« The Hamdan v. Rumsfeld dissents | Main | The Daily Memo - 6/30/06 »
Not So ‘Wild’ Now, Are You?
After spending much of our week discussing the various ways in which QuizLaw pinup boy, Justice Scalia, has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to erode away our Constitutional rights, it’s nice today to get back to things that matter: Girls Gone Wild.
Indeed, out in Texas this week, a jury has decided not to award Brittany Lowry and Lezlie Fuller any damages in their civil lawsuit against Mantra Films, the producers of the “Girls Gone Wild” videos. According to the lawsuit, a Mantra representative asked the two females, who were 17 at the time, to flash their breasts for what he called a “private film.” The girls, who were in Panama City, Florida at the time (presumably on Spring Break), agreed, lied about their age, and signed a consent form, allowing Mantra to film their boobies for nationwide distribution. The girls apparently resisted being videotaped at first, until they were told it was a private film, though the jury was probably convinced otherwise by the fact that they accepted, put on, and then stripped off “Girls Gone Wild,” T-shirts. I’m also certain that the Mantra representative convinced the jury that what he meant by a “private film,” was a video that millions of men would eventually watch in the “privacy” of their own homes.
In my mind, the strangest part of the lawsuit, however, was the Florida law in effect here, which said that minors could be videotaped in various stages of undress, so long as they were on public land. Is it just me, or is that the world’s biggest loophole for underage-porn stars?
Only in Florida, people. Only in Florida.
Comments
In no way, shape or form am I supporting underage porn, or anything that is associated with it . That is not the issue. The issue is having to take responsablity for your actions . These girls should be excersising, the good values and lessons taught by thier parents . This is a very real world we live in , and if the girls want to walk on the wild side and abandon all that has been instilled in them and act like trollops and go wild ?? Then they should get no sympathy,thier lessons come from reality 101.In this society we want to act and do things that deep down inside we know is wrong. If our conscience tells us this is wrong or not exceptable, we should have control and have presance of mind to know that we will have to answer for our actions.Not take comfort in knowing that we can go wild , and have someone eles pay for our actions. As a parent of two girls , my lessons would have to continue . The lesson would be , embarrassed ? Well maybe you'll make better desicion in the future and not put your self in compromising postions shame on you .....but I still love you !
Posted by Craig | July 2, 2006 11:06 AM
I've got some issues with this.
The women supposedly signed a consent form. Did they have ID to go with those signatures? I have to look at IDs often. The fake ones are easy to spot. Really. If they had real ones with someone else's info, that's different.
The women AND THEIR PARENTS need to take responsibility for their actions. They were underage and unsupervised. I realize they were 17. Most 17 year olds are unsupervised. But they were without their parents because the parents believed that the girls would make the proper decisions. And they didn't.
Underage porn? Nudity is not porn. Just because the girl was nude doesn't make it porn. And "states of undress" doesn't indicate state of sexual intimacy with or without partner(s). And please - don't confuse Girls Gone Mild with porn. There are parts of it that are, but most of that stuff is simply tease.
Posted by Joey In Hollister | July 10, 2006 3:01 AM