Ashley Alexandra Dupre Conned Girls Gone Wild with Fake Name, License

[gonzo]

[TMZ] Spitztastic Ashley Alexandra Dupre conned "Girls Gone Wild" back in 2003, claiming she was 21 and that her name was Amber Arpaio -- and we have it all on tape!

You can clearly hear Ashley tell the GGW cameraman her name is Amber Arpaio and that she is over 18. Camera guy got a shot of her license (FAKE!!!) as proof.

You've seen the video of Amber -- er, Kristen, er Ashley -- partying it up with the GGW crew in Florida. There was a debate about how old she was when the footage was shot and whether or not she lied about her age. Debate ... over!

Move over Traci Lords!

[RawAlex]

Yup, Traci Lords set the standard: It doesn't matter what the ID said, the producers are still guilty even if they were conned... because in the end, there is no way to know if the producers weren't complicit in the "creation" of this fake ID.

It is also why shooters ask for TWO types of ID, to make sure the girl has a full set of things to support the name and such, and not just a single borrowed license.

[DannyCox]

Luckily in Canada, Producers aren't held liable if a model uses fake identification and does a shoot. In fact, the model can be charged with fraud amongst other things.

We went though this all a number of years ago when we met with Montreal's Morality Squad (Vice) to query them on a number of things (it's always good to have a relationship with your local police). We had a few instances over the years where girls came in with fake identification and shot for us. The advice we got from our attorneys and from the police was to not destroy anything, but to remove it from any site and then save it with the model releases and copies of the identification. In that way, if there is ever a question about it in the future, you have it all backed up and can show the duplicity.

I know that in the US, people have been charged with the production of CP, even though there was proof they were duped.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Yup, Traci Lords set the standard: It doesn't matter what the ID said, the producers are still guilty even if they were conned... because in the end, there is no way to know if the producers weren't complicit in the "creation" of this fake ID.
.

That's a dangerous position to "stand on." It assumes one is guilty and must prove their innocence.
I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but saying it casually like that makes it sound like it's just all the way it is. I for one, take a stand against that position.
We were never prosecuted for our Traci Lords materials, because we pulled them all. (And of course, promptly destroyed them....)
But that was a bad deal, some people did do time for it, and it was wrong. Her mother, who told the agent she was over 18, didn't get punished at all.
If someone was gonna be hung out to dry, (Not that I think anyone should have,) it should have been her mother.

[softball]

Damn, the moon just turned fire red and I agree with Emp.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

That's a dangerous position to "stand on." It assumes one is guilty and must prove their innocence.
I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but saying it casually like that makes it sound like it's just all the way it is. I for one, take a stand against that position.
We were never prosecuted for our Traci Lords materials, because we pulled them all. (And of course, promptly destroyed them....)
But that was a bad deal, some people did do time for it, and it was wrong. Her mother, who told the agent she was over 18, didn't get punished at all.
If someone was gonna be hung out to dry, (Not that I think anyone should have,) it should have been her mother.

The problem is in the way exclusionary laws work. You have to think of it the same way drinking laws are applied. It doesn't matter what fake ID was produced, it doesn't matter how old she LOOKED, it is all about reality. 2252 is pretty specific, there aren't any "she tricked me" exceptions or "she had a very adult looking rack".

If the same logic was applied to bars, then the club owners would run a bar at one end of the building and a fake ID maker at the other end.

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

The problem is in the way exclusionary laws work. You have to think of it the same way drinking laws are applied. It doesn't matter what fake ID was produced, it doesn't matter how old she LOOKED, it is all about reality. 2252 is pretty specific, there aren't any "she tricked me" exceptions or "she had a very adult looking rack".

If the same logic was applied to bars, then the club owners would run a bar at one end of the building and a fake ID maker at the other end.

That is a disgusting law that no free country should tolerate. Please revisit my tea party analogy.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

The problem is in the way exclusionary laws work. You have to think of it the same way drinking laws are applied. It doesn't matter what fake ID was produced, it doesn't matter how old she LOOKED, it is all about reality. 2252 is pretty specific, there aren't any "she tricked me" exceptions or "she had a very adult looking rack".

If the same logic was applied to bars, then the club owners would run a bar at one end of the building and a fake ID maker at the other end.

Your argument is specious on both counts.

The first line of the law clearly states:
(a) Any person who—
(1) knowingly transports or ships in interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mails, any visual depiction, if—
(A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
( such visual depiction is of such conduct;
(2) knowingly receives, or distributes, any visual depiction that has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or which contains materials which have been mailed or so shipped or transported, by any means including by computer, or knowingly reproduces any visual depiction for distribution in interstate or foreign commerce or through the mails, if—
(A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
( such visual depiction is of such conduct;

Your argument fails.
The prosecution must PROVE that "you" KNOWINGLY performed these actions.
It should be noted that the ID available during the Traci Lord time is not what it is today. It is common for Government issued photo IDs now. A very high standard. We don't know the details of the ID provided back then, or how "closely" it was examined. She's also the one that possibly got it all started. So who knows what she said, or did to authorities?

And it is NOT the same as "the drinking laws." It is a much higher authority, namely Free speech. There must be a more powerful reason to limit it, as it is the foundation of our constitution.

The bar analogy is just silly. As a former retailer, I wouldn't want to do such a thing. What would be the point? You assume every bar owner is looking to break the law.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Damn, the moon just turned fire red and I agree with Emp.

Sometimes, it's not a difference of opinion. Sometimes, a fact is simply a fact, no matter what angle you look at it from.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Your argument is specious on both counts.

The first line of the law clearly states:
(a) Any person who—
(1) knowingly transports or ships in interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mails, any visual depiction, if—

And it is NOT the same as "the drinking laws." It is a much higher authority, namely Free speech. There must be a more powerful reason to limit it, as it is the foundation of our constitution.

The bar analogy is just silly. As a former retailer, I wouldn't want to do such a thing. What would be the point? You assume every bar owner is looking to break the law.

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?

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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.

[tony404]

it makes no sense, the story I read they didn't find out she was 17 until she was going to do a hot tub scene and she told them she was 17 they freaked out and put her on a bus. If she had a fake id and was telling everyone she was 21 .All of sudden she decides to tell the truth? hmmm

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

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.

Not at all. If someone has gone to the effort to generate two good pieces of fake ID, I have done my part and there is no way I could be considered "knowing". But if a person shows up with only one piece of photo ID, and it's an old college ID with the plastic cover half ripped off, I would have hard time defending myself.

I have been doing a number of things in the last couple of weeks (including selling my house and working on the paperwork to buy the next place) and they all ask for TWO photo IDs. Heck, even the post office up here asked for 2 just to do a change of address / redirection. It is clear to me that (at least in my part of the world) 2 pieces of photo ID is a standard that shows due diligence. A single piece of ID is apparently not due diligence.

Again, I don't write the laws or issue the rulings or set the standards by which things are done.

[tony404]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Not at all. If someone has gone to the effort to generate two good pieces of fake ID, I have done my part and there is no way I could be considered "knowing". But if a person shows up with only one piece of photo ID, and it's an old college ID with the plastic cover half ripped off, I would have hard time defending myself.

I have been doing a number of things in the last couple of weeks (including selling my house and working on the paperwork to buy the next place) and they all ask for TWO photo IDs. Heck, even the post office up here asked for 2 just to do a change of address / redirection. It is clear to me that (at least in my part of the world) 2 pieces of photo ID is a standard that shows due diligence. A single piece of ID is apparently not due diligence.

Again, I don't write the laws or issue the rulings or set the standards by which things are done.

two pieces of photo id, besides a passport and license what is there?

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Not at all. If someone has gone to the effort to generate two good pieces of fake ID, I have done my part and there is no way I could be considered "knowing". But if a person shows up with only one piece of photo ID, and it's an old college ID with the plastic cover half ripped off, I would have hard time defending myself.

I have been doing a number of things in the last couple of weeks (including selling my house and working on the paperwork to buy the next place) and they all ask for TWO photo IDs. Heck, even the post office up here asked for 2 just to do a change of address / redirection. It is clear to me that (at least in my part of the world) 2 pieces of photo ID is a standard that shows due diligence. A single piece of ID is apparently not due diligence.

Again, I don't write the laws or issue the rulings or set the standards by which things are done.

If a cop pulls you over for something, you have to produce license, registration, and insurance. Only one of those is id. Good enough for the police, it seems.

[softball]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...bs.10bdd5.html

The mere fact that a 12-year-old girl danced nude at a northwest Dallas strip club isn't enough to close its doors.
Dallas club where girl, 12, stripped will keep license

10:39 PM CDT on Wednesday, March 26, 200

That's because the city ordinance that regulates sexually oriented businesses does not allow authorities to revoke the license of such a business for employing someone under the age of
The sixth-grader danced at Diamonds Cabaret over a two-week period late last year, authorities say. They also say they found a 17-year-old girl working in the club in January.Diamonds Cabare
"If they're not shut down, it's like they're giving them permission to have underage girls dancing and working in that club," said the mother of the 12-year-old. The mother is not being named because her daughter, a runaway at the time of the incident, is considered a sexual assault victim.
Operators of the Diamonds Cabaret at 2444 Walnut Ridge Street did not return calls for comment. Their sexually oriented business license expires in November.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by tony404

two pieces of photo id, besides a passport and license what is there?

In my neck of the woods, you can add in medicare card. I think they will accept a non-photo government issued birth certificate as well.

The idea being it is easy to gimmick up one document, much harder to have a matching set.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...bs.10bdd5.html

The mere fact that a 12-year-old girl danced nude at a northwest Dallas strip club isn't enough to close its doors.
Dallas club where girl, 12, stripped will keep license

Nice story, but you stopped quoting too soon:

Ms. Abron and Mr. Bell were indicted in late February on one count of felony sexual performance of the child in connection with making the 12-year-old work at the club. Both are also accused of engaging in organized crime.

The two people who brought the girl to work have been charged. I would also think that a DA wouldn't have to go too far to find the club owners to have broken a law or two, but apprently the local licensing statued doesn't cover it (or at least the judge wasn't awake that day).

Obviously if a club can have it's license suspended if a minor is found in the club as a customer, why would it be different as an employee? It isn't.

Obviously, "Steve" profited from the sexual performances of a minor, take 30% of the girl's income. That would be pimping, no?

I can think of 10 ways to send these guys up the river, I don't think the entire story is told in this report.

[Conquest del Amor]

In mi country we accept these ages of girls in our harems
it is legal and looked at has an honor to except and care for such.
Especially when trading my prime 2 oxes and best milking cows with chickens for such a virgin wonder.
The price is costly but the families are more than happy to comply after viewing the prime material I offer them for basic survival.
They will be happy for many months to come and feed well the remaining 8 offspring.

Thinking of all this.., I miss my country

[gonzo]

Delta is ready when you are.

[RawAlex]

Just want to add this, one of the GGW guys posted over at the zoo:

It doesn't look like we're going to be able to use the content. The lawyers are opposed to it and they're going to get their way.

So it looks like the GGW content will never see the digital light of day.