When underage porn is forgiven

[Lee]

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

[marcjacob]

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.

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.

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.

[Squirt]

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.

[gaybucks_chip]

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

[Syl]

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

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.

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:

[gaybucks_chip]

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.

[shaun]

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.

[Xstr8guy]

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.

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).

Maybe Chad can verify that for us.

[Squirt]

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).

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?

[Xstr8guy]

What so anyone can say they were drunk or high at the time and sue you for millions?

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.