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

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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 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.