Girls Gone Wild Ruled NOT Porn!
 

http://www.local10.com/news/2910787/detail.html

They said the 16 year old girls in the GGW videos is not child porn because Florida states there must be physical contact to be considered "sexual conduct".

Reactions?

So a single girl posing 100% nude isn't child porn if she's 16 ? :helpme

If that's the case they just opened a much bigger can of worms.

That's just wrong :(

Yea what about those pedos who collect underage pics?

My father says it and its so true "rich men dont go to jail" If any of us had done that we would be sitting in a cell already . lol

Thats so fucking wrong it maks me sick!

I remember a case a few years back in B.C. i think about some guy with underage nudie pics, and it was ruled to be "art" because there was no actuall contact or sex. In a way I see the point, but in another way if some creep compiles thousands of nude kid pics, no way is it art. That's a sickness.
It's like those Huggies commercials where you see a babys butt. Not porn at all, but it is a nude child. Very sticky subject.

Isn't there a trick about nudist stuff? Maybe it is coming from that angle. the girls were in an environment where lots of people were topless so it was a nudist area and taking pictures of nudists is legal.

Disclaimer: I am not positve about the nudist thing but I think I saw somethign on it.

Nudity of a minor is not CP. That's been established in many other cases already, mostly involving the sale of photographic nude art style books at stores.

It doesn't even have to be a single girl. It can be several girls. The girl must be posing in a sexual way or doing something that makes it sexual. The reason the law is like this, is that if you have pics of your baby or young kid nude up on your fridge, you would get busted if the law said all nudity under 18 is illegal.

I'm surprised most of you don't know this. There have been books in the bookstores of all nude girls under the age of 18 in the US. Being under 18 and nude is not considered sexual under the law. Only if it's in a sexual position (posing or doing something sexual). It's a fine line.

I'm not a lawyer, so I could just be talking out my ass. But this has been my understanding of the law about this since I was alittle kid and that book came out in the bookstores that caused alot of trouble (I think it was in the late 70s or early 80s).

world is going crazy

the point is that they claim that the girls lied about their age.

i mean even for non porn stuff you are supposed to get a release signed if you broadcast someone's image. so for flashing i would expect girls gone wild producers to ask them an ID just for the "title 18" supposed to be on the site.

they are pretty stupid if they didn't check the girls and deserved to be in court. if not for CP they should have been charged for not going by the rules.


just my opinion

i guess this book was David Hamilton's right?

or war. :2 cents:

That sounds right. There was a big controverse about it when it came out in most of the bookstores. It was in the art section.

It depends where the image was shot on rather a release has to be signed or not. Like on the news, they don't get a release from everybody they show. My understanding is if it is in a public area, no release is needed. Even in a private club, if there is at least a sign at the door saying that they are shooting a video a release is not needed (at least the music videos I have been to, they had that). That's just my understanding.

It's absolutely true. Justice and the law have a price tag.

What's really scary about this is that the police and DA should *know* that nudity is not child porn but that they take the case to court anyway in hope of railroading people into pleading their cases.

I'm all for supporting the police and the law, but this is another sad example of the religious right rearing its ugly head in government and wasting a lot of your tax money to further their agenda.

*thinks*

A girl lifting her clothes to display her naked breasts... oh, that's COMPLETELY non sexual. :winkwink:

So if your down at the beach and see a 3 year old girl with no top on playing in the water, it's sexual? Most of the world, except for the US and maybe some other countries, a girl walking around with no top on is no big deal. It's no different than a guy with no top on walking around.

Sexual to one person is not sexual to another. That's why the law is in place like it is. If the law said that a pic of a girl showing her breast was sexual, most of the parents would be in jail now with the pics of their kids. This was all sorted out in the 70s when some parents were brought to court for having pics of their kid on their fridge. Their kids where young and had no clothes. These parents friends came over, saw the pics on the fridge and reported them. The parents had to go to court over pics of their own kids on a fridge.

Boobs by themselves are not sexual, it's the action of a post-pubescent girl lifting the top to expose them that is sexual. That was my point.

There are perverts that get off on little girls breats, :(
What might turn one on might not turn someone else on, but the sad reality is that the world is fullof sick pervets that get off un little girls and young teens.

well the public notice in clubs is true as i recall that we had to put up similar signs when shooting movies in clubs, but there is a difference in mardi gras between a simple silhouette and a person flashing her tits in front of a camera

you guys are saying girls posing 100% at 16 would be considered legal with this ruling but with this case it was FLASHING ... Eithjer way it is wrong but there is a huge diffrence between posing nude and just flashing a camera

i think they are fucking idiots for putting 16 year olds int here video's but wahtever floats there boat

Wait, were there really cases where someone was tried for having pictures of their kids on the fridge that were nude or semi-nude?

Jesus, whats the fucking big deal...in the summer the beaches here are full of 15 and 16 yr old girls topless.

And she fucking flashed her tits, nobody else did it, only her.

16 yr old with naked tits...how the hell can that be child porn? I wouldnt even call it a child let alone porn, where is the porn part?

why they don't just use 18 year and older girlsq

I dont agree with that at all. Taking pics of underaged girls isnt right.

True, but saying its childporn???

And she fucking knew she was underaged and still flashed her tits. They should go after her for public nudity and being nude + underaged.

isn't it ironic that adult webmasters cant even define porn? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

So this means we can all start shooting 16 year olds nude huh? Interesting shit.

word!

MILF is ok ;), but not the other way.

If any of us did that we would be sittinh in a 9x12 cell right know labled as a criminal. Dont let that ruling fool you. Its only ok if you can afford it

Porn: Images or sounds that are shot with the intention to be used to masturbate or get you going =) In other words.. who here jerks off to the jcpenney catalog? :Graucho Just like the Victoria's Secret catalog.. I bet a few ppl jerk off to that but the INTENTION of the pics and the catalog is to sell undies... not to have guys jerk off.. SOOOOO...

A girl who is 16 sunbathing topless at the beach is not the same as her posing topless for pics or video that is going to be sold or used for "entertainment"...

just my :2 cents:

por·nog·ra·phy n.
Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
The presentation or production of this material.



Thats the definition of porn.

So the question is what is the purpose of Girls gone Wild?


Is that footage suppose to a comedy or something?

It can be vague in definition. All it takes is money to rub the definition in your favor

I'll have to see if it's on the internet somewhere. I just remember watching about it on the news when I was kid.

salon.com had a big article about parents getting busted for dropping off film at wal-mart etc.

The ruling was about wether or not prosecutors had to turn over copy of tape to defense.

hasn't that dude from GGW had shitloads of cases dropped? so why would they start with a pedo case. Money and power owns the judical system,makes me hate being a amercian sometimes.

I was just looking at that. Here are 2 (long) articles.
http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature...aid/print.html
This one is about taking pics of a mother breast feeding her kid.
http://dallasobserver.com/issues/200...tml/print.html

I haven't found one about the pics on the fridge and their friends telling cops about the pics. This was before the internet was for the public, so I might not be able to find it.