December 29, 2005 | 3 Comments

Wet Spots

2005_12_29_wetspots.jpg

· “Paris Hilton Digging For Crabs”. We love when certain headlines practically write themselves, don’t you? (egotastic.com; also spotted @ Gawker)

· Of course, we realize that most Fleshbot readers would never be so base as to want to know more about that porn actress who was indicted on statutory rape charges in California this week after allegedly plying a 15-year-old high school student with drugs and porn DVDs … but if anyone else wants to know what she looks like, sources tell us that this gallery would be a good place to start. (mercurynews.com + freepornstarpix.com – thanks T.)

· 15-year-old high school students being seduced by 20-year-old women may still be verboten, but 16- and 17-year-old high school students posing for a baby beefcake calendar to raise money for an end-of-school-year party? Totally cool! (koin.com – thanks Raymond)

· Just when we finally hear some good news about “a substantial and welcome blow” to the US government’s continued perusal of 2257-based regulatory schemes, along comes former Attorney General and Reagan-era bugbear Edwin Meese with a call for “another study to assess porn
s imminent ‘dangers’” … as if all those other studies weren’t “conclusive” enough. (freespeechcoalition.com + xbiz.com; more @ gramponante.com)

hooters!.jpg

· In more pressing legal news, judges debate whether “the Hooters’ Girls’ ‘primary function’ [is] to fulfill customers’ expectations and desire to see, be entertained by and interact with a sexy, barely clothed Hooters girl” in a case involving the company’s lawsuit against a similar Florida-based wings-and-boobs restaurant chain. In case that wasn’t already clear either. (adultfyi.com)

* * * * *

Previously: Morning Wood Archives/Wet Spots Archives

Tags: , , , , ,

Author:jonnobot

View all posts by jonnobot →
  • heterophobic

    Of course. If secondary producers or distributors had the same responsibility as the actual producers, that would be impossible. But the Sundance ruling already handled that question, and a new Justice Department interpretation can’t change that at will.

  • heterophobic

    Just read the 2257 injuction ruling. Very interesting. It appears to keep the FSC producers safe from prosecution for the time being, and also in effect rules that “secondary producers” such as websites without a hand in the filming or photography are exempt from 2257. It seems to say that this was always the case based on a ruling several years ago. I always suspected that 2257 was being way overblown. So calm down, my fellow pervs. We’re safe for now.

  • el_jefe

    Actually what caused the recent frenzy over the new 2257 law was that secondary producers would be held responsible for record keeping, at least according to the way it was originally worded when it was first announced. I’m glad to see that provision has been scrapped. It really did seem like an underhanded way to attack the adult industry as a whole instead of something to make sure that underage performers weren’t exploited, even though the adult industry has done a good job policing itself on its own.