View Single Post
Old 03-28-2008   #11
softball
Members
Want to see your own Advertising Here!
 
softball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,165
Default Re: Ashley Alexandra Dupre Conned Girls Gone Wild with Fake Name, License

Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex View Post
First off, don't misread the law or read too much into it. "Knowingly" is often negated by "willfully being ignorant about". Shooting naked girls and only asking for one ID, or asking for no ID at all could be considered being willfully ignorant, which creates the knowingly. There are reasons why you take TWO pieces of ID (not one), making it harder for someone to pull a fast one. Not taking ID or being slack in checking ID doesn't cut it, ignorance is not a defence.

Now that GGW producers have been contacted by the lawyer, I cannot see how Joe Francis can run the video, as he it would appear he would be knowing.

Free Speech is only one part of the deal, attempting to toss all of this under the free speech rug is laughable. The bar example holds very clear - you have the right of lawful assembly, and save for the time of prohibition, you can legally purchase and consume booze in a licensed establishment. The right of assembly applies to all, the legality of drinking is limited to those of age for that state. Your right of assembly isn't infringed by the liquor laws. In the same manner, 2252 doesn't infringe or obstruct your rights to distribute porn, it only limits which customers and which performers may legally appear. Only adults may appear in the porn, and only adults may purchase the porn.

Minors face all sorts of restrictions by law that do not infringe their constitutional rights, and this is one of them, no different from being block for entering cars or buying cigarettes. In both of those cases, the adult providing (pandering, I guess) to the minor would be in serious trouble. Why would the porn business by any different?

Do you think we should all be accepting of driver's licenses made out to McLovin?
To simplify this.....say....for instance...someone shows up with not one but TWO pieces of credible ID. Would you raise the bar to three? At a certain point, the producer should not be liable when due diligence has been done. You are arguing that it is ok for someone to go down because they have been duped. That is wrong, wrong, wrong. Time for a tea party.
softball is offline   Reply With Quote