Quote:
Originally Posted by kronic
Actually, 2257 IS a direct result of Traci Lords. The origins of 2257 go back as far as 1988.
My point in the matter however is that a model that is determined enough, can attain the appropriate documents, and there is NOTHING that any producer can do OTHER than check those very ID's...especially when it's a GOVERNMENT ID.
And a model most certainly isn't above lying that she IS over the age of 18, OR, if the purpose suits her, saying she WAS underage when she in fact WASN'T (anyone know the name Risi Simms?).
|
You raise an excellent point. Allow me to ask. In a business that is constantly under fire from all sides, do you not think it is prudent to go above and beyond to cover your own ass when you know one slip up could take away your freedom?
Your example would be sufficient IF Kelsie had a government issue ID that beared her picture with someone else's information. That would have meant that the government had been duped in issuance and could not reasonably expect someone with less experience to be able to detect the ID as false. However, in this case specifically, Dirty D has alluded to Kelsie using an ID of a friend and unless they are identical twins, would be very difficult to pass off as belonging to Kelsie. Perhaps D dropped the ball or whoever verifies model information and it could have been a mere over sight. Nonetheless, over sight is no excuse when the penalties are so harsh.
It has been stated here many times before that shit occurs every day that could potentially bring down the adult industry but shit like this is allowed to pass by without any outrage.
Consider all the backlash Rob Black and Max received for their extreme content. Many in the industry are now exposed to greater scrutiny because they continued to push the limits. Things like this could make it harder for those that love this business to continue in it.
The fact that the content remained for a year, marketed by affiliates, paid for and downloaded by customers makes them just as culpable as him in this mess. How fair is that? Do affiliates not have the right to be assured that the content they are marketing meets current laws and does not potentially puts them in harms way? Doesn't the customer who purchases in good faith have the right to be assured that the content they bought can not potentially land them in jail for simply viewing and purchasing?
Isn't it possible that the reason he doesn't come clean (hypothetically) and admit over sight or lack of effort to verify true identity prior to production is because that in itself is admittance that affiliates and customers cannot trust the content he supplies because of the incident? If Dirty D came out and said that all of this is true, do you think any affiliate in his right mind would still promote him, risking their freedom for promotion of underage material? It would be business suicide.