Evidence of Girls Gone Wild

I find evidence to be one of the more tedious and boring aspects of a trial. Hearsay, the permissibility of prior convictions, and relevancy all just seem kinda silly to me.  There are also times when the exclusion of key pieces of evidence can be extremely detrimental to a case.  I always feel bad for the judges that have to rifle through all the various rules and exceptions.

Unless, of course, it is the judge that is ruling on the “Girls Gone Wild” case. Panama City, Florida Judge Smoak ordered the very racy “Girls Gone Wild” videos to be turned over to the court so he could make a final ruling in a lawsuit involving four girls who claimed they were coerced into exposing themselves in the videos.  They all also claim that during the filming they were between the ages of 13 to 17.

For those of you who don’t know what Girls Gone Wild is, let me bring you up to speed on its latest in a string of lawsuits. It is basically a series of reality videos that follows spring breakers on their wild adventures, many of which happen to be to topless and inebriated.  Since the charge involves that very feature of the videos, the order for evidence will involve Judge Smoak viewing the videos to determine the validity of the claims.  I wonder what Judge Smoak’s wife will think of his latest evidence assignment?

As a woman, I find the concept of these videos (since I have not seen any of them) to be highly offensive and degrading.  I think the potential fact of filming underage girls in sexually suggestive ways is absolutely appalling and should that be the case, they deserve a stiff sentence, similar to those convicted of child pornography.