Latest news with #LGBT-themed
31-07-2025
- Entertainment
How an anti-porn lobby on payment processors censored thousands of video games
Video game developers are speaking out after two popular PC games stores made it harder — even impossible — to purchase thousands of games and other digital artworks, as a result of pressure exerted by an Australian anti-porn advocacy group. The takedown came after Collective Shout successfully lobbied payment networks and processors to stop facilitating financial transactions from storefronts Steam and until games with certain content were removed. But developers say the range of affected works goes well beyond games with explicit sex scenes. Also caught in the sweep are a teen-rated romantic comedy game (new window) , some LGBT-themed games by award-winning developer Robert Yang, and a 1920s alternate-history art book that has no sexual content (new window) . This is incredibly worrying, said Adrienne Bazir, a Toronto-based game developer and artist who makes LGBT games. Even just queer people holding hands is seen as not safe for work. CBC spoke to over a dozen Canadian games developers, creators and industry watchers who say the situation highlights the power held by international financial institutions in determining what kinds of art is deemed acceptable for others to consume, and frequently forces LGBT content and narrative into the darkness. What's happened so far? In July, Collective Shout published an open letter (new window) saying Steam and Itch hosted games with rape, incest and child sexual abuse content. About a week later, Steam removed hundreds of games with adult or sexual content from sale. Steam, the world's largest storefront and management platform for PC games with a reported 132 million active monthly users, said in a statement that certain games on Steam may violate the rules and standards set forth by our payment processors and their related card networks and banks. It has the effect of shrinking the space available for diverse sexual expression. Jean Ketterling, University of Saskatchewan Payment processors include credit card companies like Visa and MasterCard, and other companies that can facilitate purchases like PayPal and Stripe. Those games were removed from sale to ensure customers could purchase other titles and game content, the statement added. On July 28, Itch, a relatively smaller player, deindexed all games and other works on its site with the NSFW (not safe for work) tag. That means you can't find those works on the site unless you know the exact name of the creator or game. According to Game File reporter Nicole Carpenter, searching the NSFW tag on Itch before July 28 brought 7,167 results. Today, it surfaces five or fewer. Enlarge image (new window) Video game developers are speaking out against Visa, MasterCard and other payment companies for blocking the sale of certain adult content on gaming stores Steam and Photo: Maxim Zmeyev Itch's creator Leaf Corcoran said (new window) the site's staff is conducting a comprehensive audit of content to ensure we can meet the requirements of our payment processors. He later said (new window) Itch is seeking other payment processors that are willing to work with platforms hosting adult content. CBC reached out to several payment processors for comment. In a statement, Stripe said, We do not support adult content, while PayPal replied that it will take action on anything that violates the law, our policies, or the policies of our partner banks and card networks. Risky business? Collective Shout is an advocacy group that describes itself as a movement against the objectification of women and the sexualization of girls. Its director, Melinda Tankard Reist, told CBC that her group reached out to payment processors after receiving no reply to about 3,000 emails sent to the Valve Corporation, which owns Steam. Tankard Reist said the group was not seeking to have Itch deindex all its NSFW gaming content. However, developers, artists and other supporters say the campaign has affected works with sexual content that don't cross the line into abusive or illegal behaviour. Enlarge image (new window) Jean Ketterling is an assistant professor in political studies at the University of Saskatchewan's women's and gender studies program. Photo: Submitted by Jean Ketterling That statement doesn't ring true for Jean Ketterling, a University of Saskatchewan assistant professor who specializes in the study of sex and video games. This is a tried-and-true playbook. It has the effect of shrinking the space available for diverse sexual expression, she said. Ketterling pointed to a long history of anti-porn or anti-sex work organizations campaigning against content they deem to be obscene, immoral or illegal. Similar recent cases involved lobbyists targeting payment processors for OnlyFans and Pornhub. WATCH | When pressure from banks almost led to OnlyFans banning sexual content: We're seeing a lot of LGBTQ content come up. We're seeing a lot of stuff that's not even pornographic, but that is just exploring sexual violence or exploring the trans experience, she said. Val Webber, a postdoctoral researcher at the Sexual Health and Gender Research Lab (SHAG) at Halifax's Dalhousie University, says high-risk categories for payment processors typically include items with a potential for fraud or that contain potentially illegal content — such as adult content, firearms, gambling and some medications. But the processors' terms of service aren't always clear, leading to a wide interpretation of what kinds of content can be considered high-risk, she said. They're effectively in charge of creating de facto obscenity law without ever naming specific sexual acts or fantasies or content that is, in fact, not allowed on the platforms, she said. Several Canadian developers and artists are frustrated that an Australian lobby group and U.S.-based payment processors have impacted their income. What we have is a situation where American financial institutions are able to do de facto censorship on a global scale against content that isn't illegal, said Ash Krieder, an independent romance writer based in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ont., whose works were deindexed from Itch. This is hampering freedom of speech in our country. Enlarge image (new window) An image by Vancouver-based artist Aurahack. She says her profile was delisted from Itch search following pressure from payment processors. CBC has agreed not to print Aurahack's real name for reasons of safety. Photo: Aurahack Tankard Reist said location is irrelevant. The internet has no borders. Women and girls everywhere are impacted by male violence against women and misogyny in general which we believed these games perpetuated. The counter-campaign Affected developers and their supporters have started phone campaigns and petitions to pressure payment processors to reverse their actions. One site lists several email addresses and phone numbers for people to lodge their complaints with Visa, MasterCard and other payment companies. "What we know about Collective Shout is that they managed to put pressure on those payments processors with only 1,000 calls (new window) or emails," said Bazir. And we're like, well, there's more than 1,000 of us, so we can beat that.
New York Post
14-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
The left is a cult — and parents can fight it, with Supreme Court's blessing
Photo by John McDonnell/For The Washington Post via Getty Images In a landmark ruling last month, the Supreme Court slapped down a public-school district's mandatory lessons on sexual topics for young children — and gave parents the power to push back against leftist indoctrination in school. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, parents in Montgomery County, Md., argued that mandatory teaching of LGBT-themed books violated their families' religious beliefs. They didn't seek to remove the books — only the right to opt their children out of lessons that used them. The court backed them. Advertisement The district's instruction promoted the idea that gender is fluid and interchangeable, a notion that runs against the teachings of every major monotheistic religion: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Its LGBT teachings are part of a secular belief system that deliberately aims to supplant those traditional faiths with a new one. Leftism today increasingly functions not merely as a political ideology but as a full-fledged secular religion, complete with its own moral code, dogmas, rituals and rules of excommunication. Advertisement Like traditional religion, it offers a comprehensive worldview, one centered not on God or transcendent truth but on the sacredness of personal autonomy, identity and self-expression. Its doctrines — absolute tolerance, sexual liberation and equity over equality — are treated as unquestionable axioms, enforced with the fervor of religious orthodoxy. Public rituals like pronoun declarations, land acknowledgments and DEI trainings serve as liturgical acts of belonging and penance. Advertisement Sacred symbols like the pride flag or protest slogans function as talismans of moral clarity, and dissent from the liberal consensus results in a kind of modern heresy trial: cancellation, professional ruin or public shaming. The leftist 'priesthood' comprises media elites, academics and HR professionals, who act as interpreters and enforcers of the faith. Even its eschatology is religious in tone, offering visions of a utopian future once all bigotry is eradicated. By giving its adherents meaning, identity and moral purpose, leftism fulfills the role organized religion once did. Advertisement And the progressive religion isn't just a belief system — it's a doomsday cult. Consider any discussion of climate change. Suddenly, leftists become apocalyptic preachers warning of imminent destruction: rising seas, burning forests, uninhabitable cities — all brought on by sinful human consumption. The rhetoric is absolutist: Salvation can only be achieved through strict adherence to new commandments — no meat, no plastic, no air travel and total obedience to technocratic elites. Like all cults, dissent is forbidden and skepticism is blasphemy. Climate anxiety drives the young to speak about the future with a mix of fatalism and fanaticism. It's not science but a deeply moral narrative of sin and penance driving this hysteria, dressed in the language of reason but pulsing with religious fervor. Advertisement The Montgomery County parents fought for the freedom to protect their children from the gender-ideology components of this progressive belief system, but that's just one facet of this new secular faith. They were right: The public-school system has become a vehicle for all kinds of indoctrination, preaching a broad secular orthodoxy that runs counter to the beliefs of families of faith. The LGBT content at issue in Mahmoud is just one chapter in that gospel. In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Montgomery County school board 'requires teachers to instruct young children using storybooks that explicitly contradict their parents' religious views, and it encourages the teachers to correct the children . . . when they express a degree of religious confusion.' Advertisement That same dynamic is at play across the curriculum, as public schools push all forms of progressivism on impressionable kids. It's time to fight back against the whole of the leftist religion, not just its more outrageous tenets — by confronting the cult's fire-and-brimstone, end-of-days theology too. That means demanding that science education in our schools must be grounded in reason, not fear. Public schools have no business sermonizing to children about the apocalypse. Leave that to the actual religions. Advertisement Armed with the Mahmoud ruling, public-school parents now have a legal foundation to resist when schools impose teachings that violate their most deeply held beliefs. They don't have to accept every lesson as mandatory — they can demand opt-outs, request transparency and challenge curriculum choices that cross the line from education into ideology. Parents can start by asserting their right to review lesson plans, attending school-board meetings and organizing locally to resist a broader secular agenda dressed up as neutral instruction. Advertisement The Supreme Court made it clear: The state can't force kids to absorb beliefs that conflict with their family's faith. Now it's up to parents to make their schools abide by that principle. Bethany Mandel writes and podcasts at The Mom Wars.
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court Looks Eager to Further Undermine Public Schools
The Supreme Court signaled on Tuesday that it would side with a group of religious parents who oppose a Maryland school district's use of LGBT-themed children's books in its reading curriculum. Most of the justices in the court's conservative majority reacted with varying levels of disdain to the idea of requiring students to be exposed to such books and seemed eager to expand religious parents' ability to opt their children out of public school curriculums in general. Justice Samuel Alito referred at one point to one book where the protagonist's uncle marries another man. A lawyer representing the Montgomery County School District said the book was not coercive toward students' religious beliefs but simply recognized that same-sex marriages exist. 'I think it clearly goes beyond that,' Alito replied. 'It doesn't just say that Uncle Bobby and Jamie are getting married. It expresses the idea subtly, but it expresses the idea that this is a good thing.' Tuesday's oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor did not establish clearly where and how the court will draw the line when allowing parents to opt out from certain lessons. At minimum, the court's conservative justices gave few indications that they would tread lightly on public schools' ability to feature LGBT-inclusive themes in their curriculum. That could, in turn, make it logistically difficult for schools to include them at all. In 2022, the Montgomery County School District, located just outside of Washington, D.C., updated its English curriculum to address concerns that the existing materials 'did not fully reflect the diversity of [Montgomery County Public Schools] families.' After a lengthy review process involving educators, parents, and administrators, the district added five storybooks to its curriculum that involve LGBT themes. One includes a prince who fights a dragon and falls in love with a male knight; another features a child named Penelope who decides that he is a boy. The district noted in its brief for the court that the stories are not that different from other traditional storybooks 'such as retellings of Rapunzel, Cinderella, and Goldilocks.' The books are considered to be at an appropriate reading level for pre-K students through fifth graders. The school initially allowed parents to opt out of the lessons where the books would be included. That became unworkable when significant numbers of students and parents declined to include their students, some for religious reasons and some for non-religious reasons. Midway through the 2022–23 school year, the district ended the policy because of the logistical hurdles it caused for teachers and administrators. A group of Christian and Muslim parents immediately sued to have it restored. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their motion for a preliminary injunction last year, noting that the parents 'do not show anything at this point about the Board's decision that affects what they teach their own children.' In its ruling, the three-judge panel emphasized the 'threadbare' nature of the record before them. None of the materials filed by the parties, it said, had any details 'about how any teacher or school employee has actually used any of the storybooks in the parents' children's classrooms, how often the storybooks are actually being used, what any child has been taught in conjunction with their use, or what conversations have ensued about their themes.' The panel noted, however, that there was also no evidence 'that the parents or their children have in fact been asked to affirm views contrary to their own views on gender or sexuality, to disavow views on these matters that their religion espouses, or otherwise affirmatively act in violation of their religious beliefs.' It also noted that the district's assistant superintendent had said that 'no student or adult is asked to change how they feel about these issues.' As a result, the panel voted 2–1 to deny an injunction. That defeat prompted the parents to turn to the Supreme Court. 'The question here is whether that right is infringed when a public school compels elementary schoolchildren as young as three to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality in violation of their parents' religious beliefs—without notifying their parents or allowing them to opt out,' the plaintiffs claimed in their brief for the court. 'To ask that question is to answer it.' They pointed to the 1972 case Wisconsin v. Yoder, which they read to recognize a First Amendment right to 'substantially interfere with their religious development.' Alan Schoenfeld, who argued for the school district, urged the justices not to embrace the plaintiffs' far-reaching theory. He noted that Yoder dealt with a much different set of circumstances: namely, a group of Amish families who wanted to withdraw their students from public schools after eighth grade and continue their education through vocational work at home. 'Adopting [their] view of the case would conscript courts into playing the role of school board, a task for which this court has recognized they are ill suited,' he said in his opening remarks. 'And a constitutional requirement to provide opt-outs from anything someone finds religiously offensive would mean public schools must find alternative classrooms, supervision for young students, and substitute lessons each time a potentially offensive topic arises.' The court's conservative members did not blanch at that prospect. 'I guess I am a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this,' Kavanaugh remarked at one point during Baxter's argument. He suggested broadening the court's legal test from whether the school district's actions amounted to 'coercion,' which would be a tall order in this case, to whether the actions amounted to a 'burden' on the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights, which would be a much lower threshold for these plaintiffs to meet. Kavanaugh also suggested that the court had a duty of sorts to intervene. Schoenfeld noted offhand that the Montgomery County School Board was 'democratically elected,' which the justice apparently interpreted as a dig against the court. 'You've mentioned a few times that the school board was democratically elected and being on the school board is a hard job,' he commented. 'We all respect that. But that can't be the end of it, right? We're here to protect liberty and the Constitution from the democratic excess.' Finally, Kavanaugh framed the issue as one of 'religious liberty' that stretched back to Maryland's founding in the colonial era. 'Maryland was founded on religious liberty and religious tolerance, a haven for Catholics escaping persecution in England going back to 1649,' he noted at one point. Kavanaugh then described Montgomery County as a 'beacon of that religious liberty for all these years' and told Schoenfeld that he was 'surprised' that 'this is the hill we're going to die on, in terms of not respecting religious liberty, given that history.' Some of the questions appeared to be driven by conservative media hyperbole rather than the factual record. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked at one point about a since-withdrawn book that featured a woman with purple hair wearing a leather jacket. 'That's the one where they are supposed to look for the leather and bondage, things like that, right?' he asked Schoenfeld. 'It's not bondage,' Schoenfeld quickly replied. 'A sex worker?' Gorsuch continued. 'It's a woman in a leather jacket,' the lawyer insisted. The only justice more hostile to the school district than Kavanaugh was Alito, who appeared to take personal offense to the idea that a Maryland school would feature LGBT-inclusive books in its curriculum. 'So suppose a school says we're going to talk about same-sex marriage, and same-sex marriage is legal in Maryland, and it's a good thing, it's moral, it makes people happy, same-sex couples form good families, they raise children,' he said at one point, with a faint undertone of sarcasm. 'Now, there are those who disagree with that,' he continued. 'Catholics, for example, they disagree with that. They think that it's not moral, but they're wrong and they're bad and anybody who doesn't accept that same-sex marriage is normal and just as good as opposite-sex marriage is not a good person.' What if the school teaches that to students, he asked Schoenfeld, who agreed that it would be coercive. Alito also aired some grievances toward the Supreme Court bar in general, hinting that they were elitist and out of touch. 'You've got to send your children to school,' Alito snarked at one point. 'You can't afford to send them to any place except the public school, unlike, you know, most of the lawyers who argue cases here. They can send their children to private schools, and they think that that's the way most of the world is. But it's not. It's just too bad.' The court's three liberal justices, who were clearly outgunned, tried instead to find limiting principles to the plaintiffs' arguments. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked about the line between when exposure to a fact or idea becomes coercive or violates one's religious beliefs. 'Is looking at two men getting married, is that the religious objection?' she asked Eric Baxter, who represented the plaintiffs. 'Again, it would depend on the individual beliefs of the clients,' he replied. 'For example, many parents would object to their child being exposed to something like pornography or extreme violence.' That answer drew a subtle rebuke from Sotomayor. 'We're not going to go there, counsel,' she warned, before re-asking her question. 'Our objections would be even to reading books that violate our clients' religious beliefs,' Baxter said. That may sound defensible in theory but would be nightmarish in practice. A friend-of-the-court brief filed by the National Education Association noted that navigating an expansive rule for opt-outs would have highly disruptive effects for educators and administrators as they try to develop a curriculum for students in a pluralistic American society. The organization also warned that it could have a divisive and harmful effect on other students. 'Consider, for example, how a student with same-sex married parents might react when told that references to the mere existence of families like his are so objectionable that several of his fellow classmates must leave the room,' the organization told the court. 'Or how a Jewish student might feel when she is required to bring home a note alerting parents that lessons on her religious heritage could be offensive and offering alternative learning arrangements for the children of objecting parents.' A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would be in keeping with the Roberts court's general approach to religious freedom cases, where it tends to be highly sensitive to claims and sharply hostile to government organizations on the other side. Tuesday's oral arguments did not give a clear impression of where the justices will draw the line. A decision is likely to come by the end of June when the court's term traditionally ends. That would give parents and educators at least the rest of the summer break, at minimum, to wrestle with the fallout.
Russia Today
22-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Russia Today
Hollywood's woke blackout: Studios ditch Pride to cash in on conservative America
The conservative winds that have swept across America since January 20, 2025 have reached all the way to California. Hollywood, once the global capital of progressive values, is rapidly turning its back on the previous narrative. Transgender characters are quietly being cut from scripts, LGBT-themed productions shelved, and studios are shifting toward content with Christian and family-oriented values. Entire projects have been dropped. Others are being rewritten on the fly to avoid positive portrayals of LGBT characters. Just a year ago, such a reversal seemed unthinkable. Hollywood, which had long been synonymous with 'woke' ideology, appeared firmly entrenched in its liberal agenda. Anti-Trump themes were being churned out with near industrial efficiency, and conservative attempts at counter-programming lacked the budget or reach to compete. In the cultural trenches, liberals were not just winning, they were dominating. But now, studios are backing off. The liberal press, already ringing alarm bells, has pinned the blame squarely on Donald Trump. In this rare case, they might have a point. Following his re-election, President Trump wasted no time in asserting ideological control. He signed executive orders recognizing only two genders, reinstated the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, and scrapped federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) guidelines. In the cultural sphere, he made a bold appointment: Brendan Carr, a staunch Trump supporter and co-architect of the 'Project 2025' conservative reform blueprint, was named chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC might seem bureaucratic, but under Carr, it has become a powerful cultural weapon. Investigations were quickly launched into media outlets seen as hostile to Trump. Disney, one of the most vocal progressive corporations, was accused of violating equal opportunity laws through its DEI policies. After making some adjustments, Disney still found itself under pressure, with Carr even threatening to revoke ABC's broadcasting license. The result? Rapid, widespread self-censorship. Studios aren't backpedaling because they've had a change of heart, they simply don't want to attract the regulatory wrath of Washington. Amazon, led by Jeff Bezos, was ahead of the curve. Bezos cultivated ties with the Trump camp, quietly axed DEI advisors, and began investing only in 'safe' content. The reward? Government scrutiny vanished. Still, it would be unfair to credit Trump alone for Hollywood's pivot. The shift had begun before the 2024 election, driven by cold economic realities. The traditional business model of cable TV is collapsing. Streaming services, flooded with progressive content, have failed to turn a profit. Worse, many of those 'inclusive' productions have sparked controversy, underperformed at the box office, and alienated large swathes of the audience. Family-oriented and religious films, by contrast, often require modest budgets and cater to a mainstream audience. Conservative content, it turns out, is not just safer – it's more profitable. There's also the matter of public fatigue. Americans are tired of being lectured. Box office returns, streaming numbers, and network ratings all tell the same story. Once-dominant liberal cable channels are in freefall. As of December 2024, CNN and MSNBC had lost half their prime-time audiences, plunging to 30-year lows. Fox News, meanwhile, is thriving. So are conservative-leaning podcasters like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan, now the dominant voices in America's 'new media' landscape. None of this is a coincidence. The broader cultural and economic environment in the United States has shifted. Hollywood's liberal monopoly was unsustainable, both financially and ideologically. Trump's return to power merely accelerated a transformation already underway. Will this rightward turn change the face of global culture? Almost certainly. Will it return Hollywood to its former glory? Time will tell. But what is already clear is that the old narrative is dead – and the new one is being written with a red article was first published by the online newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
22-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Russia Today
Woke blackout in Tinseltown: Hollywood dumps Pride to cash in on America's great conservative comeback
The conservative winds that have swept across America since January 20, 2025 have reached all the way to California. Hollywood, once the global capital of progressive values, is rapidly turning its back on the previous narrative. Transgender characters are quietly being cut from scripts, LGBT-themed productions shelved, and studios are shifting toward content with Christian and family-oriented values. Entire projects have been dropped. Others are being rewritten on the fly to avoid positive portrayals of LGBT characters. Just a year ago, such a reversal seemed unthinkable. Hollywood, which had long been synonymous with 'woke' ideology, appeared firmly entrenched in its liberal agenda. Anti-Trump themes were being churned out with near industrial efficiency, and conservative attempts at counter-programming lacked the budget or reach to compete. In the cultural trenches, liberals were not just winning, they were dominating. But now, studios are backing off. The liberal press, already ringing alarm bells, has pinned the blame squarely on Donald Trump. In this rare case, they might have a point. Following his re-election, President Trump wasted no time in asserting ideological control. He signed executive orders recognizing only two genders, reinstated the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, and scrapped federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) guidelines. In the cultural sphere, he made a bold appointment: Brendan Carr, a staunch Trump supporter and co-architect of the 'Project 2025' conservative reform blueprint, was named chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC might seem bureaucratic, but under Carr, it has become a powerful cultural weapon. Investigations were quickly launched into media outlets seen as hostile to Trump. Disney, one of the most vocal progressive corporations, was accused of violating equal opportunity laws through its DEI policies. After making some adjustments, Disney still found itself under pressure, with Carr even threatening to revoke ABC's broadcasting license. The result? Rapid, widespread self-censorship. Studios aren't backpedaling because they've had a change of heart, they simply don't want to attract the regulatory wrath of Washington. Amazon, led by Jeff Bezos, was ahead of the curve. Bezos cultivated ties with the Trump camp, quietly axed DEI advisors, and began investing only in 'safe' content. The reward? Government scrutiny vanished. Still, it would be unfair to credit Trump alone for Hollywood's pivot. The shift had begun before the 2024 election, driven by cold economic realities. The traditional business model of cable TV is collapsing. Streaming services, flooded with progressive content, have failed to turn a profit. Worse, many of those 'inclusive' productions have sparked controversy, underperformed at the box office, and alienated large swathes of the audience. Family-oriented and religious films, by contrast, often require modest budgets and cater to a mainstream audience. Conservative content, it turns out, is not just safer – it's more profitable. There's also the matter of public fatigue. Americans are tired of being lectured. Box office returns, streaming numbers, and network ratings all tell the same story. Once-dominant liberal cable channels are in freefall. As of December 2024, CNN and MSNBC had lost half their prime-time audiences, plunging to 30-year lows. Fox News, meanwhile, is thriving. So are conservative-leaning podcasters like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan, now the dominant voices in America's 'new media' landscape. None of this is a coincidence. The broader cultural and economic environment in the United States has shifted. Hollywood's liberal monopoly was unsustainable, both financially and ideologically. Trump's return to power merely accelerated a transformation already underway. Will this rightward turn change the face of global culture? Almost certainly. Will it return Hollywood to its former glory? Time will tell. But what is already clear is that the old narrative is dead – and the new one is being written with a red article was first published by the online newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team
