Looks like Ashley Dupree might not have been of legal age in GGW video

[TheEnforcer]

Click link for full story.

Attorney: Spitzer escort was 17 in 'Wild' videos

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/20/dupre.gone.wild.ap/index.html

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A $1 million offer to the call girl linked to former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was rescinded because she'd already shot footage for "Girls Gone Wild." Now it might be the video maker who will lose out.

A lawyer for Ashley Alexandra Dupre, now 22, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that Dupre was 17 when the footage was filmed. After hearing from her attorney, the company said the video's Internet release will be delayed.

"Girls Gone Wild" founder Joe Francis originally reached out to Dupre, offering $1 million for her to appear in a non-nude spread for his company's new magazine and a chance to join the "Girls Gone Wild" tour bus.

But on Tuesday "Girls Gone Wild" employees found archived footage of Dupre filmed in 2003, and Francis retracted the offer.

In a statement Wednesday, Francis said he had received an e-mail from Dupre's lawyer Don Buchwald, saying Dupre may have been 17 in the videos shot in Miami and not 18 as Francis had first claimed.

[Hammer]

Sometimes, when it rains, it pours.

[softball]

Now everyone will want to see it. If it is legal it just gets better. If it isn't...well who knows?

[RawAlex]

Where is a 2257 inspection when one is needed?

[softball]

Where is a 2257 inspection when one is needed?
wash your mouth out with soap.

[RawAlex]

wash your mouth out with soap.

This is one of those rare occasions when I think an inspection would be appropriate.

[Toby]

This is one of those rare occasions when I think an inspection would be appropriate.
Given the ruling of the 6th Circuit, even if he were inspected and subsequently charged for violations, he'd likely have a pretty good chance of beating it.

I don't think the DOJ wants to risk another court jurisdiction ruling 2257 to be unconstitutional.

[RawAlex]

Given the ruling of the 6th Circuit, even if he were inspected and subsequently charged for violations, he'd likely have a pretty good chance of beating it.

I don't think the DOJ wants to risk another court jurisdiction ruling 2257 to be unconstitutional.

It isn't really a 2257 issue directly, one of those things that is truly annoying. GGW has settled at least one (and I want to say more than one, but I won't go there) case where a girl appearing in their tapes was under age. If I remember correctly, much of the Florida to-do is all about this stuff.

Now if the Ashley footage turns out to be unusable because the girl was underage, isn't this enough in and of itself for the feds to show up at the door and say "we think you have underage porn here". Not really a specific 2257 inspection, but rather a direct application of other laws regarding minors?

It seems to me that the biggest crock in the whole 2257 / inspections / obscenity prosecution deal is that the feds aren't interested in going after what is right under their noses, because it isn't politically profitable.

[DannyCox]

It isn't considered illegal to shoot, even for commercial purposes, nude underage people in Florida, as long as no sex is involved.

In most places, basic nudity is not considered obscene. Keep in mind the Nudism magazines that have been around since the 1950's, showing full frontal nudity of people of all ages.

[vdc-Loki]

Poor Joey can't seem to catch a break can he lol,

But on a more serious note, how many under 18 models does this make for the GGW people? I remember hearing a shitload of girls were underage a few years back.

-Loki-

[RawAlex]

It isn't considered illegal to shoot, even for commercial purposes, nude underage people in Florida, as long as no sex is involved.

In most places, basic nudity is not considered obscene. Keep in mind the Nudism magazines that have been around since the 1950's, showing full frontal nudity of people of all ages.

Danny, from a purely legal standpoint, it isn't illegal to have an image of a minor nude. To load her onto your private bus and encourage her to strip and show off sort of crosses the line from "nudity" to "sexuality". Remember that at least one US court have even ruled that in some cases, images of a clothed minor can be sexual in natural and therefore CP.

Just picture the standard GGW layout with a 17 year old in it, and try to say it's just nudism.

[DannyCox]

That was already dealt with in a Florida court a few years ago, and it was decided that sexuality on it's own isn't a criteria of obscenity, there has to be actual sexual touching.

Now, I haven't seen the full video in question, other than the "black bar" version on the tmz.com website, but I just saw her dancing and flashing. That is considered fine in Florida (and here in Montreal) ;)

[DannyCox]

I'm sorry, I should have clarified. I didn't mean in all of Florida, just certain counties.

[RawAlex]

Danny, I don't think that a local Florida ruling would permit a company in California to stock, maintain, or potentially distribute videos of minors dancing around nude and exposing their genitalia for the public on videos sold all over the US. Doubly so because the material in question didn't happen in public, but happened in a private party hosted by GGW (in their bus apparently, amongst other places).

I think they would have a hard time being on the good side of this one.