Last month, a federal jury found him guilty of six extortion charges involving victim Donald Burns, a very wealthy Magic Jack executive. However, the rent boy and former porn star has asked a judge to throw out the guilty verdicts claiming the evidence in the case was insufficient.
The biggest issue for Wentworth's lawyers was the claim that Burns truly feared having aspects of his sex life shared with the public. The lawyers countered by saying that Burns was open about his use of male escorts, going so far as to be seen at several public events with one or two.
The lawyers added that Burns had no fear of anyone finding out about his interest in porn and porn stars, claiming he offered SeanCody.com his house as a place to film videos, even though the house is mostly made of glass.
“[Sean Cody] declined to film there for lack of privacy, yet Mr. Burns was eager to use his famous home — a home identified with his name — for filming gay sex that would be posted to the Internet,” Wentworth’s attorneys said. “It simply does not make sense that Mr. Burns was worried about his reputation with conservative, risk-averse corporate entities while being willing to have his architecturally famous house featured in gay pornography on the Internet.
“Not only did Mr. Burns want gay pornography to be filmed in his famous glass house, he wanted bragging rights. These are not the words of a man seeking to be discrete and protect his reputation."
The lawyers concluded "that testimony, taken in the context of the rest of Mr. Burns' testimony, evidence of his conduct, and the testimony of other witnesses demonstrates that no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt."
The motion to acquit Wentworth will be held in September.
This week, India's government ordered local Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block 857 porn sites
The order was made by the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) under "the provision of section 7913)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as the content hosted on these websites relate to morality, decency as given in Article 19(2)of the Constitution of India."
The DOT’s Department of Electronics and Information Technology told ISPs to "take necessary action as per the direction," but warned them to keep the order confidential and not share the compliance letter.
“We are grateful to the government for enforcing the law because such sites are corrupting the minds and moral fiber of society and also lead to crime against women. It leads to social pollution,” said Vijay Panjwani, a lawyer who filed a case against Internet porn. “It is not practical for the government to stop viewers or actors of the pornographic content. That is why we have been saying, ‘Block, block, block’. The easy access to online pornographic content must stop immediately.”
Last month, India’s Supreme Court muddied the waters when it ruled that citizens had a right to watch porn within the privacy of their home, but added that the issue was “definitely serious" and that the government needed "to take a stand.” (This could be used as an excuse by more conservative politicians to push for a reworking of the country's Constitution.)
Social media flared up in protest about the government's decision (when it was finally revealed). "#NextBanIdea" started trending online, with people suggesting other things Indian politicians could ban.
Tweeted one: "science in school. They teach all [about] puberty and sexual reproduction ..."
"Ban Indian Government from banning anything," tweeted another.
“We are going on a wild goose chase," argued lawyer Pavan Duggal. "We have to learn from other countries that have tried to block and have failed. You block 10 sites today, 100 new sites will mushroom tomorrow. It is a very naive move.”