AdultBizLaw.com - Fattorosi & Chisvin

BBW Suit Against Adultcon Attracts Mainstream Media Attention

March 24th, 2009 by admin

As published on XBiz.com on Wednesday, March 18, 2009
by:Nikki Tang

LOS ANGELES — The suit against Adultcon by a quartet of BBW performers is attracting mainstream attention, notably becoming the subject of a Kelly’s Court segment of “America’s Newsroom” on Fox News.

Adultcon also issued a press release on Tuesday discussing the suit and its circumstances, a gesture that Michael Fattorosi of Fattorosi & Associates, attorney for BBW performers Desiree Devine, Subrina Love, Chocolate Nights and Farrah Foxx, finds unusual.

“It struck me as odd that Adultcon would put out a press release about them being defendants in a lawsuit for discriminating against my clients,” he told XBIZ. “Most of the time, the companies that are defendants don’t draw attention to the suit. The individuals filing the lawsuits are the ones issuing press releases. But I and my clients thank Adultcon for the publicity on this case.”

Renaud West, Adultcon operator, declined to comment on the latest media attention surrounding the case, but reiterated a statement from the company press release that said, “Our company policy has always been to vigorously defend against any and all lawsuits. We would look forward to litigating the case and appreciate the publicity.”

In the Kelly’s Court segment, host Megyn Kelly, along with Fox News legal analyst Arthur Aidala and defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh, relayed the basic circumstances surrounding the suit and named and briefly discussed the BBW performers, but did not mention Adultcon by name.

“I noticed that nowhere in the Fox News story did they mention the name of Adultcon,” Fattorosi said. “But I believe Kelly’s Court is very entertaining. I always like the spin they put on it — they make something as mundane as a lawsuit interesting.”

The suit, filed by the performers last month, alleges that they were denied exhibitor access to the Adultcon show in December after West and others at Adultcon viewed their photos and intentionally discriminated against them on the basis of their “weight, obesity and physical appearance.”

In the press release, Adultcon said the women were offered booths at the show following the legal threat, and that the offer was denied, which “leads us to believe that they were looking for a quick pay day and not really interested in exhibiting.”

The performers were not available for comment at time of post.

The next Adultcon show takes place this weekend at the Los Angeles Convention Center.

 

Posted in Michael Fattorosi | No Comments »

Lexington Steele, Vanessa Blue Settle Suits Against Each Other

March 24th, 2009 by admin

As posted on XBiz.com on Friday, March 13, 2009
By: Rhett Pardon

LOS ANGELES — Lexington Steele and Vanessa Blue have settled a pair of suits against each other after meeting with an alternative dispute resolution jurist. Terms of the settlement weren’t disclosed, but the accord was reached in late January at an arbitration hearing before retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lawrence Crispo.

At the hearing, both parties agreed on a settlement, and last Friday both cases were dismissed at U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

Adult industry attorney Michael Fattorosi, who represents Blue, told XBIZ that the settlement was amicable.

“The matter was resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties,” he said.

News of the settlement coincided with the release Friday of Mercenary Pictures’ “Lexington Loves Vanessa Blue,” a collection of the performers’ “best scenes.” In addition to Blue, the title also stars Cynthia Pendragon, Mya Lovely, Candace Von, Trina Michaels and Mika Tan.

Steele and Blue filed federal suits last year against each other over the ownership of numerous videos that first appeared under the Mercenary Pictures banner, where Steele acts as the company’s president and also is a performer.

Steele’s complaint alleged that Blue, whose real name is Tanya Faulkner, appropriated copyrights illegally for various volumes of such Mercenary titles as “Black Reign,” “Superwhores,” “Ebony” and “Climax TV.”

Steele, whose real name is Clifton Britt Jr., claimed that Blue was a salaried performer and, at time of employment, “never objected or asserted rights to the copyrighted registrations solely owned by Mercenary Pictures.”

Blue also goes by the name of Domina X.

Steele alleged that Blue, along with her production company VBX, provided scenes from the videos he owns on VanessaBlue.com and earned membership fees over the video-on-demand clips.

Blue’s separate complaint alleged copyright infringement and breach of an implied contract, among other charges, against Steele, Mercenary and Canada-based HVL Cyberweb Solutions Inc., which allegedly entered into a web distribution deal with Mercenary through its Braincash division.

Blue, in the complaint, said that it was Steele who fraudulently filed for certificates of registration over the titles and that Steele’s company agreed to pay her 75 percent of the gross revenue generated from LexSteele.com.

That promise, Blue contended at the time, was made if she relocated her residence from Las Vegas to Los Angeles, which she eventually did.

In her suit, Steele and his company made at least one payment but breached its contract starting in June 2006, Blue claimed.

Attorney Robert Esensten, who represents Steele, was unavailable for comment at post time.

 

Posted in Michael Fattorosi | 1 Comment »

4 BBW Porn Stars Sue L.A.’s Adultcon

March 7th, 2009 by admin

As published on XBiz.com on Thursday, March 5, 2009
by: Rhett Pardon

LOS ANGELES — Adultcon has been sued by a quartet of BBW adult performers who allege they signed on as exhibitors and then were bounced from the December show after the operator viewed their photos.
The suit filed last week at Los Angeles Superior Court involves BBW porn stars Desiree Devine, Subrina Love, Chocolate Nights and Farrah Foxx, who each claim they were unable to market their personas, as well as sell their DVDs, at the show held at the Los Angeles Convention Center.

The suit alleges that Adultcon and its operator, Renaud West, as well as unnamed parties, intentionally discriminated against the four women because of their “weight, obesity and physical appearance.”

Adultcon, which hosts two porn star conventions in spring and fall at the Los Angeles Convention Center, is planning its next show later this month.

The show is billed as “where fans go to buy autographs, photos, DVDs and products and meet the porn stars of tomorrow as well as the mega stars of today.”

It attracts thousands of porn fans — mostly male — who pay $35 admission and are offered the opportunity to meet talent up-close and personal in a 60,000-square-feet hall. The show does not allow nudity, but porn stars usually expose copious amounts of skin and use pasties to cover areolas.

Devine, whose real name is Rustie Jouni, told XBIZ last December that she and the other women were “heartbroken” and “embarrassed” that they were not allowed in to the show.

She said that despite the fact that the BBW porn stars completed forms and paid admissions to enroll as exhibitors, they received a letter “that was full of shock.”

According to the suit, Adultcon sent correspondence to the women just days before the December show indicating that the denial of their booth space was based on its contractual policies, as well as a policy on its website that states, “We reserve the right to deny booth space to any person, who in our opinion, is disproportionate in weight in relation to their height.”

“I was very excited about exhibiting at Adultcon, and I spent a lot of money out of pocket getting ready for the event, including the $200 booth fee,” said Devine, who noted that she also planned on DVDs, T-shirts, posters and photographs specially manufactured for the show.

Devine, who is six-foot and measures 54-44-62, has filmed a half-dozen DVDs, including “Waist Watchers 4,” “Big Lovin 6” and “Whale Watching 3.” She also operates the paysite DesireeDivine.com and a fan club.

The suit said that as a result of Adultcon’s discriminatory practices, the plaintiffs were unable to attend Adultcon as exhibors and were unable to sell any merchandise at Adultcon.

“The conduct of defendants was outrageous and beyond the bounds of decency such that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it,” the suit said. “Plaintiffs were forced to endure ongoing mental anguish, shock, humiliation, feelings of hopelessness and desperation.”

Adult industry attorney Michael Fattorosi is the lawyer who represents the women.

His filing at Los Angeles Superior Court focuses on violations of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which reads: “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

Fattorosi contends that the Unruh Act has been applied numerous times based upon physical characteristics.

“The law is very broad and includes cases like these,” Fattorosi told XBIZ. “For example, there have been cases based on the length of hair that have been upheld by the Unruh Act.”

West, who operates Adultcon and parent company Live Entertainment, first heard of the suit when XBIZ called for comment, although rumors of the possible legal action have been swirling throughout the industry since December.

Later, he told XBIZ, “Our company policy has always been to vigorously defend against any and all lawsuits.”

“We would look forward to litigating the case in court and not on websites or in the adult industry publications,” West said. “On the other hand, we appreciate the publicity, especially this far in advance of Adultcon.”

Fattorosi said that much will be learned through discovery about Adultcon’s arrangement with the Los Angeles Convention Center, which possibly could be named to the suit.

“I don’t know what their contractual obligation is; I don’t even know if they have proper insurance,” he said.

Los Angeles Convention Center chief spokesman Felix Hernandez did not respond to several inquires regarding the complex’s discrimination policies.

Adultcon’s next show — its 16th — is slated for March 20-22 at the Los Angeles Convention Center.

The suit seeks general and special damages, as well as attorneys fees.

 

Posted in Michael Fattorosi | No Comments »

2257Safe.com Set for Beta Testing, Launch at Phoenix Forum

February 28th, 2009 by admin

As published on XBiz.com on Friday, February 27, 2009
by: Nikki Tang

WOODLAND HILLS, Calif. — Adult industry promoter Kevin Blatt, attorney Michael Fattorosi of Fattorosi & Associates and Daniel Underhill of Keyframe Multimedia Inc. have partnered to launch third-party record-keeping service 2257Safe.com at the Phoenix Forum in April.

In anticipation of the upcoming launch, 2257Safe.com is currently undergoing beta testing by Y-Tracker and AdultBizLaw.com clients, and is seeking others who are interesting in trying out the new service and providing feedback to its creators.

2257Safe.com, which is a rewritten version of the Y-Tracker program, according to Underhill, will help affiliates, as well as primary and secondary producers, maintain their records by serving as a virtual storage facility for all things 18 U.S.C. § 2257.

“We took the Y-Tracker, a desktop program that has been available since 2008, and completely rewrote it,” Underhill told XBIZ. “We’ve collaborated with Fattorosi to completely rewrite the program. It’s now completely web-enabled, so the user will be able to log in to 2257Safe.com from any web browser from anywhere in the world and maintain his or her records on the fly.”

Fattorosi added that 2257Safe.com clients would also not have to worry about inspections occurring in front of their friends and neighbors because the address used on the compliance notice will be the address for Fattorosi & Associates; as such, all inspections will occur at the law firm.

“With the change in the regulations governing 2257, third-party record-keepers are now not only allowed, but also seemingly encouraged by the federal government,” Fattorosi told XBIZ. “2257Safe.com will give everyone who is afraid of having his or her home address on a compliance notice the ability to remain anonymous.”

Upon launch, all records will also be stored and maintained on PCI-DSS compliant servers, which are “the gold standard in the banking and credit card processing industries,” according to Fattorosi.

“We want to provide the same level of security to our clients that they would expect from any other service that stores and maintains sensitive personal information,” he said, adding that 2257Safe.com will also be fully insured for up to $2 million for errors and omissions, as well as security liability.

Blatt, who agrees that the site’s anonymity will definitely “give a lot of affiliates and webmasters peace of mind,” cites PCI Compliance as the most attractive feature of 2257Safe.com. Since banks and credit processors have the same level of security, “PCI [compliance] is about as secure as you can get. No one else has factored in PCI Compliance, so this is probably the biggest sales point [of 2257Safe.com].”

Blatt and Underhill added that although the specific price points have not been determined yet, membership would be affordable since the site is geared specifically toward smaller and medium-sized webmasters.

“We’ve already got a waiting list for the launch,” Blatt said. “It’s going to be amazing, and we’re really excited about it.”

Underhill added that, “From what I’ve seen, I really think that this service will be the granddaddy of all third-party record-keeping services. [2257Safe.com] will be very cutting-edge. I don’t think anyone else out there will be able to approach what we’re doing. What we’re coming out with is going to set the standard.”

The service will be formally released at the Phoenix Forum at Tempe Mission Palms on April 2-4.

For more information on 2257Safe.com, visit 2257Safe.com, or contact Blatt at kb@kevinblatt.com, Underhill at support@ytracker.com or Fattorosi at michael@fattlegal.com.

 

Posted in Michael Fattorosi | No Comments »

2257 Upheld in Connections Case

February 24th, 2009 by admin

Published in XBiz.com on Friday, February 20, 2009
by:Stephen Yagielowicz

LOS ANGELES — The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld the 18 U.S.C. § 2257 federal record-keeping law in the long-contested Connections case.

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Sutton addressed what he sees as the critical question in this issue:

“Under what circumstances is it appropriate to invalidate a law in all of its applications when its invalidity can be shown [or assumed] in just some of its applications?” Sutton wrote. “When we think about the problem that way, it is hard to understand who is being hurt by resisting the plaintiffs’ call to invalidate the statute on its face.”

Sutton went on to discuss the hypothetical middle-aged couple shooting their own erotica — a practice used as an example of the burdensome requirements of the statute.

“Over twenty years and numerous administrations, the statute has never been enforced in this setting, and the attorney general has publicly taken the position that he will not enforce the statute in this setting,” Sutton wrote. “On the other side of the equation, we are being asked to invalidate a law in its entirety based on a worst-case scenario that, to our knowledge, has never occurred, that may never come to pass and that has not been shown to involve a materially significant number of people.”

According to attorney Gregory A. Piccionelli, “The majority opinion is a piece of pretzel-logic that utterly fails to address any of the well-reasoned arguments made in the original Sixth Circuit panel’s invalidation of the regulations.”

“It is, pure and simple, an outcome oriented opinion by the majority, comprising mostly conservative republican-appointed jurists, that, as we expected, were going to save 2257 at any cost,” Piccionelli told XBIZ. “It is both sad and dangerous that conservative culture warriors occupy seats on many of our highest courts.”

Opposing the ruling was Circuit Judge Helene N. White, who in writing a dissenting opinion stated her belief that “under intermediate scrutiny the identification/record-keeping requirements of 2257 impose an unconstitutional burden on plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.”

While White expressed reluctance over the prospect of invalidating 2257 in its entirety, she agreed with Kennedy that “2257’s sweep is so broad … and its burdens so potentially chilling of protected speech, that requiring case-by-case challenges to its overbreadth is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence.”

Part of White’s reasoning was based on the number of people that the regulations impact, which she acknowledged to be in the millions, saying “…we do know that millions of adults exchange or share personally-produced sexually-explicit depictions.” She cited a court exhibit listing more than 13 million “personal ads containing sexually-explicit text and images on a single website for sex and swinger personal ads.” Of the examined ads, 94 percent involved adults over 21 years of age.

To this observer, the court’s flexible attitude towards interpreting 2257 and its ability to accomplish the goal of protecting children while imposing the least burden on protected expression was well summed up by Circuit Judge Clay: “…although the government will always have a significant interest in eradicating and prosecuting cases of child pornography, the nature of the burden imposed by a particular statute may become more evident over time.”

Piccionelli agrees that the statute’s continued flaws should inspire hope in its eventual overturn and that operators should not lose faith due to this ruling.

“2257 is a constitutional abomination,” Piccionelli added. “We will win in the end.”

Not everyone seems as optimistic, however. As for the future of the statute, “it really comes down to whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case,” attorney Larry Walters told XBIZ. “But that is much less likely to happen since the circuit court upheld the law, rather than overturned it.”

Walters also pointed to this case as a good example of how conservative judges are finding ways of nitpicking away at a plaintiff’s overbreadth challenges and imposing legal hurdles that can be difficult to overcome — including the requirement of producing substantial evidence of unconstitutional applications of a statute before it will be struck down on First Amendment grounds.

The upholding of 2257 presents a possible immediate threat to the industry as well:

“Webmasters [and others] should be much more concerned about possible inspections and prosecutions,” Walters said. “Now that the law has been upheld, 2257 inspections could resume at any time.”

 

Posted in Updates: Articles | No Comments »

Devinn Lane Drops Vivid, Digital Playground From Lawsuit

February 24th, 2009 by admin

Published on AVN.com on February 18, 2009

LOS ANGELES - Adult star Devinn Lane has dropped complaints against Vivid Entertainment Group, Digital Playground and other defendants from her ongoing lawsuit against several adult and digital media companies.

The former Wicked Pictures contract star filed suit last October in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, alleging that the companies profited from domain names similar to Devinn Lane without compensating her.

In recent court filings, Lane dismissed her claims against Digital Playground, Vivid, Moniker Online Services, Domains by Proxy, and Dotster. She is still seeking damages, attorney’s fees, and an injunction against the companies Privacy Protect and Pixel.

According to Lane, Privacy Protect owns DevinnLaneCash.com and Hawaii-based Pixel owns Devinn-Lane.com. Both sites are currently inactive.

Lane’s attorney, Michael Fattorosi, declined comment on the case and Lane’s reasons for dropping her complaints against the two major adult studios.

Lane performed in more than 70 adult movies, receiving AVN’s Best Actress award in 2003 for her performance in Michael Raven’s Breathless. She directed several volumes of The Devinn Lane Show for Wicked Pictures in 2002, and has since directed other titles for Wicked, New Sensations, Metro, Shane’s World, Cinema Play, and Sin City.

 

Posted in Michael Fattorosi | No Comments »

J’s Distributing, Stiletto Magazine Sue City of Paramount, Calif.

February 24th, 2009 by admin

Published in XBiz.com on Thursday, February 19, 2009 By: Nikki Tang

PARAMOUNT, Calif. — Gentlemen’s club magazine Stiletto and its distributor, J’s Distributing, filed a complaint Wednesday against the city of Paramount, Calif., after officials removed the magazines from stands in an effort to enforce a city ordinance meant to protect minors.

“[City officials] obviously didn’t look at my client’s magazine before they took the action that they did,” said Michael Fattorosi, attorney for Stiletto and J’s Distributing. “There’s nothing obscene or adult about Stiletto magazine. What’s in the pages of Stiletto magazine is nothing more than you would see on primetime TV. There are no nude pictures and no depictions of sexual activity.”

The “Newsrack Ordinance,” adopted in Jan. 2008, is intended “to reduce hazards for potential accidents, alleviate blight and to limit access to materials deemed harmful to minors,” according to the complaint. It holds that “harmful” periodical covers must be hidden “so that the lower two thirds are hidden from the view of the public,” and that newsstands containing such publications must be guarded by an adult who checks the IDs of those who express interest in purchasing them.

In an effort to enforce the ordinance, city officials sent a letter to J’s Distributing owner Tom Lee on Feb. 8, informing him that Stiletto, a magazine that focuses on gentlemen’s clubs throughout Southern California, contained “harmful” material and needed to be removed from stands immediately. The letter threatened with impounding by the city and a fee of $200 for retrieval of the impounded magazines. After more letters and a meeting between Lee and the city officials, the city pulled Stiletto, as well as several other adult-oriented publications, from the newsstands.

“The city of Paramount really gave me a hard time,” Lee told XBIZ. ” I’m tired of being kicked out and losing thousands of dollars of machinery just because somebody doesn’t like the look of something.”

Fattorosi added that, “Stiletto magazine is a magazine that reports on and discusses activities and goings on at gentlemen’s clubs in Southern California, but in no way could it be considered material that is harmful to children. For Paramount to make this decision is a violation of my clients’ First Amendment rights. I feel very confident that we will win this case.”

Other affected publications, including LA Xpress magazine and Private Dancer magazine, may join Stiletto and J’s Distributing in the lawsuit, according to Lee.

Officials from the city of Paramount were not available for comment at time of post.

 

Posted in Michael Fattorosi | No Comments »

TheEroticReview.com Owner Arrested in Alleged Murder-for-Hire Plot

February 24th, 2009 by admin

Published in XBiz.com on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 By: Rhett Pardon

PHOENIX — The owner of TheEroticReview.com has been arrested in Phoenix on murder conspiracy charges after allegedly hiring a hit man to kill an online adult model who sued him last year.

David Elms, of Torrance, Calif., was arrested Sunday after an interview by officers from the Phoenix Police Department’s Special Assignments Unit.

Police said they got the tip from a suspect in an ongoing probe over DesertDivas.net, which allegedly operated a prostitution ring servicing about 6,500 clients.

Phoenix police said that Elms was seeking to contract out a hit to have a 32-year-old woman killed, as well as a 62-year-old male victim seriously injured.

That 32-year-old woman was identified by adult industry attorney Michael Fattorosi of Fattorosi & Associates as an online adult model and escort he represents in a federal suit in Los Angeles over cybersquatting claims.

The Long Beach, Calif., model, named as a Jane Doe in the suit, said she fears for her life because her home address was allegedly published on TheEroticReview.com.

Fattorosi told XBIZ he was satisfied that Elms was arrested.

“I’m pleased David Elms has been brought up on charges,” Fattorosi said. “He has victimized and terrorized numerous women in the adult entertainment industry.”

Fattorosi identified the 62-year-old victim as “Dave in Phoenix,” operator of the website SexWork.com.

SexWork.com has been known to attack Elms and TheEroticReview.com in its editorial content.

The owner posted a message on the site that reads: “I am not going to go into details at this time since I am working with the Phoenix Police major crimes unit and with police protection considerations.”

On Tuesday, XBIZ obtained booking information relative to the Elms arrest, including how he allegedly wanted to knock off the model and seriously hurt the website owner.

According to detectives, a tape-recorded phone call was made from an informant to Elms, who agreed to drive to Phoenix and hire subjects to commit a murder and purchase a firearm.

“On Feb. 15, the defendant arrived in Phoenix and met with undercover detectives and arranged for the assault on one victim, which involved breaking his legs,” police records said. “The second victim was a female who was to be either murdered or assaulted depending on the outcome of their court case.

“Defendant agreed to pay $3,000 for the assault and also paid $500 for the purchase of one-half ounce of cocaine. Defendant also wanted to purchase a Walther 22 handgun from either the informant or undercover detectives.”

Police said that Elms is currently on probation in California for drug possession and is prohibited from leaving the state.

They also said Elms’ vehicle was searched and a glass pipe used to smoke crack cocaine was recovered.

“Defendant was interviewed and admitted he was on probation, was there to purchase a firearm and crack cocaine from undercover detectives, which he thought were actual suspects,” police said. “As for the glass pipe, the defendant denied that it was his but admitted his fingerprints would be recovered from this item. The defendant also admitted that he ordered the assault of one of the victims but denied the murder conspiracy.”

In her civil complaint filed last year, Doe not only makes infringement claims but also includes charges of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, because Elms allegedly used the model’s real birth name in a domain name.

The complaint alleges that “Elms directed his anger and vengeance at Doe because she refused to engage in sexual intercourse with him and because Doe refused to allow her name to be published on a website he controls.”

Doe, who owns a members-only subscription website through her Kentucky-based company BFN LLC, said that she learned of Elms’ website, which uses her real birth name and images of her, in March.

Elms also is accused of sending a letter to Doe’s family and friends, informing them that she is a prostitute. As a result, she said, her immediate family has severed all ties with her.

“Elms embarked upon a crusade to ruin Doe’s life, in order to get back at her for her refusal to have sexual intercourse with him,” the suit said.

In the Phoenix arrest, Elms was booked into Maricopa County Jail for one count of conspiracy to commit murder, one count of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, one count of conspiracy to possess narcotic drugs for sale, one count of conspiracy to commit misconduct involving weapons and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia.

Elms’ Phoenix arrest is not the first brush with the law.

The New York Times reported last year that a deputy New York district attorney said Elms was criminally charged after a night in 2006 when police were called to a hotel where they found him with 3.8 grams of cocaine and a loaded semi-automatic weapon.

A prostitute was there and said Elms had forced her to perform oral sex at gunpoint, but there was not enough evidence to press charges on that accusation, the deputy district attorney told the Times.

Phoenix police said that the defunct DesertDivas.net based in Phoenix, also known as Night Partners Entertainment, had organizational ties to Philadelphia and Albuquerque, N.M.

Police investigated the group for a year before serving nine search warrants Aug. 5. Since then, 38 people have been arrested in connection with the Phoenix branch of the organization.

Elms’ TheEroticReview.com hosts escort reviews, site reviews, discussion boards and live chat. Visitors rank their experiences with prostitutes on a scale of 1 to 10, as well as to leave comments. It reportedly gets 500,000 to 1 million unique visitors each month.

 

Posted in Michael Fattorosi | No Comments »

Porn Week: D'Evils - Investigating Child Porn

January 26th, 2009 by admin

As posted on HipHopDX.com on January 23, 2009
by: Anthony Springer Jr.

The old cliché states, “A picture is worth a thousand words,” but in the era of emerging technology, a seemingly innocent photo can also be worth 15 minutes of infamy. Last December, two Washington cheerleaders were suspended after nude photos of the pair were circulated. I’m not talking about Washington Redskins cheerleaders—though any NFL owner would likely terminate a cheerleader for a similar infraction. I’m talking about Washington state high school students.

After school officials uncovered the tawdry photos, both girls were suspended from the cheerleading team—one for 30 days, the other for the duration of the school year. As a result, the parents of the unidentified minors filed suit, alleging that administration violated the girls’ due process rights, and failed to report the incident to the police as possible child pornography.

The charge that the administrators were in possession of child pornography is perhaps the most serious and has far reaching implications. In fact, it’s one of a handful of cases in which nude photos or videos of teens have been at the heart of an investigation. On January 14, three teenage girls and three teenage boys in Greensburg, Pennsylvania were busted for child pornography. According to reports, the girls allegedly sent nude or semi-nude photos of themselves to the boys in question. The photos were uncovered after school officials confiscated a cell phone that was used inappropriately during school hours. The seemingly innocent moment of camera play mixed with stupidity has led to adult charges. All six teens—between the ages of 14 and 17—were hit with various charges including manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography.

Similar cases have been reported in a number of states, and while the mainstream media is just beginning to pick up on this trend, the issue of “sexting”—as it has been dubbed by some—is nothing new. However, the increased attention from authorities presents a growing problem for a handful of exhibitionist teens and webmasters that may have images of underage kids in compromising positions.

While pornography is essentially at the heart of this debate, teens and amateur sites that create and distribute sexually explicit images is not likely to cause a backlash among the adult industry. “Amateur sites are not a problem for the industry; they’re a problem for the people who have them,” attorney Eric M. Bernstein of Bernstein and Associates, LLC told HipHopDX. “You have an obligation for record keeping; record retention and most people don’t go out and do that kind of thing.”

While many critics of the porn industry may try to dubiously link the rise of lewd teen behavior to smut peddlers, the fact remains that the adult film industry religiously practices the art of covering their asses (no pun intended)—ensuring that would be underage performers never see the bright, hot lights that come with shooting a professional sex scene. Michael Fattorosi of AdultBizLaw.com underscores Bernstein’s point on this issue. “It really doesn’t have an impact on the industry,” he said when asked if the current crop of cases will cause further scrutiny of the porn industry. “This industry does not use children. 18 USC 2257 requires us to keep records of the performers’ identification attesting that they are 18. I don’t remember the last time a mainstream production company shot somebody under 18 knowingly.”

For those of you outside the legal realm, 18 USC 2257 is the statute that mandates that any producer of a sexually explicit “book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being… create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.” In other words, when, or if the law comes calling, producers must be able to prove that all performers met or exceeded the age of majority at the time of production.

In the case of a growing number of “home grown” sites cropping up in the Internet featuring—in many cases—scantily clad (or fully nude) girls displaying their wares for the world to see, the prospect of jail time is very real. Many amateur sites are lacking the required documentation under the 2257 statute and it won’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the grown up body dancing in front of the Sponge Bob bed sheets and the posters of the latest teen heartthrob has likely not reached the age of consent. Though many of these home grown videos are created and disseminated by teens, not taking action would potentially create an environment that would give a safe haven to pedophiles, Fattorosi said.

“This is the slippery slope that you have,” he explained. “A teenager took a picture of a teenager and sent it to another teenager. That’s not necessarily what child porn or child exploitation is. The idea is that it’s an adult taking photos of a child. The problem that you have is unless you prosecute that in the same manner, it allows an adult to hire a sixteen year old kid to shoot his girlfriend and sell it. You don’t want to give any opportunity for that to happen. I understand why they’re prosecuting that and treating it with such contempt.”

As current technology allows a computer savvy individual to take a nude photo and distribute it to the world within minutes, the legal attention given to teens disrobing for the camera poses potential problems for social networking sites such as MySpace, which boasts millions of members. Though the number one social networking site in the world reserves the right to remove inappropriate photos, and aggressively goes after users who violate its terms of service. “The social networking sites are very specific, they will not accept naked or topless photos because teenagers are doing things they have no business doing,” Bernstein said. “I think you’ll continue to see crackdowns.”

Self policing beats federal policing any day of the week, particularly when one’s freedom and livelihood are at stake. Video sharing site YouTube is crystal clear on its no porn policy. The community guidelines on the site explicitly state, “YouTube is not for pornography or sexually explicit content. If this describes your video, even if it’s a video of yourself, don’t post it on YouTube. Also, be advised that we work closely with law enforcement and we report child exploitation.” Ning, a site that allows individual users to create their own social networks, removed all of the adult content on its networks at the beginning of the year. While reports stated that adult content on Ning’s social networks were a mere one percent, a sliver of that contained video and photos of minors—or women who appeared to be under the age of 18.

It may be very possible that all these youngsters need is a stern talking to and the public embarrassment that comes when personal photos get into the wrong hands. The increasing media attention should also be enough to scare perpetrators—and future perps—straight when it comes the creation and distribution of pornographic photos. However, the legal option is on the table and due to the serious nature child pornography and the potential exploitation that accompanies the crime, a growing number of prosecutors seem to be treating these juveniles as adults.

“I really think they’re going to have to prosecute [these cases] as if it were child porn,” Fattorosi said in regards to future occurrences of sexting gone wrong. “It’s unfortunate, but I understand. Would I prosecute it if I was a prosecutor? Probably not, if you can see that it was kids. But I understand why they’re doing it.”

The final chapters on teens use—or misuse—of cameras and the Internet are being written as we speak. Warnings against the distribution of pictures or video among minors and the serious charges that follow being caught are not likely to deter hormone driven teens in love—or in lust. Consequently, home grown sites are also likely to keep popping up, record keeping be damned. Though the Pennsylvania teens probably won’t serve hard time if convicted, they may have to register as sex offenders—a potential deathblow to future job prospects. And while the teens in question may skirt prison sentences in every new case that develops, the law is not likely to treat a web master found distributing child pornography with the same kid gloves. In addition to being a violation of federal law, possessing and distributing child pornography is a felony in all 50 states, and if the local district attorney wanted to get in on the action of prosecuting a case, state charges will pile on to any federal charges.

At the end of the day, the threat of legal prosecution and public shame won’t deter teens determined to create and share homemade nude images. Legal prosecution also doesn’t take the place of something not often talked about in this new child porn debate: parental supervision. Fattorosi isn’t sure that nude teen photos or videos should necessarily be labeled as porn, however, he is certain that parents are the key to stopping the trend—not prosecution.

“[It’s] still problematic that a 16-year-old girl with a web cam puts [an explicit video] on YouTube. Is it porn if a girl isn’t engaging in sex if she’s not naked? Is it irresponsible for her to put herself out there and her parents aren’t supervising? Yes. What it all comes down to is parental responsibility. If you leave a child unsupervised, things like this happen.”

“Ultimately,” he added, “it comes down to the parents and that’s what people don’t want to hear.”Famvir
Buy Lukol
Purchase Tulasi
Zyvox
Order Synthroid
Buy Coumadin
Diakof
Order Eurax
Order Altace
Cheap Imitrex
Cheap Himcolin
Cheap Danazol
Buy Purim
Buy Zanaflex
Purchase Mobic
Order Xeloda
Buy Norvasc
Abana
Order Styplon
Order Vicodin
Buy Dospan
Cheap Clarinex
Purchase Aristocort
Cheap Meridia
Oxycontin
Purchase Desyrel
Order Zimulti
Buy Vasotec
Prandin
Cheap Clarina
Purchase Lorazepam
Purchase Copegus
Clarinex
Differin
Cheap Bontril
Cheap Percocet
Cheap Effexor
Purchase Aciphex
Purchase Vasotec
Order Methocarbam
Cheap Hyzaar
Order Coumadin
Watson
Order Femcare
Order Azulfidine
Aciphex
Purchase Xanax
Cheap Xanax
Buy Oxycontin
Purchase Purim
Order Naprosyn
Order Herbolax
Purchase Ultram
Buy Desyrel
Rumalaya
Order Speman
Cheap Cordarone
Purchase Zestril
Purchase Lariam
Cheap Diovan
Cheap Deltasone
Order Actos
Buy Claritin
Cheap Antabuse
Cheap Naprosyn
Purchase Cardizem
Purchase Lopid
Loxitane
Purchase Brite
Order Zyban
Purinethol
Mobic
Order Mevacor
Buy Augmentin
Vasodilan
Cheap Glucophage
Buy Tricor
Cheap Zetia
Buy Carisoprodol
Valium
Cheap Trazodone
Buy Himcolin
Buying Didrex
Buy Diabecon
Order Evista
Cheap Avandia
Buy Aleve
Purchase Zyban
Buy Confido
Levaquin
Order Acticin
Order Fosamax
Purchase Zebeta
Buy Antabuse
Cheap Purinethol
Cheap Arava
Order Biaxin
Professional Plasma
Cheap Calan
Cheap Reosto
Order Cozaar
Buy Atacand
Buy Prometrium
Purchase Lisinopril
Purchase Monoket
Buy Proventil
Cheap Vicodin
Purchase Valium
Buy Requip
Purchase Zyrtec
Cheap Acyclovir
Sustiva
Order Rimonabant
Purchase Cordarone
Cheap Lexapro
Green Tea
Buy Ventolin
Dostinex
Himplasia
Order Cymbalta
Order Prinivil
Purchase Pamelor
Purchase Geodon
Purchase Glucophage
Buy Stromectol
Cheap Flovent
Singulair
Buy Loxitane
Purchase Elimite
Lopressor
Cheap Didronel
Lotrisone
Purchase Seroquel
Order Mycelex-G
Purchase Sorbitrate
Order Vantin
Purchase Atrovent
Koflet
Aleve
Purchase Bactroban
Purchase Serophene
Purchase Acomplia
Buy Zyban
Cheap Zelnorm
Buy Mycelex-G
Buy Serophene
Casodex
Evista
Cheap Loprox
Purchase Phentermine
Purchase Danazol
Buy Dilantin
Purchase Codeine
Buy Risperdal
Lisinopril
Purchase CLA
Cheap Prilosec
Order Confido
Stromectol
Human Growth
Order Lotrisone
Purchase Lotensin
Hoodia
Purchase Snoroff
Cheap Methocarbam
Order Paxil
Purchase AyurSlim
Purchase Altace
Purchase Lozol
Purchase Leukeran
Order Lukol
Cheap Codeine
Order Pravachol
Cheap Clonazepam
Order Diethylpropion
Buy Renalka
Procardia
Order Atarax
Buy Lamisil
Cordarone
Order Cardizem
Purchase Serevent
Amaryl
Purchase Prilosec
Prograf
Cheap Crestor
Purchase Adipex
Purchase Augmentin
Order Quibron-T
Buy Evecare
Buy Septilin
Buy Bonnisan
Prinivil
Buy Isordil
Buy Plan
Buy Sorbitrate
Cheap Vasodilan
Order Brafix
Bupropion
Buy Aricept
Purchase Septilin
Female Viagra
Cheap Shoot
Order Miacalcin
Elimite
Purchase Nirdosh
Purchase Naprosyn
Buying Adipex
Arava
Purchase Gasex
Buy Cytotec
Starlix
Snoroff
Sinequan
Cheap Evista
Cheap Celexa
Buy Xeloda
Purchase Butalbital
Cheap Seroquel
Buy Paxil
Purchase Cytotec
Order Maxaquin
Order Prilosec
Buy Allegra
Accupril
Buy Lipitor
Didronel
Prometrium
Purchase Flexeril
Purchase Bontril
Order Kytril
Cheap Proscar
Purchase Superman
Nonoxinol
Order Keftab
Purchase Isoptin
Purchase Tramadol
Acyclovir
Purchase Revia
Order Tenuate
Purchase Adderall
Order Trazodone
Cheap Kytril
Prozac
Purchase Carisoprodol
Vitamin A
Buy Prograf
Purchase Fioricet
Imdur
Purchase Proscar
Buy Rimonabant
Cheap Viagra
Cheap Stromectol
Isoptin
Order Rhinocort
Purchase Flonase
Herbolax
Order Didrex
Buy Online
Cheap Nexium
Purchase Emsam
Buy Lamictal
Buy Flovent
Buy Lasix
Order Fastin
Purchase Amaryl
Buy Meridia
Flexeril
Prilosec
Cheap Evecare
Purchase Brahmi
Buy Hydrochloride
SleepWell (Herbal
Order Lipitor
Cheap Acticin
Zyban
Aristocort
Purchase Styplon
Cheap Propecia
Avandia
Buy Neurontin
Cheap Tenormin
Purchase Zetia
Order Flovent
Cheap Shallaki
Cheap Rumalaya
Order Diabecon
Rocaltrol
Purchase Xenacore
Cheap Retin-A
Clomid
Lamictal
Purchase Casodex
Buy Ativan
Buy Cozaar
Order Prednisone
Cheap Zyprexa
Cheap Vytorin
Buy Pravachol
Buy Feldene

 

Posted in Michael Fattorosi | Comments Off

Porn Week: Is Pornography Degrading To Women?

January 26th, 2009 by admin

As posted on HipHopDX.com on January 20, 2009
by: Anthony Springer Jr.

If you ask one hundred people what pornography is, you’re likely to get one hundred different answers. If you ask another one hundred what they think about pornography, you’re likely to get one hundred more. Sex sells, but mediated sexual acts wrote the blueprint on monetizing the erotic to the downright frightening. The multibillion dollar a year adult entertainment industry has put its stamp on everything from the local 7-11 to the Supreme Court.

In the ’70s and ’80s pornography—or the debate about pornography—drew strict battle lines between the sexes, liberals and conservatives, and the feminist movement. The latter group birthed two staunch anti-pornography advocates in Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon. The pair, along with other activists, believed that pornography was vile, a tool used by men to degrade, objectify, and dehumanize of women. Attempts by the two to censor pornography were ultimately unsuccessful, but the fallout from their efforts kept the pornography debate raging on into the ’90s.

Today, the landscape of the industry has undoubtedly changed from the time when it was almost exclusively a boys club (and more specifically, a white boys club). While most pornography is still made for and marketed to white men, there are a number of women taking charge in front of, and behind the camera. So the question is simple: in 2009, is pornography degrading to women? Is it the dehumanizing and degrading industry that Dworkin and MacKinnon alleged years ago? Or is it just another way for thousands of men and women to pay their bills and keep food on the table?

Craig Gross, the founder of XXX Church believes pornography is still harmful. Gross and his team have been attending adult conventions for the last seven years, distributing Bibles to attendees while reminding them that Jesus loves them. The group even passes out stickers and t-shirts bearing the phrase, “Jesus loves porn stars” to cement their message of love. While Gross does not condemn the industry—as many of his more conservative counterparts do with messages of hell fire and damnation— he certainly doesn’t condone it. “I think most [porn] nowadays is [degrading to women],” Gross told DX. “Long gone are the days when it was just one guy and one girl. If you look at half these titles out here, it’s very violent. I’d say this world of fantasy is pretty twisted. I’d say it’s not what you’ll find in a healthy sexual relationship. Most of this is geared toward the fantasy of the guy and the women are the objects.”

The pastor of the “#1 Christian Porn Site” acknowledges that the industry is not churning out sex slaves, but also believes that the almighty dollar causes many performers to do things they wouldn’t normally do. “Most of these girls aren’t stupid, they’re not going to go to work and be tormented, but it’s a sliding pay scale. You have sex with one guy, its 600 bucks. You have sex with three guys at a time, it’s a lot more. They’re not forced to do anything, but the final product I think is degrading.”

Not so fast say many of the women who actually perform. A visit to the Hustler booth at this year’s Adult Entertainment Expo revealed a group of women who are in control of the acts they perform on screen—and they seem to be loving every minute of it. “I do this because I love it, nobody forces me to do anything,” 20-year-old Madison Scott said. “I don’t think it’s degrading at all. For the girls who make this a job and make this their business, they do really well. I haven’t had a single problem.”

Britney Amber echoed Scott’s sentiments, and also added that many of the girls are in total control over what they do—or do not do—on camera. “I’m completely in control of myself. I’m 100% in control. If there’s something that I’m not cool with, I can say no and walk away.”

One dominate stereotype that seems to propel the “porn is degrading” ideology is that most of the (young) women in the industry are damaged through previous bouts with sexual abuse, a lack of an education, and a desire to get rich by any means necessary.

And while some starlets ultimately fit the profile, Ryder Skye smashes it to pieces.

Standing just 5’2”, Skye—a self described feminist—is not imposing but commands attention when she talks about her profession. The relative newcomer to the industry is currently pursuing a bachelor’s degree in Women’s Studies and eventually wants to become a therapist. She’s candid when giving her opinion on the never ending pornography debate. Skye believes that pornography can be a source of empowerment for women, and efforts to ban or suppress pornographic media go against feminist ideals. “I think not allowing women to express themselves freely and sexually is extremely repressing for women and goes against feminism in general,” she stated. “In the US, we have this big sexual stigma where we feel like it’s uncomfortable to talk about. Why? It’s the same thing with porn, women watch porn, couples enjoy porn too. I understand both arguments, but I think pornography can be extremely empowering for women.”

One thing you won’t hear Skye say is that the industry is easy. She acknowledges that some women haven’t been fortunate enough to have the experiences she’s had thus far.

“I think what’s unfortunate is that [anti-porn advocates] end up talking to girls that have had bad experiences. Pornography is not for everybody. You have to be in control of everything and know when to say no. This is not a job that everybody can do; you really have to like sex. The second you feel like you need to be drunk to be on set, that’s when you need to stop.”

While many of the prevailing stereotypes about the industry—and subsequent allegations about its treatment of women—lie with images of battered and broken women who exited the industry, hooked on alcohol or drugs. Those who view the industry with such a broad scope may forget that for many, pornography is not simply a hobby, or an activity to engage in on the weekends. For the thousands of men and women who make up the industry, it is a way of life. Sex is often associated with intimacy, or at the very least, not something that should be sold to the highest bidder. However, pornography is just as much a business as running a record label or a department store; and running a business properly is a necessity. This includes not drinking or taking drugs during a shoot, or physically abusing women.

Michael Fattorosi of AdultBizLaw.com says abuse has happened and will continue to happen on set, but it is not the norm for the industry. “As far as mistreatment physically, I don’t see that happening too often. The people that make the movies aren’t bad people.” Ideas of physical abuse may be birthed from images of hardcore porn. Typically, spitting, slapping, biting and other actions typically associated with aggression don’t engender fond feelings to those who don’t participate in these acts in a sexual setting. Fattorosi is quick to point out that when these acts are depicted on screen, the performers are consenting adults living out a fantasy for willing consumers.

“In an industry where sex is what you’re selling, people have different types and flavors of fantasy. Some guys like rough sex, some women like fantasy, it runs the gamut,” he explained. “For the most part, the agents have done a good job with making sure that if a girl is going to a set, she knows what she’s prepared for. [Abuse] has happened, but for the professional side of the industry, they don’t physically abuse women. They don’t get them drunk or give them drugs.”

Even smaller companies are going the extra mile to make their female talent feel comfortable. Topp, from the New York based Creem Team Production says using women behind the camera goes a long way with the women who appear in front of it. “My assistant is always a female,” he says. “When [a woman] comes to a shoot, the person giving her the interview or the paperwork is always a female. It’s not just a bunch of guys around. I have females dealing with females; that seems to make everybody a lot more comfortable.”

So, if performers don’t believe they’re being degraded by performing, where does the belief that pornography is degrading to women come from? Much of the answer stems from academic research on the effects of pornography on consumers. Several studies have shown that the consumption of pornography can lead to decreased satisfaction with one’s partner, fuel aggression towards women, and promote an acceptance of rape. The data coming from academic studies does, on the surface, give credence to those who believe pornography should be banned, but a close look at what the studies actually say will more often than not unearth problems for anti-porn advocates. Rape in the United States has been occurring since at least the 1400s, centuries before pornography became a way to make money. Other studies that examine the effects of porn (often on men) have not been conducted over a lengthy period of time and long term studies of pornography effects are seldom undertaken.

At the end of the day, pornography—particularly in it’s more hardcore forms—just makes some people uncomfortable. Veteran porn star, activist, and nurse, Nina Hartley believes that those who believe pornography is degrading to women are simply projecting their feelings onto the stars they see on film.

“I think porn is degrading only if a person has an attitude about sex that says sex only belongs in a certain place,” Hartley, 49, said. “Being degraded is a subjective experience. If I don’t feel that I’m being degraded by performing in sex films, I am not being degraded. Other people look at my work and say, ‘Oh my gosh, she is being degraded.’ That’s projection. People place their own actions and feelings onto an activity they don’t understand. For them, if they were in such a position, they would be and feel degraded [but they think] it’s a universal experience.”

“It’s very narcissistic but very common. Degradation is a subjective experience and not objective or quantifiable.”

 

Posted in Michael Fattorosi | No Comments »

« Previous Entries

  • February 2010
    M T W T F S S
    « Mar    
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
  • Add to Technorati Favorites

    XBiz.com News Feeds




    AdultBizLaw.com Copyright © 2006-2008

    AdultBizLaw.com is not intended to be relied upon as legal advice. By reading this website, there has been no intent to create an attorney-client relationship. We strongly urge everyone accessing AdultBizLaw.com to consult and retain an attorney in your state if you are considering operating or working in the adult entertainment business. Furthermore, this site is specific to the laws governing California. Laws differ based upon jurisdiction and it may be considered criminal to operate or act in an adult entertainment business in your state or local area. Again, seek legal representation if you have questions as to your own personal legal issues.