News > Celeb > "Girls Gone Wild" Asshole Pleads Guilty

commentary
WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 13 2006 12:00 PM

"Girls Gone Wild" Asshole Pleads Guilty

Submitted by Alyk

Edited by Rahodeb

Tags: Joe Francis, Girls Gone Wild, Guilty, Underage

Joe Francis, raging douchebag and founder of the Girls Gone Wild empire, plead guilty to charges he and his company video taped underage girls. Francis acknowledged he did not maintain proper age and identity documents for each girl who performed for his camera. Although Francis will not spend any time in jail for the offenses, the court fines come directly out of Francis pocket.

GGW founder Joe Francis, along with related his related companies, Mantra Films Inc. and MRA Holding LLC, agreed to pay the government a total of $2.1 million in fines and restitution, however only $500,000 will be paid by Francis himself.

Francis showed regret for footage depicting underage girls involved in "sexually explicit conduct" in two of his Girls Gone Wild DVDs.

"Mantra Films, Inc., MRA Holdings Inc. and I admit that during 2002 and at times in 2003, we produced and distributed videos without obtaining the required records or attaching appropriate labeling," Francis said in a statement.

This is a landmark ruling; Francis was the first person to be successfully prosecuted under new federal laws requiring adult filmmakers to keep detailed records documenting age of participants in their films.

The charges in this case are believed to be the first to be filed under a law -- often referred to as Section 2257 -- passed by Congress to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. The law protects against the use of minors in the production of sexually explicit material by requiring producers to create and maintain age and identity records for every performer in sexually explicit movies and other media.

Nice hair.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Comments

Aaron

Shakopee, MN

July 2004

SEP 13, 2006 05:52 PM

cyranosbrother said:
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

He got in trouble for not keeping 2257 records, not for kiddie porn or taking advantage of young girls or anything like it. It's been my experiance that wrong is rarely every wrong.

Westley

Vatican City

April 2004

SEP 13, 2006 05:54 PM

I think lots of people, Joe Francis among them. should be punished for being jackpiles, but cheering because the guy prosecuted this time under a shitty law constructed to harrass, limit the privacy, speech, and logistical ability to remain in business at all of porn producers/performers happens to be a total douchefuck is rather idiotic.

ardour

Ottawa, ON

March 2006

SEP 13, 2006 05:56 PM

So next time I want to film underaged girls, I will have to remember to sell the videos first... because then if I get caught, I will have enough money so it won't matter at all!

PaulNikon

Melbourne, FL

February 2003

SEP 13, 2006 06:58 PM

He is a douche. And $500,000 is a lot of money.

Ainur

I'm lost

May 2005

SEP 13, 2006 07:16 PM

I've never seen one second of any GGW footage beyond angrily waking up in the middle of the night to one of his infomercials. Never understood all the interest. Just not my style of porn I guess. Heh.

Moonrabbit

Vancouver, BC

February 2005

SEP 13, 2006 07:20 PM

PaulNikon said:
He is a douche. And $500,000 is a lot of money.

Not nearly enough. It's hardly an obstical for him. More of a bribe to keep from being shut down on a technicality.
Maybe even an investment.

I'm gonna guess those tapes sell for $29.95 because that's a catchy infomercial number. Now multiply that by the number of scummy, horny, idiots in north america. Multiplied by the number of volumes he's released (no idea).

He'll get by I'm sure.

I'm not even going to touch the comments comparing SG to GGW. That's just plain ignorance.
It's a shame the people making those comments are on this site.

But I do wish someone kicked his ass at the 5th an. party.

seanvegas

Lincoln, NE

December 2004

SEP 13, 2006 09:32 PM

GGW is nothing to jack off to in my opinion. What porno needs are nice, cool charismatic producers, something that Francis is not!

ShaggyVixe

New Orleans, LA

November 2005

SEP 13, 2006 10:46 PM

gillycat said:

Erragal said:
So next we get to see, "My cell mates gone wild on my ass"

HAHAHA rape is so funny.

Forced anal sodomy with a chance for rectal trauma couldn't happen to a nicer fuckwit......

RudieCantFail

Baton Rouge, LA

January 2006

SEP 14, 2006 02:39 AM

apesamongus said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

RudieCantFail said:
Out of curiosity, Reprobate, how does this compare to requirements of employers such as fast food restaurants that employ persons under eighteen or in professions that require a minimum age to work at, such as selling alcohol?
I ask because this seems to be the closest annalogy that I can think of to this situation. The girls in these videos are more or less being employed to perform in these videos (though they may not be receiving monetary compensation) in an age-restricted industry.

Edited to add disclaimer:
I ask this in all sincerity and out of genuine curiosity of the law, not as a snide rhetorical statement.

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.

Thanks for the explanation, apesamongus. After reading that I have to agree that though Joe Francis is a complete fucktwit-asshat-douchebag, convicting him under this statute (especially with the slap on the wrist he received) is no victory. Getting the guy on this is annalogous when Al Capone was imprisoned for tax evasion instead of the more violent and hurtful crimes he committed. And this law is obviously just a part of the larger war on porn, aimed at making the production of porn an unprofitable business. It's really rather stupid as it will probably end up driving porn production back underground to illegal bootleg operations, and then what's to stop them from really filming underage girls or even using women in forced servitude in porn videos?
They targetted Francis because GGW is high profile, a household name, and it's relatable to their voting core who are fearful of their own daughters appearing on one of his tapes. But if we're going to convict this shithead on something let's get him for something that's really wrong and illegal, not just some bullshit record-keeping law cause we can't find anything else.

Mythicus

Lawnside, NJ

May 2004

SEP 14, 2006 07:45 AM

gillycat said:

Erragal said:
So next we get to see, "My cell mates gone wild on my ass"

HAHAHA rape is so funny.

well...

StarBelliedBoy

Philadelphia, PA

December 2003

SEP 14, 2006 08:30 AM

gillycat said:

Erragal said:
So next we get to see, "My cell mates gone wild on my ass"

HAHAHA rape is so funny.

Yeah, NOBODY laughs at prison rape!

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

SEP 14, 2006 11:29 AM

S_Eldorado said:
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.