Free Speech Alert - AZ Photographers & Webmasters

[pornlaw]

I just received a call from a Arizona criminal defense attorney who is representing the webmaster/photographer in the Desert Divas case. Apparently the webmaster/photographer for that site has been charged with the same criminal charges as the owner of the escort service.

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.

This is a serious First Amendment issue and can have real ramifications for the industry that operates in Arizona and for the state of Arizona, if they were to lose this prosecution and subsequent appeal(s).

From what I was told none of the photographs went beyond mere nudity.

This is what happens with an over zealous prosecutor trying to become the next State Attorney General.

[GetSCORECash]

Do you think they have a chance of winning the case in Arizona, the government? Or is this going to be a drain in cash for the webmaster?

[czarina]

that's total BS, that guy needs a beatdown (the state attorney, that is)

[Kimmykim]

Originally Posted by GetSCORECash

Do you think they have a chance of winning the case in Arizona, the government? Or is this going to be a drain in cash for the webmaster?

Win or lose, the defendants are going to be in a cash drain.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

This is a serious First Amendment issue and can have real ramifications for the industry that operates in Arizona

for which industry? the prostitution industry or online adult?

[Nikki_Licks]

We are in AZ and this really causes a bit of concern. It sure sucks to be him right now.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

for which industry? the prostitution industry or online adult?

The porn industry. He essential maintained a website of an adult nature and he took photographs of women in various states of undress.

I can think how an over zealous prosecuter might apply this to a pornographic website, especially if its not legal to shoot hardcore content in that particular state.

I might be wrong but I think this is also the approach/theory taken by the prosecutor against Ray Guhn in Florida.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

The porn industry. He essential maintained a website of an adult nature and he took photographs of women in various states of undress.

I can think how an over zealous prosecuter might apply this to a pornographic website, especially if its not legal to shoot hardcore content in that particular state.

I might be wrong but I think this is also the approach/theory taken by the prosecutor against Ray Guhn in Florida.

seems to be a stretch.

not sure how an agent of an accused major criminal syndicate operating an organized online prostitution business charged with money laundering, pandering, prostitution, etc can be compared to an online adult biz operator, but hey you're the pornlaw guy.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

seems to be a stretch.

not sure how an agent of an accused major criminal syndicate operating an organized online prostitution business charged with money laundering, pandering, prostitution, etc can be compared to an online adult biz operator, but hey you're the pornlaw guy.

Its not really a stretch. Here's some info on the Ray Guhn case in 2006... all those charges you just mentioned ... Ray Guhn was charged with them for operating CumOnHerFace.com in Florida.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/26/St...en_charg.shtml

And here's a quote from an article written by Q. Boyer for YNOT.com on the Ray Guhn case that occurred in 2006.

McCowen?s arraignment is scheduled for Friday, September 14th; however, as McCowen has already entered his plea, he will not actually appear in court on Friday, Walters says.

The question of whether paying porn performers is tantamount to prostitution is a question that has only been settled in the state of California. In People v. Freeman, the California Supreme Court held that pandering and prostitution laws cannot be employed by the government as a means to suppress the creation of erotic materials that are protected by the First Amendment.

The standard laid forth in People v. Freeman has not been adopted by other states, however, leaving the prostitution question very much open throughout the rest of the country.

?Sexual conduct filmed for a movie is simply not prostitution; where sexual activity is engaged in by paid performers for the purposes of being recorded on camera, and intended for a viewing audience, the legal analysis changes dramatically,? says Weston. ?In such instance, the government is precluded from using the prostitution laws, or similar back door censorship theories as a means of avoiding the First Amendment protection otherwise afforded to the creation of sexually oriented content.?

Same issue in AZ, shoe horning prostitution into creation of erotic material - there's a good First Amendment challenge to his charges.

[brassmonkey]

thats his business what does that have to do with az webmasters

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Its not really a stretch. Here's some info on the Ray Guhn case in 2006... all those charges you just mentioned ... Ray Guhn was charged with them for operating CumOnHerFace.com in Florida.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/26/St...en_charg.shtml

And here's a quote from an article written by Q. Boyer for YNOT.com on the Ray Guhn case that occurred in 2006.



Same issue in AZ, shoe horning prostitution into creation of erotic material - there's a good First Amendment challenge to his charges.

i'm quite familiar with the ray guhn case. the article you linked left out some crucial details.
here are some-

Specifically, in addition to the allegations of distribution of obscene material, the allegations involved a few of the performers claiming they had been provided controlled substances by one or more of the named defendants, that the use of escorts to make these films was legally prostitution and the mere payment of adult to perform sexual acts was a violation of Florida's prostitution law. Most of these same performers have pending RICO charges alleged against them for their involvement in escorting services in Pensacola that will not be resolved until after the resolution of this case.

not to mention it was in dade county, i believe. i'm sure you are aware of the risks of producing porn in that region.

so i am not sure that case can really establish precedence for a blanket statement re: pron production in arizona.

that being said, we all know there's only one place where it's legal to shoot porn. not to mention the risks involved in flying talent to arizona for pron production. but those do not apply in this case.

[MaDalton]

everyone come over to Czech Republic - they like sex, girls and porn over here

[fatfoo]

And none of the photographs went beyond mere nudity. Wow...

[eddieinaz]

I know a lot do not think highly of me in GFY right now. I will assure you that the state of Arizona will win and convict those accused in this case.

I am a victim of the corrupt system in Arizona first hand.
They prosecutors and both defense attorneys in Arizona circumvent for prosecution
and conviction rate is well above 96.9% in the state of Arizona.

So you see here another unjust fact. This photographer is guilty by association.
He did no wrong in my eyes.
I was convicted for my ex GF using her ex husbands credit card while I was in the store dressing room, when she used the card.
That drama a was between my ex GF and her fucking husband, NOT ME!!
However, one year later after she was put on probation, Arizona decided to charge me for being with her. Muther Fuckers! ONE YEAR LATER!
I honestly had nothing to do with it, muther fuckers! Believe me or not, that is the TRUTH!

They are slowly taking our rights away!

If you are with or around someone who is committing a crime, you will be charge just the same, even if you tell that person DON'T DO IT!

So I know first hand what unconstitutional things Prosecutors will do to convict you!

[eddieinaz]

Originally Posted by GetSCORECash

Do you think they have a chance of winning the case in Arizona, the government? Or is this going to be a drain in cash for the webmaster?

The State of Arizona will win 100%

Both the prosecution and criminal defense attorneys circumvent for prosecution.

Once a prosecutor files against you as a number in the State of Arizona, you will be found guilty (convicted) and sentenced accordingly to ARS 13 Arizona Revised Statutes.

Here is why: This is ARIZONA! Not California or Florida. Criminal defense attorneys will not oppose the court and prosecutors in today's trials too much, they will not take a gamble and strikes in your defense as they will lose their BAR.

Arizona is now a prison industry state. Human warehousing for $$$$, Greedy Governors, politicians, ect. They get 37k every quarter per inmate they house. Now you do the math!

You are GUILTY until proven otherwise! You have no fucking rights in Arizona!

Pot is 100% illegal in Arizona, you will get two years in prison for one single joint, while in Colorado and Cali, it's legal!

[Exotic Gold]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

I just received a call from a Arizona criminal defense attorney who is representing the webmaster/photographer in the Desert Divas case. Apparently the webmaster/photographer for that site has been charged with the same criminal charges as the owner of the escort service.

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.

This is a serious First Amendment issue and can have real ramifications for the industry that operates in Arizona and for the state of Arizona, if they were to lose this prosecution and subsequent appeal(s).

From what I was told none of the photographs went beyond mere nudity.

This is what happens with an over zealous prosecutor trying to become the next State Attorney General.

The way I understood the case - they were filming acts of prostitution.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by Exotic Gold

The way I understood the case - they were filming acts of prostitution.

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.

The State of Arizona will win 100%

Both the prosecution and criminal defense attorneys circumvent for prosecution.

Once a prosecutor files against you as a number in the State of Arizona, you will be found guilty (convicted) and sentenced accordingly to ARS 13 Arizona Revised Statutes.

Here is why: This is ARIZONA! Not California or Florida. Criminal defense attorneys will not oppose the court and prosecutors in today's trials too much, they will not take a gamble and strikes in your defense as they will lose their BAR.

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.

[Exotic Gold]

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?

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.

[SoloGirlsContent]

here's a an idea. MOVE THE FUCK OUT OF AZ..it's a shit hot pool anyway

[billywatson]

Michael -- is this over Escorts in Action?

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by billywatson

Michael -- is this over Escorts in Action?

Is that the name of the site or escort ring ? I didnt get any names.

Call me later and we can talk about it ....

[L-Pink]

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.

Isn't maintaining a site that is used for prostitution, sex for money, different from running a porn site, private viewing of legal content?

Sounds like he was part of an on-going illegal business. If he was being paid then he was part of the operation. This is much different than simply taking legal photos of women then selling them.

Freedom of speech and selling whores really have nothing in common do they?


.

.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by simonsyinister

here's a an idea. MOVE THE FUCK OUT OF AZ..it's a shit hot pool anyway

Selling whores across state lines isn't a good idea either .....




.

[Nikki_Licks]

Have they listed the name of the Webmaster/Photographer in question? I really hope this state gets their ass handed to them with this one. Someday, we will be able to leave this place...YaHooooo!

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Isn't maintaining a site that is used for prostitution, sex for money, different from running a porn site, private viewing of legal content?

Sounds like he was part of an on-going illegal business. If he was being paid then he was part of the operation. This is much different than simply taking legal photos of women then selling them.

Freedom of speech and selling whores really have nothing in common do they?


.

.

agreed.

i also don't believe it's in the industry's best interest to try and use an accused organized crime ring's prostitution case to lead the way for a 1st amendment fight for pornography.

that's a way bad idea.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i also don't believe it's in the industry's best interest to try and use an accused organized crime ring's prostitution case to lead the way for a 1st amendment fight for pornography.

that's a way bad idea.

A way, way bad idea.

Let's not confuse the fantasy viewing product we sell with two strangers meeting for paid sex.


.

[VisionFantasy]

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.

Stay in California, you have no idea of how corrupt Arizona is. First Amendment or not the prosecution will fry your ass in Arizona.
Arizona does not abide the United States Constitution or Rules of Criminal Procedure, so that is where you are wrong.

You may know PORN Law, but dealing with Arizona you do not!
If O.J. Simpson was tried in Arizona for the acts of Homicide, he would have been found guilty and sentenced to death in Arizona.
Everytime one of his attorneys took a strike in trial, they would have been in jail for contempt of court everytime!

[dyna mo]

yeah, california is a beacon of goodness and what's right in the world.

eddie, that's a long time to stay in prison for a crime you didn't commit. too bad the state of arizona had it in for you, seems like you get that a lot.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by VisionFantasy

Stay in California, you have no idea of how corrupt Arizona is. First Amendment or not the prosecution will fry your ass in Arizona.
Arizona does not abide the United States Constitution or Rules of Criminal Procedure, so that is where you are wrong.

You may know PORN Law, but dealing with Arizona you do not!
If O.J. Simpson was tried in Arizona for the acts of Homicide, he would have been found guilty and sentenced to death in Arizona.
Everytime one of his attorneys took a strike in trial, they would have been in jail for contempt of court everytime!

I am not a criminal defense First Amendment attorney so I wont be going to Arizona on this case. But from talking with his Arizona defense attorney I would have to agree that Arizona is a very conservative state that really doesnt pay attention to its own rules and laws when they want to prosecute someone.

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?

Different guy. This guy just took pics of naked and half naked women. No sex acts.

Sounds like he was part of an on-going illegal business. If he was being paid then he was part of the operation. This is much different than simply taking legal photos of women then selling them.

What about the guy that gets paid to takes pics of guys growing weed for "High Times" ?
It used to be illegal in all states to cultivate.