|
Quote:
|
Seems to me what you are really complaining about is the deal his lawyers were able to make for him...
from the AVN.com story: Quote:
This case is no different from most any legal case..the judge has the ability to impose a variety of penalties on the guilty party. He admitted guilt, made a deal for a lesser sentence..the DOJ and the Judge accepted the deal terms. Yes he could have fought it and who knows he might be in jail if he had..but he didn't. Does his celebrity and ability to afford top legal representation make a difference?..I'm sure it didn't hurt, at the same time I'm sure they choose to investigate him in an attempt to make a high profile example of him as well...so it's a double edged sword...could have easily gone either way. You could possibly have the same options if you were in his situation..would the DOJ/prosecutors willingness to make a deal with you based on the subject matter be considered? of course..just as any case would be based on the details of the crime...happens every day, nothing new. Is a vanilla porn producer going to be judged differently than extreme hardcore producer?..probably so. Right or wrong its the world we live in. We can debate that subject all day...in the end reality sets in and you have to ask yourself if you are willing to take the risk? Are you willing to fight and take a chance at jail time? or if given the opportunity would you take probation and community service? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
wow an intelegent post.... well bro honestly... I think it's a fucked up situation that we all deal with everyday... I get it everyday for obsenity who's to say whats obscene.. but this was underage girls... bottom line... the judge is at fault as well... I am not pissed at joe at all or his attorneys they did what there paid to do right.... but the legal system that lets that happen... look were in a high risk business for everything... std's fraud,pimps,2257, you name it we take that chance in this industry...it just reminds me of the dave chapelle stand up..... when he's talking about his white buddy speeding and gets pulled over... so his buddy says to the cop... "i.... i didn't know I couldent do that"..... joe knew.. and if he didn't know then people would be getting fired on the spot for not bringing it to my attention.... .. it's a fucked up thing when a guy who shoots "vanilla porn" gets away with filming underage girls but if people like steve sweet, me, duke, max filmed underage girls we'd be serving jail time.... and for anyone to sit here and say well it's just topless... were pornographers..... I consider myserlf in the same boat as say steve lightspeed, or danni..... do I shoot that type of content? nope but I would come to their backs anyday of the week because were all pornographers.... we have laws set in plae and we have to follow them... thats all I am going to say... a year ago when that 2257 thing for secondary producers.... that scared the shit outta everyone right? well it's a law and as company owners we went about ensuring that we did not break the law and we obide by that law... I mean really and truley can people on this board really sit here and say that it's ok for him to get out of it the way he did? |
Because they would rather take his money than pay for his stay in jail.
|
The law should be the same for everybody.
|
This all happened before 2257 was law !
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Which GGW title are you refering too? Back in 2002 when the incident they were in court over took place they had nothing other than flashing and softcore girl/girl scenes. I know they have a couple new ones out, maybe they're more hardcore. On another note, They only have to block kids faces if it's over something being investigated (because of the young offenders act) or if the sitatuation being reported would put the minor in harms way. If you're filming a swimming competition, news interview, disneyland commercial, mardi gras, whatever... you don't have to censor anything or get ID's from anyone. If you did mothers would be arrested every time they filmed their kids at the park or at the beach and school photographers would be hauled downtown every time a class photo is taken. Wouldn't make any sense. And 2257 record keeping would not apply to the vast majority of the old GGW 'flashing' type content because it is not sexually explicit as defined in USC110S2256. But you make it sound like they purposely went around looking for minors when that's far from the truth. ps. ya, im pretty sure they recalled the traci lords video(s) in question... GGW also removed a large number of their dvd titles because of this incident as well. |
This was about records keeping violations in general, not CP. It just so happened that a few underage party girls slipped in and flashed their tits. He'll never be put on trial for CP because no jury is going to agree that tit flashing in public is the same thing as XXX porn.
Only far right conservatives think otherwise. Just look at the Janet Jackson fiasco from a few years ago. In any other major country that story would have been limited to entertainment shows and magazines for a week and then died. In the US there are a few extremely vocal people who will even harass a mother for breast feeding her newborn baby in public. If these types didn't exist, you'd see breasts on network TV just like they do in other parts of the world. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yeah, I guess we're all sorry. |
Quote:
I can't find any documentation of USC110S2256 anywhere whe I search you got anything I can read on it... I am not aware of that one.... all I found was this when seraching for it http://fuk.ca/al/sbh/mgp/party-girls/pw.html... and I hear you about the swimming but the cops were standing over me watching every move I make... reminds me of a buddy that called me up one day and said... hey danza I got arrested last night for wearing red shoes... I said get the fuck outta here they can't arrest you for that.... he said yeah I know but I am calling you from jail now...... so I dunno... running a company like GGW you need to dot your i's and cross your t's it's worth alot of money... we won this time but what abuot next time and next time... and the other guys now.... and thats the prob someone said oh some drunk 17 year old flashed her titties to the camera no big deal... ok look I like tities as much as the rest of you do.... but no big deal? she's a minor nakkie on camera.... thats the prob with it... it takes 2 secs to say.. sweetie how old are you? can I see your ID? thanks... how hard is that.... when I go on interviews I check ID before I even say hello... when we fly girls out they fax in all info on them prior too.... if and when we shoot spring break stuff... someone goes and "sets everything Up" prior too..... joe dodged a bullet on this one.... another thing... ok so you guys are saying I am preaching morality... I am not... but what does this say to the rest of the population? you know the people we wish would leave us alone? this fuels their flames more as well.... oh well... |
My thoughts are this... Jails should be for people that commit crimes like rape, burglary, assault, pedo wankers etc.. not for a bloke shooting a 17 year old flashing her tits. You should be grateful you arent having to foot the bill for paying for his incarceration as your jails are already full-up to breaking point.
But hey I live in a country where what he did wouldnt have been illegal as topless shots at 16 are allowable so what do I know? So what do you think would have been a reasonable amount of time to serve? 6 months? 20 years? |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123