Judge to Joe: Rock, Meet Hard Place

31. Joe Stinkin' Francis. What a SCHMUCK.

Posted at 11:00PM on Mar 6th 2008 by Charlie Goldstein

32. Joe had a million girls that couldn't wait to show off their bad behavior. He just was the man with the camera.

Posted at 1:15AM on Mar 7th 2008 by FlBiker

33. Joe should simply bite the bullet, and listen closely to J @ 5:21PM.

Posted at 6:42AM on Mar 7th 2008 by Get Out of Jail ( for a) Fee

34. goodluck Joe LAWL

Posted at 6:51AM on Mar 7th 2008 by Mercenary

35. To FIBiker - Yeah, he created the 'opportunity' for a lot of (age)innocent, ebullient young college-aged girls to embarrass themselves in a way that they can never undo, for the rest of their lives, once they sober up.

Posted at 7:15AM on Mar 7th 2008 by Going, going,.............................................................gone.

36. Joe Francis has not been convicted of any crime, at least at this point in time. So why has he been in jail for a year? I don't know about the tax evasion charges. I'm sure he has enough money to pay any back fines and penalties. That should have been taken care of from day one. And the other charge of taking pictures of underage girls, please forgive me for not being sympathetic here, but did any of you ever take a look at those girls? They're obviously above the age of reason, and know exactly what they're doing. They are lying about their age, and lifting up their shirts. How is Joe Francis, or any other photographer for that matter, suppose to tell the difference between a 17 year old girl and an 18 years old girl, if 18 really is the "cut-off" of minor child versus adult? This guy is being punished because he's young, good-looking, and made a living out of doing something every other guy in the world wishes he could do. I'm not thrilled with what he's doing, but I'm also not thrilled with our justice system keeping someone in jail without being convicted of any crimes.

Posted at 11:26AM on Mar 7th 2008 by pattijen

37. Its SpringBreak '08 here in Panama City Beach! Poor Joe is missing all the fun :( C'mon Joe, we are waiting for you.

Posted at 11:46AM on Mar 7th 2008 by pcbeachgirl

38. He is disgusting, taking advantage of underage drunk, peer pressured girls. I hope he rots in jail........

Posted at 12:56PM on Mar 7th 2008 by tazmania

39. # 37, You stated, "They're obviously above the age of reason, and know exactly what they're doing. They are lying about their age, and lifting up their shirts. How is Joe Francis, or any other photographer for that matter, suppose to tell the difference between a 17 year old girl and an 18 years old girl, if 18 really is the 'cut-off' of minor child versus adult?"

You are incorrect on the law here. The Supreme Court has explicitly stated that states may punish and ban any pornography that depicts actual minors (i.e., those under the age of 18). See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002); New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)

Ferber upheld a prohibition on the distribution and sale of child pornography, as well as its production, because these acts were "intrinsically related" to the sexual abuse of children in two ways. Id., at 759. First, as a permanent record of a child's abuse, the continued circulation itself would harm the child who had participated. Like a defamatory statement, each new publication of the speech would cause new injury to the child's reputation and emotional well-being. See id., at 759, and n. 10. Second, because the traffic in child pornography was an economic motive for its production, the State had an interest in closing the distribution network. "The most expeditious if not the only practical method of law enforcement may be to dry up the market for this material by imposing severe criminal penalties on persons selling, advertising, or otherwise promoting the product." Id., at 760.

Because dangers of exploitation and sexual abuse to minors, the makers, sellers, and producers of child pornography need not know that the child depicted is under 18. Instead, as is commonly the case with statutory rape, a state may provide that neither consent nor reasonable mistake as to age are a defense.

Posted at 12:55PM on Mar 7th 2008 by DBK

40. why is everyone hating on Joe? where were these so called young girls mommies and daddies while they were out in public bars , drunk as hell , showing their boobies..... let the man go, and send the little sluts back to catholic school

Posted at 1:35PM on Mar 7th 2008 by Tim

41. Well, Joe is a misogynist pornographer. What do people really expect out of him? We all knew guys like him in high school and college. You know, the ones that took 'advantage' of the situation. Boys will be boys, right?

You can't call it date rape because there really wasn't a date involved... but explicit consent sure wasn't involved. This is happening across our nation all the time, and has been for a very long time. The girls "deserve" it because they are drunk or dressed inappropriately.

For anyone to think this is moral or right, is wrong. This culture condones it. I am not even a 'bra burning' femi-nazi. I am just an Everyday Jane. I wish people were raising their kids right. That they are not encouraging kids to be egocentric and spoiled or worse, disrespectful to another persons autonomy...

I hope Joe keeps rotting in jail for a long, long, long time.

Posted at 2:09PM on Mar 7th 2008 by not suprised

42. Hope he rots in jail and he should get a real job instead of molesting underage girls.

Posted at 6:22PM on Mar 7th 2008 by Joan K

43. Joe was the man with cam, hope he gets out soon.
All the haters are just jealous of Joe's success.

Posted at 7:35PM on Mar 7th 2008 by FlBiker

44. I saw a complete ggw infomercial once and a couple of partial ones. All the girls were obviously drunk or high on something. Most were giddy-gullible drunk- that stage (which comes especially quickly with young or inexperienced drinkers) where they would just do whatever anybody suggested, including things they wouldn't do sober ("just keep on backing up to that cliff, dear"). They acted happy but definitely in someone else's control. I've seen that stage before up close, having the dubious pleasure of being the only sober person in a room too often... It's well beyond the just-a-little-looser/talkative stage.

But one in particular looked like a zombie - you could hear some man telling her to do various things, and she did them mechanically, with no expression on her face at all. I was surprised they showed her on the infomercial -- it had to be illegal to film and manipulate someone that far out of it, even if a waiver were signed

Actually, I wondered when they actually got waivers -- if some were signed when the girls were already drunk, isn't that also illegal? If someone is drunk or otherwise mentally incapacitated - do such waivers actually hold up in court? Even if signed sober -- are the waivers really so comprehensive that they can be filmed doing anything later, even when obviously incapacitated and clearly led by another person to perform various acts? What are the legal limits on such things? I thought there were some limits on contracts in general requiring that a person be "of sound mind" in order to sign.

Posted at 11:44PM on Mar 7th 2008 by jwoolman

45. Thanks for the interesting news

Posted at 4:25PM on Apr 2nd 2008 by Cp3o