Legal Ruling: p*rnography Company found to exploit women

I have a really hard time supporting anyone who actually believes their 'DVD' would never appear online.

Sites like pornhub are the complicit ones. They allow anyone to distribute content on their network.

As far as Im concerned, there is no 'innocent' if there is consent.

 

The case, theoretically, is about fraud. If the below is true - it's just the accusation from the lawsuit so I don't know what the counterarguments were - I have no problem with the ruling. If they used fake references and lied about their own release plans, that's just simple fraud.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/03/us/fraud-p*rn-california-12-million-award/index.html

Instead, the women were mostly students who considered the defendants' solicitations to film a pornographic video only due to some immediate and pressing financial need, according to court documents. The lawsuit claims the defendants took "considerable, calculated steps to falsely assure prospective models that their videos will never be posted online, come to light in the United States, or be seen by anyone who might know them."

The women were rushed into signing documents without reading them, and the defendants paid "references" hired to pose as previous models and deliver a script that would falsely convince the women that the experience was "safe and enjoyable" and that the videos had never been discovered nor circulated.

Despite these promises, the lawsuit says the defendants published the videos to their website and many popular free services.

 

Every time I watch one of those p*rn documentaries on Netflix or wherever the whole thing strikes me as depressing as hell. Same thing with strippers... usually poor girls from bad situations who don't really have any ability to earn (real) money any other way getting used up and spit out.... most don't make really serious money but even the ones that do generally don't have much financial sense/education and it's all gone fairly quickly. Alternatively their boyfriend/husband/whatever steals the money or the money is spent on a drug habit. It's all very sad and grody.

Then they live with the stigma of being a "stripper" or "w****" or whatever for the rest of their lives though.

 

I agree with Major's analysis. The idea that these girls should've just known that any videos they made would get released worldwide everywhere while cynically might be true but that is still a pretty unethical way of conducting business and doesn't excuse fraud. That the business made representations to the "clients" that this material would be released only overseas is still on the business to live up to that representation. This would be if I bought a Rockets' jersey from some guy off of Craigslist and he advertised that it was an NBA authentic Rockets' jersey and showed me documentation saying it was. Now buying something off of Craigslist there is always Caveat Emptor but that still doesn't excuse the seller from falsely representing his product.

 

What's the slippery slope? The hitman still is criminally guilty of murder. You're still criminally guilty of hiring a hitman to commit murder. If you lied to the hitman about the terms, he has a civil claim against you for fraud.

 

I don't really see why this is so hard to understand.

The girls entered into an agreement with certain conditions.

The conditions were not met and the girls proved damages.

It makes no difference if it was for p*rnography or baking a cake.

 

This analogy make no sense the hitman is guilty of murder point blank.

The women are disputing the claims made by the defendants not the act of filming them.

You seem no have no idea what the merits of the case are.

 

Slippery Slope!

 

apples to ....

 

Ball sacks...

Apparently.

 

To clarify, I was trying to state there is a difference between someone who freely consents vs someone who is coerced into consenting. ie: sex trafficking.

I have no problem with the ruling either. Personally, I think the producers are scum. But, like common knowledge these days, if you dont want your parts on display to the world, dont take a nudie with your face in it. Contracts and laws are not designed to ultimately prevent the said action. They are there to present an award/punishment should the contract be broken.

 

No he's not - he's still criminally guilty of murder. His civil suit against the guy who hired him doesn't change that. If anything, it makes it worse because he'd have to admit that he signed a contract to murder someone. And good luck convincing a jury to award damages for that. I see no reason to feel sorry for the guy who hired him being sued - he was stupid enough to hire a hitman and even more stupid to a sign a contract - and a fraudulent one at that.

 

im still laughing you got suckered into this hitman scenario.

 

Use less astroglide