What Is The Mann Act, And Why Does Diddy Feel It Doesn't Apply To Him?

Sean “Diddy” Combs' trial captured a lot of attention, but if you thought that it coming to an end was the end of the story, get ready, because that’s not the case. While Combs avoided conviction on the most serious charges against him, his lawyers have now moved to have the convictions he received overturned, or at the very least, get Diddy a new trial on the charges.

The issue at hand is a century-old law called the Mann Act. Both of Diddy’s convictions for transporting people across state lines for the purposes of sex are related to the law that's been in effect since 1910. But his lawyers say, according to TMZ, the law shouldn’t have been applied in this case, as Diddy hasn’t actually violated it.

What is The Mann Act?

First enacted in 1910, the Mann Act was first put in place as a way to prevent the forced prostitution of women in an era when various states had areas of legal prostitution. It was feared that women could be kidnapped from areas where prostitution was illegal and be transported to areas where it was legal to work against their will.

Over the decades, the law has been amended multiple times to focus its intent and to clear up vague language. It has been utilized in numerous notable cases over the years. Most recently, the Mann Act was at the center of the legal cases against R. Kelly as well as the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell.

Why Diddy’s Lawyers Say The Mann Act Doesn’t Apply

The Mann Act deals with the transportation of people for the purposes of prostitution. However, the new filing from Diddy’s legal team says it shouldn’t have been applied in his case because he technically didn’t do any of the things required to be convicted under the Mann Act.

As had been discussed at length during the trial, Diddy reportedly only watched the prostitutes who were hired have sex with other people. He never engaged in sex with them himself. There is apparently a legal precedent that voyeurism is not considered prostitution.

What’s more, it’s claimed that Diddy did not make any money from the prostitution, and he also never arranged for the transportation of the people himself, with the women who were involved, like Cassie Ventura, being the ones who handled the logistics of transportation.

Since Diddy didn't have sex with the prostitutes, didn't profit from the prostitution, and didn't arrange transportation, it's being argued that he didn't actually violate the Mann Act. Finally, it’s also argued that the “freak-off” events that were recounted during the trial constitute “amateur pornography,” and thus should receive First Amendment protections.

Depending on how the language of the Mann Act is written, it’s certainly possible that one might be able to interpret it this way. If so, the judge might decide to overturn the convictions. Barring that, a new trial would only be on the two counts that Diddy was convicted of, and thus some of the most sensational evidence of the original trial, such as the video of Diddy beating Cassie Ventura, likely wouldn’t be admissible.

How long it may take the judge to rule on this is unclear. Diddy remains in jail awaiting sentencing, which is currently scheduled for October.