"Girls Gone Wild" producer Joe Francis has released about 80 different "Girls Gone Wild" videos and is worth millions of dollars, but he could be facing a very long time in jail.(1) His films of young women exposing their breasts and being shown in other sexually provocative situations have earned him about $29 million dollars.(2) Most of his videos are filmed on Spring Break or during Mardi Grass when young girls are thoroughly liquored up and looking for attention. Francis has recently been charged with tax evasion, having a contraband (illegal prescription drugs) in prison, and contempt. But his most serious offences are the two felony charges he is facing for "using minors in a sexual performances and two misdemeanor prostitution charges."(3) As you can see he has a lot he needs to sort out. But he did achieve one victory when he successfully sued Panama City Beach in 2003 for First Amendment violations after the city threatened to ban him from filming spring break.(3)
To be quite honest, I don't see how"Girls Gone Wild" is a productive part of our society, but I can not deny that these videos should be legal. When I read that Francis won his battle against the Panama City Beach Court, it reminded me of the readings from last week, specifically the case of Barnhart v. Paisano Publications, LLC. In 2004 Tonya Barnhart attended the Toop's Troops Second Annual Pig roast where many of the attendants were drinking and having a good time. At some point she was told she could get Mardi Grass-like beads in exchange for exposing her chest, so she took advantage of the good deal and flashed some of the attendants; bartering at its best. Unannounced to her, photographer Bill Cromwell snapped a photo of her and a couple of months later that photo graced the pages of Easyriders magazine. Barnhart was outraged and filed a case of invasion of privacy against the magazine.(4)
I haven't seen Francis' best sellers "Spring Break" or "Mardi Grass," but it is to my understanding that a lot of scenes are filmed in public places like beaches & night clubs which is exactly what Panama City Beach was trying to prevent for spring break '03. The "Girls Gone Wild" crew is present during public celebrations of these holidays, so they should be able to film whatever happens. Just like Tonya Barnhart's situation, they are really just "giving publicity to what is already public and what anyone would be free to see."(4) Barnhart claimed that her privacy was invaded by Easyriders, but due to the public nature of the event she attended and where she exposed herself the court found no proof and did not punish Paisano Publications.(4) The ruling of this case is the same idea that gives Girls Gone Wild the freedom to film the public; even if their subjects don't want to be on tape. Panama City Beach was not allowed to ban Francis from taping the public celebration of spring break because the First Amendment give him the right, as the press, to publish public facts and scenes. In some sense, banning him would be a form of prior restraint and would prevent him from contributing to the marketplace of ideas.
But once these acts are filmed in private, the consent of the women is vital for publication otherwise it is invasion of privacy. On top of the rest of his problems, two women are suing Francis for publishing footage of them with out their consent. The two women claim that they "were enticed to board a Girls Gone Wild tour bus with the promise of free clothing. Once on board, they allegedly were given alcoholic drinks even though both were younger than 21. The camera men then coerced the women into exposing themselves and engaging in sexual activities, but repeatedly stated they would not use footage in a video. However, the footage appeared on two separate Girls Gone Wild DVDs."(5) In my personal opinion, its laughable to think these women went on the GIRLS GONE WILD TOUR BUS for "free clothing," and just so happened to engage in sexual acts in front of a camera and didn't think it would ever come back to haunt them. But by law, this is invasion of their privacy. Rather than revealing private, embarrassing facts, they were private, embarrassing acts that Francis did not have permission to publish. It's obvious why these women feel the footage is embarrassing, and it is reasonable that they wouldn't want the public to see it. They were filmed in the privacy of a bus and did not consent or compensate from the commercial use of this footage.
Joe Francis and his multi-million dollar company are a good example of when the press can and can not use the First Amendment for their defense. It is perfectly O.K. for Girls Gone Wild to sell a DVD of crazy, drunken girls at a Mardi Grass parade in the streets of Louisiana, but on the other hand they cross the line when publishing film taken in private without the consent of the girls. So I suppose the lesson is: Don't do anything in public that you aren't O.K with the world seeing, and don't get on a Girls Gone Wild tour bus even if there is "free clothing" on board.
1.)http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1256270/bio
2.) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278375,00.html
3.)http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Girls-Gone-Wild.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
4.)http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/publications/opinions/Opinions/barnhartopinion.17oct06.pdf
5.)http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-06-13-joe-francis_N.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I completely agree. If an individual is willing to broadcast oneself in front of a large, stranger-filled crowd, how can they make objections to a larger, stranger-filled crowd? You mention you don't see how Girls Gone Wild could contribute to decent society. I do. Perhaps girls are less likely to conduct themselves in an indecent manner if others are able to broadcast it. Perhaps Girls Gone Wild is promoting decency. If a girl acknowledges the threat of her actions being broadcasted on an infomercial on the television set of her minister, perhaps her actions will become minister approved.
Kristen
I agree with you on both of your arguments. The crew and company of GGW were not at fault whatsoever when in came to documenting the events that took place in such cities like Panama City. In fact, in an interview with a major news organization, Francis speaks of words used by the Mayor of Panama City that were almost a prior restraint as well. The mayor basically threatened Francis in his statement and denounced his practices as detrimental to his community. As you noted, Francis did nothing criminal to any of these cities seeing that the cities were having public events and those events are free to be captured. Your argument of privacy also rings true. If consent was not given including consent given while under the influence, Francis and GGW would be liable because consent is needed when it comes to anything involving the private individual.
Along with Kristen and Brad I agree. If you put yourself out there for public to see, what then is the difference if a larger part of the public sees it as well. I think in cases like these people use the first amendment to fix a mistake they made, and after awhile the first amendment will no longer pose any meaning if people keep abusing what it is really there to protect. If this same girl that was video taped for Girls Gone Wild was also videotaped for making a speech about, say, a world issue, I doubt she would claim that was violating a first amendment right.
Although, I agree that Girls Gone Wild has every right to tape, I do not see any value it possess, or how it broadens the market place of ideas. That, however, is what I think the problem is.
Post a Comment