A topic was started here at adt prior; something to the effect that if a person got a hooker, had her sign a model form, filmed the sexual encounter and then paid her for her 'acting' that it would not be prostitution but rather be a 'movie' being made and thus would be an adult film.

I know some here feel that prostitution is different from porn; and while I see it as being different in certain aspects, I see it also as VERY similiar; people profit off the sexual encounter that they did not perform in it (pimps vs. directors/production companies,) and that people are paid for sexual encounters.

In another message board, I had a brief conversation with a porn girl (who shall be nameless here) and we discussed how porn is really much like the TV show 'fear factor.' Joe Rogan sits back like a director on the show, getting people to do stuff so that they can win money. People 'whore' themselves by eating scorpions, sitting in intestines, jumping off buildings, etc and the TV audience gets enjoyment from watching the degradation. In porn, its much the same, you take people and have them do things on camera for money.

The bottom line for me is that the porn audience is somewhat a 'john' of the porno industry, in that if there was no CASH on the table provided by the studios in lieu of the consumer, there would be no porn. And thats not a bad thing, but it does equate to me, at the very least, the similiarities between prostitution and porn performers.

I can't reiterate enough that these comments are my opinion only; I have heard enough to the contrary that feel different and my opinion is not meant to offend, if it indeed does so.

[Link]

I would hope that such a topic in and of itself is not so offensive as to be locked. I think this topic is interesting, I just wish I noted earlier that it was started by a deactivated user....damn.

[Link]

tick ... tick ... tick ...

Nice knowin' ya!

[Link]

I still chuckle about him humping his waterbed while his g/f watches in surprise.

Let's keep him around for awhile.

DenverDon

[Link]

From the FAQ's here at ADT, the following quote:

[Link]

I was touched by P-Knuckle's anxiety, and thought I'd josh him.

[Link]

The next time that the gov't tries to crack down on the porn industry , I will laugh because the moderators here are no different than they are. Do not scream for free speech if you are not willing to give it to everyone.

[Link]

-----------------------------
I will use this post to clarify that signing up as two different users is expressly against the forum rules. I gave this guy a chance to choose one account. Instead he chose to bitch and moan. No one has time for childish BS and I certainly don't have the patience for it. -steph

Edited by - Steph on 6/5/2004 9:55:50 AM

[Link]

Someone chooses not to follow the guidelines, there are consequences.

[Link]

Give me a break.

Why do so many moderators on the internet act like this?

[Link]

And that's speaking not as a moderator but as someone who has been participating here for more than four years.

BTW, moderators cannot deactivate user accounts, only the site administrators. Unless you spam, there's almost no way you can be deactivated without a warning (or in some cases, many, many warnings over a long period of time).

Finally, I'd suggest a forum search for the term "freedom of speech" and you'll find out how it applies to a privately-owned place like this.

- Saki [faqs]

[Link]

Ok, I feel better knowing that won't be taken away by the Kraken (moderators)as I cling to the rocks of Greece (adt?) waiting for my Perseus (skronker!)

I just wanted to make sure that this topic in and of itself is still a 'safe' conversation to be had. Or has it already gone to the urinal? If so, I will flush it from my memory.

I understand very well the need to deactivate people here if they overstep the boundaries of what WE all agreed on when we joined ADT, its vital to have a maintained policy so that this union will not perish from the Earth. Four score and seven years ago our fathers, blah blah (whoah, this XANAX really works!)

I am bored of the free speech discussion as this forum is privately owned and has policies to abide by; simply stated, this is not a street corner. Nuff' said on that topic.

Back to the topic (?) as if one exists anymore-
Porn is legal, prostitution isn't. Too bad; I quite like hookers, they are good conversationalists....

[Link]

Now, back to the topic. I wonder if the gov't isn't reluctant to make porn illegal because so many big companies are involved in it these days, like GE. Considering that these companies contribute a lot of money to political campaigns, I would think that the gov't wants to keep them happy.

[Link]

These aren't my thoughts, but excerpts from a Frontline interview with porn czar Bruce Taylor:

[Link]

I would very much like prostitution to be legalized, especially in California, and then from the tax revenue we could hire a 100 Bruces' so they can sit around complaining about gay marriage ruining the USA while they massage their balls to a Olsen Twins movie.

Off topic again; damn, I need to stop getting so excited. I am closing in on 500 posts, so forgive me for being so aroused.

[Link]

Artold Liehf wrote

I don't suppose any man has ever understood any woman since the beginning of things. You don't understand our imaginations, how wild our imaginations can be. H.G.Wells from Things To Come 1936

[Link]

-T.C.

[Link]

Does that mean he likes Bukakke???????

I'm disgusted by people who think they have the right to tell people they cannot, or how they can, consent to sex. Whether it be for money, on film, and/or at home. I don't even have the energy to rant against it.

My comment will probably garner a reply from Myk, but I haven't seen him for a while, so who knows.

[Link]

Because of this, making porn in California is protected as long as that porn is not obscene.

Some information can be found here.

[Link]

The tide is also changing on people's opinions of porn. There are not as many people that think that it is o.k. anymore.

Edited by - Artold Liehf on 6/4/2004 10:26:50 PM

[Link]

But actually, to offer the precise answer to the original question, the difference between hiring a hooker for your private enjoyment and making and distributing a porn film is quite simple: the First Amendment.

Porn is meant to be "public speech" -- it's produced to be sold and/or viewed by the public. Therefore, unless declared obscene -- which is not necessarily as easy as one might think -- it is protected as a form of expression. California is considered "porn-friendly" because of a judicial decision that followed the logic that if porn is protected as a form of expression, therefore the making of it must be, as well, regardless of whether the performers are essentially being paid for the same services a prostitute might provide.

Simple, yes? As to prostitution being illegal almost everywhere in the U.S. -- there is no federal law banning prostitution. There are only state and local statutes, and these are basically leftovers from a time when organized religion (read: Christianity) played a much larger role in the average person's daily life and influences, and "decency" laws, including bans on homosexuality, sodomy, sex outside of marriage, etc. were enacted.

As we are seeing, despite the Bush administration's best efforts, these laws are slowly being struck down as unconstitutional efforts to legislate morality. Even Bush's home state, Texas, was forced after court battles to strike their sodomy laws from the books. And we all know what's going on with homosexuality; no longer a "crime," it is in fact being legitimized further by several states who have legalized gay civil unions.

When pornography is busted these days, it is because prosecutors believe that the speciific material in question will not pass the Miller test, which requires that a work must have no social, political or artistic redeeming value, appeal solely to a "prurient" or morbid interest in sexuality, and be considered not merely distasteful but obscene according to the standards of the community in which it's distributed.

No lie that the Bush/Ashcroft crowd would like to push back the legality of sexually explicit material even past this fairly moderate definition; so far they're succeeding not so much through actual court decisions but through intimidation tactics -- see Congressional hearings concerning Janet Jackson, Howard Stern, etc. .... in other words, they're trying the corporate approach through the back door -- make it so expensive for entities such as Clear Channel, etc, when they do cross the line with jacked--up FCC fines, etc, that a form of self-censorship descends. They're speaking to the capitalists in the language they understand, in other words ...

davidaaronclark.com
asianmouthclub.com

"The objectification and commodification of human sexuality beats flipping burgers or selling real estate any day. Even if it smells worse."

[Link]

P-Knuckle

[Link]

By the maniacs currently running the Justice Department??? Yes.

[Link]

This isn't just my opinion, this is how court cases have been decided.

[Link]

Anyway, porn is NOT prostitution because BOTH parties are paid to have sex. If just the female was paid, then it would be prostitution. That's just my version of why it's legal, I don't know what the government ruling is.

[Link]

Try again.

Edited by - cv on 6/5/2004 12:37:08 AM

[Link]

On discretionary review, the California Supreme Court first considered the relevant statutory language of the State Penal Code. In relevant part, 266i of the Penal Code provides that a person is guilty of felonious pandering if that person "procure[s] another person for the purpose of prostitution. . . ." Prostitution, in turn, is defined in 647(b) of the Penal Code as "any lewd act between persons for money or other consideration." Finally, " 'for a "lewd" or "dissolute" act to constitute "prostitution," the genitals, buttocks, or female breast, of either the prostitute or the customer must come in contact with some part of the body of the other for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the customer or of the prostitute.' " 46 Cal.3d, at 424, 250 Cal.Rptr., at 600, 758 P.2d, at 1130 (emphasis in original), quoting People v. Hill, 103 Cal.App.3d 525, 534-535, 163 Cal.Rptr. 99, 105 (1980).

Interpreting these definitions of terms relevant to the state pandering statute, the State Supreme Court held that "... in order to constitute prostitution, the money or other consideration must be paid for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification." Applying this principle ...... the court characterized the payments made to the performers as "acting fees" and held that "there is no evidence that [ Freeman] paid the acting fees for the purposes of sexual arousal or gratification, his own or the actors'."
Thus, the court held, "[Freeman] did not engage in either the requisite conduct nor did he have the requisite mens rea or purpose to establish procurement for purposes of prostitution."

SHYLOCK
"Patron of the Tarts"
Spieglergirls.com

[Link]

Valjean4876 wrote:
LOL! I heard Jerry Falwell on one of those shows say that he would be happy with nothing less than the banning of movies showing any type of penetration.

Those types won't stop there, or even slow down. If they get the power they will go right after soft core, fetish, mainstream movies, fhm, sports illustrated swimsuit issue, and whatever else they don't like. However in practice excluding penetration seams effective for avoiding prosecution, though not always desirable for obvious reasons. Anyone know any movies convicted of obscenity without traditional hardcore content (i.e. erect penis, bodily fluids/secretions, insertion of any object into a vagina or anus, showing pink, or contact with genitals.)?

LeopoldStotch said:
You think most normal people think it is alright to piss in someone's mouth? Or for a bunch of guys to orgasm all over a woman's face? Your sense of reality is strange.

I would go so far as to say any one who thinks someone should spend one second much less more time than a rapist or murderer for producing such a work is not normal. Things should not be illegal just because some or even most people dislike them. Even if one were wrongheaded enough to believe some acts should be illegal in movies only because some dislike them, the question becomes where to draw the lines. How many men do you think should ejaculate on a someone at a time 1,10,100? Does it matter how much semen is involved or where it lands? Where should the piss go? On the ground or on someone’s foot? How many fingers can be inserted? 1, 4, any number no thumbs? This is all pointless I will tell you were to draw the line all performers should be of legal age, have their wits about them, and agree to all activities. That’s all; any other restrictions are arbitrary and subjective.

[Link]

In prostitution, the product being offered by vendor to customer, is sexual contact.

In porn the product being offered by vendor to customer is the image of two (or more) consenting adults engaged in sexual contact.

Theoretically it can be argued that all porn performers are having sex not for money, but because they WANT to have sex with that person, and that they allow producers to film the act in return for monetary compensation.

Now, lets assume that the performer is willing to state this on the record in a court of law when being charged with prostitution. How can you PROVE that this is not the case? The simple answer is, you can't, and therefore is is not only legal for the performers, but is also not worth pursuing charges by those that have such a desire to, as they will almost certainly lose the case when the premise "innocent until proven guilty" is applied.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

[Link]

Edited by - valjean4876 on 6/5/2004 10:07:09 AM

[Link]

On the second example, considering the number of people who are currently buying & renting porn, I don't think that a random group of 12 people would unanimously vote to find a movie to be obscene because of facial cumshots.

[Link]

Why doesn't the creation of an adult video run afoul of laws against pimping and prostitution?

A HUGE thank you to N.P.Trist for doing the legal research on this one... hopefully it will settle a few debates. He writes:

It can. But not in California :-)

In the mid 1980s, an anti-pornography initiative by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office backfired (to put it mildly) -- the DA's prosecution of adult video producer Harold Freeman led to a California Supreme Court ruling which explicitly legalized non- obscene hard-core pornographic videos.

The state's anti-pimping law was changed in 1982 to mandate a minimum three-year sentence if a defendant were found guilty of "pandering," the legal term for a type of pimping. Sponsored by Democratic state senator David A. Roberti, the law was designed to reduce the street prostitution that plagued the senator's Hollywood district.

Although the law's undisputed intent was to combat streetwalking, the Los Angeles County DA's Office decided to use it in an admittedly novel manner. Pandering prosecutions were brought against several producers of hard-core pornographic videos.

The DA's legal theory was that the exchange of money for sex equaled prostitution, regardless of whether or not the sex acts were filmed. The DA's practical theory was that California would cease to be the world capital of blue movies if the very act of producing an adult video were criminalized.

The first person charged was Harold Freeman, a veteran producer of more than 100 adult videos. In September of 1983, the 47- year-old Freeman had shot the anal-themed "Caught From Behind, Part II" in Rancho Palos Verdes, a suburb south of Los Angeles. Freeman was charged with five counts of pandering, one count for each woman whom he paid to perform in the film. (Curiously, Freeman was not charged for paying the male performers.) In what would later become a crucial fact, Freeman was not charged with obscenity.

After a six-day jury trial in Van Nuys Superior Court, Freeman was found guilty on all counts. The trial judge refused to sentence Freeman to the mandatory three years on the grounds that such a sentence would be cruel and unusual punishment. Instead, Freeman was sentenced to 90 days in jail, fined $10,000 and placed on five years probation. The conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeals (188 Cal. App. 3d 618, 233 Cal. Rptr. 510). Freeman's attorneys, Stuart Goldfarb and Dennis A. Fischer, filed a routine appeal to the California Supreme Court, very few of which are successful.

Then a miracle happened.

Four justices of the California Supreme Court decided the case was worthy of review. Briefs were submitted. Oral arguments held. And the California Supreme Court threw out Freeman's conviction and explicitly legalized non-obscene, hard-core pornography. People v. Freeman, 46 Cal. 3d 419, 758 P.2d 1128, 250 Cal. Rptr. 598.

The legality of paying performers to engage in sex acts on film is founded on two, independent theories, one grounded in state law, one in federal law.

State Law: The statutory definition of "pandering" contains the word "prostitution". The statutory definition of "prostitution" contains the word "lewd". The common law definition of "lewd" requires, in relevant part, that the sex act be engaged in "for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the customer or of the prostitute."

But the performers testified at trial that they were not having sex for pleasure, they were doing it for the money. Ditto Freeman. Moving up the chain of definition, Freeman -- and all producers -- are not guilty of pandering, and all performers are not guilty of prostitution.

Federal Law: The Court made a number of points regarding Freeman's federal constitutional protections.

Non-obscene motion pictures are a form of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment.
Even if Freeman's actions fell within the definition of "pandering," he could not be prosecuted because his actions would be legal outside of the context of the adult video industry. In other words, a murder on film is illegal because murder is illegal _independent_ of the act of filming and paying the participants; the sex acts filmed by Freeman were considered illegal solely because he filmed and paid the actors. (In oral arguments, the deputy attorney general admitted that charges could not have been brought had the performers not been paid for their sex acts.)

To beleaguered porn fans accustomed to being automatically equated with sex offenders and child molesters, Justice Kaufman's decision is a rare burst of common sense, cutting right through the government's bullshit. "Thus the prosecution of defendant under the pandering statute must be viewed as a somewhat transparent attempt at an 'end run' around the First Amendment and the obscenity laws," he writes. "Rather, the self-evident purpose of the prosecuting authority in bringing these charges was to prevent profiteering in pornography without the necessity of proving obscenity."

The Powers That Be went apeshit over this ruling and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay (a temporary suspension of the California Supreme Court's ruling). Not only did Justice Sandra Day O'Connor deny the stay, she said in no uncertain terms that the U.S. Supreme Court would not review the case.

Her orthodox reasoning: The U.S. Supreme Court can only rule on the federal law components of the decision; the definition of "lewd" is wholly a state question. Therefore, no action by the Court on the federal law component could effect the outcome of the case. The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion would be moot, an advisory opinion. And, since the day President Washington asked for one, the Court has refused to render advisory opinions.

Despite the ironclad logic of Justice O'Connor's decision, the California Attorney General's Office attempted three more times to obtain U.S. Supreme Court review. A petition was even submitted by the parents of deceased porn star Shauna Grant. Denied every time.

Today, the Freeman case is still good law in California. Pornography production in California has been so normalized that Ron Jeremy picks up his production permits at the same government office that certifies shoots for Disney.

The California adult video industry is not, however, immune from legal attack.

First and foremost, obscenity is still a crime, and the U.S. Supreme Court's "Miller test" for determining obscenity is so vague that no one knows for sure what's legal and what's not. One prosecutorial tactic is bankrupting defendants by bringing groundless obscenity charges, forcing them to incur legal fees.

Secondly, the California legislature could, theoretically, redefine "lewd", "prostitution" or "pandering" by deleting the pleasure requirement. This is unlikely, as redefining "lewd" would necessitate a wholesale redrafting of the Penal Code's sex offense statutes.

Finally, an overzealous prosecutor with a grudge against pornography will _always_ devise a stratagem to harass.

To counteract these threats, I recommend that adult video fans become members of legal groups which, directly or indirectly, help protect the adult video industry. Such groups include the Free Speech Coalition, the Cato Institute, People for the American Way and the ACLU. Membership fees are often nominal, so helping protect your right to adult videos might cost you $25.

It cost Harold Freeman more than $300,000.

S. Andrew Roberts adds this:

At the Free Speech Coalition awards, we were strongly reminded that Hal Freeman fought that case "to protect OUR first amendment rights".

[Link]

Firstly though, let me say that almost every answer thus far has attempted to show why prostitution being illegal and porn (and by inference its production) being legal is consistent. There is no need to show this. The law is full of anomolies and inconsistencies.

I am quite sure that at the time when the laws governing prostitution were drawn up had porn been available in anything like the form it is now I can guarantee you it would be deemed illegal. The reason your porn vids and dvds can be made for profit, and feature people fucking for profit, is quite simply caused by the laws inability to project itself forward in time hundreds of years and account for eventualities that even the most far sighted of lawmakers would struggle to concieve of.

The whole question smacks very much along the lines of 'why is cannabis illegal when alcohol and tobacco are legal?'. We all know that if tobacco was 'discovered' today its use would be criminalised but these are all just the legal oddities and inconsistencies that you are bound to get. We can discuss the exact legal arguments courts have used in their rulings to define prostitution but in my view this just belies the simple fact that this IS an inconsistency and one simply caused by applying old legal definitions to a modern fast changing world.

SNP.

[Link]

For those of you outside the US, Justice O'Connor was the first woman named to the Supreme Court in the US. And to top it off, she was named by a Republican president (Reagan, I think). Conservative Republicans have had fits over her habit of making moderate decisions, and sometimes siding with the liberals on the Court.

This puts O'Connor up with former Attorney General Janet Reno as being two of the most important government officials who have had a big impact on the porn industry. O'Connor for her decision above, and Reno for not bringing Federal obscenity charges against porn companies during her 8 years in office.

[Link]