I don't know how mainstream GGW can be if they are in the "adult film" section at my local videostore
It's technically accurate. That's about all you can hope for at this point. Irregardless, I approve.
Meh, I saw Joe Francis and his employees get arrested when this all happened. We were driving down the strip while they were impounding his Ferrari and taking him away in cuffs. I've seen how they lure the girls to flash with beads and ply them with alcohol. It is very shady indeed, however, those girls are not 5 year olds, and they know how to walk away. A vasty majority of them seek GGW out so that they can flash. Either way, from what I remember of the case when it first happened these girls sought Joe Francis out, and then one told their parents. They were pressured to then go to the DA and press charges against him.
Agreed. Playing them as the poor little innocent victims is absurd. If they are too drunk to remember what they did or know what they are doing who is at fault here? At what point do people become accountable for their actions? These girls know perfectly well what they are doing. GGW doesn't force any of them to do anything they aren't willing to do of their own volition.
what doesn't make sense is he ruled that it wasn't porn because there wasn't any touching. so by that rational, you could have a 12 year old spreading her you-know-what, but it wouldn't be porn.
edit: i'd say GGW is porn, just very soft porn.
edit: i'd say GGW is porn, just very soft porn.
Originally posted by: thomsbrain
what doesn't make sense is he ruled that it wasn't porn because there wasn't any touching. so by that rational, you could have a 12 year old spreading her you-know-what, but it wouldn't be porn.
edit: i'd say GGW is porn, just very soft porn.
Ahem... is not child pornography
doesn't this open the door for more underage girl pictures? i bet next time that judge is going to order that we all start speaking japanese.
Originally posted by: thomsbrain
what doesn't make sense is he ruled that it wasn't porn because there wasn't any touching. so by that rational, you could have a 12 year old spreading her you-know-what, but it wouldn't be porn.
edit: i'd say GGW is porn, just very soft porn.
That would qualify as lascivious display of the gentials and does qualify as child pornography. The real issue is was the image intended for sexual gratification and did it meet the requirements of the statute. We don't want laws that make pictures of nude children illegal or nearly ever parent in the US is going to jail. There is a very fine line here and the current laws are a more than adequate balance, if anything they are to strict in that prosecuters presume that naked children are sexual objects rather than assuming they aren't.
A naked child is not a sexual object, those that see a naked child as a sexual object need counseling.
I still dont get this
is it coz the girls will have their clothes on if the vid is played backwards??
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter