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. I’m going to make my own suggestion and I could care less about what the ACLU thinks.

    It’s scandalous the most disgusting forms of paid sex acts are considered perfectly legal SO LONG AS THEY’RE FOR PORN FILMS’

    but the most mundane forms of sexual conduct in a commercial setting, like an old man like Robert Craft getting his groin massaged by a middle aged woman is deemed “Prostitution”



    society would not collapse if we were more healthy in this way. Society would actually FLOURISH

    the scare stories and slipperly slope arguments of ACLU porn lawyers are all BS. We should CANCEL THEM

    and legalize non-harmful paid sex work in private by consenting adults.

    The film in question, sounds disgusting, I might add, and I don’t understand how Hollywood which now includes the big studio ops of Netflix, get away with such garbage.,

    I do not pay netflix one dime and I divested myself of the stock out of pure disgust

    1. I read about this movie and the reviewer said in a way the movie shows how cell phones sexualize children.

      Let’s look to the profiteers like Apple and Google who provide so much sexual content for kids improperly viewing it and ask, how can they get away with doing this for billions of dollars worth of business–

      but the sex offender down the road would end up violating his parole and back in jail if he dared to show a porn film to a kid?

      How can it all be so prevalent. It’s incredible how weak the state in America has become against the private interests.
      and we the people are so easily scared by the industries which profit over our ongoing degredation with all the liberterian schtick about slippery slopes

      We are FOOLS! Time to bring the state back with a bang I say. Call me whatever names you want.; The State must rise again in American and subdue the private bad actors who plague the people. We can and should be using laws and strong public adminstration of law to put them in their places.

      the centi-billionaire plutocrats have made willing slaves of us all. until we give them a haircut we remain that way

      1. I agree Mr K.

        We have to stop allowing these corporations from getting away with their Criminal promotion/exportation of child abuse/pedo crap/satanic torture of very young kids for profit.

        1. Oky it’s just unimaginable that in our lifetimes we have gone from a situation where the local pervert chomos are afraid of getting caught showing porn to underage kids like the homosexual mass murderer and pedo John Wayne Gacy did to his victims–

          to a country where the biggest names on the stock market like apple google are so complicit in showing porn to millions of kids on cellphones every single day and there are zero prosecutions and only hundreds of billions in revenues.

          all in the name of “free speech”

          i read that there was a scene or two in the Cuties movie where the girls were looking at porn on cell phones,. what a disgusting form of navel gazing netflix does! yes they are very complicit in this very thing. the technology did not HAVE to unfold the way it did. it did because they made it happen

          I remember before CDA there were often “age verification” portals on porn sites. this went by the wayside. free speech advocates said, slippery slope ,fascism!



        legal brothels will not totally eliminate dangerous street prostitution, but they do help protect the workers from violence and disease by having the premises under basic forms of security and health regulations. i favor legalization of brothels.

        Prostitution is legal to a large extent in the UK as well. Nations which have tolerated sex work have not been harmed by the wise move.

        It is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy that the ACLU defends every form of disgusting obscenity in the form of film but a normal private sex act for money is not a worry.
        why? The ACLU is not really about what it says it is. This has been apparent for many decades now, more so now than ever.

  2. It would sure be nice if you addressed the actual LAW for child pornography not involving nudity.

    You know, the Dost factors, from United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986),

    1. Clinton phased out federal obscenity prosecution. Bush II brought a handful of cases for the most disgusting which had been mass marketed at the time. ]
      Obama’s DOJ dragged their feet finishing those particular cases and brought not any more.

      Democrats are in favor of OBSCENITY that is well known to all.

      The old porn industry had certain standards believe it or not. Clinton-Obama collapse in prosecution lead the porn industry to toss those aside.

      Were they all that narrow or prudish? No just stuff like “no bestiality” and a handful of other very easily maintained standards.
      They were not from law, they were from a porn industry lawyer who had at least a modicum of common sense and apparently more decency that the OBama DOJ

      but that was then and this is now

      Now the kids can get porn on their phones all the time. Very hard to screen porn off cell phones. Parents stupidly give the kids phones thinking they can do so because the lying salesmen say so but then they fiind out better

      In the UK they have a law we should examine, ask ourselves, is this type of law so bad, really?
      who are we trying to protect by our crazy regime of extreme “free speech?”

      “Extreme pornography is a term introduced by the UK Government in Part 5, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008,[4] which made possession of such images a criminal offense from 26 January 2009.[5][6] It refers to pornography (defined as an image which “of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal”) which is “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”, and portrays any of the following:

      (a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
      (b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
      (c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
      (d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),
      and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

      The term covers staged acts, and applies whether or not the participants consent.[7][8] Classified works are exempt, but an extract from a classified work, if the image was extracted for the purpose of sexual arousal, would not be exempt. Whether an image is “pornographic” or not is up to the magistrate or jury to determine simply by looking at the image; it is not a question of the intentions of those who produced the image.[9] If an image is held in a person’s possession as part of a larger series of images, the question of whether it is pornographic is also determined by the context in which it appears. Therefore, an image might be legal in some contexts, but not in other contexts. Serious injury is not defined by the act, but is up to the magistrate or jury.[9] The bill gives examples of acts which would be covered: depictions of hanging, suffocation, or sexual assault involving a threat with a weapon; the insertion of sharp objects into or the mutilation of breasts or genitals.[10]”





      WE HAVE GONE CRAZY IN THE US WITH THESE STUPID OVER-EXTENSIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT legal-articles/why-is-pornography-legal-and-prostitution-is-not-31164

  3. Besides if someone wants to heat up their life with porn they can register democrat or just use their computer.

  4. The line between pedophilia and appreciation for the human form is a disturbingly manipulable one. Look at photos taken by David Hamilton. He used nose grease to blur the lens and make dreamy images of young girls in nature settings. Appreciating these images for their artistic qualities, you find most of the public. Those that are aroused sexually could be called pedophiles. The problem lies with those with the sickness, not so much with the art. Once, sitting on a rock by a stream I lost myself gazing at a 12 year old daughter of a friend. She wore a tattered straw hat, jean cut offs and no top. Standing there, ethereally obscured by the sunlight, holding a bamboo fishing rod my mind immediately thought of the colored images of women on peach baskets and apple boxes of decades ago. The sight evoked much but nothing sexual. Pedophilia is a sickness, wires are crossed physically in the brain of the disturbed. It’s not something that is learned or acquired by looking at images. There is something very religiously extreme in not permitting the beauty of the human body to be seen, simply because a few broken souls will get aroused. Is the answer to cover women in sheets and outlaw all objects emanating from human form or to fix the problems of those that are broken. This is the same with rapists and abusers. Hiding the object of perverse desire is not the way.



      they do not deserve the sympathy of being called “sick”


      that being said of course Isaac is right that an evil pedo can get tittilated by perfectly wholesome art

      “Cuties” is not wholesome art

      likewise i agree that hiding female beauty and nudity from all public display is inappropriate for our Western world. and yet healthier Western societies have put a limit on how much sex can be commodified and marketed and exploited in the public view. and we should get going back in that direction at least to a degree


      I reiterate that the best thing that can be done to deter and stop and punish pedophiles is by proper funding of local child welfare and protection authorities. they are the first line of defense against an ongoing avalanche of horrible things done to kids in bad homes.

  5. Professor Turley is an idiot. This is not a free speech issue. Freedom of expression is not a “right” established in our Constitution. This film is child pornography and should be prosecuted as such.

    1. +1

      The professor is naive. They’re turning the temperature up one degree at a time under the kettle.

    2. Roy, “ Freedom of expression is not a “right” established in our Constitution. ”

      Actually it is a protected right. It’s been asserted multiple times by the Supreme Court

  6. I used to thoroughly going to the taped movies, big disk movies, and through the entire list and browsing for rentals or purchases. Along came NetFlix with their limited choices and expensive down load requirements and bingo. If I have to do it that way I’ll go to Amazon. So what filled all those empty store fronts particularly the chain that had games in one and DVD in the other. Now I added to never going to malls never going to shopping centers. Can’t say I miss them or their TSA slash buy some insurance attitude. N o service just buy insurance as if they knew whatever product was going to fail.

  7. After the outrage express left the station, I watched the whole movie. The part of the film that many people will object to lasts about five minutes near the end of the film and can best be described as 11 year old girls doing Beyonce. I think most parents of young girls would find the dance contest scene inappropriate at the very least. And the film depicts adult audience members reacting negatively to the performance. This is clearly not a movie for the Disney channel but I don’t think it rises to the “cancel subscription” level and certainly not a criminal investigation.

    The black girl seen in the circulated clip is from an observant Somali family. She has just found out that her father has taken a second wife and his bringing her home where his current wife will be obligated to throw a wedding party for her husband and his new bride. Needless to say this is upsetting for wife number one and the little girl. That is why she gets involved with the “Cuties” dance group.

    What none of the televised reports show you is that she realizes, in the midst of the performance, what she is doing is wrong and runs off the stage and goes home. In the last scene of the film she is jumping rope with other kids outside the wedding.

  8. A standard barring “the sexualization of children” could result in…

    Adults don’t have a stellar track record when it comes to protecting the lives of the most vulnerable among us. What direction do you believe the American people will allow this to go once child porn is allowed under the conditions it is safe, legal and rare?

  9. I don’t think DOJ should pursue this at all. I’d rather have DOJ look into the interconnections and likely at least partly foreign-based funding of Antifa and BLM rioters.

    1. My first thought when I saw the video clips from the film Cuties was, “thanks Beyonce”…..this is Beyonce’s (and friends) contribution to twerking and sexualization of girls. Recall that Michelle Obama, as First Lady, hosted her good friend Beyonce with her daughter numerous times, including at Camp David. Beyonce taught the Obama girls and their friends how to “twerk.” How nice.

      “When they go low, we go high.” What a lie.

      1. You should thank white women like Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus too. For that matter, you should thank men who keep magazines like Hustler at home where their kids sneak a look.

    2. Agree with your comment. Not sure why my earlier comment, “thanks Beyonce,” landed here as a reply to yours. It was meant to be a stand alone comment.

  10. This type of entertainment that satisfies pedophiles and might fuel the child sex trafficking seems normal for the left (look at California). It was released by the left’s Netflix. They have paid Obama a huge amount of money and have given Obama’s Susan Rice a seat on the board. They should be proud.

    A major Biden donor comes from Netflix’s top management. I wonder if Biden will meet the young girls and play his touchy feely games.

    1. Trump is the one who walked in on teen girls while they were changing in dressing rooms.
      Trump is the one who palled around with Epstein, an actual pedophile.
      Trump is the who wished Ghislaine Maxwell well after she was arrested for sex trafficking.
      Trump is the one saying things about teen girls like “Look at that piece of ass. I would love some of that.”

      If you were actually concerned about pedophilia and sex trafficking, you wouldn’t be a Trump supporter.

      1. Student, when you speak with insufficient knowledge you end up looking pretty sad.

        Epstein and Trump were not pals. Trump threw him out of Mar a Lago. That tells us how small your knowledge base is. You speak in generalizations one’s that could be applied to you so try and provide proof for what you say, context and why what you believe has merit. Harvey Weinstein and H. Clinton were good friends

        For instance where did Trump say these exact words you quoted about teen girls? “Look at that piece of ass. I would love some of that.” Are those two sentences true or did you make them up and put them behind quotes? Do you think that men in general don’t look at pretty nineteen year old girls and remark about about their physical features? Do you live in a Nunnery?

        Where does a lot of this sexual perversion or libertine nature flow freely? Even you know the answer. Leftist Hollywood and who do they coexist with? Democrats.

        1. Allan, you choose to assume that Trump said “Look at that piece of ass. I would love some of that.” about a 19 y.o., but he said it about a 15 y.o., and if you just Google the quote, you’ll find reporting about it from sources like the Wall Street Journal. You mention a nunnery, but pedophile priests also took advantage of kids. Only a sick man fantasizes about getting it on with a 15 y.o.

          Video of Trump palling around with Epstein at a party, so familiar that he repeatedly whispers in Epstein’s ear:

          1. “and if you just Google the quote, you’ll find reporting about it from sources like the Wall Street Journal.”

            You put that sentence in quotes. That tells others that you are quoting someone verbatim. Are you saying that your use of quotes was a mistake?

            “Only a sick man fantasizes about getting it on with a 15 y.o.”

            There are plenty of “sick men” that look at 15 year olds but what 15 year old are you linking to Trump? You don’t have one in mind, do you? Are you mistaken there as well.

            I’ve been to Mar a Lago as have lots of people. Trump takes such pictures with loads of people but that doesn’t mean he is their friend. What tells one something is that Trump threw Epstein out of Mar a Lago because of Epstein’s behavior. Is this another mistake?

            Sometimes Trump has been crass. All of us can be accused of that at one time or another. We are not perfect. Trump never raped anyone. All his affairs were consensual. A person’s personal lifestyle is his own whether he has one or multiple partners, is gay, sleeps on top or the bottom. Who are you to tell anyone what type of lifestyle they should have unless they are using force like Bill Clinton.

            Are you from a Nunnery where your rules are set out by the Church or are you a free person that enjoys life in his own way as long as force is not used?

            1. Are you too lazy to look it up? Trump said it about Cohen’s daughter, and it’s in quotes in the newspapers.

              Trump was partying with Epstein in that video, it’s not a photo. Epstein was a Mar a Lago member and the Miami Herald reported that Trump “kicked Epstein out after Epstein harassed the daughter of a member. The way this person described it, such an act could irreparably harm the Trump brand, leaving Donald no choice but to remove Epstein.” Oooh, he was kicked out for harming the Trump “brand,” but Trump was happy to have Epstein the pedophile as a member in the meantime and happy to party with Epstein. The same article says that Ghislaine Maxwell recruited a spa attendant in her mid-teens at Mar a Lago, but yeah, Trump wishing sex trafficker Maxwell well is A-OK with Trump minions like you. Why didn’t Trump kick Maxwell the sex trafficker out of Mar a Lago too? You’ve suddenly lost your voice about that.

              Trump is right now fighting a court battle where he was ordered to give a DNA sample to someone who claimed he raped her. You have blind faith in Dear Leader to think all of his affairs were consensual.

              1. “Are you too lazy to look it up? Trump said it about Cohen’s daughter”

                The question at hand is whether or not Trump actually said those words and in what context it was made. Since you said it was all over the newspapers it should be easy to prove what you say, but you didn’t and asked if I was lazy. The answer is I am not lazy. I looked it up and this is what was reported: ““Look at that piece of ass,” Cohen recalls Trump saying” Now I have to ask, were you too lazy to check your work or do you not have the capacity to understand the written word.

                In other words a known liar a long time later is repeating a story quoting someone. That is not a factual quote of Trump. If you think it is fact then think of this. If I am quoted in the newspaper that your family member said “student4controlu is a pedophile and he admitted to it”. Would you consider that an accurate quote by your family member? Of course not. You would justifiably call it a lie.

                Not only that but you haven’t even provided the date of that conversation which likely places the female child above the age of consent.

                1. Trump employed Cohen to carry out Trump’s dirty work. If Cohen was honest enough for Trump for so many years, he should be honest enough for Trump minions like you.

                  The written word undermines your claim that the date “likely places the female child above the age of consent.” Vanity Fair: “It was 2012. … “Look at that piece of ass,” Cohen recalls Trump saying, as he whistled and pointed. “I would love some of that.” It so happened that Trump was referring to Cohen’s then 15-year-old daughter, Samantha.” The article continues that Samantha Cohen is now 24 and says “If you can hit on a 15-year-old, I am pretty sure there is something wrong with you.”

                  And Trump has made a lot of creepy comments about his own daughter. The Independent: “When Donald Trump was watching his 16-year-old daughter Ivanka host the 1997 Miss Teen USA pageant, he turned to the then-Miss Universe and asked: “Don’t you think my daughter’s hot? She’s hot, right?”” He’s on tape in 2003 when she was 22 saying “I helped create her. Ivanka. … She’s got the best body.” In 2004 he gave Howard Stern permission to call her “a piece of ass.” In 2006, he said “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her” on The View and told Howard Stern “She’s actually always been very voluptuous.” In 2015, a Rolling Stone reporter says “After I met Ivanka and praised her to her father, he said, “Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father . . . ”” He’s a pervert.

                  You ignore that Epstein was a member at Mar a Lago, you ignore the video of him and Trump partying together, you ignore Trump wishing sex trafficker Maxwell well, you ignore that Maxwell is accused of trafficking a teen employed at Mar a Lago, you ignore that Trump was ordered to give a DNA sample to someone who claimed he raped her, you ignore that teen girls said Trump walked into their dressing room while they were changing. That’s not even a complete list.

                  1. “Trump employed Cohen to carry out Trump’s dirty work.”

                    You keep grasping at straws. Cohen was friendly with Zucker and Chris Cuomo in case you didn’t view the tapes on those videos. They were giving Cohen advise and Cuomo was trying to teach Cohen how to answer questions in 2016 (don’t be lazy look up Tucker Carlson tapes of Cuomo and Cohen and another tape of Cohen and Zucker.)

                    Trump hired Cohen as an attorney. He didn’t know everything about him. I hire a lot of people thinking they would be good people. Some turn out to be “criminals” Your problem is that you are not exposed to the real world. You have your employer, your spouse and a few friends. Not terribly much exposure.

                    “If Cohen was honest enough for Trump for so many years, he should be honest enough for Trump minions like you.”

                    I’ve ended up firing a good number of attornies in my business career but you are starting to sound insulting for no reason. I used an excellent builder for a project . He had a steller reputation and known to do excellent work. Unfortunately, in the interim he got hooked on drugs and alcohol so I had to fire him. One can’t predict the future unless one has many aliases at which time one can make a slew of predictions where one of them might turn out to be correct.

                    I deal with only one name and one reputation. To bad you do not do the same.

                    1. Among Allan’s “employees” are Action Jackson and Barbie’s Ken.One guards his used pizza boxes and the other the stairs up to the house.

                    2. Btb, you can believe what you wish but that is why you are where you are and I am where I am. I know how proud you are that you can do your own taxes which are simple. You held that out as a great accomplishment of yours.

                    3. Trump directed Cohen to break the law for him in order to hide the hush money payments. Did Cuomo and Zucker direct Cohen to break the law for them? You’re the one who keeps grasping at straws.

                    4. “Trump directed Cohen to break the law for him in order to hide the hush money payments. Did Cuomo and Zucker direct Cohen to break the law for them? You’re the one who keeps grasping at straws.”

                      So far Student you are striking out on everyone of your claims. The quote wasn’t Trump’s rather it was Cohen. Next your paraphrasing was wrong as was almost everything else you said. Now we are dealing with new claims. As I stated just a moment ago these claims never stop even after they have been shown to not have adequate proof.

                      There is no law against paying someone for not saying something so even based on your comments Cohen didn’t break a law. You are too ignorant to even accuse of grasping at straws. First you would have to know what a straw was, but that is far above your ability.

                    5. Allan, you’re the one who is ignorant when you say “There is no law against paying someone for not saying something so even based on your comments Cohen didn’t break a law.” The hush money payments were illegal campaign contributions. They’re among the crimes Cohen was convicted of. If Trump weren’t President, he’d have been convicted of campaign finance violations in that scheme too.

                    6. “Allan, you’re the one who is ignorant when you say “There is no law against paying someone for not saying something so even based on your comments Cohen didn’t break a law.” The hush money payments were illegal campaign contributions. They’re among the crimes Cohen was convicted of.”

                      Student are you able to read and think? It doesn’t seem so. There was no mention in the discussion of the hush money being money from the campaign. Now there is but none of the charges against Cohen could be proven against the President. A deal was made with Cohen so he could admit to a whole slew of charges whether they were true or not. There is no proof that Trump was involved in campaign contributions that are not permitted and such a charge amounts to very little at least when dealing with that type of crime by politicians.

                      Take note Immad Zuberi was a top fundraiser for Obama and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns pled guilty. You draw a lot of unfounded conclusions. If you continue down this path you will become as bad as btb or one of his aliases.

                    7. Allan, you keep grasping at straws. You consistently sound insulting for no reason. It’s your go-to response.

                  2. “The written word undermines your claim that the date”

                    Wrong again. You are building a foundation based on something not known to be true. The words quoted were what Cohen wished to have quoted, not Trumps. Therefore, the whole story like the recent Atlantic Article has to be questioned. You are too willing to accept opinion as fact and too often that opinion is wrong.

                    In any event I already told you that at times Trump can be crass, but that is not exclusive of Trump since it is more inclusive of most males at one time in their lives. Excuse me for thinking you might come from a Nunnery. Your willingness to libel without the facts to back it up simply make you a plain old leftist.

                  3. ” He’s a pervert.”

                    Trump has, at least compared to myself, an excessive love for beautiful woman. Sometimes his unfiltered statements express things in a way that are crass. Most Trump supporters knew that when they voted for him. Not important. However, he is not a pervert.

                    What you are hearing is what goes through the minds of most men that filter what they say. That is not a perversion though you might be perverted because you are so intent on accusing others of that problem. It demonstrates a weakness of your arguments and your inability to climb the ladder. You can’t climb to get ahead. Instead you try to pull the guy ahead off the ladder. That doesn’t say much good about you.

                    1. You think most men fantasize about dating their daughter? I never fantasized about dating my daughter. Only pervs talk about their daughter like Trump talks about Ivanka.

                    2. “You think most men fantasize about dating their daughter? ”

                      Are you not smart enough to understand that men can even appreciate their daughters good looks? Probably not.

                      “I never fantasized about dating my daughter.”

                      I am shocked that you even learned the process of producing a child. Your mind is full of perverted thoughts so it sounds like you want to create a type of strawman to lessen your guilt.

                    3. Student, I couldn’t even bring myself to fantasize about my daughter’s friends, even when they were in college. It was like a shield dropped down in my brain, and they were then kids in our non-biological family.

                    4. “ Trump has, at least compared to myself, an excessive love for beautiful woman. Sometimes his unfiltered statements express things in a way that are crass.”

                      Allan, that’s hilarious. Being an apologist for a pervert is not a good way to make an argument.

                      “An excessive love” is common with perverts, especially when it comes from old geezers like trump while commenting on teens and 20 somethings. You can say Bill Clinton had an “excessive love” of women too.

                      All the excuses don’t change the fact that Trump is a pervert and a sexual harasser.

                    5. “Allan, that’s hilarious. Being an apologist for a pervert is not a good way to make an argument.”

                      Svelaz, it is far more likely that you are a pervert than Trump. We hear unfiltered thoughts. For you to make the statements you do is perversion on its own but you guys that wish to call others perverts without knowledge makes everyone wonder.

                      My question to you is when did you stop being a pervert or are you one to this day?

                    6. Allan, your mind is full of perverted thoughts so it sounds like you want to create a type of strawman to lessen your guilt.

                  4. “You ignore that Epstein was a member at Mar a Lago, you ignore the video of him ”

                    You ignore the fact that Mar a Lago is a business where the entry requirement is a very large check. You ignore the fact that Jeffrey Epstein being there with normal pictures taken at such a venue is nothing unusual. You ignore the fact that when Epstein was inappropriate he was thrown out. You like to impune another’s reputation with innuendo. That is a sickness.

                    What was the context of “Trump wishing sex trafficker Maxwell well”? A lot of peole wish her well not wanting her killed. You do not seem to provide context and you seem to draw conclusions ignorantly based on a lack of context or normal associations.

                    When you provide your DNA to prove you weren’t the rapist I will make sure Trump gives his. However that will not be necessary for you are more likely to be a rapist than Trump.

              2. “Trump was partying with Epstein in that video, it’s not a photo. Epstein was a Mar a Lago member”

                I could have been a member of Mar a Lago as well and then there would be videos of me but that doesn’t mean any friendship or anything else. It means I was able to write a check to buy a membership. Trump is the proprietor of a country club. If the proprietor of your favorite restaurant is a pedophile and pictures of you are taken with you and him would that make you a pedophile? Of course not. You don’t understand the difference between casual relationships and real relationships.

                1. There would be videos of Trump repeatedly whispering in your ear and dancing next to you, like there are of Trump and Epstein? You’re deluded if you think Trump did that with any old Mar a Lago member.

                  1. Have you been to Mar a Lago? Then how do you know?

                    You are making up stories and that is what ignorant people are forced to do, that and change their aliases a lot.

              3. You say: “Trump was happy to have Epstein the pedophile as a member”

                Did he know Epstein was a pedophile at the time? Did the Clintons know Epstein was a pedophile? Did all of those democrats that dealt with Epstein think of him as a pedophile? Grow up. In your life you probably associated with at least one bad person. Sometimes people are best friends until they realize that their spouse is sleeping with their best friend. Do you really want to hang your hat on such tripe?

                1. Epstein had a taste for young women just on one side or just on the other of the age of consent. There has been zero evidence adduced that he had any interest at all in prepubescent children. IIRC, there’s been just one accusation in re an early adolescent.

                  1. DSS, Student mentioned pedophilia and I didn’t want to nit pik. I don’t think it was necessary. He was wrong on many other issues.

                    You mentioned all of this before but I don’t believe this is the major point in the discussion at hand. It’s good for you to point out that Epstein’s target wasn’t prepubescent females, but it was his attraction to minors that is illegal and unseemly. Student tied that to Trump because there was a picture of Trump with Epstein at Mar a Lago.

                    Rather than focussing in on what is or isn’t a pedophile I prefer to discuss the errant linkage with Trump who has not been shown to force himself on women or have illegal sex with a minor


              4. “Trump wishing sex trafficker Maxwell well is A-OK with Trump minions like you. Why didn’t Trump kick Maxwell the sex trafficker out of Mar a Lago too? You’ve suddenly lost your voice about that.”

                Is Maxwell a member of Mar a Lago or are you adding more assumptions to your list of facts? I wished Maxwell well also. Epstein was killed and I hope she survives and can put a bunch of bad people in jail. Is that a bad wish? Will you lose your voice?

                You sound hoier than now so maybe you do live in a Nunnery but then you would be taught not to libel others something you seem very capable of doing just because you don’t like their politics.

                1. You wishing an indicted sex trafficker well is pretty creepy. You want her to put other bad people in jail while ignoring that she’s a bad person in jail. If Trump’s former Labor Secretary, Alex Acosta, hadn’t given Epstein the great deal in Florida, maybe Epstein would have been properly punished.

                  1. If Epstein had not have been working for the Deep State CIA then Acosta would not have been instructed to give him the sweet deal.

                    Do you think it’s impossible that CIA can arrange a murder of a suspect like Epstein? I think they could arrange it pretty easily.

                    They send in guys with “national security letters” who tell the guard to take a break.

                    They execute Epstein and make it look like suicide. ‘

                    Then they take the video tapes and doctor them so there is no “evidence” of them going up to his cell.,

                    The guard who takes the fall and gets in trouble for pretending to be asleep at the wheel? Oh they will take care of him. He had a choice. Plata o plombo.

                    Silver or lead. cooperate and he will get a suitcase of cash for his trouble, and it’s legal for him to copoerate anyhow since they have national security letters, or he will get whacked. And if he talks, he will get whacked. Do you think they can’t do this? Or that they dont? I suspect this is precisely what happened and all of us know it.

                  2. Student, it’s not creepy. That you want her dead is somewhat dumb since she has information that might put others in jail. I would prefer her to stay alive. You haven’t been truthful about quotes so I doubt you are truthful about context or the way you distort words. I think you are proving that.

                    “Alex Acosta, hadn’t given Epstein the great deal in Florida, maybe Epstein would have been properly punished.”

                    There were all sorts of legal issues with the case and huge amounts of pressure from above so I am not sure that legally he could have been convicted. Alan Dershewitz provided a good explanation. I don’t know if I would accept it but the question is not settled. People with money and political people like Clinton surely had some impact.

                    1. The county prosecutor involved also went on the “soft side”. He was a democrat and is the same one that went after Rush Limbaugh.

                    2. NB, the plea deal was concluded during the interval between Alberto Gonzalez departure from the department and Michael Mukasey’s arrival. The chief of the Criminal Division was one Alice Fisher, who left the department about six months later. Fisher was previously a partner at Latham and Watkins, a BigLaw firm in Washington, and returned there in 2008. Aside from Acosta and the lawyers on his staff working the case, Fisher is the one to grill about why the decisions in question were made.

                    3. I have a suspicion that the evidence against Epstein for sex offenses is a great deal weaker than people imagine and that some of these witnesses would be chewed to pieces by defense counsel.

                      One thing I’d like an answer to is the origin of his income flow. From what I’ve read, there’s no grand reason to believe he was ever actually in business. He was a front for something else, but who knows what?

                    4. “I have a suspicion that the evidence against Epstein for sex offenses is a great deal weaker than people imagine”

                      I mentioned that earlier and if you wish to know more read what Alan Dershowitz had to say about it.

                      Also I believe that the FBi was called in by the police because this prosecutor ( a Democrat) was felt to be going soft and wsa felt to have wrecked a good portion of the case. An investigation by a local newspaper followed. I don’t have time to look the details up but they got the actual transcripts and blamed the prosecutor.

                      I think some of the prosecutors “errors” caused difficulty for the federal case. I don’t want to specify more because I would have to review the case.

                    5. Allan, you claiming that I want her dead is extremely dumb. We would both rather that she be alive.

                    6. “Allan, you claiming that I want her dead is extremely dumb. We would both rather that she be alive.”

                      Student, Anyone reading your responses would instantly realize that your dumb statements created that belief. You boxed yourself in and now you want to escape by blaming someone else. The dumbness was on your part. Of course most want her to remain alive for many reasons. That is what Trump wants as well and many of us possibly including Trump think that the possibility of her being killed is great.

              5. “Trump is right now fighting a court battle where he was ordered to give a DNA sample to someone who claimed he raped her. You have blind faith in Dear Leader to think all of his affairs were consensual.”

                This is an old case brought at a hot political time. Can I have some of your DNA? Maybe you raped her. We can get your DNA and publish in the headlines that the DNA of student4controlu was taken to prove he is a rapist. Should I have blind faith in you and believe you didn’t rape the woman? Is that how things work?

                You have proven that your new alias deals in convenient conjecture instead of fact. I assume this alias like the others will soon disappear. Mine, howver will remain because I live by my word and apparently you do not.

                1. If someone accused me of rape and said that her rapist’s DNA was on her dress, I’d absolutely agree to giving a DNA sample, because I know that it would prove that it’s not my DNA on her dress.

                  Trump proclaims innocence while working his damnedest to avoid providing court-ordered evidence that would help him if he were actually innocent.

                  1. Student, that is because the position you hold is low and near meaningless anonimity. As President he can’t afford to open himself to more and more spurious claims from the left. Just look at what happened to Kavanaugh where fortunately there was a time limit to stop your type of cheap and unfounded accusations.

                    I doubt you have the ability to understand what I am saying, but that is OK for most people recognize this type of attack for what it is.

    2. “ It was released by the left’s Netflix. They have paid Obama a huge amount of money and have given Obama’s Susan Rice a seat on the board. They should be proud.”

      ROFL!! All of a sudden Netflix is part of the left. That’s hilarious. I think conservatives have a much bigger problem with pedophelia. The Catholic Church is conservative. Church pastors who are conservatives end up in sex perversion scandals on a regular basis, the latest being Jerry Falwell jr.

      Spare us the fake outrage.

      1. I can’t help your ignorance either of Netflix’s leadership or the Catholic Church.

        One has to permit you to lie in the sewer of your ignorance.

        1. Allan, I can’t help your ignorance. One has to permit you to lie in the sewer of your ignorance.

  11. How about we ask the girls of “Epstein Island” to tell us if an investigation is appropriate?

  12. Although I am for free speech, if nothing is done about this, it just normalizes it and we will see more of it. It’s time to re-read “Brave New World”.

    How is it that the Washington Redskins can be forced to change their name due to advertiser pressure or how is it that Drew Brees can make a truthful statement and then be brought into room 101 and be re-educated but Netflix sponsors will be silent to this?

  13. For once, agree with JT. This is free speech. What should be done if we are to believe we have a commonly held core of moral beliefs in this nation is to boycott and shame those responsible for this entity by not allowing it to thrive and let public condemnation through our own free speech send this piece of trash into the dustbin and evoke shame upon those responsible. Let “We the People” take appropriate action.

  14. I’ve already denounced it. I do not believe in wasting resources to investigate it.

    What are you going to find? That a bunch of mom-angers and dad-angers (yes, they do exist, i.e., Jessica Simpsons father, Shia L. B. father), wanted their children to become famous actors/ actresses and its never too early to start the show biz game? That some of these parents will pimp their kids out for money and fame? That some of them want to take their financial cut from their children working on sets?

    Yes, these are all things we already know.

    I know Cancel Netflix is going around. Good idea! Better yet, put a hammer right through the middle of your TV, you’ll live a much happier and peaceful life. But don’t do that if you have roommates or others in the house because they might get upset. 🤔 🤷 😏

    1. I don’t do social media or whatever it’s called. It doesn’t feed to me when I’m half way across the ocean and the subject matter level is way too low. Now I’m done with the cruising I still don’t use it. Net Flix falls in that category and since the end of the last century television as well. Life is far more pleasant without having to choose which kind of time wasting garbage etc etc etc. What a sad empty life people must live to make the toob the master of their thinking.

  15. Prof Turley,

    Without raising my blood pressure any more then what you already have this morning with your comments here I’d just say someone in your family or a friend needs to slap you to the …… & tell you Hell No, you people have to stop the !!!! supporting the Normalizing our population with the Debauchery of a bunch Devil Worshipping Paedophiles!

    I’ll just tell you here, we, the American people will no long allow people like you/others to look the other way as young kids are sexual abused! That’s one of the main reasons powerful people hate Trump as they’re tied to their Pedo Crap & Trump is shutting them down.

    How could I say this more Strongly Prof Turley? Tell me.

    BTW: Why don’t your atone for your Sin & throw a few hundred thousands dollars to: !

    Newsom Signs Bill to Amend Sex Offender Law Reducing Penalties For Sex with ‘Willing’ Same-Sex Minors
    By Cristina Laila
    Published September 12, 2020 at 2:38pm

    1. Oky, everyone is losing their minds over a controversial 5 min. of a documentary. There are far more controversial documentaries out there.

      Trump himself bragged about being able to walk in on beauty pageant contestants because he was the sponsor. Trump has stated he would date his daughter if she wasn’t her daughter. This is the same man who is on record claiming he grabs women by the pu$$y because they let him.

      Your outrage is very selective. Where was Trump’s outrage at the Catholic Church’s pedophile priests?

      The documentary is controversial. Just because people don’t like what it shows doesn’t mean the government can censor it. Free speech includes free expression and it is protected speech. If Netflix is investigated than anything can be investigated because people don’t like something. That’s infringing on someone else’s freedom.

  16. Yes the Republicans want a film investigated but using federal agents as a private army to attack peaceful protesters for a photo op, no problem,. Using the DOJ as Trump’s private law firm, no problem. Falsifying CDC reports, no problem. Stealing money from a fund meant for 9/11 victims, no problem. The Republicans are all about “law and order”.

    1. Malcolm X also said “I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those that do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation.”

    2. I like Rev Al’s name for the problems in the nation “Latte Liberals” that takes in All Races and All Lives.

    3. Justice Holmes Here’s what your peaceful protestors did before the stupid Wisconsin Governor finally allowed Trump to send in the National Guard. According to Heather Wessling, the vice president of economic development for the Kenosha Area Business Alliance, 100 businesses have sustained significant damage and roughly 40 businesses are “out of business” for good. Based on the business association’s findings, around $50 million in damage was done to buildings and businesses, Kenosha News reported. Now take this number and think of what the damage was in New York, Chicago, Portland, Minneapolis and the list goes on and all Democratic Mayors who refused help.

  17. I don’t think that freedom of speech is an absolute right, if the expression promotes something which is contrary to society’s best interests (i.e. protection of children from sexual expxloitation). It seems obvious to me that *Romeo and Juliet* isn’t a provocative display of a pre-pubescent female, so that is a huge difference from what I have seen of *Cuties.* Someone is seeking to profit from something which is exploitative and trashy. Perhaps government action is not the best solution. Another option would be for offended individuals to cancel their Netflix subscriptions. That might get their attention.

Comments are closed.