Now Aimee - it all depends on that person's "no go zones".
I was impaired when I said that.
Riley ,'Potential'
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Now Aimee - it all depends on that person's "no go zones".
I was impaired when I said that.
but how does the "Girls Gone Wild" guy around it? I have to believe that a lot of those women are less than sober when signing the releases
I've heard he lets people out of the releases if they ask. (I'm trying to remember WHERE I heard it.)
(I'm trying to remember WHERE I heard it.)
You were probably drunk when you heard it.
And, at least according to Wikipedia:
Legally, exposing oneself in a public area constitutes no expectation of privacy; moreover, GGW staff members claim they get every flasher to sign a liability waiver.[1] The legal effect of these factors has resulted in a waiver of some women and girls' rights to bring a civil action against GGW. In 2004 in Panama City, Florida, a judge ruled that video footage of females under the age of 18 exposing their breasts without physical or sexual contact is not child pornography.
You were probably drunk when you heard it.
Hee!
video footage of females under the age of 18 exposing their breasts without physical or sexual contact is not child pornography.
Well then what the hell is it?!?
Well then what the hell is it?!?
Child nudity? I think it's the sexual act that makes it porn.
Yeah, sorry about my ?!?, I have this issue with "children getting naked for the sexual gratification of others." Call me nutzo.... t /sarcasm
Anyway... I think the reason all these lawsuits end up not being valid is the theory that you shouldn't get drunk enough that, not only will you do something you wouldn't normally do, but that you'd sign a waiver about it. For instance, if those guys didn't want the image of them being racist twits spreading around, they shouldn't act like that.
signed, feeling like a hardass today
Well then what the hell is it?!?
Isn't that amazing? Snap shots of toddlers in bathtubs get parents hauled off by the cops but THAT is somehow not sexual. At least in Florida.
Maybe its just in the context of the "no expectation of privacy"? I have no clue. If underaged boobs had trademarks I might be able to tell you.
I have this issue with "children getting naked for the sexual gratification of others."
I agree with you, however, I wonder if it has to do with the age of sexual consent in any particular state. In Florida, it's 16, if the person they are having teh sex with is under the age of 24. But like I say, I don't know if that has any bearing on the definition of "children" in cases like these.