State: Girls Gone Wild Filmed at Least 35 Minors in Panhandle

ap.tbo.com ^ | Sep 4, 2003 | AP

[Pan_Yans Wife]

The "Girls Gone Wild" staff filmed at least 35 girls exposing themselves during spring break in the Panama City Beach area, prosecutors said.

State Attorney Jim Appleman also said during a hearing Wednesday that additional charges are possible against the producer of the videos, who was arrested in April on racketeering and drug charges after parents complained to police he told underage girls to say on camera that they were 18.

If convicted of all charges, producer Joe Francis could face 30 years in prison.

"We'll be able to prove our case," Appleman said during the hearing before Circuit Judge Michael Overstreet. Francis has maintained his innocence.

The video series that Francis created has made millions by filming college-age women revealing their breasts at parties and spring break sites.

Appleman said he is leery of turning over to the defense the tapes, which include the alleged minors performing sex acts, because it would be illegal for him to give contraband to anyone.

Defense attorney Jimmy Judkins argued that the tapes "contain a wealth of evidence that will exculpate Mr. Francis and will disprove the government allegation that Mantra Entertainment is a criminal enterprise."

Another defense attorney, Aaron Dyer of Los Angeles, asked that all "flashing" scenes on the tapes be declared legal.

"It doesn't become child pornography when you're just dealing with nudity," Dyer said.

Overstreet rejected Appleman's argument, but will allow him to argue that the tapes are more obscene than similar materials accessible through retail outlets or online at a future hearing.

Francis' company, Mantra Films Inc., has disputed the charges, saying its crews always ask young women their age and film only those who say they are 18 or older.

The charges are based largely on about 175 hours of tapes Bay County sheriff's deputies seized during a raid at a condominium rented by the "Girls Gone Wild" staff.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

"It doesn't become child pornography when you're just dealing with nudity," Dyer said.

Unbelieveable.

[JohnnyZ]

"It doesn't become child pornography when you're just dealing with nudity," Dyer said.

Well, he's the child porn expert, he should know!

[Servant of the Nine]

"It doesn't become child pornography when you're just dealing with nudity," Dyer said.

Unbelieveable.

If nudity alone is kiddie porn, then all our pics of our baby children in the bathtub are legally kiddieporn, and if we ever make an enemy of a prosecutor, they can put us away for it, and when we get out we will be labeled a sexual predator for the rest of our lives.

So9

[Pan_Yans Wife]

But the show used videotape, so then you could say that the advertisers were endorsing pornography, because they paid for it, right?

I wonder if advertisers will pull their endorsements?

[Always Right]

Francis' company, Mantra Films Inc., has disputed the charges, saying its crews always ask young women their age and film only those who say they are 18 or older.

That defense doesn't work in statutory rape and it won't work here.

[Servant of the Nine]

But the show used videotape, so then you could say that the advertisers were endorsing pornography, because they paid for it, right?

I wonder if advertisers will pull their endorsements?

This was not a TV show. There were no advertizers.
It was just a tape sold by mail order.

So9

[cavtrooper21]

My wife thinks that there may have been a case like that in the late 80's, involving a relitive, but she's not sure.
Says there is a Lifetime movie about it.
Get back to you if she can hunt any more info up.

Scary thought though....

[Eric Esot]

If nudity alone is kiddie porn, then all our pics of our baby children in the bathtub are legally kiddieporn, and if we ever make an enemy of a prosecutor, they can put us away for it, and when we get out we will be labeled a sexual predator for the rest of our lives.

Nope, that argument would never see the light of day - Under 18 U.S. Code Section 2256 - it is "sexually explicit conduct" (actual or simulated, a depiction), of an "identifiable minor".

[Pan_Yans Wife]

How are they going to handle the difficulty of interstate commerce? If someone in North Carolina buys it, and North Carolina deems it offensive or pornographic, doesn't this then put the production company in danger of being sued by North Carolina?

[baltodog]

Hey, Dyer and Francis!! If this is so legal, wanna buy some pics of your daughters? They're just naked, not doing anything "explicit".
I'm sooooo tired of the blatent sexuality the leftist media is shoving down our throat.
Then they bitch at me because I'm not giving enough money to AIDS research.
If my daughter ever wound up on a tape like that, I'd find out who shot it and beat him to death with his family's legs!
Sorry, bad mood. Then I read about a couple of *ssh*les defending thier right to present this stuff to us.

[geaux]

I have to say, I think including 16 or 17 year old girls lifting their shirts in the "kiddie porn" category is a bit extreme. I see a real difference between the guys who buy these tapes -- mostly in their twenties or early thirties -- who like to look at attractive young women, and a dirtly b*stard who wants to diddle little kids. Flame away.

[Servant of the Nine]

If nudity alone is kiddie porn, then all our pics of our baby children in the bathtub are legally kiddieporn, and if we ever make an enemy of a prosecutor, they can put us away for it, and when we get out we will be labeled a sexual predator for the rest of our lives.

Nope, that argument would never see the light of day - Under 18 U.S. Code Section 2256 - it is "sexually explicit conduct" (actual or simulated, a depiction), of an "identifiable minor".

Then the defense is correct. By that standard, simple nudity is not pornography if their is no sexual act or simulation thereof.

SO9

[Pan_Yans Wife]

But, that would be exploitation! They wouldn't do that! (sarcasm)

[seamas]

I am afraid that you are wrong. If the nude gal has a "come hither" leer on her face it is lascivious, and indictable.

[baltodog]

"I see a real difference between the guys who buy these tapes -- mostly in their twenties or early thirties -- who like to look at attractive young women, and a dirtly b*stard who wants to diddle little kids. Flame away."

16 or 17 is a minor, I don't care how they look or they're doing.
If it's Ok for a 16 or 17 year to expose herself to a 20- 0r 30-year old, then it should be OK for that same guy to date her, get to know her, and maybe cop a feel....or a little more without "doing it"?
Where are we going to draw the line?
It's one thing for a teenage boy to horny, but something is not fully cured when an older person gets off on this stuff. I totally blame the internet for bring so much porn "mainstream".

[Servant of the Nine]

I am afraid that you are wrong. If the nude gal has a "come hither" leer on her face it is lascivious, and indictable.

It's gonna depend on the State. Since in New York there is no valid law requiring women to wear a top at all, pictures of them without one can hardly be porn.

They may bust this particular producer, but they are gonna have zero effect on the availability of similar porn.
This is just a waste of prosecutorial time and money in an attempt to get good local press.

SO9