In a ruling filed on Tuesday (Sept. 30), the judge rejected arguments from Combs’ legal team that his convictions violated his constitutional rights.
Combs’ attorneys argued that the prosecution mischaracterized his actions, claiming the jury was led to believe it had no choice but to convict simply because Combs arranged for a longtime girlfriend or a paid male escort or entertainer to cross state lines for sexual encounters. “And that is all the jury convicted him for,” they stated.
The defense further argued that the so-called “freak-offs” amounted to amateur pornography protected under the First Amendment, asserting that multiple state courts in the 2000s had ruled that paying to observe sexual activity—termed “voyeurism”—does not constitute prostitution.
However, in legal documents, Judge Subramanian firmly rejected those claims. He wrote, “Though film is an expressive medium protected by the First Amendment, ‘at some point,’ it must certainly be true that otherwise illegal conduct is not made legal by being filmed.”
He continued: “And the same goes for the desire to view a pornographic performance—at some point, illegal activity can’t be laundered into constitutionally protected activity just by the desire to watch it. Combs’s conduct goes far beyond that point. Evidence at trial showed that when Combs filmed he didn’t typically give notice ahead of time or ask for consent, as a film producer would; and that he masturbated, suggesting that the purpose was his immediate sexual gratification.”
