Why 'Sound of Freedom,' Jim Caviezel's controversial child sex trafficking film, is a hit

FOSTA-SESTA was supposed to thwart sex trafficking. Instead, it’s sparked a movement

 

@phatGator has put his finger on the crux of the matter. There is a palpable inconsistency relating to what is labeled "moral panic" and what is not. What ensued in this country after the death of George Floyd surpasses every other example of "moral panic" since then. January 6th is another example of "moral panic." Climate Change is another example of "moral panic." Trump, fascism, and Christian Nationalism are other examples of things that have induced "moral panic." Hysteria is the air the left breathes. Without it the left would not exist.

 

I appreciate your thoughts. One thing your mentioning moral panic in LGBT issues made me think it also occurs from the flipside. After Matthew Shepard was heinously murdered in 1998, there was a moral panic that every gay man lived in mortal danger. Some commentators went so far as to blame prominent Christian leaders for Shepard’s death. This one instance led to expanded hate crimes legislation. We were constantly reminded of Shepard’s murder for a decade.

It was app to compare this current topic to conservative concerns that racism or mass shootings are overblown, but there is one difference. Moral panic over mass shootings can lead to the rights millions of people being taken away. Moral panic over child sex trafficking cannot lead to rights being taken away from millions of people, as far as I can tell.

 

Objective review of the film in case anyone is interested:

 

I keep coming back to your post in my mind because I’ve decided it really disturbs me. Do you despise conservatives so much that you must push back to the extent that you will proclaim that child sex trafficking is almost nonexistent?

What methodology are you using for your calculations? What data have you used? What confidence interval are you using in your calculations?

In scientific work I have never seen the term “statistically nonexistent” used. The common term is statistically insignificant. I would wager that even if the number of occurrences of child kidnapping for sex trafficking is small, it is hardly insignificant to the families affected.

Do you really want to invoke this idea of “statistically nonexistent” when numbers are perhaps small for an issue? @mutz has told us that the number of cases is probably more than 1500 year. The number of blacks killed by police every year is much less than that. Would you want to consider blacks killed by police as being statistically nonexistent? I suspect that the number of girls who want an abortion because they became pregnant after rape or incest is very small compared to the total number of women in this country. Do you want to declare that statistically nonexistent?

Many issues raised on TH have very few numbers in terms of the total population of the country, or even the population of a sub group. Do you want to dismiss all of these occurrences as being almost non-existent?

 

Do you know how often conservatives ARE directly and indirectly accused of being racists and supporting mass shootings on this board? It’s daily. Sometimes it’s a veiled innuendo sometimes it’s not. But don’t act like that doesn’t happen Regularly around here.

 

I don't mean to disturb you and I don't know what else to say. When I say statistically non-existent, I mean that human trafficking in the way I have defined it, which I suspect is very different than the way it is being defined even in terms of counting 1,500, it's non-existent. But you never say that in a country of 375 million people.

Undoubtedly it's happened sometime. But it's statistically non-existent for terms of public policy goals. Again, I'm defining it the way the film does, as transnational, or even national kidnapping rings.

This thread is about the film.

I would bet the 1500 number is based upon legal definitions that are far different than the phenomenon the film purports to portray.

Just consider this Twitter search. I got to it because I was trying to find one I found about a week and a half ago, which didn't come up with the search.

https://twitter.com/search?q=fromantifaoperative trafficking&t=_wunGVA3ZFtOhVYnA7BmmA&s=09

These are all considered legal "trafficking" but none are the phenomenon purportedly portrayed by the film, which is what I maintaining is statistically non-existent. When I use the term I use it the same way that I prepare witnesses for testimony not to use the terms "always" or "never".

I presume you are not maintaining that children are being tortured to get blood to drink like Cavaziel and Flynn maintain.

Check that, here's the one from last week. I should have searched under "latest".



But again if you read the story, you see this description of the crime, which is no doubt a horrific crime.

Federal prosecutors said Lazzaro paid teenagers for sex with money and gifts. He admitted to having sex with them, but denied recruiting them.
"Mr. Lazzaro targeted, manipulated, and sexually exploited young and vulnerable girls for his own gain without regard for their age or safety," said Special Agent in Charge Alvin M. Winston Sr.

That's horrific, but not what the movie was about.

I did think about it again last Wednesday night when they had an episode of Reservation Dogs, one of the best series on TV, about the largely historical kidnapping of native children for exploitation and abuse.

Again, I'm not sure what to tell you. I defined my terms. I think we're talking about two very separate things.

My problem was mainly with the movie and the movement and the moral panic, not with saying that acts that are prosecuted under the term "human trafficking" are not heinous and should not be prosecuted, but that they are crimes we are largely familiar with and not something new.

If you want to use the distinction on police killing of black people, that probably is less than 1500 a year. But I'm thinking that sex trafficking like described in the movie is probably less than 5 a year, approaching zero.

And I'm not saying that any that are caught should not be prosecuted, or that individuals arrested for crimes that are called trafficking but are not like that in the movie should not be prosecuted.

In contrast, you have a substantial political movement that says that police shooting of unarmed black citizens is not even a problem at a thousand a year. If anything, I would suspect that most Trump supporters think that number is too small, and that there should be no police accountability for killings

So the comparison does not really hold.

 

There are bad motives ascribed to both sides constantly. That’s usually unfair and has happened to all of us.

I have definitely read some posts on this board I thought sounded racist, but I have never called anyone a racist. Maybe I’ve had racist thoughts in my life. It’s something we should all guard against, and people on the left have been having those internal debates for years with people getting called out or worse.

I definitely don’t think anyone on here supports mass murder or the sexual abuse of children. Those sorts of accusations are really on another level in my opinion.

As with other contexts, I think both sides are guilty but not equally guilty. From my (admittedly bias) perspective, I see at the very least that the most extreme rhetoric and conspiracy theories from the right are provided oxygen by influential people and even party leaders. Sometimes they are even actively pushing them.

For example, and relevant to this thread, the “groomer” label being weaponized against those who opposed the Florida education bill and side with Disney has been promoted by the DeSantis administration itself.

 

I understand the implications of calling someone a "groomer", but when the state's position is that "we just have to be able to talk to your 5 to 8 year old about homosexuality and transgenderism", what other term fits more appropriately? Sometimes the government gets way out of their lane and a spade must be called a spade.

 

Debating age appropriateness is a fair issue IMO but that seems different to me than accusing people of backing pedophiles. In any event, I felt that they were mostly getting their foot in the door. Didn't the Florida Board of Education extend the policy through grade 12?

So-called 'Don't Say Gay' rules expanded through 12th grade in Florida

 

Sure, but the opposition was there when it was only about 5 to 8 years old children. DeSantis set the trap masterfully. On what authority does the state have to "get their foot in the door" with our <8 year olds? Do you not understand how crazy that sounds? By making it about the 5 to 8 year olds, DeSantis spotlighted the depth of depravity involved. Once the opposition confirmed their position, he then had a mandate via the election to expand it to cover all minor ages. Brilliant political strategy and obviously, being the right thing to do helps as well.

 

Such lies. None of that was being taught to kids at that young elementary age in the state, nor was anyone in the state asking. Where is your evidence?

Desantis, the sponsor of the bill Harding, and many other Republicans could never come up with facts that teachers were instructing/teaching homosexuality when confronted with questions about it. It wasn't being done and was not in any curriculum.

So why pass a bill?

The bill was vaguely written so that any parent whom to them thought something wasn't age-appropriate (to now an 18 year old 12th grader, so it was obviously never about just 5-8 year olds) could sue a teacher and that purposely stops all talk, even if "age-appropriate" (perfectly vague) because a single parent's definition could be different than everyone else's.

It was another Republican boogeyman. Kids that age should be taught that by their parents if they'd like, not by the school, which was exactly what was happening. The schools were not involved at all in instruction of said topics, but Desantis and many others said it was rampant and needed to be stopped to drum up the base, and you mimick their false talking points perfectly like a good lamb.

What's funny is the sponsor of the bill was charged and pleaded guilty to fraud and other charges, so it shows what a low life he was anyway.

 

Michael Hobbes returns to You're Wrong About to discuss the movie and the moral panic.

Like so many other mostly imaginary topics, human trafficking is in the news again. Michael Hobbes—ever heard of him??—came by so Sarah could tell him about Sound of Freedom, a surprise hit summer movie that promises it can end child slavery, but only if you buy as many tickets as you can. Then, you can hear the episode we released on "human trafficking"—what it isn't, and what it is—back in 2019.



‎You're Wrong About: Sound of Freedom with Michael Hobbes AND Human Trafficking re-release on Apple Podcasts

 

The man who Caviezel portrays in the movie is alleged to have used rescue operations to groom and coerce women into sexual activities under the guise of it being necessary to fool traffickers and save the children.

Tim Ballard’s Departure From Operation Underground Railroad Followed Sexual Misconduct Investigation

 

The Mormon church issued a statement denouncing Ballard saying he used the church president's name for his own benefit. And it removed several articles about him from its website. But he said the church didn't actually denounce him.
Either way. it's been a busy week for him.

LDS Church didn’t denounce me, Tim Ballard fires back



And then there's this

Military base abruptly cancels 'Sound of Freedom' screening, baffling producer

 

Of course he did.

 

‘Sound of Freedom’ Producer Felt the Naked Breasts of Apparently Underage Trafficking Victim

Guess he touches children too

 

This is old, fake news, in effort to silence Ballard. If he was guilty of anything, he would have been arrested a long time ago.

 

Those allegations didn't "surface Monday." They've been circulating for months via Vice. That immediately removes credibility from the article above, because anybody who knows anything about Ballard and this movie knows those allegations surfaced months ago. It's old, fake news.

 

because everyone who committed a crime has been arrested? And since he hasn’t been arrested, he obviously didn’t do it?