Diddy Argues ‘Freak-Off’ Videos Have First Amendment Protections

Sean “Diddy” Combs asked a federal judge to toss his prostitution conviction, arguing that filming sex parties with escorts is safeguarded by the Constitution.

“The evidence presented by the government makes clear that Mr. Combs’s amateur porn, like many other adult films, was creative, intricate, and highly choreographed,” his attorneys wrote to the judge Wednesday night. “The videos accordingly have expressive content and are protected by the First Amendment.”

The motion asking the trial judge to nix the jury’s guilty verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal was an expected development ahead of Combs’ Oct. 3 sentencing. But it also underscores his legal team’s aggressive strategy to fight the prostitution convictions after Combs was acquitted of the more serious sex trafficking and racketeering charges.

The motion deploys a host of arguments as to why the prostitution convictions are legally unsound. This week, the legal team—which includes Mark Agnifilo, Teny Geragos, and Alexandra Shapiro—also asked the judge to release Combs on a $50 million bond. Agnifilo told Bloomberg Law they’re also strategizing an appeal.

Combs was convicted earlier this month of transportation to engage in prostitution under the federal Mann Act for hiring male escorts who partook in his so-called “freak-off” sex parties. His attorneys argued that because those parties were filmed, they have the legal protections of other pornography.

“Combs was acting as a director and exercising creative control over sexual performances that involved choreographed acting and role play, outfits and costumes, and staging with very particular accoutrements,” the attorneys wrote.

They also argued the allegations don’t constitute prostitution under federal law, because Combs was a “bystander” to the sex—watching escorts have sex with his girlfriends but not having sex with the escorts himself.

Even if it was prostitution, it wasn’t the type of conduct that merits prosecution under the Mann Act because it only involved willing adults and Comb’s wasn’t making money off it, they said.

Alternatively, the attorneys argued, the court should grant a new trial on the prostitution charges because of the “spillover prejudice from reams of inflammatory evidence” related to the trafficking and racketeering charges.

Manhattan federal prosecutors have yet to respond to Combs’ bail request or his motion for acquittal.

The case is United States v. Combs, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:24-cr-00542, motion for judgment of acquittal 7/30/25.