilia? Balenciaga wanted gobbledegook and instead got something that’s easily misconstrued. They shouldn’t have a case, but given this tempest, kind of seems like they do.

Thanks for clarifying that the suit applies only to the first campaign.

My understanding is that while United States v. Williams said there is no first amendment right to child pornography, the part of the document appearing in the photo was an abstract of an analysis presented by Scalia that says that virtual child pornography or sex between youthful-looking actors is not prohibited under the federal law that states “activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography.”

So it seems the document is pointing to a loophole of sort in child pornography bans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Horrible that these kids will have these images of them on the internet forever. They're just kids. Where are there parents in all of this.

some parents sell their own kids so just b/c someone has parents doesnt mean that they are safe & protected and it is well known that once exploitative pictures of children are out there, pedophiles hunt down said kids and rape them and pass them around to each other. pedophilia has gotten absolutely out of control.. sexual images children are absolutely disgusting.. we SHOULD be 'prudish' about it-- this shouldn't even be allowed to be a fantasy.. honestly ppl who are turned on by kids at all should commit suicide b/c they are monsters and they could hurt children and that chance is not worth taking. I also do not understand how pedophilia is not a capital crime-- these people are predators.. they should be hunted down and killed by the state. and yes.. the life of a child is more valuable than that of a full grown adult who could commit a crime against said child. Avoiding a bad experience for the child is absolutely worth the actual lived experience of life for the adult.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible that these kids will have these images of them on the internet forever. They're just kids. Where are there parents in all of this.

some parents sell their own kids so just b/c someone has parents doesnt mean that they are safe & protected and it is well known that once exploitative pictures of children are out there, pedophiles hunt down said kids and rape them and pass them around to each other. pedophilia has gotten absolutely out of control.. sexual images children are absolutely disgusting.. we SHOULD be 'prudish' about it-- this shouldn't even be allowed to be a fantasy.. honestly ppl who are turned on by kids at all should commit suicide b/c they are monsters and they could hurt children and that chance is not worth taking. I also do not understand how pedophilia is not a capital crime-- these people are predators.. they should be hunted down and killed by the state. and yes.. the life of a child is more valuable than that of a full grown adult who could commit a crime against said child. Avoiding a bad experience for the child is absolutely worth the actual lived experience of life for the adult.

+1

[Anonymous]

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is.

Because of the apology?

[Anonymous]

I found this to be appropriate and humerus for the strand:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CljvWiCshon/?igshid=NTdlMDg3MTY=

[Anonymous]

This is one of those rare areas where the US is truly morally superior to France. Pedophilia and incest are somehow still gray areas in some intellectual and fashion circles. But as PP’s have said, things are changing. Google “nytimes France incest” for many recent stories. My hope is that this gets the entire fashion house shut down. It should be a #metoo moment on behalf of children.