quasi in rem

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

Does this mean my wife will let me watch it? Judge Rules 'Girls Gone Wild' Is Not Porn: "A videotape of an underage girl exposing her breasts is not child pornography, a judge decided Tuesday in a criminal case against the producer of the 'Girls Gone Wild' video series.

Joe Francis, 30, and several of his employees were arrested at Panama City Beach while filming during spring break last April. Bay County sheriff's deputies charged Francis with racketeering related to prostitution and other crimes, based largely on videotapes of girls under 18.

Many of the 43 counts he faces hinge on what conduct is considered illegal or pornographic.

'This ruling shows that the entire fabric of that claim is wrong,' said defense lawyer Aaron Dyer of Los Angeles. Dyer said he expected the ruling to undermine at least 90 percent of the case.

Circuit Judge Michael C. Overstreet made his decision in ordering that defense lawyers be allowed to copy tape confiscated during a search of Francis' rented condominium last spring. "

Well she probably still won't let me buy it. I actually was afforded my first opportunity of seeing the Girls Gone Wild movie this past Sunday on the greatest show on television Curb Your Enthusiasm. It was a second hand viewing, granting, and only for around 15 seconds, but it was Girls Gone Wild none the less. I must admit it was a massive disappointment. For whatever reason the allure of the mystery created by the little bars covering the wild young girls is much more titillating than the uncovered girls themselves.

What is and what is not pornography will never be a objectively answerable question. But it seems to me that if an image of a woman becomes less titillating by removing more clothing, it simply cannot be porn.


Post a Comment

<< Home