"The judge ruled that the hired male escorts involved in freak-offs can be considered victims in the context of sentencing."

"And he ruled that Mr. Combs does not get the benefit of having accepted responsibility for his crimes. The judge said the defense’s narrative of freak-offs as nothing more than voluntary sex between consenting adults was 'flatly inconsistent with both reality and any acceptance of responsibility.'... [T]he judge’s explanations do not bode well for the defendant."

From the NYT coverage of the sentencing hearing for Sean Combs, happening now.

UPDATE, 11:34: The prosecution has argued, and now it's the defense. This is interesting:

There is no question that the facts of this case are unusual in the scope of Mann Act prosecutions. Sean Combs was convicted of arranging travel for men, some of them hired through an online escort service, to have sex with his girlfriends while he watched, masturbated and sometimes filmed. 

There has been a disagreement between the prosecution and the defense over how Mr. Combs can be categorized in the traditional lexicon that applies to prostitution. Was he best classified as a john, or a customer of prostitution services, as the defense argued? Or was he most akin to a pimp because, as the government argued, he exploited and controlled women?

Asked by the judge about that dispute, the defense replied that Mr. Combs cannot be compared to a pimp because he did not make money from prostituting women.

UPDATE, 3:50: Combs was sentenced to 50 months.