'Girls Gone Wild' producer given community service

<snip>

"The multimillionaire founder of the popular Girls Gone Wild video empire was sentenced to community service today after the company pleaded guilty to federal charges of failing to monitor the ages of the women it films.

Mantra Films Inc. also agreed to pay $1.6 million in fines for using drunken 17-year-olds in videos it filmed on Panama City Beach during spring break and failing to properly label its DVDs and videos as required by federal law.

U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak told company founder Steve Francis he added the community service to the fine because it did not appear a fine would be a meaningful punishment to the 33-year-old Francis, who makes an estimated $40 million a year."

<snip>

"It does not take a very brave man to go out and corner a girl in the middle of spring break who had four drinks," Smoak told Francis."

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16230651.htm

N/T

I fail to view the so called minors in these videos as victims. They went to the parties (where I'm sure they knew the GGW crews would be), they got drunk, they exposed themselves to the cameras.

Does everyone here live under a rock? 17 year old girls are very active sexually and know what they are doing. This is not the same as child porn at all. Hell, I'm pretty sure the age of consent in Florida is 16.

I feel sorry for the guy and even though I don't like his videos (I'm not one to enjoy softcore porn), I hope he makes double next year what he made this year.

who aren't legally capable of giving consent? :shrug:

use minors in his videos, but the real question is: are they legally liable for lying and saying that they were old enough to give consent? 17 yr old girls know how to lie, too--and if they're out getting drunk--which means lying to obtain the liquor--then it's not far out of the realm of probability that they lied about their ages to get on the video.

ATF agent: "You sold a bottle of Jose Cuervo to a minor."

Store clerk: "He said he was 22."

ATF agent: "Oh, okay. Have a nice day."

to lie in order to engage in what they know is illegal for them and they should not face any consequences of their actions. That really instills responsibility...:eyes:

to protect minors from their own lack of discretion. Francis violated at least one of these laws. That is my argument; nothing more.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

You? Because you're looking to argue?

Have at it... I've got better things to do.

I rightly assume they cannot understand the words I actually used.

Now, begone, knave. I grow weary of your foolishness.

A better comparison would be a bead thrower at Mardi Gras having to see the ID of anyone who flashes them for beads.

But Fancis didn't get popped for encouraging the girls to expose themselves. He is in trouble for distributing a video with underage girls.

it doesn't matter if they if they lied or not

it's this guy's job to make sure that his "actresses" were legal

It is my understanding that the age of consent IS 16 in Florida. I have no problems with 17 year olds being topless. I know here in WI everyone who is 17 is charged as an adult for all crimes. If states are going to do that for crimes, why should we say 17 year olds aren't adults when it comes to being drunk, topless in softcore porn videos. I still don't see them as victims.

17 year olds know what they are doing.

which has nothing to do with this argument. These girls are not giving Francis consent for sex, but for their images to be used and distributed.

Can a 16-year-old legally enter into a contract?

I'm not saying its not against the law.

I just don't feel bad for drunken 17 year old girls at Girls Gone Wild parties on spring break, and I think it's really stupid for anyone to make them out to be victims.

The man had to pay a hefty fine, and he now has a clean slate. But everyone here seems to think he's the worst man alive.

Porn is a good thing. I give the guy props for having a good idea, marketing it well, and selling it to lots of horny dudes/dudettes around the globe.

They can make up their own minds.

There's a lot of people in the Adult industry who can't stand Francis, for many of the same reasons our fellow DUers dislike him.

I once read an LA Times bit on him. You'd be shocked at what this guy can get away with.

http://www.latimes.com/features/magazine/west/la-tm-gonewild32aug06,0,2664370.story

and I capture your image on video, I don't have to have a contract or pay you for anything.

End of Line.

If there's no intent to profit from someone else's image, then, yes — the law requires "a reasonable expectation of privacy" for the making of images to be prohibited. But when you're using an image in an attempt to make a profit, it's a whole different set of laws.

And they can't possibly be victims.

You know, it's thinking like this that prevented me from reporting what happened to me - date rape - at age 17. The term "date rape" wasn't even used back then (1983), and it took me years to understand that what happened to me was not my fault.

That's horrible that that happened to you. Rape is one of the worst things mankind is capable of. But being raped, and showing your breasts to a GGW video camera are pretty different.

I didn't say 17 year olds could NEVER be victims. That's a ridiculous stretch of my words. I was referring to this situation where 17 year olds went to GGW parties, got themselves drunk, and MOST LIKELY planned on showing their breasts to the cameras all along. I'm sure no one tricked them into going to the parties.

No one tricked me into going on a date with this guy. I could just imagine the questions - "Why were you with him? Why did you kiss him? Did you lead him on?" When I was a teenager, no one talked about "date rape." If you had sex with someone you knew while on a date, you obviously wanted it. Maybe even planned on it.

As for the girls "getting themselves drunk" - possible, even likely, but certainly debatable.

Besides, the point is that they were underage , unable to give legal, informed consent, and they were exploited by Francis. His practices are questionable at best, scuzzy and sleazy at middling, and criminal at worst.

I Just thank the good lord that this wasn't around when I was a lush, because my ass would be on video too. I don't think these young women have anything to be ashamed of, per se, but I think that they most definitely should get a chunk of the dough. It's just not right.

Joe Francis is a world-class asshole.

would be for people to stop buying his product.

young women's breasts to suddenly grow up and follow a better path?

This "individual choice" approach lets off the hook the jerks who are pandering to the lowest part of our brains, and exploiting others in doing so.

which type of entertainment panders to the lowest part of the brain, and which type is enlightening and educational?

:shrug:

It is possible to educate people about porn and the exploitation that accompanies the industry. I've seen statistics that say that for every reputable manufacturer of adult material (Playboy, Hustler, etc.) there are 30 to 40 manufacturers who kidnap, drug, and even rape women. Yep--the industry SUCKS, plain and simple. There are people out there who, when faced with these numbers, would say to themselves, "I'm not going to patronize that." How do I know this? Because we have people here who will not patronize Wal-Mart, and who will not patronize Bath & Body Works. When people are educated, they often make very good decisions.

But I'm not sure it's possible to pick the right person to be the overall "decider" of who gets to see what.

Does it suck that people actually make money off of exploiting other people? You bet it does.

Historically, this is what the Church was for, enlightening people that the pleasures of the flesh, however attractive, could and should be resisted to a certain higher end. The State was called in to make law in the most egregious cases of prostitution, drunkenness, and whatever debauchery became truly harmful. To the extent that we don't make good decisions on our own (due to our individual ignorance) the government takes action. However, the government has never been allowed to do much in the way of moral education, and as the church's influence has waned, we've been left with kind of a libertarian "on your own" position.

Again, I agree that education will help reduce exploitation, addiction and slavery, but its funding is puny indeed compared to the advertising budgets of the exploiters.

the church as we know it today is what demonized sexuality in the first place. What Satan represents used to be a holy symbol of male sexuality. The purpose of religious goverment, back to the beginning of humankind, was about controlling sexuality and reproduction, even when it was much more positive about sexuality. It was never really about 'enlightening' people that sex is dirty and bad, because #)that isn't true, and #)when it did do that kind of thing it was/is more along the lines of brain-washing, and only to control and enforce paternity.

I've seen statistics that say that for every reputable manufacturer of adult material (Playboy, Hustler, etc.) there are 30 to 40 manufacturers who kidnap, drug, and even rape women. Yep--the industry SUCKS, plain and simple.

That is plain and utter BS. Every producer has to keep consent forms and records of IDs, etc.

There is a never-ending supply of women trying to enter the industry -- and your movies don't even get into the adult distribution chain if you aren't keeping the propper records.

I'm gonna have a brain aneurism. If I wanted to watch dunk teenage lesbians making out with each other, I would watch the drunk teenage lesbian channel, not comedy central.

I mean, look at what they guy does. He just doesn't give a shit, except about the money.

in one of the social service agencies that deal with exploited/victimized women.

And let her give him his just deserts. :evilgrin:

Not that he's shown women's breasts.

They let their minor daughters go down to Florida for Spring Break? What's with that?

I started university at age 17, and was on my way to my grandmother's house, of all places, when a fellow stopped me and asked for directions. He asked if he could take nude photos of me, and I said no--but he wouldn't let me out of the car. We drove 'round and 'round until I told him my age, at which point he dumped me like a hot potato. I was an honor student and didn't smoke, drink, or do drugs-but I was incredibly naive. After that, I grew up a bit--but I could understand how these girls could be exploited.

I'm too busy at work to google for it (check particularly the LA Times Sunday Magazine story from a few months ago--August, I think), but there's very good evidence that he raped at least one woman. He is lower than whale shit.

Of "he didn't do anything wrong."

He's a sleazeball, and gives legitimate and responsible erotica and porn producers a bad name. His ass should be in prison.

He's a sociopath, and it's truly disturbing that he's essentially able to buy his way out of trouble (repeatedly).

He IS a sociopath, and he's been really lucky so far. Some day he'll really overstep and not cover his tracks quite so well.

...somebody else will decide to act as judge and jury for him. I don't see him getting away with this shit forever.

the girl told him she was a virgin and he got her really drunk and she woke up with him on top of her. I'm paraphrasing.

Getting women drunk and raping them should put this man in jail for a very, very long time.

Except it's virtually impossible to convict a man of rape in. x(

the teenager he raped was devestated about losing her virginity by being attacked by this pervert while she was passed out from all the shots he gave her. I also recall reading how he shuffled her off the bus and gave her some girls gone wild panties as a souvenir afterwards. Thats what they give these girls. panties, tshirts, baseball caps. disgusting.

"She isn't a virgin anymore."

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/08/09/115116.php

...Szyszka is described as "a petite 18-year-old who prances around the stage like a star" who is "discovered" at a club outside Chicago where GGW is scouting for talent. As she describes it, Francis "grabbed" her by the arm, pulled her toward him, and said, "You are so going on the bus later." Rather than recoiling in horror, the flattered Szyszka response was, "Um, OK." "I was shocked," she said. "I was like, 'Whoa - Joe's, like, trying to talk to me ... out of all the girls in here."

Szyszka agreed to the invitation and went back with Francis to the VIP area to drink shots.

Predictably, Szyszka admits that the more she drank, the "cloudier her judgment became." Ultimately, she agreed to join Francis and his crew on the Girls Gone Wild bus. What did Szyszka think awaited her on the bus? Cristal champagne, caviar, linens, and lace? Nope, she had a pretty good idea. "I thought Girls Gone Wild was like flashing, and I thought I would flash them and be done. And so when I'm walking to the bus, that's all I'm thinking is going to happen."

Instead she found a "small bedroom" with a "double bed, iridescent purple sheets," a "crate holding cheap and fruity-flavored rum, whiskey, tequila and Kool-Aid," and "lubricants, condoms, sex toys in plastic bags, baby oil, a DVD called How To Be a Player and a clipboard full of waivers for girls to sign."

The dangers of liquid courage.....

to provide ID before they flash for beads too.

Geesh. The "minors" exploited themselves.

He apparently has a real talent for finding underage teenaged girls who have had a few too many drinks. Which means he targets places that give alcohol to minors.

If he was only filming adults he wouldn't have been on trial and there wouldn't be a problem.

And yes -- I do think chemical castraction isn't good enough for him. :sarcasm:

and then forced to watch the same exact girls-gone-wild pornommercial over and over and over again until he swears to never show another one on cable television again.

:rofl:

they're underage.
I hope you consider this issue when you are out and about.:think:

Counseling teen-age single moms against promiscuity? Playing "candy stripper" at an AIDS ward, especially the one with the babies? Operating a chauffeur service for drunk barhoppers (the type who would watch his videos), with his own car, and cleaning the vomit himself?

I'm sorry; you just can't reach some people.

How is he different from Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt?

If there was no market, these men would not be so rich...

Flynt and Hefner abide by these laws.

.... it did not appear a fine would be a meaningful punishment to the 33-year-old Francis, who makes an estimated $40 million a year...The fine represents less than 3 percent of Mantra films' profits since 2002 and only 12 percent of Mantra's 2005 profits, Smoak said.



If the fine were doled out PER DVD produced, and totalled, say, twenty million, it might be a bit meaningful.

I hope those seventeen year olds sue HIS pants off!

I find those commercials, aside from being simply offensive, profoundly annoying; the volume always is ten times louder than the regular programming. If you're in the habit of dozing off in front of the teevee, that irritating steel band music will roust you out of a dead snooze and really ruin your attitude!

Since I got my TiVo a few years ago I've never watched a commercal.

I honestly don't know what kind of commercials GGW runs or how offensive they are (auditorily or visually).

Television is greatly improved by skipping all commercials.

recorded TV...maybe someday, I will, but I'm still too cheap for that! I generally don't watch a shitload of regular TV, mostly news and HBO (no commercials there!) but if I fall asleep after Daily/Colbert or MSNBC late at night, I will get awakened by that hellish steel drum music a few hours later...it always happens!

I'm probably better off just hitting that sleep button around midnight!!!

time falling back to sleep.

to sue someone for exploiting you as a minor when you are drunk in a nightclub. It's like suing the club for having the audacity to believe your fake ID.

I don't know, but if I see someone in a bar, drinking, I kind of assume he/she is 21, if the bar is checking IDs. don't you?

the age is less than 21. And I imagine he doesn't do ALL his trolling in bars...in fact, I believe his MO is to hold a private party in some instances--at least that's how the commercials come across. In any event, if he does go into a bar to find his victims, the bar isn't a joint partner in the venture, so the bar's responsibility--serving booze to minors (if they even did that--not all bars check IDs at the door, some do it at point of sale--and if you are ordering a coke, and adding your own vodka or whatever in the restroom, who's to know?) is quite separate from his.

The bar is not a party to the contract between GGW and the drunken teen.

The judge isn't going to take "assuming" as an excuse, I don't think!

I don't think it's tough at all--if I were those teens, or the parents of those teens, I'd be looking for one hell of a payday.

I'm not looking at this from a moral aspect at all, the girls may have behaved "wildly" or foolishly, they may not have been 'raised right,' but all that is beside the point. The GGW guy got sloppy when it came to entering into a contract. He's rich, he has lawyers, and he should know better. It's one thing to FILM, it's quite another to distribute without checking the bona fides, to include age verification, of the young drunks with whom you contracted. And that ain't real hard to do--it wouldn't make a hint of a dent into his operating expenses. IMO, the guy was both lazy and greedy.

I'd put that GGW clown in major check-writing mode, and I'd make him pull those videos from the shelves to boot.

It's one thing to FILM, it's quite another to distribute without checking the bona fides, to include age verification, of the young drunks with whom you contracted. And that ain't real hard to do--it wouldn't make a hint of a dent into his operating expenses. IMO, the guy was both lazy and greedy.

Exactly. Thank you!

because Colbert has them on during his show, my 13 year old knows the drill when he is allowed to watch it with me. He gets up and walks out of the room until we find the remote to change the channel. Eeesh. :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

not cause he makes porn.

cos he makes porn without adhering to any ethical norms.

which was what his fictional counterpart got in a recent Law & Order episode "ripped from the headlines"....

the guy from the Law and Order episode was charged with murder or accessory to thereof...

http://www.tv.com/law-and-order/release/episode/903272/summary.html

$40M a year... ack!

Without moral controls of the Church or legal controls of the State, the unfettered Market ends up with what people living for the moment want: drugs, pornography and gambling. Pretty soon the emptor is too messed up to caveat.

I prefer Girls Gone Wild, myself.

I love it here at repressed-democratunderground.com

but there is such a thing as underage and another called informed consent. also consent cannot be given after a whole lot of alcohol.

these things makes girls gone wild unethical.

When I'm watching late night Comedy Central, I want to see comedy, not repeating 3 minute streams of low quality soft-core porn. If I wanted to see low quality soft-core-porn, I would be watching low quality soft-core porn, not Comedy Central. God it's annoying: "it's my first time teehehehe" Ugh, gag me. :puke: If it were just once in a while it would be OK I suppose but it's over and over and over again. Furthermore, if he is taking sexual advantage of minors (which he is) and then selling the products of this exploitation across state lines (which he is also doing), he should be going to prison.

A pedophile has a lollipop and pulls up to a corner and offers it to a young child. Child gets in and is molested. Pedophile gets caught and goes to jail and we throw away the key.

Steve offers liquor(turns to sugar = lollipop) to young girl in bar. She gets into his bus and she gets molested. He pays fine and and cleans up a few bubble-gum wrappers and walks around ready to do it again.

What is the difference? Money. Corporate Investors. Bankers. People who funded his plane, house, offices, distribution contracts.

Take this guy out of commission willy nilly and lots of people lose millions.

On another note, those who think that traditional porn industry is somehow BETTER than what SCUMBAG does are wrong. Both are scum. Only real difference is that, for the most part, the porn industry keeps better records.

If you are talking Erotic Art, then you are not talking PORN. Erotic Art exposes us to the beauty of love in the physical. PORN exploits people for profit. Perhaps, I am wrong, it is often the case, however, for me Debbie Does Dallas is not Erotic Art. It is porn. Same category as GGW...just around longer and much smarter at covering their sleazy tracks.

Sex is not bad. PORN is not sex. It is PORN. A sexual derivative for the purpose of arousing the viewer and lining the pockets of the producer/distributer.

"A sexual derivative for the purpose of arousing the viewer and lining the pockets of the producer/distributer."

What exactly is wrong with the purpose of arousing the viewer? I don't see a problem there.

And it's a business. All industries line the pockets of those in charge. Why should it be worse if the industry is porn?

Also, there are many people in porn who ENJOY their line of work.

I said it was WRONG. There is nothing wrong with sexual arousal. Having to view PORN to be aroused could be an issue for debate at a later time. I do not think that that statement is truly what makes you angry with me.

I did at one point offer up that I can be wrong and often times, I am. As I may have been in one particular sentence...please read further.

I am not the judge of what is wrong or right. I can however, in my opinion, define what is SCUM for me. I fear that I crossed the line when I passed judgment on all other people. I apologize for that statement. I quote it here again to make it part of the record.

"On another note, those who think that traditional porn industry is somehow BETTER than what SCUMBAG does are wrong. Both are scum. Only real difference is that, for the most part, the porn industry keeps better records."

That statement makes the inference (through lack of clarity) that those who think PORN is better than GGW are SCUM. That is simply a wrong statement for me to make. I apologize to all of DU.

I will retract my statement and generalization. I will assume that this generalization is really the crux of your complaint with me and for that I apologize.

adieu

Nice strawman.

We are, however, anti exploiting minors and rape.

Porn is porn, it is not sex.

Porn is fabricated for the sole purpose of lining the pockets of sleazy assholes who wait until the 16 year olds they feed drugs to hit 18 so they can make a barely 18 tape and make millions off the perception of minor molestation.

Sick and degrading. :puke:

I have seen the commercials on tv and just ignore them because I don't want to buy the product but how do you know the industry so well?

For the most part, the actors are not being exploited. Plus they are regularly tested for STDs and safer sex is practiced. And yes, I do know people in the industry. I doubt the person you're responding to could say the same.

That I had not viewed porn. I have studied film making. They even have college courses. <http://www.uexpress.com/womantowoman/index.html?uc_full_date=20060115>

That was an assumption based on my stand in this thread.

To ignore is to feign ignorance. Ignorance of any kind is unconscionable. IMHO.

adieu

What did you base your view of the entire industry on some movie about Linda Lovelace shown on Lifetime TV?

Thanks for the compliment. Ignorance can be cured through actively seeking knowledge. Stupidity can not be cured in the same way.

A shame really. I never called you a name. I have read the rules. Thanks for taking to time out of your day to post your happy thoughts.

Adieu

And legitimate porn covers far more than the "barely 18" genre.

There's a lot of porn producers who are not sleazy assholes. I know a couple of them. Women, such as Joanna Angel, are also starting to produce porn. Seriously, it's not nearly as sick and degrading as you think.

However, "Girls Gone Wild" is sick and degrading. The GGW producer is a fucking sociopath.

Very scientific analysis you present. You know a couple, 2, out of hundreds. Using Fermi's analysis technique we can ascertain that an approximate number of producers would be around 300 (15000 (la times<http://www.latimes.com/news/local/history/la-et-125porn3dec03,0,5873102.story?coll=la-home-headlines>) movies produced in 2006, Each producer can make one full length quality movie each week from film start to in the can. (I am giving something here). 52 films per year per producer. 15000/52 = 288.46 producers) You know 2.

Please note that the above referenced numbers would only apply to the two Cities of Encino and Chatsworth as mentioned in the article. World wide numbers probably rank considerably higher.

As for how and what I know, I find it interesting that a qualifier is even necessary. Do I have to wallow in the pile of mud to know that it will get me filthy and possibly cause disease? No. I do not. Perhaps, if I was a little 6 year old kid and did not have the cognitive powers to apply basic logical thought and the ability to ascertain an apparent risk from the ambiguity present without actually taking the leap into the mud. But, alas, I am not a f'in 6 year old and I do possess a certain cognitive ability and I can ascertain risk from ambiguous situations. If, it is my opinion (based on my usage of my cognitive devices) that the PORN industry is sick and degrading, then it is just that. FOR ME. I would like to reference you to Enrico Fermi (see above porn producer analysis) and his experiments for more information on using cognitive devices only to ascertain answers to difficult questions. Fermi is famous for asking his students to estimate the number of piano tuners in Chicago, knowing only the population.

I provide a link for your reference. <http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/fermis_piano_tuner.htm>

How does any society weed out the good from the bad? Where do you draw the line? Who becomes the ultimate arbiter? You? Joanna Angel? How big does the strainer need to be to separate the shit from the gems.

I mean no offense, however, I can feel the fans of the flame hitting me simply because I defined the absolute, I am. If you would like specifics, you can email me privately and ask nicely, rather than make generalizations as to what I do or do not know in order to fan the flames that you seem to desire.

The fact that you set yourself up to become The Central Scrutinizer of the PORN industry and separate the shit from the gems is actually quite amusing. I am sure it was not your intent to imply that you have the right to make judgments for me based on your deep and thorough knowledge of the industry of which we speak.

With the utmost respect,

I bid you adieu.

Porn is fabricated for the sole purpose of lining the pockets of sleazy assholes who wait until the 16 year olds they feed drugs to hit 18 so they can make a barely 18 tape and make millions off the perception of minor molestation.

Sorry to burst your bubble but there is a never-ending supply of legal women trying to enter the industry.

I admit I was in a rather tempestuous mood. Thanks again for your kind words.

We could debate at hours length why that never ending supply exist and I am afraid that we would never agree.

If, on the off chance, you are a producer of the above mentioned porn and that is why you take offense, I apologize for calling you a name. It was wrong. Even DU's rules prohibit it. I will censor myself better from now on...

Thanks again.

Or does the word "obtuse" appear on your driver's license?

like they have forever exploited the girlz, I might be more accepting of the "soft" porn industry...it is the sexISM that bugs me.

I don't feel one bit sorry for that smarmy sonofabitch.

No one is saying sex is bad. What is bad is using minors to make sexually explicit movies.

Get a grip on reality. Some people here (myself included) are survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Now do you hear me saying sex is bad? Or do you hear me saying sex with minors is bad?

...he will run into the sort of girl who's just killed her evil stepfather and run away from home.

People will make jokes about, "Missing something, Steve?" and the judge will let the girl off, change her name, and send her off for counseling at some cushy resort paid for by half a million dollars of cheerful public support.

Years later, long forgotten, he will make the news one last time, after an unfortunate accident with a horse.

:rofl:

Some of these young girls carry knives these days for self defense,
and so if his Willy gets lopped off (or anyone else similar's)
I certainly wouldn't shed a tear.

If that guy ever came near my daughter he would be dead.:grr:

It's a joke.

Three or four girls and about 600 male idiots showed up.

Wrong spot.

"It does not take a very brave man to go out and corner a girl in the middle of spring break who had four drinks," Smoak told Francis.

It doesn't take a much of a MAN, either. :emotethatshouldresemblemespittingonSteveFrancis:

I don't know who the hell "Steve" Francis is. The man is named Joe Francis and he's a major tool, always has been. He violated Title 18 section 2257 of US code. I'm glad the bastard is being made to pay. People in my business bend over backwards to follow the law while Mr. Moneybags plays fast and loose with his ego. We have a nickname for Joe Francis in my industry "That Asshole".

But people don't really understand that do they -- they think he's in trouble for "exploting minors".

drunk or stupid or both. I wonder how many asked after sleeping it off, "I did what!?" But to each their own. If I were one of those girls in those videos which have made millions I would sue to get royalties--perhaps they could file a law suit.

I have no problem with adults letting it all hang out on a video or in public, but children should be protected. It IS the law, after all.