Printable View
Sorry for linking to another board, but..
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?p=12233309
Note the post "Those underage bitches were wrong".
Im sorry but WHAT THE FUCK??
GGW are now forgiven? They had underage models in porn that ADULT WEBMASTERS like us promoted?
That mentality to me is just sick.
Well not for nothing, but *IF* the girls lied about their age, showed falsified documents, then why should *HE* be held accountable for thier actions, there is only so much that can be done in terms of verifying someones age.
That being said, if he didnt ask for IDs then yes, he is totally at fault, even if the girls did lie about their age, i cant think of any studio off the top of my head that would just accept the word of a model about how old they were while shooting was going on.
However, the reason he was arrested and jailed, wasnt anything to do with the age of the models in the movies this time, it was because parts of a 'deal' that he made were subsequently changed *after* the fact, the judge then ordered him in to custody, at least that is my understanding of it.
Im gonna see if i can get Syl from GGW to post in here as im sure she's going to have a much better idea of what the current situation is than a bunch of GFY tards ;)
Regards,
Lee
But thats my point. Do that and you get this kind of thing happen. Did their program collapse? No. Webmasters are falling over themselves to promote a company who had underage content.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Why? Thats what i dont get.
Lately ive seen this and people partnering with a tgp who openly admits to running animal porn on his tgps.
What will it take for certain webmasters to WAKE UP.
One of the GFY posters makes a good point "Yea it is funny how a Juvenal can be tried as an adult for cases like murder and can be found to have acted like an adult so are treated like an adult. However them "acting" as adults and lying about there age and exposing themselves is somehow someone else's fault."
From what I saw on FoxNews the girls were 17 and drunk in bars.
Go on youtube and see plenty of underage guys doing the dick dance, showing boners through their underwear, etc. The hypocracy of it all is dizzying.
GGW never, as far as I know, got 2257 docs for the stuff they shot until their 2257 bust whenever it was, a year or so ago; they basically argued that they were shooting people in public settings, and it wasn't sexually explicit, and so they were covered.
I believe that part of the consent order required that they begin keeping complete and accurate 2257 records for all content shot from the consent decree forward.
My impression is that the vast majority of what they shoot is drunk girls flashing their boobs, and they probably played fast and loose. As far as the girls lying about their age, 2257 requires that the producer *physically examine* the ID document; if the girls were lying about their age, one would hope that the person examining the docs would recognize them to be fake, so I suspect that the fault lies with the producer not bothering to check the IDs at all.
Everything I read about Joe Francis is that he's a jerk who considers himself to be above the law. Hopefully a lil time in jail might change his attitude :)
Hi Lee. I really don't have specifics other than what is seen on news sources as well, and your statement would be correct as far as what the news is broadcasting about the recent arrest/jail time. Thanks, and we appreciate your posting the appropriate facts here in regards to this particular topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
As far as the comment about GGW not having kept any 2257 documentation up until a year ago when the "2257 bust" occurred, this is not correct. You may recall shortly after this we did contact affiliates and posted on boards that we pulled some content because it was not compliant according to the 2257 statute. We by no means pulled everything and we are happy to report that currently our sites are completely compliant.
It's understandable that facts can be distorted and a lot of the other comments are just opinions which everyone is entitled to. Anyone with questions, please feel free to contact me and I will assist you to the best of my ability.
:thumbsup:
I would be interested to know the exact situation according to GGW's records custodian, rather than a blanket statement that "we're in compliance."
Let's not forget that GGW has had a bazillion lawsuits from girls or their parents, alleging lack of consent, underage, etc. And GGW's defense has always been *not* that there's a signed release on file for every person they filmed, but that the event occurred in public and they were simply filming a public event where no release is required.
Additionally, the majority of the content that GGW sells is, as far as I know, simply drunk girls showing their tits. That sort of content would be exempt from 2257, so no records would be required.
But if you think about it, it makes absolutely no sense, when filming somebody in this sort of context, that you'd get them to sign a release but NOT get an ID picture.
Of course, they also have girls fingering themselves, or licking each other, and *that* sort of content would have to have 2257 docs.
As I remember, at the time the whole compliance issue came up, GGW pulled some huge number of videos (20 or more) because they weren't compliant. I find it hard to believe that there could just be "holes" in the records, particularly for an organization as large as GGW. My guess is that they pulled all of the videos that had content that was defined as explicit for which there were no IDs, rather than ALL content for which there were no IDs.
That's why I suspect little to no records were kept prior to the consent order, except for the explicit content. Therefore, if I'm correct, they *still* have no IDs for the content they consider exempt, which, if true, also means they have no way of knowing if the models are underage.
From what I remember, GGW said "We are in complete compliance" which is very different from saying "We have audited our files, we have IDs on file for every girl and guy who appears in any of our content, and all of them are over 18." If they are claiming exemption from 2257 for some of their content, then they can *still* claim to be "in complete compliance" but have no docs for all of their content which is nonexplicit.
I don't know about others, but I would be very nervous promoting simply on the basis of a blanket statement that "we're in compliance", particularly given the arrogance that Joe Francis continues to show. While it might be technically true (given that the majority of their content is exempt), unless they are willing to state that they have IDs for every girl appearing on their site, exempt or not, there's no way to ensure there aren't more underage girls (or guys) on the site.
And, for that matter, girlsgonewild.com itself is not 2257 compliant because it does not have a proper 2257 notice on the home page, as required by statute.
Uh huh.
Lets go get teenage college girls REALLY drunk, and then lets take them into the van, photocopy thier ID, and talk them into doing some porn.
Sounds hella consensual to me.
They've prosecuted college boys for this, and its called date rape. Unfortunately, the college boys weren't smart enough to get a signed release from said drunk girl.
The whole GGW thing makes me ill, and I, for one, am glad that this slimeball is in jail.
And as far as consent is concerned, I don't believe even signed forms are legal if the person signing them is mentally impaired in any way (e.g. drunk or high).Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun
Maybe Chad can verify that for us. :)
What so anyone can say they were drunk or high at the time and sue you for millions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xstr8guy
I imagine that they would have to prove in a court of law that they were impaired when they gave consent before they sued. But the settings (nightclubs, parties) where these scenes are filmed would certainly handicap GWW in a court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
Quote from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent
Yeah, I know it's not a legal document. But I didn't feel like googling forever. ;)Quote:
Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon an appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of an action. The individual needs to be in possession of relevant facts and also of his reasoning faculties, such as not being mentally retarded or mentally ill and without an impairment of judgment at the time of consenting. Such impairments might include illness, intoxication, drunkenness, using drugs, insufficient sleep, and other health problems.
Wow! Can I tell you guys have never been girls! Do you know how easy it is to coerce a 18 year old kid? Especially a drunk one? Who you have managed to get to sign a consent form?
Even when young women KNOW their rights (and generally, they don't) - enforcing them is a whole 'nother matter. There is a GOOD reason most women don't EVER report being raped. Because, honestly, unless you've been beaten, it just ain't worth it.
As far as I am concerned, this bastard ain't nothin but a serial rapist with some high priced attorney's covering his a$$.
I have been watching stories about this Francis for a while now. He's SLIME. DIRT. The CRUD between my .... fill it in with your imagination.
___________________
APRIL 19--"Girls Gone Wild" founder Joseph Francis today filed a $25 million defamation lawsuit against the Texas woman who last month accused him of rape. Claiming that he would not "sit back and be called a rapist," Francis filed the below Florida Circuit Court lawsuit against the 21-year-woman and a friend who accompanied her to Francis's Ritz Carlton suite after a night of South Beach partying. Francis, 31, contends that he engaged in consensual sex with the woman--identified as Amy Doe in his complaint--and even had lunch with the alleged victim and her pal the following day. Along with the $25 million, Francis is also seeking to be reimbursed the $36 he shelled out for the medium rare burgers the women ordered from room service. (8 pages)
_____________
OCTOBER 30--Already facing criminal charges for allegedly filming underage girls naked, "Girls Gone Wild" boss Joseph Francis and his cohorts have just been sued by the parents of six teenagers who claim they were sexually exploited during this year's spring break in Panama City......Francis paid two teenagers to engage in sexual conduct in a motel shower and tried to pull up a 17-year-old's shirt in a bid to expose her breasts. His employees were charged with giving booze spiked with "drugs or additional stimulants" to a 16-year-old who was then "coerced" into engage in sexual conduct with a friend. The complaint also alleges that "Girls Gone Wild" representatives "cajoled, harassed, intimidated and persuaded" a 15-year-old girl to flash her breasts on camera.
_____________________________
http://www.latimes.com/features/maga...,2664370.story
_________________________________
There are LOTS of stories about this guy, just like these ones, and I am sure there are thousands of stories from young women too ashamed of themselves to come forward. I hope they put him in the general population, where he gets to be someones bitch for a few really really long years.
And... the problem is, as long as it's just flashing breasts, the Feds can't do anything under 2257, because it isn't a violation. They can rightfully claim they are "in 2257 compliance" and still have a bunch of underage girls flashing their boobs.
The guy is definitely sleazy. Be interesting to see if a bunch of his then-inebriated victims could create a class action.
Don't any of you guys have the TV on late at night? GGW hasn't been only about tittie flashing for years now. I haven't actually watched any of their videos but the commercials sure make it look pretty hardcore to me... girl/girl sex scenes seem to be pretty common and I think they have boy/girl as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
I suspect that the deal is they keep 2257 records for the explicit stuff, and no records for the nonexplicit stuff. Their index page for girlsgonewild.com isn't even compliant! There's no 2257 notice until you get inside the site, and they have language indicating that some of their content is exempt, which is what leads me to believe they keep no records on the girls who flash tits and do nothing else, meaning, they have no way of knowing whether the girls are of age or not, unless they shoot explicit content of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xstr8guy
Mind you, this is conjecture, but they've never claimed to have docs for all their girls, only that they are "completely compliant."