Quote:
Originally Posted by fmltube
(Post 16646866)
You raise an excellent point. Allow me to ask. In a business that is constantly under fire from all sides, do you not think it is prudent to go above and beyond to cover your own ass when you know one slip up could take away your freedom?
Your example would be sufficient IF Kelsie had a government issue ID that beared her picture with someone else's information. That would have meant that the government had been duped in issuance and could not reasonably expect someone with less experience to be able to detect the ID as false. However, in this case specifically, Dirty D has alluded to Kelsie using an ID of a friend and unless they are identical twins, would be very difficult to pass off as belonging to Kelsie. Perhaps D dropped the ball or whoever verifies model information and it could have been a mere over sight. Nonetheless, over sight is no excuse when the penalties are so harsh.
It has been stated here many times before that shit occurs every day that could potentially bring down the adult industry but shit like this is allowed to pass by without any outrage.
Consider all the backlash Rob Black and Max received for their extreme content. Many in the industry are now exposed to greater scrutiny because they continued to push the limits. Things like this could make it harder for those that love this business to continue in it.
The fact that the content remained for a year, marketed by affiliates, paid for and downloaded by customers makes them just as culpable as him in this mess. How fair is that? Do affiliates not have the right to be assured that the content they are marketing meets current laws and does not potentially puts them in harms way? Doesn't the customer who purchases in good faith have the right to be assured that the content they bought can not potentially land them in jail for simply viewing and purchasing?
Isn't it possible that the reason he doesn't come clean (hypothetically) and admit over sight or lack of effort to verify true identity prior to production is because that in itself is admittance that affiliates and customers cannot trust the content he supplies because of the incident? If Dirty D came out and said that all of this is true, do you think any affiliate in his right mind would still promote him, risking their freedom for promotion of underage material? It would be business suicide.
|
As far as culpability goes, if a model can produce a GOVERNMENT ID, that should be good enough. If it came down to it in a court of law, what jury is going to convict ANYONE of producing underage content of BEHALF of the government when the model in question fooled the government themselves and produced GOVERNMENT ID? How many convictions were there of Traci Lords produced videos even though it was proven that she was underage? I'm not aware of any, but I could be wrong.
As I said regarding Dirty D, I didn't follow it, but I don't ever assume that just because a model is proven to be underage, that the producer is 100% at fault. In this case, they may be. I don't know. However, if you bring in a contract photographer who makes their money directly from shooting a model FOR a site owner, my experience tells me that the chain of command, or who's word do I trust would be something like...site owner > photographer > and/or = model. From what I can tell in THIS thread, you're taking the models word as gospel over the site owners mainly because of HIS shady past. That's your prerogative. I tend not to base my decision of a person on another situation from that person's past.
Rob Black? lol. I was a very outspoken opponent of Rob Black on some old Ynot show's a few years ago, and to this day, maintain that that is one of only TWO debates that I lost. My belief TODAY is that Rob Black has EVERY right to produce any material that is protected by free speech. Rape? Uh, no. SIMULATED rape? Why the fuck not? Hollywood does it. What's the difference between Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley? The difference between Hollywood and The Valley is penetration. Nothing more, nothing less. What's worse to you...simulated rape WITH penetration of a CONSENTING adult or the simulated rape of a CHILD withOUT penetration? I don't know what's worse, but I sure have an opinion as to what's more disturbing, and it isn't the one with penetration.
If a woman, or for that matter a man, agrees of their own free will to be filmed doing something that you or I might find disgusting, WHO are you or I to say that it's wrong? The day we allow that to happen is the day the government can step in and say, no more gay, no more groups, no more interracial, etc. etc. etc. The government doesn't have that right, nor do you or I to choose what is acceptable for others to view. You and I and everyone else in this industry should thank Rob Black AND Max Hardcore for the fight they're fighting or fought on our behalf. If they'd rolled over, the government would be more inclined to push even harder and THEN the industry would be in REAL trouble.
But I digress.
Finally, you mention affiliates. Affiliates would be just as culpable, but also just as much a victim of a lying model with a fake ID. No court in the land is going to convict someone of using advertising material provided by a company that THEY thought were legal, and could go to court with substantiating ID's to further prove their case, regardless of whether or not they're fake. The lawyer of any affiliate could subpoena those ID's and their client would get off (The disclaimer here is that I live in Canada where we live free). ALSO, any affiliate that wants to make 100% sure (as we see, that's NOT possible), can refuse to promote a sponsor if that sponsor isn't willing to provide them with the model's ID...which is exactly what the new version of 2257 wanted to do to them as "secondary producers". In fact, the affiliates lawyer would PROBABLY advise them beforehand NOT to use affiliate content for which they don't have ID's. So, who's fault does that make it? In reality, the affiliates themselves. But what affiliate is going to demand that right? Well guess what...the industry standard of too cheap to pay for content with ID's and too lazy and/or cheap to pay for lawyer advice doesn't automatically make it the sole responsibility of the program owner. To put your blind faith in someone you don't know that could potentially result in the loss of your freedom might be the most stupid thing someone could do. While I don't believe ANY affiliate would ever be convicted in these circumstances, when it comes right down to it, if they were, they would have noone to blame but themselves...NOONE. (to quote yourself...do you not think it is prudent to go above and beyond to cover your own ass when you know one slip up could take away your freedom).
The irony isn't lost on me that one of the arguments primary producers used to fight 2257 was the protection of those very models btw.
