haha, so everyone here on sg, a porn site, is badmouthing a guy who's a friend of sg and a pornographer?

Exactly. We, a group of people who give our money to a site empowering and emboldening a group of hot young geniuses, are mostly-publically shitting on a guy who gets trashed girls to flash their titties for promises of being famous (or less).

Comparing SG and Girls Gone Wild is like comparing a five-star steak dinner to a Happy Meal.

Well said indeed . That & I don't have to see half hour info-mercials for SG anywhere , yet .

yeah i wish i was a fucking dumb ass millionaire!

he deserves severe jail time.

what a scumbag.

HAHAHA rape is so funny.

Also, their bus ran over a cyclist in my hometown.

Well, I don't agree with the idea that it does anything specifically bad to women, but 2257 is a pretty shitty law that exists for little reason other than attacking the porn industry.

First a little history. 2257 come into being as a response to the Traci Lords scandal. The problem is that it would have done nothing to prevent that fiasco from happening. You see, mis Lords had a real legal ID which she had obtained fraudulently. So 2257 in a grand gesture of poor aim legalized a limitation on porn producers in an effort to correct for errors commited by a government office and not by porn producers.

As to why they're worse than McDonalds keeping recored, well, they are pretty obviously written as a discouragement to doing business and not for any real record keeping purpose. The records must be kept on the premises of the business itself. The records must be made available (without warrent - which combined with the above means that the popo can just walk into your offices when they feel like it) to law enforcement during a certain number of hours per week. Along with the identification, there is supposed to be printed copies of all elicit materials. Then there must be a specific employee whose job it is to handle said records.

All in all, it's purposefully more of a hassle than McDonalds throwing some photocopies in a filecabinet. Also, breaking it is a felony, which McDonalds doesn't have to deal with.

Now, note, when I say it's a felony, I'm talking about keeping the records wrong, not about having underage people in the material. That's a different law altogether.

In fact, you could make a video of naked 10-year-olds doing cartwheels and never break this law, because it only applies to material where sex happens. Simple nudity - even erotic nudity - is not limited by 2257.

That last part makes it a big deal when applied in this case, because as I understand it, the lack of correct ID had more to do with the flashers on the street than with the girl-on-girl action scenes which had better record keeping. So, if those sex scenes were not included on the same videos as the flashing, he probably would never have needed to be 2257 compliant in the first place. He may have been breaking other laws, but not that one.

So, the law is bad, and in this case appears to have been used punitively to get him when there wasn't much else to go on. (very much, in my mind, like going after the actors in Deep Throat as intimidation tactics to discourage the making of the movies)

So, opinions on the guy and his videos aside, I have to agree that being happy about this isn't something I like seeing from anyone who should be concerned about freedoms regarding porn.

This is a NEW law? Every porn I've ever seen has a notice at the beginning stating that everyone is over 18 and who has these records on file.

Also, that guy is a total tool. Last I heard he didn't pay any of the girls who appeared in his videos and made him rich. Or at least he didn't pay most of them. Why pay them when you can just find girls who are drunk/naive/stupid to do it for free? I can't believe it's taken this long for him to get sued and/or prosecuted. I mean even if someone signs a release, is it actually legally binding if that person is drunk out of their skull at the time?

For the record I feel no sympathy for drunk or naive girls. as for "I can't believe it's taken this long for him to get sued and/or prosecuted." If you take a look back I think you'll see that he's been sued plenty, and he won, because we live in America. Also, for the record, I don't own, and wouldn't buy any of his videos.

I'd like to think that people are getting "high and mighty" because, while both SG and GGW depict nudity, the latter is pretty degrading to the subjects and the former is, at the very least, a venue for expression, communication and celebration of identity beyond the simple "hey, I'm hot and naked!"

It could be reasonably argued that many aspects of SG can and do act to portray women - especially the SG's themselves - as strong, independent and confident individuals who are utterly in control of their fates while GGW portrays them as stupid, gullible sex-objects that can easily be taken advantage of by the nearest douche with a camera and a bunch of drugs or alcohol.

I know which one I'd be happy to see shanked by the court-system.

No doubt many of the girls who agree to help this jagoff get rich for no compensation share a little of the blame for being so dumb. However, that doesn't mean they deserve to be exploited and get nothing in return. Just because someone falls for a scam artist doesn't mean they deserved it and the scam artist isn't wrong. I'm just saying the fact that he seems to largely take advantage of girls when they're probably too drunk to make a rational decision and he's making millions and not paying them, makes him a scumbag... legality aside.

It's a slap on the wrist. Goes to show the priorities of the judicial system. Still, maybe it'll stop SOME people from buying his lame and now it's clear, immoral product. And no, I'm not a bible thumper...but he knew what he was doing and made bank on it. Wrong is wrong.

-Craig

I just want to say that there have been some really good and intelligent discussions in this thread!

A bit of a surprise but appreciated none the less.