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.

[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

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.

[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?