No, The Justice Department Should Not Investigate Netflix’s “Cuties”

Several GOP leaders are calling on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate and take legal action against Netflix  for its promotion of the “Cuties” film.  The film has been denounced for its “sexualization of children.” I have seen the clip of the most controversial scene of young girls dancing which I found deeply disturbing and offensive. However, there is no criminal act alleged of child abuse. What is left is a strong and widely shared revulsion with the film, but that should not be an invitation for governmental action. The threat to free speech of such action is considerable, including the return to a long and detestable period of film censorship in the this country.

The film is focused on 11-year-old Amy, who joins other underage girls in a school dance group called “the cuties.” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) was among various members who denounced Netflix and called for Attorney General Bill Barr to take action. 

 

Republicans were not alone in their criticism. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) declared “@netflix child porn “Cuties” will certainly whet the appetite of pedophiles & help fuel the child sex trafficking trade. 1 in 4 victims of trafficking are children. It happened to my friend’s 13 year old daughter. Netflix, you are now complicit. #CancelNetflix.” 

Conservatives have often objected to the “cancel culture” of the left but this is an instance where the same inclination appears to be coming from the right. The government should not be in the business of policing cultural values or sensibilities.  There was a time when film review boards were common in major cities. This authority to edit and ban films was upheld in one of the worst first amendment cases out of the Supreme Court in 1915 in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio where the Court held that films were commercial speech not protected by the first amendment. The Court entirely ignored the important role of films as a form of expression, including speech on political, economic and social issues:

“… the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit … not to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio Constitution, we think, as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion.”

It took decades to reverse that ridiculous view in 1952 in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson.

The problem with such boards is captured in the view of the “Cuties” film by Washington Post Post culture writer Alyssa Rosenberg who heralded the film for showing “liberated” girls. However, Rosenberg panned the film “Joker” for forcing viewers “to choose between provocation and prudishness.” She insisted “the choice isn’t close: I’d rather be a prude than someone whose definition of freedom is hurting vulnerable people and calling it courage,”

Rosenberg’s nuanced distinctions between the films captures the problem with film review board or government regulation. The view of such films is heavily inundated with subjectivity. A standard barring “the sexualization of children” could result in banning everything from Romeo and Juliet to Taxi Driver.  The solution is not to go see “Cuties.” The solution is to denounce “Cuties.” The solution is not to ban or investigate “Cuties.”

150 thoughts on “No, The Justice Department Should Not Investigate Netflix’s “Cuties””

    1. Thanks for that clip anonymous. I will watch the movie at some time and clearly those denouncing it are not recognizing the purpose of the director. Maybe she didn’t do a good enough job with the material, maybe they haven’t watched it, or maybe they are judging on a narrow basis without getting it. Clearly it is not aimed at an exploitation market. If you’re enjoying the sexual dancing, you are probably immune to guilt, and intended response not usually part of porn.

    2. I enjoyed this interview and I do find it illuminating.

      Someone should have said, the idea is fine, but let’s do it with 10th graders or 11th graders, bc middle school is too young.

      Yes, some will still be offended and say it is too sexual even for a 16 yo or 17 yo, but better than 11 yo.

      At least by h.s., the coming of age is very clear and defined.

      Even if the statement is true that 11 yo in middle school are imitating what they see on social media and dancing provocatively, which I do believe is true, viewers do not want to see that on Netflix.

      1. The age range should have been closer to 18 yo.

      2. The dancing could have been hip-hop and not stripper dancing, which has some secual moves but is not full blown stripper moves, i.e., crawling on the floor, legs spread open, etc.

  1. ‘“Cuties,” the Extraordinary Netflix Début That Became the Target of a Right-Wing Campaign’

    https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/cuties-mignonnes-the-extraordinary-netflix-debut-that-became-the-target-of-a-right-wing-campaign

    Excerpt:

    The subject of “Cuties” isn’t twerking; it’s children, especially poor and nonwhite children, who are deprived of the resources—the education, the emotional support, the open family discussion—to put sexualized media and pop culture into perspective. Left on their own—Angelica, for instance, is virtually unsupervised by parents who are working very hard to keep their restaurant afloat—they’re unable to find or even to seek the line between liberation and exploitation, between independence and imitation. “Cuties” is about the absence of knowledge and absence of reasonable discourse about sex and sexuality, power and desire, that help young people to avow and confront these drives constructively—or, at least, not too destructively. Lacking those things, Amy latches on to a mode of revolt that is itself a trope of a misogynistic order.

    “Cuties” is a film of the center, and it’s aesthetically of the center—it depicts the unconsidered without advancing to the realm of the subjective, and it doesn’t allow its young protagonists much discourse, outer or inner. It’s not a movie of introspection and self-consideration; it’s more a story of the rule than of the exception, of what’s unduly extraordinary about the effort to live an ordinary life. As such, it’s a story of French society at large—its exclusions and the exertions demanded to overcome them. Though many of Amy’s actions are dubious, her spirit of revolt is nonetheless sublime and heroic. “Cuties” dramatizes what people of color and immigrants endure as a result of isolation and ghettoization, of not being represented culturally and politically—and of not being represented in French national mythology. Its underlying subject is the connection of personal identity to public identity—and the urgency of transforming the very notion of French identity, of changing the idea of who’s considered the representative face of France. That idea is brought to the fore in an extraordinary, brief, symbolic ending; it’s enough to give a right-winger a conniption. -Richard Brody

  2. “Cuties: Netflix apologises for promotional poster after controversy”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53846419

    Excerpts:

    But director Maimouna Doucouré has explained that the story aims to highlight how social media pushes girls to mimic sexualised imagery without fully understanding what lies behind it or the dangers involved.

    ‘Urgent debate’

    She has said she decided to explore the topic after being shocked at seeing a group of girls aged around 11 dancing in a sensual way in revealing clothes.

    “I saw that some very young girls were followed by 400,000 people on social media and I tried to understand why,” she told CineEuropa.

    “There were no particular reasons, besides the fact that they had posted sexy or at least revealing pictures: that is what had brought them this ‘fame.’

    “Today, the sexier and the more objectified a woman is, the more value she has in the eyes of social media. And when you’re 11, you don’t really understand all these mechanisms, but you tend to mimic, to do the same thing as others in order to get a similar result.

    “I think it is urgent that we talk about it, that a debate be had on the subject.”

    After the poster sparked controversy online, Netflix told BBC News: “This was not an accurate representation of the film so the image and description has been updated.”

    The streaming giant later tweeted: “We’re deeply sorry for the inappropriate artwork that we used for Mignonnes/Cuties. It was not OK, nor was it representative of this French film which won an award at Sundance. We’ve now updated the pictures and description.”

    -BBC

  3. I have not seen the film “Cuties” , but I did just watch the trailer and read a review. The film follows a young Muslim immigrant girl in Paris and contrasts her strict Muslim family and community life with her westernized experience at school where she joins with 4 friends to start a dance group, trying to be popular. It does not seem an exploitation film, but a serious study of conflict between traditional family life and over sexualized western culture. This film didn’t invent that and is not celebrating it.

    1. here is a detailed review you may wish to read it. it deals with this viewpoint

      https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/cuties-netflix-pretty-babies/

      I will add something to it.

      prior to the legalization of obscenity in the late 60s, going farther back to the 20s when censorship had a heavier hand , there was a species of written pornography that dressed itself up as “case studies.” Lurid explicit accounts of sexual paraphilias were packaged and sold under scientific cover. Some of these were big sellers and avoided the censor’s knife. Always they had some didactic gloss– “this is a problem, let’s explore it so as to treat the problem more effectively.” Kraft-Ebbing’s work “psycopathia sexualis” is considered by some to be a classic example of this, and consideredd by some others to be a valid work of psychology., It was also instrumental in developing the vein of psychology which many decades later lead to the declassification of homosexuality as an illness under the DSM. Well. Perhaps it is not a sickness but the historical trend was that it was considered, evil, then mere sickness, then not sickness

      One can ask, is this the trajectory of “pedophilia?” First evil, then “sickness,” then decriminalization? We see many people call it sickness. What is next?

      Judith Reisman, a psychologist, claims that sex researcher Kinsey himself was involved in crimes against children under the cover of “science”
      https://www.dijg.de/english/ reisman-kinsey-crimes-consequences/

      1. Kurtz, I read the review and watched the clip.

        On the clip: Are you kidding me? This was high school cheer leading squads do every Friday night for the next 3 months! I’m not saying that makes it OK, I’m saying the film is shining a light on what we should already be more than uncomfortable with in our own small towns and on TV screens everywhere. This isn’t right/left. You idealize a president who comments on the sexuality of teenage girls, including his daughter. Unless they are evangelicals – and most on the right are not – an even then, many “conservatives” are just as lascivious as many on the left.

        As to the review, he says there is a good movie to be made with this material but he thought the director did not do the aesthetics well enough to make ithis one work. Maybe I’ll agree with that when I watch it. However, the bigger point is that movie has not been made. Why not? Because we’ve all come to accept this as normal, and when someone attempts to deal with it seriously as this director has – failed effort or not – we get the political prudes – the same ones with no problem with Trump, shocked, shocked I tell you with teenage girls doing the grind.

        Where do these people live? It’s not the real US in 2020.

        1. The comment had nothing to do with Trump. You making every single thing related to Trump is really tiresome.

          I would not know how the high school cheerleaders dance,. I have not been to such a game in a long time.

          I don’t accept sexualization of minors as normal. It’s bad for the minors. The problem has been going on at an exponential level since CDA was passed giving apple and google a green light to enter the porn business and started piping it into everybody’s cell phones on demand.

          seems like the movie was good at illustrating how cell phones are a big part of that process. if the film wakes people up to that piece at least, good. otherwise it sounds like bad news to me.

          my key recommendation for reform to prevent child abuse is to sufficiently fund and train public child welfare and protection workers including police and prosecutions.

          I have provided further recommendations about reform of the GAL and CASA programs, recommend that they only be allowed to use lawyers in court, for the reasons Andrew Vachss a well known author and child lawyer recommends many times the past 2 decades, deaf ears it seems. one would think child protection would be a bipartisan priority.

          1. Kurtz, my comment about Trump to the attempt to politicize the reactions to this film which I think you definitely hinted at, at a minimum. If that was not your intent I apologize for saying that now, but otherwise others here and natinoally – including the reviewer you linked to did – have done that.

            I am very much against the sexualizing of girls and even women now prevalent in our country and much of the world. I don’t even like the heavy street walker makeup that is SOP from everyone from Fox News hosts – sorry, couldn’t help myself – to weather girls.

    2. BtB, here is a real clip of the movie where they zoom in specifically on young black girls crotches, sticking their tongues out, touching each other on the ass.

      Yeah, its just dance, you’re right. Nothing to see here folks. /sarc

      The trailer doesn’t do justice to the actual film clip.

      https://vidmax.com/video/198273-you-ve-heard-about-the-controversial-netflix-show-cuties-oh-it-s-far-more-epstein-than-you-imagine

      Also, the song is this:

      “Aaahhhh, the b*tches are c*mming.”

      Yeah, great song for middle schoolers. /sarc

      1. “Cuties: Netflix apologises for promotional poster after controversy”

        https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53846419

        Excerpts:

        But director Maimouna Doucouré has explained that the story aims to highlight how social media pushes girls to mimic sexualised imagery without fully understanding what lies behind it or the dangers involved.

        ‘Urgent debate’

        She has said she decided to explore the topic after being shocked at seeing a group of girls aged around 11 dancing in a sensual way in revealing clothes.

        “I saw that some very young girls were followed by 400,000 people on social media and I tried to understand why,” she told CineEuropa.

        “There were no particular reasons, besides the fact that they had posted sexy or at least revealing pictures: that is what had brought them this ‘fame.’

        “Today, the sexier and the more objectified a woman is, the more value she has in the eyes of social media. And when you’re 11, you don’t really understand all these mechanisms, but you tend to mimic, to do the same thing as others in order to get a similar result.

        “I think it is urgent that we talk about it, that a debate be had on the subject.”

        After the poster sparked controversy online, Netflix told BBC News: “This was not an accurate representation of the film so the image and description has been updated.”

        The streaming giant later tweeted: “We’re deeply sorry for the inappropriate artwork that we used for Mignonnes/Cuties. It was not OK, nor was it representative of this French film which won an award at Sundance. We’ve now updated the pictures and description.”

        -BBC

        1. did you ever see the documentary about the disgusting afghan practice called “bacha bazi” ? boy-dancing, you can imagine

          turns out the Taliban, for all their other flaws, banned this reprehensible institution which was very popular among the warlords that made up the US allies called “northern coalition” which had been in a low grade civil war with taliban prior to our invasion. i wouldnt know how it went since then but people can look it up.

  4. The question for you, Professor Turley, is whether you would have allowed the placement of your own children in this situation.

    Abuse of minors is a sin and illegal, including abuse of their minds.

    Freedom of speech may not be criminalized, weaponized and deployed.

    This act by Netflix is SICK!

  5. Prof. Turley. This Netflix post is not about censorship. It is child pornography. It is also an insult to women. It is not normal or acceptable to exploit children in such a vulgar way–or in any way.

  6. Here’s a clip of the film:

    https://vidmax.com/video/198273-you-ve-heard-about-the-controversial-netflix-show-cuties-oh-it-s-far-more-epstein-than-you-imagine

    Who approves of close-up crotch shots of 11 yo?

    Not me!

    Who thinks its okay to have young gals sticking their tongue out like Kali with their legs spread wide open?

    Not me!

    Who thinks it okay to have 11 yo dancers touching each other’s ass in a girl on girl sexual way?

    Not me!

    This clip was all I needed to say hellzzzz no.

    And some ppl on here have the audacity to tslk about “good scripts” and acting. You know what I say to you? GTFOH.

  7. What we’re actually discussing is censorship of the corporate world of film for profit, which, incidentally, has a history of continually pressing boundaries. I personally would view this as just another attempt to press sexual boundaries.

    In my opinion there is real need of nuanced distinctions – sex with adults, for example, but not with children. We should not permit children and childhood to be sexualized in this country, nor permit others to profit from display, of the sexualization of childhood and children.

    Perhaps a fine of say 50 mil? Might effectively curtail such outrageously greedy attempts to profit? They censor violence don’t they? Some just don’t get it, sex with children IS violence. It’s like DWIs all over again – it took decades to convince our society that DWI should not be condoned, that it should criminalized, because it contains within it that most egregious element, the propensity for violence, of wanton heinous acts intentionally or otherwise perpetrated, directed, inflicted upon the innocent. This display, the sexualization of children, is precisely the same.

    Yes we can license sex with children. But do so and we will NOT be the same culture that set foot in America some 400 years ago, with focus on family and economically family-favoring or family-oriented values. We will just be that much less civilized. Re-primitvization, de-civlization, is precisely what many seek today in America. Because they believe that in reducing all to “survival of the fittest” they will somehow benefit. We know otherwise.

    So I have to disagree – censor Hollywood’s film production and censor it heavily.

    1. “…fantasy food for perverts are the cutie contests like which propelled Jonbenet Ramsey to ‘ stardom ‘.”

      Truth

  8. SETH WARNER ON “CUTIES”

    I can’t possibly judge a movie I haven’t seen.

    But people should know that Hollywood is not just a clique of ‘Jewish Elitists’, or whatever they are thought to be. Hollywood is not even necessarily Hollywood. The entire TV and Motion Picture industry is totally bi-coastal. We found that out when Harvey Weinstein faced all those charges. Half were in New York and half were in L.A. Furthermore, the TV and Motion Picture industry is an endless game of musical chairs. People move around a lot!

    Therefore it’s ridiculous when conservatives try to link a Hollywood production with the Democratic Party or liberals in general. No one can account for Hollywood. There’s no group of adults making the decisions.

  9. @JonathanTurley

    ‘The solution is not to go see “Cuties.” The solution is to denounce “Cuties.”’

    Why would you “denounce” a film without seeing it first. Watch it and you might change your mind.

    1. There is no need to watch it. Normal non-pervs don’t need to watch it to condemn it. There is more than enough information out there to condemn it. The main picture used to promote the film to pedos is MORE than enough to condem it.

    1. I would fully agree since there’s absolutely nothing in American culture that does not in some way descend or find origins in the Puritan – everything from organizational structure to the Geneva Convention. In fact, our view or ideal of childhood, our desire to “preserve the innocence,” is derived of the family-oriented Puritan. There is also the little matter of “family government” which most certainly finds itself at odds here with the corporate world of film production – this is not simply entertainment, it’s entertainment for profit, and some things need be censored.

  10. I want to encourage my Republican colleagues here to support adequate funding and training for local child welfare investigators and authorities.

    Sometimes there is desire to end child sexual exploitation but a reluctance to sufficiently fund the authorities who can help stop it when it is occurring in the home.

    There is a large amount of sexual abuse happening in bad homes and the child welfare people are often overwhelmed with casework and can’t do their jobs well.

    There are other legit systemic reforms which can be implemented like promoting the use only of lawyers for CASA & GALs, that is guardian ad litems

    https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/988746-florida-s-department-of-children-families

    “From a 1990 interview with Andrew Vachss: “Are [court-appointed advocates, such as guardians ad litem, useful in protecting a child’s rights and guarding against what might be called judicial child abuse]? The answer is, they can be. Are they ever a substitute for actual representation by lawyers? No. Underline no. Repeat, NO. … There are states—and Florida is an excellent example—where a child who is the victim of abuse will not be represented by a lawyer but will be represented by a ‘court-appointed special advocate’ [CASA]. These people are not lawyers. Because they’re not lawyers, they can’t represent a child in terms of the totality of that child’s needs. They can’t file a motion. They can’t argue before a court with any kind of force. … You look at a state like Florida that could provide a stream of attorneys for a Ted Bundy and can’t provide one attorney for an abused child. I think there’s such a moral difficulty with that, that it’s unresolvable.” Now, from a story in this week’s Miami Herald, we see the very real consequences of Florida’s failure to hire lawyers for child-abuse victims”

    1. Allan, your fellow conservatives will not support what you propose. It requires that the government increase taxes. That’s a big no no.

      It is because of that attitude that these things continue to happen.

      1. Svelaz, you can’t even keep straight who you are replying to. It’s Kurtz who wrote the above and you generalized response to him isn’t correct.

    2. Why not encourage people to develop proper training programs for child protective staff? Step one: shut down every single social work program in the state.

      1. It’s a reasonable wager that Art D has had some bad experiences with social workers, given his frequent negative comments.

  11. Another Justice Department Story:

    JUDGE GLEESON ISSUES 30 PAGE COURT FILING

    MEDDLING BY BARR IN FLYNN CASE CALLED “CORRUPT AND POLITICALLY MOTIVATED”

    A retired federal judge accused the Justice Department on Friday of yielding to a pressure campaign led by President Trump in its bid to dismiss the prosecution of former national security adviser Michael Flynn for lying to federal investigators.

    In a 30-page court filing in Washington, former New York federal judge John Gleeson called Attorney General William P. Barr’s request to drop Flynn’s case a “corrupt and politically motivated favor unworthy of our justice system.”

    “In the United States, Presidents do not orchestrate pressure campaigns to get the Justice Department to drop charges against defendants who have pleaded guilty — twice, before two different judges — and whose guilt is obvious,” said Gleeson, who was appointed by the court to argue against the government’s request to dismiss the case.

    Asked on July 13 if he plans to pardon former national security adviser Michael Flynn, President Trump said, “I think he was persecuted.” (The Washington Post)
    Gleeson’s filing set the stage for a potentially dramatic courtroom confrontation Sept. 29 with the Justice Department and Flynn’s defense over the fate of the highest-ranking Trump adviser to plead guilty in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation. Friday’s filings echo earlier arguments from Gleeson, who called the Justice Department’s attempt to undo Flynn’s conviction a politically motivated and “a gross abuse of prosecutorial power.”

    U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the District of Columbia set the hearing date after a federal appeals court upheld his authority to review and rule on the government’s dismissal request on Aug. 31. The hearing before Sullivan was selected from three dates proposed by the parties and is scheduled the same day as the first presidential debate between Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

    Sullivan’s refusal to immediately dismiss Flynn’s case raises novel questions about the limits of judicial power

    Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell on Friday called Gleeson’s filing “predictable and meaningless,” saying again that Flynn’s investigation was “corrupt from its inception.”

    The Justice Department has argued that the executive branch has sole constitutional authority over prosecutorial decisions and that courts cannot “look behind” its decision-making or motives.

    Edited from: “Court Appointed Advisor In Michael Flynn Case Says Justice Department Yielded To Corrupt Pressure Campaign Led By Trump”

    The Washington Post, 9/11/20

    1. REGARDING ABOVE:

      It’s odd Professor Turley didn’t update on this case. He had shown so much interest in it earlier.

      1. let’s take it arguendo that the case was dropped for political reasons. that will not bring the players back on the field. now the dismissal goes ahead anyways

        every prosecutor has some sort of political considerations from the smallest towns in Timbuktu to the SDNY. political considerations are always there

        there are also positive political considerations. like, what is the effect of letting FBI get away with entrapping a lawful official engaged in diplomacy. this can have a major chilling effect on cooperation of officials with FBI. political considerations like that are not corrupt, they are WISE and Democrats administrations might benefit from it too

        1. Kurtz, you would do well to read the filing before you make an ass of yourself:

          “Second, the Government does not challenge the fact that Flynn has deliberately made multiple false statements to this Court. While the Government phrases that concession in the hypothetical—“[e]ven assuming that Flynn committed perjury”8—the conclusion is inescapable. After all, Flynn himself has admitted under oath on multiple occasions that he knowingly lied to

          Case 1:17-cr-00232-EGS Document 243 Filed 09/11/20

          Page 27 of 30

          the FBI in multiple ways—but has then claimed under oath that he never lied to the FBI. See ECF No. 225 at 18–25, 62–65. Flynn argues that he should not be held accountable because his statements were the product of “stunning” prosecutorial misconduct and “wrongful pressure . . . applied to coerce” the first set of statements under oath. ECF No. 228 at 17. But the Government categorically rejects these accusations, assuring the Court that Flynn’s “broad allegations of prosecutorial misconduct” are “unfounded.” ECF No. 227 at 28 n.1.
          Third, and most telling, the Government does not address Flynn’s perjurious sworn statement that the Justice Department engaged in misconduct that coerced him into pleading guilty by threatening to prosecute his son.9 See ECF No. 225 at 64. But in refuting Flynn’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct as “unfounded,” the Government makes clear there was no prosecutorial misconduct, coercion, or secret deals. Thus, in defense of its Rule 48(a) motion, the Government confirms that Flynn not only lied to this Court but is now doubling down by continuing to submit false allegations of prosecutorial misconduct to excuse his false denial of guilt.”

      2. The only reason it seems Turley isn’t doing any updates is because Turley spent a lot of time defending Flynn. Now that it looks like Turley’s arguments are not holding water he just doesn’t want to draw attention to that problem.

        1. @Svelaz

          You are clueless. The case against Flynn will be dismissed by Sullivan. EVERYONE knows that (even liberal “experts” feigning outrage). Sullivan is like the little kid whose been acting up and knows when his father gets home he’s getting a spanking. He’s just putting it off as long as he can…

    2. Peter fancies we’d be interested in hearing the Bezos gloss on the obnoxious statements of Judge Sullivan’s hand-picked advocate.

      1. he is also distracting from the subject of Turley’s essay,. this is common tactic from them, always distract from a good subject with another petty antitrumpian update on trivia

        the subject was Netflix’s obnoxious movie about sexualized youths acting up, and whether netflix is engaged in a sort of prurient display of underage sexuality with a mere didactic gloss. and if that is what it so obviously is, what is the public response.

        do they have anythign to say about that>? not one comment from the usual folks about it

        1. The sorosphere outfits who pay them their per diems aren’t interested in the issue. They just want more jamming, and that means yammer about the President even when it’s irrelevant.

          1. I’ll point something out about this “defund the police” stuff.

            The police — as part of our infrastructure of child welfare and protection– often are overwhelmed by reported incidents of child abuse including sexual abuse.

            proper funding for police AND child welfare authorities, and better training, can help the problem of all forms of child abuse.
            they need MORE funding not less.

            but guys like Soros dont care and would prefer to allow the problem to get worse and maybe that will play into their strategy of destroying the family as such

            this is a twisted trend in universities too who suggest the family per se is a form of child abuse

            no, most families help protect kids, but the bad ones need vigorous prosecution and children need protection if their socalled “parents” are abusing them badly

            these are matters of prudence but prudence is ever under attack from the usual cretins

            1. Kurtz, now seriously, if certain liberals on this blog don’t care to issue comments on ‘every’ Turley column, that’s certainly their choice. I honestly don’t have time to comment on every column. And I don’t think the professor even expects me to try (if indeed he cares).

              But I think ‘Defund The Police” is one of the stupidest slogans in American political history. And I have told many Bernie Bros what I think of that. See,I don’t have to play ‘liberal’ on that issue. I can play the Centrist there; attacking idiots on the Left. It’s something I do more often that you imagine.

              1. In fact, no one of stature among Democrats has called to defund the police. It’s a non-issue that the GOP wants to be an issue.

                1. In fact, no one of stature among Democrats has called to defund the police.

                  No, just the city councils of Minneapolis and Seattle, who, unlike Sundown Joe, actually employ police officers.

                  1. Tabby, local governments all over push stupid policies; more so in the South than anywhere else. It’s not just a Blue State thing (though Trumpers are trying desperately to make it that.

            2. Kurtz, I don’t have to answer for “Defund The Police”. It’s the stupidest slogan ever! And I have told many Bernie Bros what I think of that.

              1. when it comes to child welfare and protection the authorities who investigate claims, address them and sometimes prosecute, should receive adequate funding and training, from social workers to police and prosecutors. surely this can be a bipartisan point of agreement

                and yet one rarely sees it mentioned in any political race. perhaps, because, children do not vote? we should make it a priority

        2. I had a look at Rotten Tomatoes and the critics seemed to like Cuties but the viewing public appears to have despised it so far. The site may have cut off additional public remarks.

          I saw less than 30 seconds of the trailer and knew I couldn’t stomach it.

    3. Yawn. He nor the judge are a party to the case. The have no standing. The case will be dismissed. Sullivan has no choice. He knows and so does everyone else.

  12. What is wrong with everyone? Regardless of political affiliation I think it should be pretty easy to agree that child sexualization is WRONG. And having seen parts of this, yes, there is child nudity, this is sexualization and exploitation. Using hyper-sexualtion of minors to talk about the hyper-sexualization of minors is a ridiculous argument (akin to circular logic) and for all those decrying why some of us haven’t watched the whole thing…..I don’t need to watch an entire perverse movie to declare it perverse and I won’t be roped into being complicit in this charade that this is somehow “ok”. There should be an investigation; the child nudity law was broken. End of story.

Leave a Reply