Keith Richards certainly blows. Comments - Mania.com



COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 1 - 10 of 12
1 2 >  >>  
bjjdenver 4/7/2007 11:53:04 AM
pretty bland week for celebs. Martin Sheen, dude fit great in the 60's and 70's. Hell no! we won't go! Barry Manilow is a great singer! I loved the song at the beginning of Foul Play(great movie)! Kid Rock, have a seat next to your "ex" Pammy, it is wayyy over. Scott, get them something to drink, you don't even deserve a seat next to them. James Brown...imagine all the stuff he pulled that we will never know about. I have never seen a more abusive dysfunctional person get more recognition and honors, wtf? Maybe CSI can get Fed-Ex to appear again. Who thought he would end up dbeing the good guy of that couple!? I wish the court would have stepped in and not let my parents name me Cream. GGW dude may be a scumbag (and God bless him for it!), but how about holding some of these girls responsible for their actions? 17 is not 13, and these Paris wannabes should be accountable. I love the parents gunning for him, when they should have done a better job with their kids. besides, it's just freakin' skin, I see kids doing worse shit than this on a daily basis...and I live in Denver(29 degrees today!). Keith Richards...ummm...ummm...ummm...
Captmathman 4/7/2007 1:18:50 PM
bjjdenver, I get that, but you should read some of the stuff Francis has been accused of. I agree that accountability rests with the girls for the most part, but 1. they're generally drunk when this happens, and 2. they are underage. If we wanna change the law to make the age of consent younger than 18, we should do that. Until then, Francis should be accountable for his actions. And regardless, date rape is a crime for which the scumbag should do some hard time, if he's found guilty. Check this story out: http://www.latimes.com/features/magazine/west/la-tm-gonewild32aug06,0,2664370.story
Merin 4/7/2007 3:27:07 PM
I know I'm in the minority, but I have zero sympathy for anyone who goes to clubs, drinks themselves silly, and then have poor judgment while inebriated. While Francis is no altar boy and definitely not a role-model in any but the business sense, I think the reporter's obvious bias against sexual exploitation of women was there from the get-go and her probably honest attempts at impartiality fail, especially when she brings up many tales of how she "never does that" and "doesn't understand it." Like the Mark Foley page scandal, 17 year olds are legally able to give consent in many states and they are hardly children regardless. Does Francis take advantage of women, sexually? Duh. It's called "Girls Gone Wild." So far, however, I've heard nothing that doesn't sound like the girls got themselves into it willingly and then, later, regretted it. Women have to be more careful and more cautious and not let themselves be put in such situations, but once they have put themselves willingly in such situations it really is too late to call foul. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that rape is the woman's fault, ever, but there are differences between a drunk girl going along, and a guy taking advantage of an unconscious girl (or forcing her to drink herself unconscious) - I'm here talking about a girl flashing or a girl making out with a friend and then, after the waivers and everything, goes "oh, but I feel bad now." If Francis were a "good" man he'd nix any footage or pictures from girls who change their minds. But that's about morality, not legality. Sadly, perhaps, but true. The age of consent throughout the US ranges from 16-18.
bjjdenver 4/7/2007 4:05:36 PM
No, no. Don't get me wrong, that dude is a grade AAA scumbag. I've just been around enough of these situations to know these girls and girls like them are waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy to eager to do this kind of stuff.
lister 4/7/2007 5:02:45 PM
it is incumbent upon Francis to ensure that the women in his videos who expose themselves are of age. It is against the law. Period. If the girls were drunk, it does not matter. If they were 17 years and 364.5 days old, it does not matter. *He* is the sober adult. It is his responsibility, and his alone, to make sure he is not violating the law while making his profit. Refusing to submit to the marshalls shows just how stupid he must be.
Merin 4/7/2007 9:41:10 PM
I can't believe I'm defending the Girls Gone Wild guy . . . It is NOT his responsibility alone. That would be like saying it is only the drug pusher and not the drug taker, only the bar tender and not the drunk driver - these girls are going out to clubs or spring break and getting drunk. They are with friends who are egging them on. NO, it isn't right to take advantage of people. YES, he is abusing the girls who even whole-heartedly and soberly flash and make-out for the camera and never regret it. But the law suits and everything against him are from MORAL OUTRAGE, not from legal standings. They are fishing. Does he screw up? Does he sometimes play ignorant? I don't know - considering the business he's in, sure, probably, I'll accept it's likely. But that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the reason he's being prosecuted is people who are disgusted with what he does, not with the technicalities of him filming a 16 year 11 month 23 hour year old (oh, that HOUR will make a difference in any but the legal sense - if you are worried about her being exploited, 16 or 36 wouldn't matter) He has to make a reasonable effort to get their consent and proof of age. Girls out drinking at clubs? Uhm, they could have fake ID's good enough to get them into the club alread - meaning they made some bouncer think they were 18-21 already. As for spring break, I think you have to lay a good heap of blame on the parents of under 18 year old girls who are going off to Mexico or Florida unsupervised. Is he exploiting all these situations? Yep. Just like a guy who mugs you in the alley is exploiting your stupidity. But maybe you have to take most of the blame for walking down that dark alley at night by yourself with the hundred dollar bills hanging out of your pockets. If the sexual assault and rape charges against him are legitimate, I don't care the age of the girls he molested. He needs to be in prison. If he even intentionally filmed a few 16 year olds who he "accepted" as being 17, then I think the worst he should be hit with are fines.
lister 4/7/2007 11:19:56 PM
No, if he knows the law and chooses to ignore it, then he can expect to be hit with the maximum penalty. And even if he does not know the law, he is still violating it. So he can be punished. That is the way our society works. Lets say he gets these girls to sign a release. That is a contract. They are under 18... so it has NO legal standing! We, as a society, have certain expectations of adults. And I expect him to make damn sure that the women he films in the nude and peddles in videos are of the age that we as a society have set as the minimum. It's pretty simple. That extra hour DOES make a difference. Once you shave one hour, hell, shave off a day. Then a week, then a month... why have any age of consent at all? Because we as a society have set one. That is why. Is it too high? Different issue. It is not up to these children to decide whether or not they can engage in these activities. It is up to society. We say no. So the responsibility belonds to the adult. Period. I don't care how mature these girls are... or pretend to be. It is up to him, as the adult, to follow the law. They, too, must follow the law. So if anyone wants to bring charges against them for underage drinking, then so be it. But what law did they break in being filmed naked? None. There is no law against what they did from their standpoint. Only from his. You mention "reasonable effort". Well by that thinking, I just card a very adult looking 13 year old, they show me a fake ID and I can peddle their pics online. Uh-uh. That's NOT how it works. If he is going to dance on the razor's edge, he has to make EVERY effort to ensure he does not slice his hand off. HE is the adult. Fines jail time is not unreasonable. He is selling kiddie porn. That's kind of illegal! *Girls* Gone Wild. And he doesn't make sure they are of age? What an idiot! As an aside, I do not put much weight in the Victimization Theory as the cause of crime. If you walk down a scary alley, you do not deserve to be robbed. Or raped. Or worse.
Merin 4/8/2007 12:51:43 AM
If the age of consent is 17 in a given state, then the age at which that person can sign a wavier for nude pictures or sexual activity of themself being filmed is usually 17 as well. If the girl he picks for filming is in a bar or club that cards, and she shows him a valid looking driver's license as well as signs a statement saying she is 18 (or 19, or 21, depending on the drinking age of that state) then he's done what he needs to. You need to use a lot less proof to get many things - a credit card or a driver's license is enough proof for almost anything - there are rare exceptions where you need a birth certificate or such as proof of identity (rarely age) - what do you expect him to do, call up the city hall of where the girl was born and get a birth certificate faxed to him? He's filming a girl flashing her breasts, not giving them alchohol, tobacco or firearms (er, well, arguably that's what he's doing.) When you use examples like "13 year old" or "why not a month, or a year, or any age at all?!?" you are exaggerating beyond proportions of the argument into the absurd. The reason an exact age is set by law is for ease of enforcement, not because that age is a true sign of maturity or responsibility. In short, like Mark Foley, this is NOT kiddie porn if he got a 16 year old instead of 17 in anything but the most ridiculous of nit-picking. Arguably a girl topless isn't necessary pornography - the definition of that is a very tough one to nail down. IF he is purposefully taking underage girls KNOWINGLY, or in purposeful ignorance (not adequately checking their ages) then, again, he's breaking the law and needs to be held accountable. Again, a fine is appropriate. Repeated offenses could end up with jail time or injunctions against continuing the business of making films of any kind. I'll be clearer for you, lister, since you seem to be at many points exaggerating my arguments out of proportion - 1 - unless he's purposefully breaking the law and filming girls under the age of consent, he shouldn't be held accountable as long as he makes reasonable effort for age verification - and as far as that goes, a valid driver's license is all that is needed for alcohol or tobacco. 2 - because you are being extremely stupid and you walk down a dark alley, you do not DESERVE to be raped or robbed or killed, but you are indeed ASKING FOR IT - just like if you go into a football stadium and start badmouthing the home team and its fans loud and long, you don't DESERVE to get the crap beat out of you but you are indeed ASKING FOR IT. The rapist/mugger/killer is wrong, not justified, and deserves to be punished to the fullest extend of the law - but that person who was raped/mugged/killed because of stupid choices they made are nearly as responsible as the ones who assaulted them for putting themselves in a needlessly dangerous situation. 3 - Francis is getting the publicity and the huge numbers of law-suits because a good portion of society (and a powerful portion, for that matter) finds what he does disgusting and immoral, and as such they are doing everything they can to punish him REGARDLESS of the law. The law is the law is too simplistic. Good and bad. Some laws are stupid (draconian drug laws, anti-sodomy) some laws are good (murder is illegal) and some laws are immoral (no gay marriage / civil unions, many provisions of the Patriot Act.) As such sometimes breaking one law (speeding) isn't nearly the "big deal" as breaking another (burning down someone's house) and sometimes is the right thing to do (running the underground railroad prior to the Civil War.) After all that - I'll just say I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, purchase Girls Gone Wild tapes, or have ever had sexual relations outside of with my wife - but that doesn't mean I see myself as more moral or those who do other than I do as less moral. I think the focus on GGW's guy and not on the girls and their parents is really misguided. Smarter girls not giving into peer pressure and drinking at clubs would really dry up the whole problem. That is, if you consider girls flashing for video cameras of their own free will a problem. But I've derailed this thread enough - lister, if you want to continue this, let's take it to PM's.
lister 4/8/2007 1:25:26 AM
There is no exaggeration in this case. The law says they have to be a certain age. That is the necessary age. Period. That is the law of out land. Want to change it? Go for it. That is your (well, not you specifically, but one's) priviledge. But this is the law that our society chose. And, what, close enough is good enough? My blood alcohol was just .1 over the limit so I am excused? I only took $1 over the minimum amount for grand larceny, so I am excused? No. We have set levels so that we don't have people benefitting from unfair discretion. 13 is too low in my example? How about 14? 15? Do I hear 16? At which age is it OK, in your mind, for the child to pretend to be older? In mine, it's none of them. 1) You don't have to purposefully break the law to be in violation. If you let your mind drift while driving and accelerate above the speed limit, you are breaking the law and can be cited. Harsh? Tell that to the family that gets accidentally plowed into. If you card someone and they give you a fake ID, you are STILL in violation of the law if you sell them alcohol. You might face leniency. You might not. But you still broke the law. He broke the law. He deserves to be punished up to the maximum extent. "Up to". Or he can face leniency. But that is for the judge to determine. And he can face both criminal and civil charges. Because that is how our society works. As an aside, I think it's perfectly fine to use just a driver's license to determine if someone is old enough to buy alcohol. Want to put that same person in a porno? If they are not obviously older, then yeah, a birth certificate and a little research is not out of the question! 2) Walking down an alley or wearing a provocative outfit (yes, I added that but just because I am thinking of that Jodie Foster movie right now) does not mean you are asking for it! You have the right to go down that alley without being robbed. If you walk down the alley shouting "Please rob me!"... you STILL do not deserve to be robbed. The law is that you do not rob people... even if they ask for it. 3) Francis is getting in trouble with the law because he broke it. We are hearing about it because the news media love salacious material. Why? Because the public loves salacious material and it sells. The law is simplistic? No. But it is simple. Don't rob people. And don't film naked children and sell it. Real simple. You bring up the underground railroad and your example gives ground to the Classical Theory of the cause of crime. One that I believe in quite a bit. Man has free will. He can decide to follow the law or break it. If caught, he can be punished up to the full extent of the law. Whether or not the law is right, moral or just is another matter. Sometimes you break the law for the greater good so that people won't be denigrated, tortured or killed. See Harriet Tubman's entry in the encyclopedia. Sometimes you break the law because you aren't a responsible adult, want to make money and don't take every precaution you can to ensure that you aren't peddling kiddie porn. See Joe Francis' entry in Wikipedia. This thread is hardly derailed. It is right on topic. But OK, Keith Richards should have stuck to his guns. He snorted dear old dad! Rock and roll! Thank you, Cleveland!
Merin 4/8/2007 3:29:55 AM
Just one little last question, lister - Why is the driver's license ok for alcohol, a poison that kills brain cells, damages the liver, stunts growth, inhibits discretion and leads to much violent crime and motor vehicle accidents, but for pornography (which, arguably, when engaged in by consenting adults, never ever EVER harms ANYONE) you need MORE than a driver's license for proof of age? What is the societal standard you are promoting which says a willing 16 year old being filmed nude is a greater crime than a 16 year old being given a poisonous, controlled substance which harms not only them but likely others? Of all the things you are saying, this one boggles my mind the most - why the nudity or sex is worse than the poisons and potential vehicular homicide? You never address my main points about why the man is so hated and persecuted and instead continue to focus narrowly on "the law is the law." If that is your only point, you've made it repeatedly and I've answered it several different ways. I think the worst he can be given, if he accepted girls who lied about their ages and used fake ids to prove it (I don't know the details of this, but this is the set-up I was arguing) is to be told he needs stricter methods of verifying their ages. The concept of "limited mistake of age" as I understand it clearly says that due diligence in determining age is satisfied by checking an ID, and that if the ID is fake but passable and the person checking believed the ID genuine then that person is not breaking the law, despite what you say lister. Intent does matter in some cases. Broken speedometer or not paying attention is no excuse for speeding, yes, but handing someone a wallet they dropped without checking inside the wallet to make sure it was their's does not make you an accessory if they had stolen that wallet. And, ok, one last little note - Birth Certificates are far easier to fake than driver's licenses or state IDs.
1 2 >  >>  

ADD A COMMENT

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.