Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] wrote

1

indi wrote

They're suing Netflix because that show apparently made Satanists the villains and then stole the Satanic Temple's statue design. I don't see anything "terrible" about that; it seems a perfectly legitimate reason to sue. If someone made a show about an evil person and then used a picture of you without permission for that evil person, you'd have a pretty damned good reason to sue, too.

Given that the Satanic Temple has a vested interest in combating the widespread social perception of Satanists as "evil", why wouldn't they object to a show that spreads that stereotype? Since when is it "terrible" to object to being stereotyped? And it's not just that the old stereotypes are being perpetuated; Satanists are being stereotyped as evil with the identifying symbols of the Satanic Temple. I mean, it would be bad enough if the Sabrina show just played the old "Satanists are evil" stereotype... but the fact that they're doing with something that pretty directly points at the Satanic Temple specifically was just asking to be sued.

I don't know what "bad takes" they've had on Twitter because I don't Twitter, but everything else I know about the Satanic Temple has to do with them trolling US lawmakers by saying "either allow all religions or no religions" in various ways. For example, when they want to put up a Ten Commandments display, the Satanic Temple tries to put up a massive statue of Baphomet (incidentally, that's what was used in the Sabrina show)... or when they're doing only Christian prayers before government meetings, the Satanic Temple tries to do a Satanic invocation... and so on. I don't see anything "terrible" about any of that, and in fact they've had some good results forcing (Christian) religious privilege into the spotlight and triggering change.

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

indi wrote

"Corny" I'd say is actually pretty apt, from what I know of them. They're almost always on the right side of the issues... but... yeah, they're a little... much.

But about the suit, it's not the IP infringement that's their real beef, it's the stereotyping while using their identifying symbol. (I'm not aware of anyone using their statue in any other shows, but I have a hard time believing that they'd sue a show that used the statue while not negatively stereotyping them.) There's nothing "lame" or hypocritical about standing up for free speech and the freedom to offend while simultaneously objecting to someone putting bullshit words in your mouth in a way that makes it look like you support it.

1

[deleted] wrote

1

indi wrote

It does violate my principles (I am vigorously opposed to copyright law), but my principles are not at issue here. What's at issue are the Satanic Temple's principles - that's what determines whether their action is hypocritical or not. And it clearly doesn't violate their principles, since they regularly use the state's own rules to challenge the state's hypocrisies. In fact, that's kind of their jam.

You don't agree with the tool they used to protect their public image - and, indirectly, public perception of Satanists in general? That's fine, and I don't disagree in theory. But they're fighting systemic discrimination, and there's nothing "lame" about using your enemy's own abusive rules and tools against them. Using the state's laws to challenge state discrimination is pretty much their routine.

In this case, a big and powerful media company stole the Satanic Temple's media and used it to perpetuate negative stereotypes against them... seems perfectly logical and legitimate to use the same tools that media company would use use against them back against the company. I mean, do you doubt for a second that if the Satanic Temple had used images from the Sabrina show to depict Netflix execs as evil, that Netflix wouldn't use the same law to sue the Satanic Temple? Of course they'd do that, so it's pretty effective to use their own tactics and tools against them. There are few things more effective than using an opponent's own weaponry against them.

2