Black Mirror : Did Kenny deserve it (Shut up and Dance)?

I felt empathy for him throughout the whole episode. He is not popular, he is being bullied at his workplace, he is young and shy, vulnerable. We dont really get to know if it was accidental or something he regularly did.

Also, he is fairly young himself and they dont say how old were the kids of the pictures. Plus, it is quite clear he has never hurt anyone physically.

In other words, they are not putting the typical pedo stereotype here.

What do you think about Kenny? Guilty or not?

Technically, he's guilty of something harmless.

But also (and most importantly), he's guilty of stupidity by searching online for "malware removal" and downloading a top result without researching its name first, and then guilty of complying with the anonymous text message orders (instead of deleting/reporting/ignoring them).

In another thread, someone suggests the kid is tech savvy. Right off the bat, my impression was the complete opposite. Looking up "malware removal" on the internet is a tech no-no and a surefire way (with your consent to download) to ensure your computer gets infected. Even when in a rush, I'm cautious before downloading a new Malware/Virus Scanning program and will check for its reputation. At the very least, if I haven't been in the situation before, I would have looked up, for example, "what to do if my computer is infected with malware." Besides, INSTEAD, I would have rebooted into safe mode, either uninstalled that crap or restored to last known working configuration, and I'm NOT a tech savvy person.

Edit: No, he didn't deserve the police to come arrest him. I don't think he deserved the public ridicule, either. But he deserved to be trolled for his stupidity of downloading (AKA consenting to) the troll program and complying with outrageous anyonymous orders.

-kat

That's one of the great things about the show.

It has no easy answers. It paints characters are actual people and not just cardboard stereotypes.

And let's not forget that the hackers are voyeurs of pain, psychological torture, and murder. They are basically making a snuff film at the end, which puts them on the same, or on a worse, moral level than Kenny.

Well for one downloading any child porn is illegal. So that's his first crime.We don't know that till the end. Then he committed robbery and most likely murder since that fight was to the death. So i think thats why he got arrested.

I was referring to him "doing it." That isn't criminal.

I interepreted the aghast "Kids?!" from his mother as just a grossed-out judgment. I mean, he's a kid, too. Seeing now I was incorrect and they're talking about child porn.

Still, it was his own stupidity that led him down that path of complying to criminal things such as robbing the bank. And they don't conclude the "fight to the death" scene. I presumed he ran away. You really think he killed the grown man with his bare hands?

-kat

19 is an adult. He was looking at children

Who said he is 19? He looks like a 13 year old.

-kat

The synopsis. Plus a 13 year old cannot work in a restaurant or drive a car. Use sense.

I figured he was 15 at the oldest. 16 would be stretching it. I looked up the synopsis, and it's word for word: After a virus infects his laptop, a teen faces a daunting choice: carry out orders delivered by text message, or risk having intimate secrets exposed.

His age is left to interpretation.

I figured his younger sister is 11 or 12 at the oldest.

-kat

As I have just stated it's in the synopsis and several interviews with the director etc have stated this ..A 15 year old cannot drive a car or work, neither can a 16 year old (kids have to stay at school till 18 unless they have an apprenticeship and it's 17 to drive a car). So no his age is not left to interpretation, you're just wrong.
Last time I checked a 19 year old was still a teenager (emphasis on the nineTEEN)
Youre clearly just not very good at judging age.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/10/26/13416348/black-mirror-season-3-episode-3-shut-up-and-dance-recap?client=ms-android-hms-vf-gb

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/on-demand/0/black-mirror-season-3-shut-up-and-dance-review-soul-scorching-da/amp/?client=ms-android-hms-vf-gb

Thank you.

-kat

I guess Kenny isn't good at judging age either.

You seem very ignorant. From your first comment to your last. Seems like you don't think before you speak. Missing the point at every turn and then responding after you've realized that you fully didn't comprehend what was being said. From downloading the malware to his arrest to him not being a teenager at 19? You're just not that bright

he couldn't drive a car though. Were you not paying attention to the episode?

He was carrying the 'prize'backpack of money so I assumed he did. As unlikely as it is though not impossible. He was drunk too remember..

> I presumed he ran away. You really think he killed the grown man with his bare hands?

Well, he had a blunt object (the gun) and the man was drunk. I can see Kenny being able to kill him.


What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

Regardless of how old the viewer is, SOMEONE had to exploit a child to make said pornography.

a CHILD was exploited regardless - it doesn't matter if the viewer is "close in age" to them, it's still *beep* gross and a real, real, REAL $h1tty thing for ANY child to go through.

________________________
"IdeclareBANKRUPTCYYYYYYY!!!"

There's a point. Where any of those people the actual pornographer?

It is left as an intentionally open-ended interpretation. There is no right answer - that would defeat the entire purpose of the episode. The whole episode was a set up for the end, to get you invested and then challenge you.

If there is a line, where do we draw it? There is no easy answer and hence the episode works.

---

If there is a line, where do we draw it? There is no easy answer and hence the episode works.

---

We draw it in the penal code. While it's not an easy answer, we, as a society have debated and amended child exploitation laws to what they are now. I'm sure there is still room to debate certain circumstances within these laws, but I was under the impression that this episode (through his mother) implied that they were pre-teen age. It's hard to believe that a mother would refer to teen models as kids. Trying to decipher age through physical appearance can be ambiguous in the teen years (15-19), so I don't think the mother would make the leap unless the subjects in the pics or videos were unquestionably minors.

In short, Kenny is a creeper and should be taking Subway foot longs from Jared.

---

Technically, he's guilty of something harmless.

---

Child porn is harmless?

And all that harping on the technical - you obviously missed the point of the episode completely!

It's me! Mwahaha

I agree with your first point and was confused by the above posters statement as well. Child porn.. harmless? Can't say I agree.

To be a stickler I will state that the child doesn't have to be really young for the episode to have merit. I'll run you through how I saw the episode (if you still care) to show that it can still be meaningful in a different way.
The whole episode most people are rooting for this guy, sympathizing with him and his predicament. He was coerced to rob the bank and to potentially kill the man (we do not if he did for sure but he most likely had to really hurt him bad at the very least) and then child porn?
Sorry dude, I don't think I can sympathize with you anymore - but being attached to the character spending the whole episode with him I naturally looked for any kind of out.
Wait - what was the child's age? It didn't say did it? (I know you disagree with this essentially but hear me out)
Don't get me wrong, at no point was I back on his side - but it made me think 'well, does it matter how old the child is? And if it does matter, what age would make me regain some sympathy with him and what he went through?'
Those are the questions I asked. It made me think about something I don't like to think about.

If the child is definitely 7 years old I would not spend any time thinking about it. My disgust would be automatic and I would haven't given it much more thought. The advantage to an unspecified age is you don't get a clear answer and you are sort of left out in the cold to fend for yourself. It's a pretty big kick in the teeth.

That has artistic merit, I think at least. If you ever watched the movie Hard Candy - it does a somewhat similar thing. It plays around with your human desire to empathize throughout the movie (is she psychotic? is he a monster?) before revealing that yes, this guy is a monster. This episode seem to play its cards a little differently given a similar situation.

I just don't think the mom's reaction was reserved for subjects that were anywhere near his age. If they were she would have been yelling at him about porn, not the age of the girls. Pretty sure they had to have been pre-teen age.

Let's not forget he was willing to blow his brains out. I don't think he attempts that without knowing the full impact of what the hackers have on him.

There were some signs that he was looking at really young kids at the beginning of the episode. Remember when he gave that little girl the toy she left on the table and stared at her as she walked away? And there was also the scene with him staring at a little kid's drawings while at work. If you take those two things into consideration, that would probably be the age range of the kids he was looking at.

This.

AS SOON as that happened, I was suspicious of him! It was weird, I don't just assume every adult guy who likes kids is a pedophile, but I just got a feeling about him. I don't know.

Never settle with words what you can accomplish with a flamethrower.

I think this comment is the most insightful I've read on here so far.

I do think the early scenes in the restaurant suggests the children are in fact young children, and like you say, if they're seven most people will be automatically disgusted and leave it at that. But I think the younger the children are (or: the more terrifying the crime is), the more interesting the narrative becomes, because it suggests there's no such thing as an entirely evil person.

In real life, there is no way of telling if someone is a pedophile, you can't point them out in a crowd. Apart from their sexuality, most of them are like us (or like Kenny was to us, until we found out about the children).

Basically, Shut up and Dance tells us that pedophiles are people, they are us, and that makes judging them more complicated.

"Doing it." That's all he admitted to.

-kat

Harmless? He was jerking off to kiddie porn- how is that harmless?
I am quite sure that if he would have been looking at girls around his age, whether a year or 2 younger, that his mother would not have been as hysterical and referring to the images he was looking at as 'children'.
He was a paedophile; there are refernces to this early on- like when his attractive female coworker would talk to him and he shown no interest, or when he starred a little too long at the child that dropped her toy at the restaurant he worked. He also went over board when his sister borrowed his laptop- that much so he padlocked his bedroom door. I understand the writers of this show are not into spoon feeding the plot - we get enough of that already with the majority of tv, but seriously, to not see that Kenny is a paedo is a bit absurd to me.

Wouldn't be much of an episode if Kenny knew how to strip out the malware though. Suspension of disbelief, artistic license, that sort of thing.

Something harmless? Downloading child pornography is not harmless! It supports the people who create it and abuse children.

It feels like you didn't watch the episode to the end, or you just read the summary, but the ending was exvluded, in fact I am.pretty sire you haven't watched the episode yoirself.
The question reffers to child pornography.

All of this has happened before and will happen again.

They were pics of kiddie porn, and let's not forget the scene, now creepy, where he keeps the little girl from losing her toy.

He was a grade-A perv. They start young.

Looking at child porn isn't harmless, because if there is demand then there will be supply and that is when children are abused, kidnapped, forced to do things no child should. So, no calling what he did harmless is like standing over a person while they were dying and crying for help. You didn't kill them, you just stood there and let it happen instead of calling for help, harmless stuff indeed.



Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. -Isaac Asimov

Child porn is NOT harmless. Think about how it gets made.

Then in addition to that, he chose to commit all these further crimes. He could have opted to face up to what he'd done, instead. Rather than do that, he chose to rob a bank and kill a man.

Yes. He deserved it.

"I know this ain't gonna sound good, but I just shot two people."

I completely agree with you. It is NOT harmless at all. They are real children and they are really being abused.

A lot of people are harping on the assumption of exploitation, but I think it's critical that we never saw the pictures in question. Obviously, the director couldn't have shown them to us, but on the other hand, what if he was trolling a family album uploaded by somebody with a loose grasp of privacy filters? Still evocative enough (given the activity he was engaging in) to provoke a zealous vigilante's ire, but with much of the actual sting removed (as in, no actual laws broken). Bottom line, it's not as clear cut as one might think, and this episode gets that point across fairly well.

---

what if he was trolling a family album uploaded by somebody with a loose grasp of privacy filters?

---

What are you talking about? It was on his laptop and he was jerking off to it.

"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll justassume the worst."

I'm just saying, what perverts are allegedly doing with people's innocent family photos is an unavoidable discussion on many popular photo sharing sites. Have you ever been to YouTube?

I genuinely don't know what you're trying to imply. He might have been jerking it to family photos?

"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll justassume the worst."

Man will turn to anything in desperation. George Costanza once got caught with a Glamour magazine Perhaps it's harder to imagine in our porn-saturated culture, but Victorians allegedly got excited by a mere flash of ankle.

So what is the point you are desperately reaching for? He might have been getting off on pictures of family vacations, instead of child pornography? Highly unlikely.

He wouldn't rob or kill someone for the sake of hiding what amounts to a gross (but legal) perversion.

"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll justassume the worst."

And attempt to kill himself.

He wouldn't rob or kill someone (or attempt to kill himself) for the sake of hiding what amounts to a gross (but legal) perversion

"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll justassume the worst."

ChocolateButt, I feel you're right. In the context of a story I know he's guilty. If it was real life. I'd say it could be possible he just jerked it to Sears advertisements with underaged models (Which be honest, that alone would certainly make all of our mothers give us an aghast phone call) and the legal gray area scared him, (Plus his partner threatening to kill himself), and killing that other Pedophile was self defense.

As for the suicide attempt. Martin Luther King tried to kill himself because he disobeyed his parents and attended a parade on the day his grandma died. No laws broken. He was just a guilty and very spiritual young man. Spiritual guilt is a hell of a thing. If this was all a crazy as hell true story, and there was no concrete evidence to what he was jerking to, I, and I'm sure most judges would just give him a cold stink eye on that charge and move on to the other charges with solid evidence. "Though you were under duress, you still robbed a bank and killed a man. A pedophile man which most juries would be more lenient on, and it was clearly self defense due to your injuries."

It would really just be that bank. Banks can be 5-30 years in Britain depending on how well you acted during the robbery. A scared out of his mind 19-year-old under duress, personal threats, and pissing on himself, and Kevin would probably still see some of his 20s.

But yeah, if that was CP, he'll get some years tacked on. But I've worked with schizophrenics who have that history. Some of them are in their early 20s. Looking and wanking, doesn't get people the same sentence as distributing.

Kenny is going to be sadder but wiser.

But again this isn't our world. It's Black Mirror! Who knows what crazy prison he's up against?

He was heavily coerced by the other man to rob the bank. If you remember he was heavily against the idea. At the time that he robbed the bank did you perceive the character as evil? I don't think many people did given the circumstances. Who are these people/this person, what if he didn't comply? They could have killed him, the other man could have forced him to comply. I know if I was in that situation things would be far less clear. I would be terrified out of my wits, especially at that age. We don't know if he killed the other man and he clearly did not relish in the idea if he did - it was kill or be killed. What would you do in that situation? Just give up and die? Why is that the right decision?

As stated below, we do not know the specific laws and social perception of what child porn is where this person comes from. It is science fiction and unless it is specifically stated we just don't know. That leaves us with the burden of filling in the blanks ourselves. What if the minor was old enough to sleep with him but not old enough to partake in pornography? That doesn't seem so damnable. Laws differ from place to place in our world. What is normal in one place is an atrocity somewhere else. This child that the mom is so upset about could have been only a year or two younger, three or four years younger or ten+ years younger. It is never stated.

Your confidence in his guilt is puzzling given all of the above information and I think you missed the entire point of the episode.