Topheavy Studios being Sued by a 17 year old girl

That specific girl, not just any girl, as the rest are apparently over 18. They don't have full nudity in this game. It's just breasts.

For you to even think that people want this game to see someone under 18 naked is weird. If that was the case, the game would've sold when it came out. I seriously, seriously doubt anyone who buys this game gives it an hour or two of playtime.

You annoy the hell out of me. I just thought that you should know that.
 
[quote name='Scorch']That specific girl, not just any girl, as the rest are apparently over 18. They don't have full nudity in this game. It's just breasts.[/quote]

It doesn't have to be full nudity. Even if covered, if that shot takes place, the product would be child porn per United States V Knox.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']To prove it to be child porn, all one lawyer would have to do is show just ONE scene where they zoom in and show the girl's genitals in close focus.[/quote]

OK, you are grasping at straws here. That wouldn't "prove" anything anyway because it is not an objective test. Plus, your U.S. v. Knox example is not even remotely on point. I think I'm done with this thread - you may not like it and you may not agree with it but it's not child porn.
 
For you to even think that people want this game to see someone under 18 naked is weird.

Really. So then why is everyone in this thread saying "Oh, I better run out and buy a copy?" Buying it for speculative value is a weak argument at best... the game was nothing more than a blip on the radar before, and after this it will be nothing but a blip on the radar and a stain on the image of videogames.

If that was the case, the game would've sold when it came out. I seriously, seriously doubt anyone who buys this game gives it an hour or two of playtime.

No one knew that there was anyone on the disk under 18 at that time. In fact, the assumption was that they ALL were over 18, per state and national laws.

You annoy the hell out of me. I just thought that you should know that.

That's nice.
 
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='JSweeney']To prove it to be child porn, all one lawyer would have to do is show just ONE scene where they zoom in and show the girl's genitals in close focus.[/quote]

OK, you are grasping at straws here. That wouldn't "prove" anything anyway because it is not an objective test. Plus, your U.S. v. Knox example is not even remotely on point. I think I'm done with this thread - you may not like it and you may not agree with it but it's not child porn.[/quote]

I don't see your point. US v Knox is VERY topical here.
It establishes legal precedant for a similar occurance. Most judges would take the ruling of US v Knox when considering The Guy Game.
 
I always thought 17 was the legal age of consent in Texas. If that's not the case, i'm sure in a lot of trouble.
 
Really. So then why is everyone in this thread saying "Oh, I better run out and buy a copy?" Buying it for speculative value is a weak argument at best... the game was nothing more than a blip on the radar before, and after this it will be nothing but a blip on the radar and a stain on the image of videogames.
Click to expand...

The same could be said of Kakuto Chojin, but I don't see you bringing some example of some religious act that's offensive to everyone and blah blah blah blah blah.

No one knew that there was anyone on the disk under 18 at that time. In fact, the assumption was that they ALL were over 18, per state and national laws.
Click to expand...

0673.jpg


I don't see your point. US v Knox is VERY topical here.
It establishes legal precedant for a similar occurance. Most judges would take the ruling of US v Knox when considering The Guy Game.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Except not.

I always thought 17 was the legal age of consent in Texas. If that's not the case, i'm sure in a lot of trouble.
Click to expand...

17 IS the legal age in Texas.
 
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='JSweeney']To prove it to be child porn, all one lawyer would have to do is show just ONE scene where they zoom in and show the girl's genitals in close focus.[/quote]

OK, you are grasping at straws here. That wouldn't "prove" anything anyway because it is not an objective test. Plus, your U.S. v. Knox example is not even remotely on point. I think I'm done with this thread - you may not like it and you may not agree with it but it's not child porn.[/quote]

To add my two cents (oh boy.), I think JSweeny's onto something. Many of you seem to not understand that (1) there can be no consensus on what defines 'child pornography,' and thus (2) we are forced to rely on an imperfect definition set forth by the United States judicial system, as well as its many varied interpretations (man, judicial discretion can be a bitch).

The law's understanding of it is not perfect, and you may not agree. Excellent work; you've got the making of a politician! However, as an average citizen, one person's argument is highly unlikely to persuade a court of law that their definition of child pornography is incorrect.

In addition, something that's been briefly mentioned is liability. Persons under the age of eighteen are not considered liable or responsible for many actions (with the exception of violent crime, such as murder; but that's another story). I don't care how mature a 17 year old person can be, and how immature people of the age of 18 can be (but, knowing my immaturity, I believe it to be true). Again, what you think is not in corcordance with the law. If you have what you feel is a superior measure of responsibility, then I recommend you run for office.

My only thing about the guy game is the host. Go check out the front of the game, or one of your older mags for an advertisement. What the fuck is up with that dude's facial expression? He has the satisfued look of a man who just passed a Tonka Truck. For that reason, (in addition to being happily married and not a fan 'o smut in any form), methinks I'll pass on the guy game. The cover artist, though, should be fired from that company.

myke.
 
[quote name='uberzone']I always thought 17 was the legal age of consent in Texas. If that's not the case, i'm sure in a lot of trouble.[/quote]

Yeah, it is, but the game is being sold outside of Texas, so its a problem.
 
The same could be said of Kakuto Chojin, but I don't see you bringing some example of some religious act that's offensive to everyone and blah blah blah blah blah.


Religious expression enjoys protection under the first amendment.
Child pornography does not.

No one knew that there was anyone on the disk under 18 at that time. In fact, the assumption was that they ALL were over 18, per state and national laws.
Click to expand...

0673.jpg


I don't see your point. US v Knox is VERY topical here.
It establishes legal precedant for a similar occurance. Most judges would take the ruling of US v Knox when considering The Guy Game.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Except not.

Qoute discenting legal opinions then. Prove me wrong with caselaw and fact rather than opinions pulled from the depths of your anus.



I always thought 17 was the legal age of consent in Texas. If that's not the case, i'm sure in a lot of trouble.
Click to expand...

17 IS the legal age in Texas.

But the product is sold outside of Texas... making it beholden to all the standards in those states as well.
 
[quote name='Rihan']where did it ever say alchohol was involved with this, and where did it say she ever signed a contract? the makers of the game are completely responsible for verifying the ages of the girls they put in the game. should she get any money? no. But the company has to be held responsible and complete blame needs to stop being placed on the girl.[/quote]

Well... for those of you who have not been to South Padre... its frickin crazy... there are many reasons why Playboy ranks it within the top ten spring break get aways. I believe E! does the same. Any way... I remember seeing the Guy Game at the beach. At Coca Cola Beach there are a bunch of tents/booths that give stuff away... there are kegs and coolers every where... music is blaring. One of the things the breakers do is go from booth to booth getting free crap. The Guy Game's booth was next to the Trojin booth (yes for reall and yes they give out condoms). From what it looked like... the set up was clearly being taped and there was a huge audience. The girl got stuff just like all the other booths. So, from what I have seen the Guy Game was centralized (and confined to the interior of the booth, dont think it matters much, but eh) and not just stalking the beach like the Girl Gone Wild guys. She could easily have been smashed... beer is easy to get if your female... I have been propositioned to buy beer for girls who where underage... thank god I was with my girl friend... so I was like "sorry". My girl friend told me later I should have asked for like $50...would have paid for our food... lol. Oh well. As for the contract... i think i saw girls signing something... but time has passed... and there was boobs to focus on.


I say you should all come to South Padre this spring break... CAGs Unite!
 
[quote name='JSweeney']

*sigh* No, it's not. Maybe you should read the statement a little more carefully. If you read the first part of the statement which puts it in the proper context, it clearly says "Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not, etc...." The part in bold clearly refers to the previous sentence which classifies what falls under lewd exhibition - "the exhibition of children’s genitals" Boobs are not genitals.

It is most definitely not child porn.


United States v Knox:
In Knox, a man who had previously been convicted of receiving child pornography through the mail ordered video tapes (by mail) of girls between the ages of ten and seventeen who, in the Court's words, "were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age." The girls wore bikini bathing suits, leotards, or underwear - none of the girls in the videos was nude. The videos were set to music, and it appeared that someone off-camera was directing the girls. The photographer videotaped the girls dancing, and zoomed in on each girl's pubic area for an extended period of time. Knox was prosecuted under United States Child Pornography laws.

Legal counsel for Knox argued that "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" meant that the girls had to be nude - wearing clothing meant that that genitals and pubic area were clearly not exhibited. The Court disagreed and held that there was no nudity requirement in the statute: "the statutory term "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area," as used in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(E), does not contain any requirement that the child subject's genitals or pubic area be fully or partially exposed or discernible through his or her opaque clothing."

Yes, it is child porn, per United Sates v Knox.[/quote]

You know what, by this definition ESPN is guilty of producing child porn then. They have had high school cheerleading contests with the performers "were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age." The Olympics would be guilty too. They have female gymnasts welll under 18 parading around and rolling on the ground in next to nothing with very close camera shots. Female swimmers and volleyball players have had long lingering shots in the same area mentioned. Should I even mention the the lingering camera shots of Anna Kournikova and Maria Sharapova? There are a lot of people that are harming society I guess. Let's also arrest the people responsible for Coppertone ads, ANY catalogue with clothes being modeled, any bouncing boobs on National Geographic, oh and that movie Romeo and Juliet too because Juliet was only 16. You would also have to shut down all nudist colonies. It should even be illegal for anyone under 18 to ever appear on a beach, even in a bikini. Also that wouldn't apply to just under 18. The whole Summer Games in Athens would have been pornographic by the way this law is interpreted (especially the volleyball games). That is why a law like that is dangerous when interpreted in an ASS way. (I am not saying you are an ass, I am just saying how a rule that is supposed to be one thing can eventually lead to other things when interpreted by some bible belt judge).

The girl brought ALL of this on herself. If at any point she lied about her age she should be jailed. Her lying is as dangerous as anything in this situation. I looked at the Guy Game site and there is no way that any one intended a child to be portrayed in ANY kind of way. No one even remotely looked like anything other than a college student. I'd bet anything that this girl saw that they were PAYING girls to take their tops off and wanted money and she KNEW she'd have to lie and say she was 18. Someone at home probably recongnized her and she panicked.

It amazes me that more people are concerned with a flash of nipple and not that the girl was drinking WELL underage. Not by a month but 4 damn years.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']You know what, by this definition ESPN is guilty of producing child porn then. They have had high school cheerleading contests with the performers "were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age." The Olympics would be guilty too. They have female gymnasts welll under 18 parading around and rolling on the ground in next to nothing with very close camera shots. Female swimmers and volleyball players have had long lingering shots in the same area mentioned. Should I even mention the the lingering camera shots of Anna Kournikova and Maria Sharapova? There are a lot of people that are harming society I guess. Let's also arrest the people responsible for Coppertone ads, ANY catalogue with clothes being modeled, any bouncing boobs on National Geographic, oh and that movie Romeo and Juliet too because Juliet was only 16. You would also have to shut down all nudist colonies. It should even be illegal for anyone under 18 to ever appear on a beach, even in a bikini. Also that wouldn't apply to just under 18. The whole Summer Games in Athens would have been pornographic by the way this law is interpreted. [/quote]

I know I said I was done with this thread but this post is freaking awesome. Well said. :applause:

It's not child porn people....
 
You know what, by this definition ESPN is guilty of producing child porn then. They have had high school cheerleading contests with the performers "were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age." The Olympics would be guilty too.

Actually, that wasn't the cornerstone of US v Knox.... it was that during that taping, there were close-ups of the genital regions.
If there were those close-ups in an ESPN broadcast or the olympics, I think that definition would be apt as well. Of course, if you have seen those broadcasts, they are all wide, group shots.

They have female gymnasts welll under 18 parading around and rolling on the ground in next to nothing with very close camera shots.

However, the shots do not linger. If they did, the would meet the standard imposed for child porn.


Female swimmers and volleyball players have had long lingering shots in the same area mentioned. Should I even mention the the lingering camera shots of Anna Kournikova and Maria Sharapova?

Everything here goes to intent. Films of swimming, volleyball, and tennis events are all taped and broadcast with the intent of covering the the sporting event.

The Guy Game serves no other purpose that to titilate and from that receive a commerical benefit. The intent is there, where it is not in the taping of tennis, swimming, gymnastics and all of the other events you mention.


There are a lot of people that are harming society I guess.
You'd guess wrong. Intent is the cornerstone of the argument here.
It would be difficult to argue that the Guy Game exists for any other reason that to titilate. Add that to the inclusion of a minor and you are treading dangerous ground.


Let's also arrest the people responsible for Coppertone ads, ANY catalogue with clothes being modeled, any bouncing boobs on National Geographic, oh and that movie Romeo and Juliet too because Juliet was only 16.

Again, this goes to intent, and artistic merit. Coppertone ads do not have the intent that Calvin Klien ads did. That is why one was attacked as child pornography and the other was not. The children in Coppertone ads were not posed lisciviously. The children in the Calvin Klien ads were.

Catalogs have the intent of selling clothing, and so long as they don't cross the line (like the AF and Calvin Klien catalogs had), they don't have rise to the level of intent.
National Geographic has artistic merit, and thus passes the burden to prove that it is not obscene... not to mention that the children in them are not posed lisciviously.



You would also have to shut down all nudist colonies. It should even be illegal for anyone under 18 to ever appear on a beach, even in a bikini.

You obviously don't understand the ruling.


Also that wouldn't apply to just under 18. The whole Summer Games in Athens would have been pornographic by the way this law is interpreted (especially the volleyball games).

Again, there is the intent to consider, as well as the fact that these people are not posing lisciviously, and do not meet the level needed.
The women in the guy game were posing lisciviously, the 17 year old girl included.
The issue here is your incorrect understanding of the finding in US v Knox.

That is why a law like that is dangerous when interpreted in an ASS way. (I am not saying you are an ass, I am just saying how a rule that is supposed to be one thing can eventually lead to other things when interpreted by some bible belt judge).

That is the problem here... there are people that will enforce it to lienently and others will enforce it too harshly. Your examples show a great example of one extreme.


The girl brought ALL of this on herself. If at any point she lied about her age she should be jailed.

I agree with you completely on that. But I left that issue to be discussed seperately. That issue is neither here nor there when examining whether the Guy Game could be considered child pornography or not.



Her lying is as dangerous as anything in this situation. I looked at the Guy Game site and there is no way that any one intended a child to be portrayed in ANY kind of way.

That is true. I don't fault the developers, as the girl lied to be included in the work. While they could have done more ground work, why would they? The girl likely also had false document to coraborate her story... explain her easy access to alcohol.


No one even remotely looked like anything other than a college student. I'd bet anything that this girl saw that they were PAYING girls to take their tops off and wanted money and she KNEW she'd have to lie and say she was 18. Someone at home probably recongnized her and she panicked.

I wouldn't doubt it. But again, that is neither here nor there when examining whether or not that makes the Guy Game child porn.


It amazes me that more people are concerned with a flash of nipple and not that the girl was drinking WELL underage. Not by a month but 4 damn years.

I'm actually more concern that there will be people trying to buy this as a "collectors item" that may soon find out that they have unwittingly purchased child porn.
 
Intent is HUGE in determining these types of things.
To suggest that "The Guy Game" exists for anything other than titilation is folly.

Copertone ads, gynastics, Cheerleading, Tennis, movies such as Romeo and Juliet exist for things other than titilation, be it art, sport, etc.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']Intent is HUGE in determining these types of things.
To suggest that "The Guy Game" exists for anything other than titilation is folly.

Copertone ads, gynastics, Cheerleading, Tennis, movies such as Romeo and Juliet exist for things other than titilation, be it art, sport, etc.[/quote]

I don't know where you get you legal "expertise" from but you are waaaaaay off. Intent does not matter at all. Child pornography is a strict liability crime. If copertone ads, gymnastics, cheerleading, tennis, movies such as Romeo and Juliet, etc. were to fit the definition of child porn - then they are child porn no matter what the intent. Alas, they are not - because that would be absurd.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']Intent is HUGE in determining these types of things.
To suggest that "The Guy Game" exists for anything other than titilation is folly.

Copertone ads, gynastics, Cheerleading, Tennis, movies such as Romeo and Juliet exist for things other than titilation, be it art, sport, etc.[/quote]

I realize that the law discussion is a bit of a tangent...

Yes, but to flim underage Olympic divers as they come out of the pool dripping with water and showing their backsides IS not covering the sport. It titilates regardless of intent. The scene in Romeo and Juliet serves no purpose other than to titlate, whether it is considered "Art" or not doesn't change that. Zooming in on Anna Kournikova or Maria Sharapova's legs is simply to titalate.

I think that having a law in place to protect the girl is fine. But there should also be HARSH penalites for any underaged person who, with KNOWING INTENT, engages in anything in which they aren't able to do so. For some reason that applies to alcohol and cigarettes but NOT this situation. That is the biggest problem I have. You simply cannot have a law work only one way in this situation. If you have a law that has jail time and fines for an underage person that signs intent for what is to be a LEGAL commercial product, then there would be almost no situations like this. The age thing for simple nudity is a bit ridiculous in this day and age because she knew what she was doing and must have been able to fool people enough because she looked nothing like a child. If she signs any kind of contract then her liablity should be greater than the makers of the Guy Game because I am damn sure that it says something about age on it.

I think you argue your point well for the most part. I just disagree with the porn area in the GUY GAME case. I kind of went off on a tangent because of the interpretation of law that was being posted. The law was talking about the GENITALS (which by definition are reproductive organs which breasts aren't. If they were then men couldn't go topless on the beach because they by definition have breasts too). The funny thing that no one knows which girl it was or what she was doing. Hell, all of them might have lied. If she simply took her top off and wasn't gyrating or dancing then what? If the shot wasn't lingering then what? Would the law simply be shaped to serve whatever need there is at this time? I mean Lindsay Lohan's breasts were all over the place before 18 and I haven't seen a peep on that.

[quote name='JSweeney']You would also have to shut down all nudist colonies. It should even be illegal for anyone under 18 to ever appear on a beach, even in a bikini.

You obviously don't understand the ruling.[/quote]

I actually do. I am just illustrating how such ruling can be used to an illogical extreme to cover whatever moral crusade a person may be on at the time.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I think that having a law in place to protect the girl is fine. But there should also be HARSH penalites for any underaged person who, with KNOWING INTENT, engages in anything in which they aren't able to do so. For some reason that applies to alcohol and cigarettes but NOT this situation.[/quote]

Would you rather see harsh penalties for the teenager, or would you rather see any penalties for the producer (TGG in this case) be revoked? It is posible that, if you allow companies to 'get away' with this type of situation, then such 'accidents' may become more and more commonplace. It's difficult to sort out; on one hand, you are punishing a company because they were lied to. On the other hand, whenever a circumstance like this occurs, a company could say "I didn't know! (wink)" and get away with it.

[quote name='GuilewasNK']That is the biggest problem I have. You simply cannot have a law work only one way in this situation. If you have a law that has jail time and fines for an underage person that signs intent for what is to be a LEGAL commercial product, then there would be almost no situations like this.[/quote]

Guile, we have good time on the wrestling threads (whomever it may center upon), so I'm going to phrase this as nicely as possible.

The criminal justice system does not work that way, at all.

The idea of 'deterrence' is that, if punishments are harsh enough, nobody will commit crimes. Such policies have been in place for damn near thirty years and the only change we've seen is an explosion in the prison population (which is the result of deterrence based policies and the 'drug war.')

The truth is that people do not know what punishment they might receive for an given criminal behavior (save murder). What this would do is put a criminal label on a person before they even enter the "real world," if you'll pardon the phrase. Corrections and criminology are my area of research; nothing leads to future criminal behavior than prior criminal sanctions (that's a 500 post topic in itself).

I don't think this woman has done anything to deserve monetary awards; in fact, awarding her anything sets a precedent that, for want of a better phrase, crime does pay. I, however, don't think that she should be sanctioned.

Truly, The Guy Game deserves the blame. Much like major league baseball, these are the circumstances that occur when a company or groups is allowed to regulate themselves.
 
Myke I know the legal system doesn't work that way but she isn't innocent in this. That's my main point. I guarantee she didn't go to that beach by herself so not only did she lie but the others with her knew about it. I don't want to see any penalties revoked for the publisher at all, all I want is that EVERYONE involved be responsible and the the penalties be FAIR. That includes the girl. Young people get a pass on too much stuff as it is. For her to be on the game and then say "I want to be a part of my church" is such utter shit it isn't even funny.

At most there will be a monetary settlement IMO. There may be a recall but there is no way the government is that concerned that they will sweep the country looking for copies of a game with a 4 second flash of nipple that would have been no big deal in a few months anyway. That's just the feeling I get. It's not like she engaged in hardcore sex. If that were the case, it would be different.

Either way the whole situation is pretty stupid and since the PC version is nearing ship time, it is rather convienient timing for a lawsuit too. I think we all should just take a wait and see view on this.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I will say this, if there is a recall then whoever purchased the game deserves a full refund back.[/quote]

Why? They can't recall purchased copies.
 
Well wasnt she doin underage drinkin?


EDIT: i didnt read the rest of thepages till after i posted to dont grill me on the fact of if she was drinkin or wasnt.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Myke I know the legal system doesn't work that way but she isn't innocent in this. That's my main point. I guarantee she didn't go to that beach by herself so not only did she lie but the others with her knew about it. I don't want to see any penalties revoked for the publisher at all, all I want is that EVERYONE involved be responsible and the the penalties be FAIR. That includes the girl. Young people get a pass on too much stuff as it is. For her to be on the game and then say "I want to be a part of my church" is such utter shit it isn't even funny.

At most there will be a monetary settlement IMO. There may be a recall but there is no way the government is that concerned that they will sweep the country looking for copies of a game with a 4 second flash of nipple that would have been no big deal in a few months anyway. That's just the feeling I get. It's not like she engaged in hardcore sex. If that were the case, it would be different.

Either way the whole situation is pretty stupid and since the PC version is nearing ship time, it is rather convienient timing for a lawsuit too. I think we all should just take a wait and see view on this.[/quote]

As for liability and responsibility, I'm gonna hafta side w/ GuilewasNK on this one. I think ALL parties involved (the Guy Game producers, the girl, the ppl who sold her alcohol, the ppl who screen her ID to make sure it wasn't fake, etc.) should be penalized. I also think it should be a scaled punishment w/ more fines and penalties being levied on the more liable parties (IMO the producers AND the girl) and then moving down the scale to reflect however tangental their involvement is.
 
[quote name='doubledown']Wow, I may have to get this just for collectable value alone.....[/quote]

Ah ha this is nothing more than a giant ploy by those responsible for this game to sell more copies.
 
[quote name='Zenithian Legend'][quote name='doubledown']Wow, I may have to get this just for collectable value alone.....[/quote]

Ah ha this is nothing more than a giant ploy by those responsible for this game to sell more copies.[/quote]

_ _ ' _
_
_ _ _ _ !
 
[quote name='Scorch']
You annoy the hell out of me. I just thought that you should know that.[/quote]

You sure as hell ain't alone in that view of Sweeney, that's for damn sure.
 
I think that having a law in place to protect the girl is fine. But there should also be HARSH penalites for any underaged person who, with KNOWING INTENT, engages in anything in which they aren't able to do so. For some reason that applies to alcohol and cigarettes but NOT this situation. That is the biggest problem I have.

I agree with you completely on that. Being drunk and or stupid does not excuse you for your actions.

You simply cannot have a law work only one way in this situation. If you have a law that has jail time and fines for an underage person that signs intent for what is to be a LEGAL commercial product, then there would be almost no situations like this.

I agree with you completely on this as well. Anyone trying to work the system in that manner deserves HUGE civil fines, up to and including the production, advertising and distribution costs of the now illegal product.


The age thing for simple nudity is a bit ridiculous in this day and age because she knew what she was doing and must have been able to fool people enough because she looked nothing like a child. If she signs any kind of contract then her liablity should be greater than the makers of the Guy Game because I am damn sure that it says something about age on it.

The problem will come in when the lawyers state that due to her age she is unable to sign a legally binding contract.

I think you argue your point well for the most part. I just disagree with the porn area in the GUY GAME case. I kind of went off on a tangent because of the interpretation of law that was being posted.

That's actually the biggest problem with this area of the law... there is no hard and fast standard.

The law was talking about the GENITALS (which by definition are reproductive organs which breasts aren't. If they were then men couldn't go topless on the beach because they by definition have breasts too).

True, but as I noted, there is caselaw saying that the genitals being uncovered is not necessary for the product to be deemed child pornography.

The funny thing that no one knows which girl it was or what she was doing. Hell, all of them might have lied. If she simply took her top off and wasn't gyrating or dancing then what?

Then it wouldn't be child pornography, unless there are other statutes that I am unfamilar with (which is entirely possible)

If the shot wasn't lingering then what? Would the law simply be shaped to serve whatever need there is at this time? I mean Lindsay Lohan's breasts were all over the place before 18 and I haven't seen a peep on that.

This all goes back to the interpretation issue, unfortuantely.

I actually do. I am just illustrating how such ruling can be used to an illogical extreme to cover whatever moral crusade a person may be on at the time.

I see.
Of course, that will be an inherent issue with the process, due to the nature of the caselaw.
It's a difficult area to navigate that I think most people would rather just not deal with.

Of course, I think you've done very well supporting your arguments as well, Guile.
 
[quote name='jimbodan'][quote name='Scorch']
You annoy the hell out of me. I just thought that you should know that.[/quote]

You sure as hell ain't alone in that view of Sweeney, that's for damn sure.[/quote]

True or not, this really wasn't necessary in the topic.
Especially since it's actually been rather polite with the exception of Scorch's little digression.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='jimbodan'][quote name='Scorch']
You annoy the hell out of me. I just thought that you should know that.[/quote]

You sure as hell ain't alone in that view of Sweeney, that's for damn sure.[/quote]

True or not, this really wasn't necessary in the topic.
Especially since it's actually been rather polite with the exception of Scorch's little digression.[/quote]

I beg to differ, go back through your posts in this thread and you'll find at least one that was not so polite in regards to me.
 
I wonder what it'd be like to go to a party with JSweeney. He'd probably bring apple juice or something along and yell at underage drinkers. He'd then start promoting abstinence, until someone threw an apple and knocked him out.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']As for liability and responsibility, I'm gonna hafta side w/ GuilewasNK on this one. I think ALL parties involved (the Guy Game producers, the girl, the ppl who sold her alcohol, the ppl who screen her ID to make sure it wasn't fake, etc.) should be penalized. I also think it should be a scaled punishment w/ more fines and penalties being levied on the more liable parties (IMO the producers AND the girl) and then moving down the scale to reflect however tangental their involvement is.[/quote]

Will this be your legal precedent? Since you can't point the finger of blame definitively at anyone, you'll just punish everyone? Will this be the legal standard you adhere to?

The reason I don't believe in punishing the minor is (1) because they are a minor (yes, it's a legal argument more than anything socially constant) and (2) this means that businesses (the people making money from this) need to cover their ass. There's only been one Traci Lords for a reason. If you blame all parties, then who's to say that people can't exploit teens in the future, and fabricate forms saying that they consented? I think that it would set a bad precedent for permitting more behavior.

Like I said, I don't think she should be punished; I also before said I don't think she deserves any remuneration. If, as so many of you claim, she's just doing this for the money, then preventing that from happening (or worse, making any remuneration be given to a women's shelter or rape crisis center) would be sufficient to prevent further behavior.

Personally, I would love to see any and all copies of this game destroyed, and I could give a fuck if they reprinted it. Unfortunately, that's not a legal precedent.

I should also point out that it's perfectly rational for a woman to expose her snack tray to the country and consider herself a good church-goer. It's called cognitive dissonance, and all of us do it. Look it up, let me know what you think.

myke.
 
[quote name='Scorch']I wonder what it'd be like to go to a party with JSweeney. He'd probably bring apple juice or something along and yell at underage drinkers. He'd then start promoting abstinence, until someone threw an apple and knocked him out.[/quote]


There are plenty of strippers, bartenders, waitresses and college students out there that I think would be happy to correctly you.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'][quote name='jaykrue']As for liability and responsibility, I'm gonna hafta side w/ GuilewasNK on this one. I think ALL parties involved (the Guy Game producers, the girl, the ppl who sold her alcohol, the ppl who screen her ID to make sure it wasn't fake, etc.) should be penalized. I also think it should be a scaled punishment w/ more fines and penalties being levied on the more liable parties (IMO the producers AND the girl) and then moving down the scale to reflect however tangental their involvement is.[/quote]

Will this be your legal precedent? Since you can't point the finger of blame definitively at anyone, you'll just punish everyone? Will this be the legal standard you adhere to?

The reason I don't believe in punishing the minor is (1) because they are a minor (yes, it's a legal argument more than anything socially constant) and (2) this means that businesses (the people making money from this) need to cover their ass. There's only been one Traci Lords for a reason. If you blame all parties, then who's to say that people can't exploit teens in the future, and fabricate forms saying that they consented? I think that it would set a bad precedent for permitting more behavior.

Like I said, I don't think she should be punished; I also before said I don't think she deserves any remuneration. If, as so many of you claim, she's just doing this for the money, then preventing that from happening (or worse, making any remuneration be given to a women's shelter or rape crisis center) would be sufficient to prevent further behavior.

Personally, I would love to see any and all copies of this game destroyed, and I could give a shaq-fu if they reprinted it. Unfortunately, that's not a legal precedent.

I should also point out that it's perfectly rational for a woman to expose her snack tray to the country and consider herself a good church-goer. It's called cognitive dissonance, and all of us do it. Look it up, let me know what you think.

myke.[/quote]

How can she NOT be punished? Granted she's still a minor but she's still one of the parties involved in this situation. I think NOT to punish her sets a bad precedent as well. Who's to say there isn't a smart enough kid who will use the legal system to their advantage just because they know they can get away w/ it until they hit 18? So why is any action short of murder allowed just because someone is under the legal age? To me, that bad precedent is already set. Kids under 18 get away w/ a lot of shit these days. Hell, I wish I could've gotten away w/ a mere 10% of what they do now.

As for your definition, google gave:

cognitive dissonance - Dissonance arises after a major purchase (e.g., a car) when alternatives are recommended and/or dislikes emerge with the choice. To eliminate the discomfort of dissonance, the consumer will seek to rationalize the original choice, in other words, find positive advantages and ignore the negative.

That's a shallow argument. So just because she changed her mind about taking her top off in a public area where nudity/alcohol/general debauchery is known to occur, she should be excused from punishment? What if I killed someone in a grisly manner but then had feelings of remorse? Do you think a jury still wouldn't give me gas chamber? Or life w/o parole? I doubt it. That's not rational at all. here's a google definition of rational:

Making choices on the basis of reason as opposed to emotion.

If an underage girl who a) drinks and b) gets topless and c) at 17 yrs of age has some sense of propriety (being a church goer *snicker*) and has at least 15-16 yrs of knowing what can be done legally (assuming her churchgoing parents taught her correctly), I think it would fairly logical to conclude she's not using any reason at all therefore she is not being rational.

Of course I don't want any child to be exploited. That's not what I said. All I said is that all parties involved share some blame. It's the girl's fault for not using her reasoning. It's the producers' and alcohol distributers fault for not screening IDs. And not knowing the law is not an excuse to get away w/ something. When I got drunk and pissed in public, I was arrest for public indecency. I was 15. I spent the night in jail. Did I know what I did was wrong? Yes, but I still did it. Did I get punished for it? You bet and I accepted the punishment w/o question because I KNEW what I did was wrong despite its illegality. In fact, I got another punishment from my parents when I got home. So in effect, I got punished twice for the same crime. I accept both punishments. Did I like it? No, because punishments would be punishments if we enjoyed them. Using Traci Lords is not the best example. She was the one who presented her fake ID to the porn producers. She was the one who willingly had sex w/ both men and women. And the ones I did see before the whole underage thing came down was that she didn't look like she was in any pain. In fact, I think she rather enjoyed herself. But of course, being a minor, she wasn't to blame. The porn producers/distributers were to blame even though she was the one who pretty much started the whole thing. So you see, setting a bad precedent won't matter. It's already happened.
 
Nah. The cognitive dissonance bit was my way of explaining how she, in her own mind, can have done what she did and still be a person rooted in her faith (based on her going to curch). I wasn't referring to anything other than that, so I apologize for any mistake I made.

If she's "in it for the money," then how is denying her any money not punishment?

myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Nah. The cognitive dissonance bit was my way of explaining how she, in her own mind, can have done what she did and still be a person rooted in her faith (based on her going to curch). I wasn't referring to anything other than that, so I apologize for any mistake I made.

If she's "in it for the money," then how is denying her any money not punishment?

myke.[/quote]

And I'm still saying that is STILL no excuse. Life is a harsh mistress. If you make a decision which potentially has life changing/threatening consequences, then it shouldn't be made lightly. The fact that this girl went on a show where adult oriented activities are going on is a clear disregard of actions made w/ any notion of rationality or hesitation. She knew, at 17, that she is easily under the legal limit for activities which are deemed adult in nature. To claim ignorance is tantamount to claiming mental deficiency. There is no way a 17 yr old girl, someone on the verge of adulthood, someone who is probably less than 12 months away from legally being considered an adult does NOT have any inkling of legal/illegal w/o being diminished in a mental capacity. So unless the girl can get a doctor's note claiming she's mentally handicapped, no one in their logical mind would excuse her had she claimed ignorance. To do that in itself would also set a bad precedent.

As for punishment, not receiving money is hardly a punishment. It's not even a slap on the wrist which is the least I think she deserves. I don't think she deserves jailtime if that's what you're thinking. I don't even think the producers deserve jailtime. But I do feel that monetary punishment is in order. For the girl, a hefty fine; say, $5000 or whatever amount the court would deem it heavy enough so she reconsiders the next time she tries to do something w/o considering the consequences. For the producers, a heftier fine for not doing due diligence in screening IDs. I think the ones who should be fined the heaviest is the alcohol vendors (or if she got one of her over-21 friends to get the drinks) to pay the biggest fine. If it was the vendors, they have a greater responsibility than the producers since they are selling something that can directly alter brain chemistry which in turn hinders/alters decisionmaking. Cause and effect. It can be claimed that, had the alcohol vendors done their due diligence, the situation w/ the girl would not have occurred in the first place, thus avoiding the disaster that one girl's decision has done. If it was one of her friends that did it, they should pay the same amount (if not more) as the vendors since they willingly contributed to the deliquency of minors by giving them alcohol. It doesn't matter if that was her friend. If it was really her friend, he/she should've known even moreso (being 21 and more than legally an adult) that giving controlled substances is illegal to someone who is not of age and wouldn't have done so for 2 reasons: 1) CYA: cover your ass so you don't get into trouble. A very easy concept I think. and 2) would she really want her friend in a situation where she's mentally impaired to make said 'rational' decisions? I'm surprised that all it was was just a stupid boobie shot. A lot of shit happens on spring break and they're not all good: drunken rape, roofies in the pina collata, getting high, etc. I've been on Spring Break a coupla times and I know that the cops can't be at all places all the time so ppl have to take responsibility for themselves as well as their friends. I'm sure if her friend knew the consequences of giving her a drink, she would have considered and hesitated giving the girl a drink. But this is all supposition of course. But I don't think that the minor is blameless (which is pretty much what I was trying to convey). I think it's too easy for society nowadays to excuse the actions of minors when, if more rational thinking heads prevailed, would notice that minors are able to get away w/ everything short of murder. While yes there is legal precedence there saying that the potential for misconduct on the part of companies abusing minors, the same can be said for pretty much anything. You can easily place the blame on violent video games for Columbine since those kids were raving about Doom while on the rampage. But is it correct? I don't think so. It would have been more correct to just blame the kids themselves for being unable to handle their social awkwardness. I'm a geek. I've had my fair share of bullies. I now work on websites. I'm 27 and way past the beginning of legal adulthood. I've done stupid things but accept the consequences both good and bad. I also play Halo2, Doom3, etc. Have I killed anyone in real life? No. I'm rational enough to know if I did something like that, there'd be consequences: I get shot in a shootout w/ the police; I go to jail and get gangraped and made someone's bitch; I'm sent into a mental asylum where I'm basically locked away for the rest of my natural life (which is the same as jail IMO); and so on and so forth. I get very annoyed when these kids get away w/ stuff that 10 yrs ago when I was 17, I'd get my ass handed to me (by my parents or my friends). Not because I'm jealous but because in hindsight, yeah they were bad decisions and the punishments meted out were more than justified and has even helped me into a more even tempered and logical individual.
 
This just in....

Electronic Arts (Redwood City) has licenced breasts from God. All video games, movies, and television shows showing, depicting, or making mention of breasts will have to cease production.

Currently, President Neil Young is examing the legality of licensing 'Beaver' from Huster Mogul Larry Flynt.
 
[quote name='rallen']This just in....

Electronic Arts (Redwood City) has licenced breasts from God. All video games, movies, and television shows showing, depicting, or making mention of breasts will have to cease production.

Currently, President Neil Young is examing the legality of licensing 'Beaver' from Huster Mogul Larry Flynt.[/quote]


:lol:

I bet that license cost EA its soul, lol.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK'][quote name='rallen']This just in....

Electronic Arts (Redwood City) has licenced breasts from God. All video games, movies, and television shows showing, depicting, or making mention of breasts will have to cease production.

Currently, President Neil Young is examing the legality of licensing 'Beaver' from Huster Mogul Larry Flynt.[/quote]


:lol:

I bet that license cost EA its soul, lol.[/quote]
They have a soul?
 
[quote name='greendc27'][quote name='GuilewasNK'][quote name='rallen']This just in....

Electronic Arts (Redwood City) has licenced breasts from God. All video games, movies, and television shows showing, depicting, or making mention of breasts will have to cease production.

Currently, President Neil Young is examing the legality of licensing 'Beaver' from Huster Mogul Larry Flynt.[/quote]


:lol:

I bet that license cost EA its soul, lol.[/quote]
They have a soul?[/quote]

Heh, I knew that was coming! :p
 
[quote name='jaykrue']not quoting 'cause that's just too long.[/quote]

The problem with rationalism is that it explains all behavior. Is human behavior rational because humans are only capable of rational behavior, or is it rational because it is done by humans? I've never gotten, logically, any further than that. By all means, help if you can.

You have not ackowledged what I've been asking about the ability of companies to exploit teenagers in the future and claim ignorance; a company can pay a $5000 fine like nothing, while a teenager or young adult is less likely to be able to do so. My argument is that the company is making money for this title, not the woman; shelving copies of the game would be in their best interest, and if it doesn't make the plaintiff happy, the tough shit; the problem's been solved.

The only person who seemed to be able to grasp the problems of the Columbine killers was (loathe I am to say) Marilyn Manson. While everybody wanted to say something to the kids, and while others had their spurious guilt-associations (video games, awful industrial music), MM simply said that he would rather listen to the kids instead. Simply brilliant.

myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'][quote name='jaykrue']not quoting 'cause that's just too long.[/quote]

The problem with rationalism is that it explains all behavior. Is human behavior rational because humans are only capable of rational behavior, or is it rational because it is done by humans? I've never gotten, logically, any further than that. By all means, help if you can.

You have not ackowledged what I've been asking about the ability of companies to exploit teenagers in the future and claim ignorance; a company can pay a $5000 fine like nothing, while a teenager or young adult is less likely to be able to do so. My argument is that the company is making money for this title, not the woman; shelving copies of the game would be in their best interest, and if it doesn't make the plaintiff happy, the tough shit; the problem's been solved.

The only person who seemed to be able to grasp the problems of the Columbine killers was (loathe I am to say) Marilyn Manson. While everybody wanted to say something to the kids, and while others had their spurious guilt-associations (video games, awful industrial music), MM simply said that he would rather listen to the kids instead. Simply brilliant.

myke.[/quote]

Sure, I have no problem w/ the company shelving the title. I think that would qualify as a heavy punishment. But I'm still adamant that the teenager needs a fiscally painful situation - hence the hefty fine. Rationalism doesn't explain all behavior. If it did, psychologists/psychiatrists would be making $$$ hand over fist (and it's not like they're doing that already) since all human action is easily explained away. But since we also have term called 'irrational' meaning lacking rational explanation, it can be concluded that not all human behavior can be 'rationalized'. I think I have acknowledged what you said about the ability of a company to exploit minors and I still think it's just as possible for the opposite to happen. This is what I said:

[quote name='jaykrue']As for punishment, not receiving money is hardly a punishment. It's not even a slap on the wrist which is the least I think she deserves. I don't think she deserves jailtime if that's what you're thinking. I don't even think the producers deserve jailtime. But I do feel that monetary punishment is in order. For the girl, a hefty fine; say, $5000 or whatever amount the court would deem it heavy enough so she reconsiders the next time she tries to do something w/o considering the consequences. For the producers, a heftier fine for not doing due diligence in screening IDs. I think the ones who should be fined the heaviest is the alcohol vendors (or if she got one of her over-21 friends to get the drinks) to pay the biggest fine.[/quote]

If you notice, I said that the producers should get a 'heftier fine' than the girl which would be more than $5000 w/ the alcohol vendors paying the stiffest fines. I even included the possibility of even heavier fines and I quote again:

$5000 or whatever amount the court would deem it heavy enough

Heavy enough as determined by the court... I would think that at the very least, the court would be able to fine a company a fine in correlation w/ their financial expenditures. If not, then there's nothing more to be said since the judicial system has developed enough entropy that it is pretty much worthless in meting out fair punishments.

Personally, I think Columbine has set a bad precedent as well. Now that we've seen that there are mentally deranged kids seeking attention by whatever means - it seems like anyone who isn't of legal age wants to be in the spotlight because they were neglected by mommy and daddy. Don't get me wrong. I think if a child got some serious issues then whatever she/he's trying to say is of course important. But then you've got young men/women like this teenager who undeservingly get the spotlight looking for her 15 minutes of fame for what amounts to her own ineptitude. The fact that she is mere months away from 'adulthood' causes me to feel even less sympathy for her. Was this girl physically raped? As far as has been seen, no. Emotionally raped? Maybe but that's her own fault for being stupid enough to fall to peer pressure and 'follow the crowd' and drink so she can seem like 'one of them'. Now if her suit is successful, it sets another bad precedent that anyone underage can pretty much sue anyone/anything, sign a contract from anyone/anything, and be assured that they will get off scot-free. Yes, protect the minors. I don't deny that. But each situation should be looked at individually since not all situations, although bear striking similarities, are NOT the same. A girl who was forcibly raped against her will while she was sober? Sure, give the girl some money. Now, a girl who should have known better to drink alcohol while underage at a Spring Break locale and takes her top off and gets on a game show which is then made into a video game? Hardly deserving of the same sympathy as the raped one.
 
It would appear, then, that we really seem to be emphasizing the points on which we disagree, which, to be sure, are actually very minor and deal with the policies we think will dissuade this person (or others) from behaving in this manner in the future.

It's tough to sort out; in many cases, I despise the idea of judicial discretion. However, I must recognize its utility in cases like these (differentiating, for instance, between a person knowingly behaving inappropriately in order to acquire future financial gain, or some drunk twit (yes, twit, not tw..well, you know, the one with the other vowel) behaving like someone who has consumed roughly a dozen drinks called "Russian Quaaludes" or something similar).

I loathe to think that people unwittingly place themselves in situations like this woman did...

...but that really contradicts with my generally cynical demeanor. Time to repair that bit o' cognitive dissonance (see, in the end, it all comes together).

myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']However, I must recognize its utility in cases like these (differentiating, for instance, between a person knowingly behaving inappropriately in order to acquire future financial gain, or some drunk twit (yes, twit, not tw..well, you know, the one with the other vowel) behaving like someone who has consumed roughly a dozen drinks called "Russian Quaaludes" or something similar).[/quote]

And that's what it boils down to, I think, when it concerns issues such as this. Is the girl genuinely unaware of what she did or did she do it for financial gain? However, I must reluctantly agree when it comes to the US judicial system these days. It seems that the courts are more interested in defining what is legal vs. what is fair justice but that's another 500 post thread in of itself.
 
Well, I think everyone isn't looking at the whole story here.

As a society, we decided that 18 was an adult for most things, including getting naked for national publications. Society has decided this becuase, they feel that people 17 and under aren't mentally ready to make decisions like this that effect the rest of their lives. So, even though she did stuff willingly (or worse, while drunk), she didn't have the right to do it. So, she has a legal right for these items to have never gotten out (whether she signed a waiver or not).

This is the companies responsibility. Now, obviously, some would be negated if they went to a reputable bar that ID's people. But, they caused her embarrasment for something she had no right to waive. It doesn't matter if she lied or not.

So, I think there are lots of culbable parties, she is only a part and really the smallest part. I don't like her getting money for this, but I think she does deserve something. If she was 18, she got what was coming, but she isn't.

Also, if we say 17 year olds can waive that right, how about 16, what about 15? What is the cut off. Society decided it was 18. 17 is close, but thi isn't horseshoes, it isn't close enough.

I don't like the idea of her getting money, but I can't think of a better way to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top