NEWS: Rock Band Sued for Girl on Girl Sex Video

MUSIC: Rock Band Sued for Girl on Girl Sex Video

Everyone seems to lament the death of the true Rockstar--the skinny, pale man who wears skin tight jeans and a day old cold sweat, and who has an insatiable appetite for tattoos, sex and drugs. Drugs first, then sex. Rock 'n Roll is not an art, it's a lifestyle. It's not about the music, it's about how the pyrotechnics compliment the music.

Now all we have left are nerdy bitches with plastic rimmed glasses and bad haircuts singing about their feelings and definitely not getting any.

Where did the Rock 'n Roll soldiers of decadence go? Who will midwestern young boys look up to through their butt cut, shoulder length locks?

Actually, they still exist.

Buckcherry and their record label Warner Music Group should feel proud for keeping the rockstar torch burning bright, because today (well last week, Sept. 7th) they are being sued by a 16-year old girl for getting her drunk and coercing her to perform in a pornographic music video. Rock On!

Rockstars: Rule #1, if you need pornography to sell your music, it's time to take your GED and head on over to your local community college. Registration starts today!

Warner Music Group: Rule #1, don't sign bands that make pornographic videos involving minors.

The music video in question was for the band's song "Crazy Bitch." It was immediately pulled from their website along with the recruitment language posted at MySpace, but a clean, RealPlayer version of the video is here. Buckcherry's haste wasn't quick enough to save damage caused to the young girl's rep at school:

Apparently precautions taken in order to avoid a minor's involvement consisted of asking auditioners if they were minors, and a big ol' sign saying "No Minors."

Whoa, how on earth did a young girl skirt such security measures?

This just in:

TEEN-AGE GIRL LIES ABOUT HER AGE TO APPEAR OLDER!!!

The lawsuit filed claims damages in excess of $25K. No word as to whether Buckcherry feels this will affect the same spike in sales that R. Kelly received for peeing on minors.

While more stringent checks should probably have been in place, isn't it also fair to say that if there were signs saying 'no minors' and the girl was aware that alcohol was being handed out that she was too young to legally drink... well, those were indications that she probably shouldn't have been there. Maybe, just maybe, the signs were there to prevent her from getting in a situation like this.

I suppose my problem here is the implication that Buckcherry are just bad for getting a minor drunk and involved in pornographic material, while I'd suggest that it's not a particularly moral move to get ANYONE drunk and involved in pornographic material.

I'd also suggest that 16 or not, if the girl is a fan then she might have a faint idea that Buckcherry aren't about fluffy bunnies and songs about holding hands, and that a music video might not contain such.

I think both sides made a few lapses of judgement here.

...or, you know, they could of just asked for ID before she came in.

"But she said she was 18, man!"

You've got a point. There are plenty of other reasons to imply that they're awful.

This makes me long for the innocent days when Steven Tyler just cast his hot, underage daughter cavorting with a likewise hot-and-underage Alicia Silverstone in his videos, but minus the sex.

And yes, Buckcherry does blow.

she knew what she was doing. she knows what she is doing now!

As to the title of this thread, I don't think the issue is "girl-on-girl" sex. I believe the problem is "adult-on-minor" sex.

Agreed. Furthermore, this was already done with the girls gone wild shit. It's really vulgar and stupid.

I hate that song.

actually, I believe in california if you coerse _anyone_ into sex while they are drunk it's considered date rape.... let alone a minor...

I'm shocked these guys are still around. I thought they faded into obscurity after that "I love the cocaine" song. I guess this is a way of getting your name back in the media, but probably not for the reason they were hoping.

16 is a bit much -- you need to be 21 to drink in a place like that, and there's no way a 16 year old looks 21.

This is more like "Mom and dad have found out what I've done - and they're REALLY mad".
The girl had to of known what they were about it's freaking BUCKCHERRY.

Ugh.

And seriously - shame on the band, their management and whoever was in charge of the entire video for not taking proper security measures, and really doing ID checks on the girls involved. How unprofessional is that shit?
Wow.

Just want to remind the friendly staff at SG of Probot and Louis XIV. Subpar bands to be sure, but both employed suicide girls to prance around naked which by some moral circles may be construed as pornography.

SG had/has a link to the dirty full version of the tape, also i know someone whom was in the video with another chick all over her makes me wonder..... on another note never have been a buckcherry fan

I'm confused. So...because she was underage she was not responsible for her actions in lying about her age, signing a consent form and showing up to a casting call where minors weren't allowed and it was stated that food and alcohol would be provided...much less her actions while drunk? would this actually hold up in court?

Obviously Buckcherry and the people who put this...video...together are idiots for not being more stringent in checking the ages of the people at the casting call/ pornomusicvideo shoot but I'm wondering about the deeper issue and the precedent it would set.
there have already been lawsuits against MySpace itself that failed involving minors posing as adults by the parents of those minors.
is it because those suits failed that they are now going after the other party rather than myspace?

obviously if the video was explicit and pronographic Buckcherry would have been required by law to document the age of all the participants. as SG fan Joe Francis recently found out.

oh and a small (minor?) quibble but

doesn't sound right. it makes it seem like only white people were invited to the casting call. probably should be "involvement by minors" or maybe "minors' involvement" ?

Personally, I never cared for the band, the song is irritating with a message I don't agree with or think should be conveyed, and yet the girl wasn't drunk yet when she walked in under her own power, lied about her age, and stuck around long enough to risk being coerced. She made her own damn decisions to get into the situation, and I'm actually getting really sick of hearing about how a lawsuit will solve everybody's problems! Punish 'em all.

OKay just seen the "dirty version" its not that good. Same goes for the song as well.

the song was written about paris hilton?!......

everything makes sense now...

woah..there's a big difference between consentual dancing and underage porn..Probot does not suck by the way

I apologize. You're right, terrible wording. Thanks for catching that. I'm going to fix that now, if I can. so hopefully it won't be confused by future readers.