Liability Found in GirlsDoPorn Case

This case reminds me of the old saw in which the lecherous character says, "Well, we've established what you are; now we're negotiating terms."

The plaintiffs were "tricked into" being filmed for this pornography distribution business. They were "cash-strapped" and so were virtually forced to sign film contracts and to be filmed performing the various sex acts in hotel rooms. But, they had been falsely told by the wicked and scheming producers that the films would only be distributed on a very limited basis, in far away places. 

As it turned out instead, these foul GirlsDoPorn distributors put the films on their website and generally distributed them everywhere, taking no precautions to help shield the identities of their stars from public scrutiny. As many of the plaintiffs were still active students on various college campuses (or, in the case of "Jane Doe 1," a law school campus), the widespread publicity of their sexual performance films led to other personal difficulties.

Indeed, Jane Doe 1 has determined that after her doxing as a porn actress, she no longer wants to be a lawyer, even though she has passed the bar. It occurs to me that she may not understand the profession well, as yet, and perhaps she will rethink that decision in later years.

In any event, with this nearly $13 Million civil judgment, the plaintiffs are "vindicated." As their lawyer explains, it is this vindication, and not the money, that makes them happy. Now the whole world can see that a court has declared they were tricked into making these films! Yes, let it be known that they are women of character, although perhaps not the sharpest tools in the shed, and that they did not agree to the general distribution of their paid sexual performances on the terms implemented by the defendants.

Personally, I do not see why they beat themselves up so much about this. Social animus against sex workers has dissipated a great deal in recent decades, and I doubt that many people were judging their existence based on a single, paid sexual performance in a digitally distributed video. Of course, I have not seen any of the films in question, and I suppose it is possible that the plaintiffs (who generally lacked prior screen experience) may have felt they were unfairly depicted as having poorly developed sexual skills. Significantly, as part of the relief in the civil case, the defendants have been ordered to remove the videos of the plaintiffs from sites under their control (although, of course, the larger Internet is forever).

A criminal trial of the cagey pornography purveyors (at least those who were apprehended) is still ongoing, so there will be further developments in those proceedings as they move along. This could eventually lead to a follow-up documentary, perhaps ironically styled, "Girls Do GirlsDoPorn."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/03/judge-awards-million-women-who-say-they-were-tricked-into-pornography/