Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw
You may know more than me but I was told differently. And if he was filming acts of prostitution for a website distribution then it falls squarely into hardcore content production and may be a protected First Amendment right.
I am referring him to a First Amendment criminal defense attorney from outside Arizona to challenge the prosecution. I am not a First Amendment criminal attorney and his current lawyer doesnt know First Amendment either. I suspect that once outside counsel is associated in, the local prosecutor may think twice about continuing.
|
Point one - as I was told (by one of the principals - they were all over the Phx Forum a few years ago) their business model was to film hookers and johns having sex and try to resell this online as pay site content. How is documenting a felony protected speech?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw
For merely taking pictures and maintaining the website he has been charged as though he owned and profited from the site. He was merely an IC.
|
I have no idea what an IC is, but a guy working for a prostitution ring and being paid with the proceeds is a guilty party.
As I posted above - and I'm just a guy on the street - they made no secret of the fact that they were pimpin' hoes.
Point two - I couldn't quite make sense of Eddie's rant, but this was a high profile case and you bet your ass they will be handing out convictions.