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

[Toby]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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]

Originally Posted by Toby

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.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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-