- Joined
- Oct 2, 2018
- Messages
- 7,358
- Reaction score
- 241
I don't understand why you guys are so vehemently arguing this point. I'm just looking for random names you casually drop in this thread, for research purposes
Nobody said it was.Once again, saying "these girls should have known they were being lied to" is not a legal defense.
The legality of pornography has largely been settled in legislation, case law and precedent. The morality of it is another matter. Not sure why you would expect only comments on the legality, which is largely settled, and is a matter that most people are not well versed in, rather than the moral implications which are much more debatable and which most people have more of a sense of.Okay, I sort of got off track there and thought you were talking about the women involved in the lawsuit. I'm not sure how I managed that.
I don't disagree with what you're saying at all. But I also don't know why anyone here is giving us they''re opinion on moralities here. That's why I was saying this has gotten stupid. It's a legal case, we should only be considering what's right in the eye of the law. There's plenty of things that are legal but immoral to many of us. But people don't get sued over them.
Then it shouldn't be mentioned. Not one person here doesn't think these girls were naive or just plain stupid. That doesn't matter in a legal case, which is what this thread is about. GDP being sued.Nobody said it was.
See above. No one cares about the morality here. This is about GDP being sued.The legality of pornography has largely been settled in legislation, case law and precedent. The morality of it is another matter. Not sure why you would expect only comments on the legality, which is largely settled, and is a matter that most people are not well versed in, rather than the moral implications which are much more debatable and which most people have more of a sense of.
These matters aren't entirely unrelated to begin with, and no thread stays 100% on topic anyway.Then it shouldn't be mentioned. Not one person here doesn't think these girls were naive or just plain stupid. That doesn't matter in a legal case, which is what this thread is about. GDP being sued.
More people care about the morality than the legality. There's only so much that can be said about the legal aspect itself. It's a natural progression of the conversation. It's entirely legitimate and to be expected.See above. No one cares about the morality here. This is about GDP being sued.
More people care about the morality than the legality. There's only so much that can be said about the legal aspect itself. It's a natural progression of the conversation. It's entirely legitimate and to be expected.
Right, that's exactly what I'm saying. There are countless examples in this thread of people implying the girls will or should lose the case because they were stupid. In fact most of this thread is a waste of space and time, we all know they were stupid. But that's not a legal defense and these assholes will end up losing the case.More people care about the morality than the legality. There's only so much that can be said about the legal aspect itself.
Right, that's exactly what I'm saying. There are countless examples in this thread of people implying the girls will or should lose the case because they were stupid. In fact most of this thread is a waste of space and time, we all know they were stupid. But that's not a legal defense and these assholes will end up losing the case.
You said that nobody cares about the morality, which is an inaccurate blanket statement that directly contradicts what I said in my post that you are now claiming to be in complete agreement with. It's more likely that the case will be settled. On the off chance it goes to trial, either side would have a shot. They were adults who signed legal contracts. Arguments can be made that it was under duress and fraudulent practices. A judge and jury could go either way...Right, that's exactly what I'm saying. There are countless examples in this thread of people implying the girls will or should lose the case because they were stupid. In fact most of this thread is a waste of space and time, we all know they were stupid. But that's not a legal defense and these assholes will end up losing the case.
Stress that they were adults who signed legal contracts, were given at least some time to look them over, they made statements on video saying that they agreed that the company could use the videos in any manner that they saw fit. They may have regret after the fact, but they made a free choice to appear in these videos and authorized their release.Oddly enough.. you got me wondering what the defense will be now.
@Oblivian , @Jackie Blue .. and anyone else here that feels like tackling this..
..hypothetically put yourself in the defenses shoes for a second. What’s the best way to try and defend a case like this for the goofs that came up with the scam? Don’t cop out with ‘just settle’ whaddya got if you wanted to duke it out in court..?
Oddly enough.. you got me wondering what the defense will be now.
@Oblivian , @Jackie Blue .. and anyone else here that feels like tackling this..
..hypothetically put yourself in the defenses shoes for a second. What’s the best way to try and defend a case like this for the goofs that came up with the scam? Don’t cop out with ‘just settle’ whaddya got if you wanted to duke it out in court..?
You don't seem to get my point-what happened to them was preventable, by them. I outlined it in great detail. I'm not "ok" with it, I certainly see the connection between dumb people and dumb decisions, though. White gonna knight.
Stress that they were adults who signed legal contracts, were given at least some time to look them over, they made statements on video saying that they agreed that the company could use the videos in any manner that they saw fit. They may have regret after the fact, but they made a free choice to appear in these videos and authorized their release.
Rely on the contract being being signed as adults. Talk about the # of women in this lawsuit being a small portion of women that have been on the contract. A large portion of the damages were not actually caused directly by the defendants but rather randoms on the net.
Honestly though, I think they're fucked. If I were to guess, some sort of judgment will be rendered here and I'm thinking they'll all follow the other guy and file bankruptcy. The question is how well they've shielded or hidden their assets.
I think the chicks may get paid whatever their original agreement was.. maybe. I’m also wondering (as impossible as it might be to enforce) if these particular chicks in the case can have ‘cease and desist’ type orders sent out to the ‘legal’ (for lack of a better term) sites that may be hosting their specific vids.
There is A LOT more on the line than just the amount they were agreed to be paid. They are going after a minimum of $2,000,000.00. At this point, legal fees could easily be over $100,000.00. I'm assuming a settlement at this point would probably be near $1,000,000.00. Here is the case: