This is from an article on AVN.com posted earlier in the thread:

To cement the deal, "Johnathan" gave Jane Doe 15 the email addresses and/or phone numbers of at least two "reference women," Amberlyn Carter and Kaitlyn Wright, who although they had not shot any hardcore themselves, had been paid by Pratt to say that they had and that everything "Johnathan" had promised the women (some of whom were as young as 17 when first contacted) was on the up-and-up.

[Link]

"I was exchanging naked pictures with a man, when I realised I'd been tricked."

[Link]

This is what is at the core of the "Me Too" movement. Let's look at the most talked about version. Think of all those celebrities who had to sexually service Harvey Weinstein for years to get roles that would earn them quick money. Do you blame them or are they the victims? Shouldn't they have known better and therefore have only themselves to blame? Did Harvey secretly film them having sex and then blackmail them into remaining silent? How about the hundreds or likely thousands of each day occurrences where a woman accepts to do something that she doesn't want to do but needs the money and therefore goes ahead and does it.

[Link]

*To expand on my earlier parenthetical statement, imagine if these were young men who had been persuaded by a producer to perform for a gay porn site for which they would be paid between $3K-$5K for one scene. They perform the scene, sign the consent agreements, and they are paid the agreed amount of money for the scene. Do you think anyone would care if any of those young men later felt that they had been conned, tricked, or manipulated into doing the scene? Do you think people would care if they later felt embarrassment or shame upon having family and friends find out about the scenes? I highly doubt it, as I suspect that this is probably quite common. More likely, people would scoff at them and tell them to deal with it because it was a decision that they made. They were adults, after all, right? Why does this change because the performers in this case are women?

[Link]

----Dread's Twitter----

[Link]

Interesting how of all the points I raised in my previous post, you didn't bother to address a single one, but instead just chose to do the old tired "call him a misogynist" song and dance. Eh, whatever.

[Link]

What is the common theme that connects the bulk of the women in this story. They are all very young, they had never done porn or likely any kind of adult work prior to their one and only video and most of them never did anything else afterwards so while we can come up with various theories as to why they should have known better. Exactly how would these women have been able to do some serious research in the kind of work they were thinking of doing? You can't exactly call the Better Business Bureau and ask them about the honesty of a porn producer. Not sure if doing a Google search would be any help and even if it was then what would the keywords be to do that search? The money being offered must have been pretty hard to pass and as I stated that tends to cloud our judgement but most of us don't have to worry about our mistake being seen by millions of people on the net.

[Link]

No one is saying that these women are liars or that the guys accused are saints. Maybe the women are telling the truth. Who knows? That still doesn't change the fact that, in the end, they agreed of their own volition to shoot these scenes, and we should at least be open to considering that there are multiple sides to the story. Apparently, people don't understand that questioning accusations, which is what we're supposed to do, is not the same as misogyny.

[Link]

The issue is that sexual crime allegations are not like other allegations. When a man is found/proven to be innocent, it doesn't all just go away; the man is still tainted.

I believe allegations of sexual crimes should have the man's identity supressed until there is an actual criminal conviction.

[Link]

Just a couple remainders this begun as a civil cause with the Jane Does just suing GDP , then while investigating it become a criminal trial , then after further investigations it become a Federal case , meanwhile the site's biggest brass fled the Country even before the FBI was involved , all the while his alleged accomplices were continuing to "recruit" girls with their usual MO . As if this wasn't already enough a third party possibly informed or involved hurriedly bought a huge database full of evidence and even announced its imminent destruction.

Of course everybody believe they're innocent until proven guilty and that's why there's a trial instead of people lynching them on the spot

as for the money , apparently they also charged all kind of expenses for the shooting on the girls they got a $ 400 check when they were lucky , instead of the promised thousands of dollars which in many cases weren't enough even and they had to force the girl to continue

Edited by - LCF on 10/25/2019 1:55:33 AM

[Link]

I will say this though. When a woman is seen on camera having what appears to everyone to be fully consensual sex, laughing, moaning, cumming, and apparently having a fun time, plus takes a large paycheck home afterward, then it makes it really hard to believe her when she turns around later and claims she was forced.

[Link]

They are not "forced" by violence. But they are fucked without their consent. Because these women have given their consent under specific conditions: they have agreed to the contracts believing that what GDP told them was true. But they have been lied to, so any consent given was null and void.

But they didn't know that during the scenes, so why shouldn't they be laughing, moaning, cumming? I don't see what is hard to believe here.

The reports show that GDP guys had some elaborate schemes to calm down any doubts from the girls (like, fake positive references from girls they paid for that), they totally knew what they did wrong.

[Link]

And I'm not referring to what the porn company told them.

[Link]

Why are you surprised that some of these girls were duped by an unscrupulous porn company?

[Link]

I guess I'm naive about how naive some functional adults can be. I linked an article above where a woman was sending naked pictures of herself to "an attractive man" she met on the street, and was than horrified to find those pictures on the internet.

[Link]

"This is on the same level as believing a Nigerian Prince really does need you to send him $20,000 so that he can claim an inheritance, after which he will give you $1million for your trouble. ... please learn a lesson about trusting strangers."

"Good grief, you send naked pictures to a random guy you met on the street, and are surprised when they end up on the internet? Gullible isn't the word for it, more like completely lacking in common sense."

[Link]

This wasn't a regular transaction, this was a scam they had all covered , they paid some girls who never shot any porn to fake they had so that when called by their victims they could say nothing of what they did was online , any research on porn sites would have confirmed that, how could it not those accomplices never shot any nude scene let alone a porn scene. So even those who were wary about that were convinced everything was safe.

Those girls were scammed

Edited by - LCF on 10/27/2019 4:04:40 AM

[Link]

Is it really that hard to believe that young women looking to make a quick and fairly easy large sum of money would also be sharp enough to recognize a con when they see one. Especially when it's not exactly something that you can research on the net. The fact that there are dozens of women who fell for the same con tends to point to something that was well orchestrated. It could be argued that the vast majority of the women who appeared on GDP were all conned into it but only a select few have been willing to make a complain while most of the others are too ashamed and fear the repercussion of going to trial.

[Link]

It's the usual stigma that follows all sex workers no matter how deeply involved into it they were

Edited by - LCF on 10/27/2019 4:41:32 PM

[Link]

Let's look at the facts of the case.

Fact: The girls were informed prior to scheduling the shoot that they would having sex on camera with a man, and they would be paid for it.

Fact: The girls agreed to travel to a specified location in order to shoot the scene in which they knew they would be having sex on camera with a man for money.

Fact: The girls signed written agreements giving up all rights of the produced scene, meaning that the owners of the scenes had the right to distribute the scenes to whomever they chose.

Fact: The girls were informed that other people would see these scenes, yet they agreed to shoot the scenes.

The above are the facts of the case which have not been contested. What you're arguing is the reasons that the girls agreed to these conditions. If her argument is,"Well, I only did the scene because I talked to some girl I never met on the phone who told me it was OK because she did it," that doesn't negate the fact that she still decided to do it of her volition. Does that make the guys running the site out to be liars or tricksters? Yes. But ultimately, they were truthful about the main thing, which is that they were shooting porn. The girls knew this going into it. The site operators cannot be traffickers if the girls knew that they were shooting porn, that people would see it, and they were paid accordingly for it.

There comes a time when people need to start accepting responsibilty for their own actions and stop blaming others for their mistakes. If these girls didn't want to be on a porn site, then they shouldn't have agreed to shoot porn. It's as simple and easy as that. Stop making excuses for them.

[Link]

After reading some of the earlier posts, I think it's important to clarify a couple of things. First, even if someone who has suffered harm "should have known better," that in itself does not absolve a bad actor. For example, the perpetrator of a Nigerian bank scam does not get off the hook by saying that his victims were being naive, even if that happens to be true. Second, a written agreement is voidable if it was the product of fraud or misrepresentation.

Here, the plaintiffs describe a coordinated effort by the defendants to misrepresent the nature of their business (including its name, which made no mention of "GirlsDoPorn"), and to overcome the girls' initial reluctance by lying to them about how the videos would be distributed. Saying that the girls should not have believed the lies and misrepresentations does not mean the defendants deserve to prevail or that the plaintiffs were wrong to bring the case. It also does not mean that the releases signed by the girls are necessarily enforceable.

Impact-wise, the plaintiffs describe devastating consequences to their lives and livelihoods based on the public disclosure of their identities. It seems that Jane Doe No. 1, who has since passed the bar and whose name is not difficult to guess based on publicly-available information, would have been starting her second year of law school when she was "outed" to friends, family, classmates, and professors. She has reportedly given up any hope of pursuing a legal career because she feels it is no longer realistic now that her real name (not a stage name) is linked to porn videos that are still widely available on free public websites. Doe No. 1 is only one of 20-some-odd girls who have joined the lawsuit, and they are only a small slice of the 500-600 girls who have shot videos for GDP.

And that is only the civil case! There is a parallel criminal indictment with allegations of even more serious acts including sexual assault and rape. Meanwhile, the man who allegedly masterminded the enterprise has seemingly fled the country while some of his alleged associates have given sworn testimony confirming critical aspects of the girls' claims.

Without having first-hand knowledge of the situation, no one can say with absolute certainty what happened; and the defendants deserve all the usual safeguards that the legal process affords them. But so far, the weight of publicly-reported facts does seem to lean strongly in one direction. At a minimum, the girls' allegations cannot be so easily brushed off by saying that they should have known better, or by pointing to language in a contract that may prove to be legally unenforceable.

A verdict in the civil case seems like it could be near, based on press coverage of the trial.

[Link]

No it doesn't, but as per ^^, people have to take responsibility for their own actions. (I read a finance commentator state that when individuals have been taken in by Nigerian prince scams, romance scams, get rich quick scams, ... their own personal greed has been the basis.)

As I've said, I haven't been following this case, but I cannot comprehend that in this internet age, functional adults could agree to being filmed by a porn company performing sexual acts, and actually believe those images would not - somehow - end up on the internet.

[Link]

In the Nigerian bank scam, or any other scam, people are asked to give something in order to get something of value back in return, but what is promised to be returned is never delivered. That is a scam. That was not the case in this situation. To reiterate what I wrote in my previous post:

Were the girls told they would be paid to have sex with a man on camera? Yes.
Were they actually paid what they were promised to have sex with a man on camera? Yes.
Were they told that the videos would be available to other people to see? Yes.
Did the girls still agree to shoot the videos after being told this information? Yes.

So where is the scam here? Having a fake reference is not sufficient enough, in my opinion, to qualify this as fraud considering that the girls were made aware of all the other pertinent information and accepted the agreed payment for it.

Here is a more appropriate analogy. Let's say that I receive an e-mail telling me that a Nigerian millionnaire will send me $100,000 if I send him $100, so I send it. In return, I end up getting the $100,000 that was promised to me. However, the sender has also decided to publish the names of everyone, including me, who sent him money on a paid website. I am opposed to this because I didn't want anyone to know that I sent him money, even though I got what was promised, and even though I gave the sender the right to publish my name onto his site. Similarly, this is basically a case about 22 girls out of hundreds being embarrassed because of a decision that they made which they now regret. They were not scammed because they got what was promised to them.

[Link]

secondly the deal was made in advance as well the lies told , well before the signature , well before they travelled all the way to shooting set , hence most of what was told isn't there , for exampleI'm sure there's no disagreement over anal, double penetrations,orgies, double anals , flogging, canig, pissing and any other sexual porn act they didn't agree to perform and yet nobody could have pressed them into doing just because they agreed to "have sex on tape"

Same things for distribution they agreed off the book their scenes would have not be available at home nor through the internet to which they did not agree as much as they did not agree to do a gang bang on tape even though I'm sure their disagreements weren't listed on the paper they signed otherwise they would have noticed the sparking abcence of the distribution method in it

so yes they agreed to shoot a sex scene but that's all

[Link]

So the principle that those smart enough to pass the bar shouldn't know better doesn't make the victim os a scam less victim , everybody could fall if the scam is well covered and put in place

[Link]

maybe the usual fog you try put over such cases will dissipate shortly

[Link]

"This is on the same level as believing a Nigerian Prince really does need you to send him $20,000 so that he can claim an inheritance, after which he will give you $1million for your trouble"

Yes, anyone can fall for a scam. But some scams are so outrageous that you would expect a functional adult to see through them.

[Link]

"responded to ads for modeling jobs that would supposedly pay $5,000."

"convinced them they could remain anonymous and that their videos would not be posted on the internet."

[Link]

Not only that, but I also see this as a way to open the floodgates for even more attacks on porn. Porn has always been a target of attacks for one rationalization or another. If it's not the "This is obscene and offensive to us" defense, then it's the "Porn is corrupting our children" argument. If it's not one of those, then it's the "Look how porn is exploiting these poor innocent defenseless women" routine. This case is yet another example of the latter. If one company can be targeted for trafficking allegations, then who's to say that other companies won't be next? What's to stop other producers and companies from being accused of trafficking (a term which can be loosely applied like we're seeing here) girls to shoot for them? We used to associate trafficking with going into some poor third-world country and kidnapping or tricking people to work as slave labor. Now we're seeing the term used to apply to shooting legal-aged American women who consensually agreed to shoot a porn scene and accepted payment for it. I don't see how anyone who supports porn can not see this as a problem.

This is obviously a means of expanding the definition of "trafficking" to be able to target the porn industry. If this case prevails, it will only set a precedent that will leave other producers even more vulnerable to the same type of attacks. Right now, it's a case against one company. If it succeeds, I have no doubt that we will see similar attacks on porn as a whole. We're already seeing them as it is.

[Link]

Both epoch & ccbill cut off joins.

epoch says "sorry you're denied"
ccbill says "account inactive"

Edited by - snufish on 10/30/2019 2:15:39 AM

[Link]

In the civil case, one girl testified that the sex was so violent it made her bleed, and that the "producers" blocked the hotel room door with furniture so she couldn't escape. Awful stuff.

[Link]

realtip, aside from really disliking your misogynist ways, my concern in allowing you to post here is that people reading your posts might assume you actually have the insider knowledge that you claim to have.

[Link]

Did Girls Do Porn Producer Try to 'Deepfake' Plaintiff Attorney

[Link]

Also, there is a quote in the article from the National Center on Sexual Exploitation regarding this case stating that "the porn industry is desperately trying to distance itself from the fact that it profits off of and is inherently intertwined with sexual exploitation, abuse, and trafficking." Anyone still think this case isn't all about fueling the opposition to porn movement?

The articles all report that the girls were informed that they would be shooting a porn scene at some point prior to showing up shooting the scene, and that they all agreed verbally and in writing to do so. This is also obvious by the fact that the scenes could not have been produced or posted without their consent. Their claims are instead that they were told that the scenes would not be posted on the Internet, which we do not know for a fact because we don't know what they were really told when the cameras were off. None of the girls, as far as we know, have presented anything in writing stating that the scenes would not be posted online, so we only have their claims stating that was the case. But let's assume that this is true. Even if they were verbally told that the scenes would not be posted online, the fact remains that they surrendered all rights to the scenes in writing to the owners of the site. Once that happened, the girls had no control over what happened to the scenes. The owners had the legal right to distribute them as they saw fit according to the terms of the written agreements that the models signed. This is indeed a legal fact, not an opinion. I don't know what was in the written agreements, but we can reasonably assume that it was a standard consent agreement giving the owners of the site full rights to produced content.

Case in point, I've done paid focus groups before. When doing a focus group, you normally have to sign a document stating that the company doing the focus group has the right to use your likeness, voice, video, etc. Even if they tell me that their video of me in the group probably will not be anywhere on TV or the Internet, I understand that, by signing the agreement, I am giving them the right to use it in that manner if they decide to do so. This is no different from performing in a scene and giving the owners of the scene the right to use the scene as they choose.

Other claims are that they were forced to perform the scenes and agreed to do so under duress. For example, one of the articles reports that one of the girls claimed that she was rushed to sign the consent agreement and was not given time to read it. However, that same article reports that the defense showed that she actually read the consent agreement on camera with no obvious signs of duress. She then claimed that she was coached to do that. In my opinion, this undermines her credibility. Keep in mind that this is the same girl who claims she couldn't leave because they blocked the door with furniture. Who knows what really happened?

I know, to some, that might make me a misogynist for not just automatically believing her or sympathizing with her even after she contradicted herself. But that's OK. I don't believe that anyone should have to go to prison if they haven't committed an actual crime, and I don't see any real evidence that any crime has been committed here. That is, other than offending people who think the site owners are misogynists, which is obviously very easy to do these days.

[Link]

Also, the United States Department of Justice seems to believe crimes have occurred.

[Link]

As I've already pointed out here in this thread, porn has always been a target of attack. This is not the first time it has happened, and it will not be the last. The government has prosecuted pornographers for charges of obscenity, for child pornography (in using adult performers to portray underage characters, which is not illegal), and now the latest charge is human sex trafficking, which appears to be the new 'It' crime.

It's no wonder that this article reports that many sex workers have pointed out that the new anti-trafficking laws which have been passed in the last two years have only made it more difficult to engage in consensual sex work. I would argue that is actually the objective of the laws. As a result of these anti-trafficking laws, we have seen things like:

-Social media platforms like Instagram deleting the accounts of sex workers
-Attacks on sites like BackPage and Craigslist, which are no longer allowed to post ads for sex work
-Sites like Tumblr and Reddit no longer allowing adult or sex-related content
-Sites like YouTube banning or demonetizing videos by sex workers, or videos deemed to promote sex work

And now, a major porn website being tried on human trafficking charges for shooting adult women who gave their consent to shoot the scenes.

This is exactly why I do not understand how anyone who claims to support the porn industry can applaud efforts by the government to attack yet another porn company under the guise of fighting human trafficking, which is the latest anti-porn catchphrase.

But yeah, people can keep thinking that it's a crime just because the government found a new way to say so. We've seen before how that works out. As I said, be careful what you wish for.

[Link]