It villifies nothing. It's statistics are factually incorrect, it sends the wrong message about how child trafficking actually occurs, actively promotes Qanon conspiracy theories like adrenochrome (which have zero factual basis) and the guy staring in it is a Qanon loon.
"from the movie’s opening montage, which shows surveillance footage of children being snatched by strangers off the streets, Sound of Freedom offers a “false perception” of how the majority of child trafficking actually takes place, according to Albright."
You want people to be nonbiased when it comes to child traffickers? This film does not vilify child trafficking, it's an attempt to deflect attention from real child traffickers
Picture this. A building is on fire. Standing outside of it is a person yelling loudly "I didn't start this fire!". Nobody is asking him if he started the fire. But he just keeps standing there, yelling at nobody in particular. He doesn't seek cover or anything. He just tells any person he sees that the fire isn't his fault.
Is it still bias against ultra-right-wing conspiracy theorists if they keep reinforcing it themselves? I mean at some point it becomes just their external image they're self-perpetuating.
allegations that Marta removed an individual under the age of 14, who was not a family member, without obtaining parental consent and subsequently confined them.
Read the article, it’s not much more than clickbait on the surface. I hate QAnon but there is little info in the article about the “accessory to kidnapping” charges, which were “custodial” (done by a parent or guardian) and his defense lawyer said he was “essentially a landlord”.
I can’t say with certainty because as I said there’s not much presented about the actual charges, but this article for sure seems like ragebait.
Attacking the article so awkwardly doesn't lend much credibility to your "I hate QAnon".
The headline is "A funder for 'Sound of Freedom,' a QAnon-adjacent film about child sex trafficking, has been charged with accessory to child kidnapping".
That's as not clickbaity as you can possibly get. It's a short, factual statement about something that happened.
You could maybe stretch to it being "ragebait" on the basis that it may be overstating his role in the crime but even then, there was enough for them to charge him.