Skip to comments.
Judge Rules 'Girls Gone Wild' Is Not Porn
Associated Press ^
| Mar. 09, 2004
| AP
Posted on 03/09/2004 11:17:45 PM PST by Redcloak
Posted on Tue, Mar. 09, 2004
Judge Rules 'Girls Gone Wild' Is Not Porn
Associated Press
PANAMA CITY, Fla. - A videotape of an underage girl exposing her breasts is not child pornography, a judge decided Tuesday in a criminal case against the producer of the "Girls Gone Wild" video series.
Joe Francis, 30, and several of his employees were arrested at Panama City Beach while filming during spring break last April. Bay County sheriff's deputies charged Francis with racketeering related to prostitution and other crimes, based largely on videotapes of girls under 18.
Many of the 43 counts he faces hinge on what conduct is considered illegal or pornographic.
"This ruling shows that the entire fabric of that claim is wrong," said defense lawyer Aaron Dyer of Los Angeles. Dyer said he expected the ruling to undermine at least 90 percent of the case.
Circuit Judge Michael C. Overstreet made his decision in ordering that defense lawyers be allowed to copy tape confiscated during a search of Francis' rented condominium last spring.
Prosecutors had tried to prevent the copying on grounds the videotape showing a girl "flashing" her breasts was illegal child pornography. Florida's child pornography law makes the depiction of "sexual conduct" illegal and defines that term to include physical contact. There was no physical contact in the video.
State Attorney Jim Appleman did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Prosecutors contend Francis and his video crew enticed girls they knew were underage to expose themselves. The defendants deny the allegation and say the girls had lied about their ages.
Francis owns Mantra Entertainment Inc. of Santa Monica, Calif., which produces and distributes the videos.
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; US: California; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: activistjudge; barebreasts; childporn; childpornography; clintonlegacy; culture; culturewar; denialaintariver; exhibitionism; flashing; ggw; girlsgonewild; itsjustsex; jailbait; judicialtyranny; lesbiansituations; naked; nude; nudity; permissivesociety; porn; pornographer; poronography; sexualizingchildren; underagegirls
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
To: Keith in Iowa
Bill O'Reilly is probably going to wet himself in outrage over this one... I normally don't watch O'Reilly, but I would tune in for that!
21
posted on
03/10/2004 7:32:04 AM PST
by
Redcloak
("Aye...And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon." -Capt. Montgomery Scott, Starfleet, ret.)
To: unspun
Everyone has a different definition of porn. For me porn is anything that turns me on, which is just about anything. As long as it's straight.
22
posted on
03/10/2004 7:35:12 AM PST
by
biblewonk
(I must try to answer all bible questions.)
To: BibChr
I've never seen GGW, but I thought it wasn't porn. Just nudity.
So I guess the underage girl thing isn't "porn" but it should obviously still be illegal in the "corrupting a minor" sense (though I have a feeling these girls were pretty solidly corrupted before GGW found them.)
They're still minors and a grown man should go to jail for getting involved in this sort of behavior with them.
Sixteen will get you twenty. Or should anyway.
23
posted on
03/10/2004 7:36:51 AM PST
by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: Redcloak
Florida's child pornography law makes the depiction of "sexual conduct" illegal and defines that term to include physical contact. There was no physical contact in the video. Well, that settles that, unless you believe that judges ought to legislate from the bench.
24
posted on
03/10/2004 7:45:01 AM PST
by
steve-b
To: Redcloak
Great! Now I can show it in class!
To: Teacher317
(Do I really need to put the sarcasm tag?)
To: biblewonk; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; restornu; GreatEconomy; Final Authority; xzins; marron; ...
Everyone has a different definition of porn. For me porn is anything that turns me on, which is just about anything. As long as it's straight. Right, pretty much the same with me. Seems to me there is much ground to be gained here, as to defninitions of a. public, and b. child, and c. commercial, and, d. utterly unacceptable porn, which communities and state legislatures could use (also federal government for Internet, etc.). The same with verbal, etc. decency standards.
Difficult definitions should still be made, don't you think? They don't have to be utterly strict, they just have to be there. Know what? Those definitions are probably already out there, and being used. It's not quite the kind of thing that gets trumped up by mass media, though.
"Industry people" (whatever the industry) like to preserve the "right to police ourselves." No wonder that so many talk hosts, columnists, and paid talking heads are against regulation of the media - a no-brainer. Then of course, they like to avoid policing themselves. So, that's what checks and balances are for.
27
posted on
03/10/2004 7:51:41 AM PST
by
unspun
(The uncontextualized life is not worth living. | I'm not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate.)
To: WOSG
LOL, your wife probably gets out of shape if you go to the mall and turn your head.
Comment #29 Removed by Moderator
To: ppaul
30
posted on
03/10/2004 8:02:16 AM PST
by
WOSG
(http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
To: xm177e2
The ruling certainly seems to state that it's legal. Not only is it legal to tape them flashing their breasts, it's apparently legal to knowingly seek out underage girls to get them to flash their breasts for pornography (because that's what the GGW film crew was accused of doing). This is insane. Actually, this article doesn't go into all the details about the charges and the case. Legally, its not pornography under Florida law. The big deal was that a few girls were underage. However, they produced fake ID's and presented themselves as "of age". Now, unless a girl testifies in court she was explicitly told to lie about her age, then they have no case, legally. PERSONALLY, I think you could argue that GGW didn't take the best precautions to ensure the girls were of age, but apparently the court didn't see it that way. Personally, again, I doubt the producer cared if they were 16 or 22, but I can't prove that.
In addition, there are more charges concerning public nudity and enciting public nudity. The penalies aren't very stiff, though.
To: unspun
I think the cat is out of the bag whan you have legal porn and strip clubs and even prostitution for all practical purposes. We all know, myself included, mens appetites for such things. The imaginary line between 17.9 and 18 is laughable. Girls were married at 14 not too long ago right here in rivercity and now we're suppose to have a filter that kicks in at 18 years old. The hard decision to make is to de-legitimize the whole sex industry.
32
posted on
03/10/2004 8:17:30 AM PST
by
biblewonk
(I must try to answer all bible questions.)
To: GreatEconomy
!
33
posted on
03/10/2004 8:19:44 AM PST
by
BibChr
("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
To: atomicpossum
So, it's okay to sell videos of underage girls in various stages of undress? The key is "knowingly" sell. If they lie, and present fake documentation, then it makes it hard for you to be prosecuted.
A good example is Tracy Lords. She was 16 and 17 when she did all but one of her porn films. She had lied, and had fake documents. Although every "actor" was scared to death at first, nobody was ever charged with stat rape, child abuse or child porn. The videos were ordered to be destroyed. Now, possession of one today is illegal, but the participants didn't go to prison because there was no way they could have known she wasn't of age.
I think those producers had a better case than the GGW producers, but apparently the court in Florida doesn't think GGW should be liable.
To: freedomluvr1778
The penalies aren't very stiff, though. Pun intended?
35
posted on
03/10/2004 8:23:36 AM PST
by
Cooter
To: capt. norm
"During Spring Break in Panama City Beach (where I am...and it's S.B. now) you will see almost as much exposed 'skin' on Front Beach Road as you'd ever expect to see in that movie. The traffic moves at a pace slower than walking and the female occupants of the vehicles expose themselves for beads. Hey, they claim the settlers bought Manhattan with beads, so things haven't really changed that much." Got pictures?
36
posted on
03/10/2004 8:29:08 AM PST
by
nobody_knows
(<a href="http://http://www.michaelmoore.com/" target="_blank">moral coward)
To: spetznaz
If all pictures of naked kids were illegal then everyone's mother would be in jail. The problem the law has always had with porn is defining with words something that doesn't lend itself to words. Where is the line between the ever popular naked baby on a rug and kiddy porn? We all know it instinctively but putting into words, words that can get people thrown in jail for a very long time, is difficult, nearly impossible.
37
posted on
03/10/2004 8:29:20 AM PST
by
discostu
(but this one has 11)
To: Teacher317
You can run it backwards for class and call it "Bad Girls Learn Their Lesson"
38
posted on
03/10/2004 8:33:48 AM PST
by
Slicksadick
(Go out on a limb.....................It's where the fruit is.)
To: Redcloak
A videotape of an underage girl exposing her breasts is not child pornography, a judge decided...It's the Super Bowl half-time show.
To: bonfire
Anyone see "Curb Your Enthusiasm" last week? Of course I did, I am a survivor.
40
posted on
03/10/2004 9:07:21 AM PST
by
Hillary's Lovely Legs
(I got some new underwear the other day. Well, new to me.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson