Posted on 08/09/2004 7:55:21 AM PDT by presidio9
A judge ruled a 19-year-old Tuscaloosa woman who revealed her breasts in a "Girls Gone Wild" video must give her name to those she sued over the video, but does not have to disclose it publicly.
Circuit Judge Steve Wilson partially sealed the case Thursday, keeping the 19-year-old's identity from being made public.
The woman, along with two others, filed suit in March claiming a "Girls Gone Wild" film crew persuaded them to expose their breasts when they were 17 years old and not of legal age. The other two dropped out of the case for fear of having their names revealed.
Defense attorney Timothy Cummins said the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence in the case.
"The plaintiffs want media coverage. They want to seek monetary status," he said. "And now, they want to hide, and that's not fair"
The woman's attorney, Calvin Rockefeller, said his concern is to keep her name out of the media, but agreed with the ruling.
Mantra Films, the California-based company that owns "Girls Gone Wild," its CEO Joe Francis, and some Alabama video stores have been named in the suit. Rockefeller said Penthouse was recently added as a defendant.
...a "Girls Gone Wild" film crew persuaded them to expose their breasts when they were 17 years old and not of legal age.
&&
Did the crew have guns drawn to force the tramps to do this? As much as I think the producers of this sort of junk are scum, the girls who are letting themselves be used by them are just as low.
Looks like these girls want to go to the "Velvet Jones school of technology"
Remember that one?
I suppose the payoff check was supposed to be made out-
Pay to the order of (.)(.)
I recall reading that the producers of the video would hold parties..lots of liquor...then when the girls were "feeling no pain" encourage them to flash..so the issue is also about encouraging underage drinking..
Okay, I'll go ahead and say it, and get it over with...
Pics?
Pamela Anderson
*** the producers of the video would hold parties..lots of liquor...***
Same issue.
No one poured drinks down these girls throats.
Legal age is legal age. I, too, wonder where their parents were, and why they didn't teach their girls better. But these girls WERE underage. Perhaps they should sue to have the footage in which they are shown removed from the film.
\_'(!)'_/
They're underage..it's illegal to knowingly serve liquor to minors..
Gee whiz, I can think of alot worse things that could happen to them then people seeing their titties.
If you run it backwards, its "Girls learn their lesson"
Under age laws exist because little girls (and boys) can be persuaded to do practically anything. It doesn’t take a “gun to their head”. They just have so little real world experience that a good conman can twist their since of right and wrong. It takes time/experience for that moral since to harden.
Same issue; sex with a 6 year olds is not allowed, even though, “no one puts a gun to their head”.
The producers should have asked for ID. They didn’t. Now they’re screwed.
My thoughts, the producers are scum, the girls exhibited bad judgement. However, if feel the girls should not be able to enrich themselves and their lawyers based on thier poor decision.
That said, if the girls were under the age of 18 when they were video taped, then would not this video fall under the category of child pornagraphy and thus be illegal to show or distribute?
woops...if=I
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.