Time to give back the toaster, O-man.
I strongly suspect that’s not her real name. In fact, now that I look through the article again, it’s not. Most porn stars use “stage” names rather than their real ones.
Maybe there’s a market for a new show - Queer Eye for the Queer Guy? 
Either that, or a gaydar repairman…
"I seem to remember a little document in the USA that goes “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…”.
Yeah, if you want to say ‘ohohohohoh aaaaaaaaaaah!’ fine, no permit needed
Otherwise you have to deal with: Section 18 United States Code # 2257: The Federal Adult Disclosure and Labeling law; The Obscenity laws; (Both State and Federal) The D.M.C.A. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, The regular copyright laws; Licensing laws; Trademark laws; Laws of Publicity and Entertainment law, plus a bunch of state regulations and laws. You can look it all up if you want. I don’t want to go through 45,879 porn sites to find it for ya.,
Yes, I’m sure these, and all the other regular commercial laws, down to minimum wage & workers comp apply to porn producers. And, no, I don’t expect you to look thru 45,879 porn sites.
I’d just like a cite for your original statement
Laws governing porn (actually most things) are left to state and municipal jurisdictions. What’s legal for me may not be legal for you. I don’t know where in the world you are, Isabelle. WWW means World Wide Web.
Given the nature of this thread, you’ll probably only get offers to buy you sex toys. But happy birthday anyway.
t-bonham@scc.net, Im pretty sure that one of those (might be more than two cities now) was Hollywood but anyway, if you read the books on amazon.com they can give you the rest of the info.
OK, let’s play the “correct handy’s bullshit” game again!
[deals with record-keeping requirements for people who produce sexually explicit material after November 1, 1990. It contains no provision requiring a permit of any kind to produce such material, nor does it limit in time or place the production of such material.
“The Federal Adult Disclosure and Labeling law” is the same as 18 US 2257; it’s unclear whether handy is citing it as a separate reference or the same reference.
[url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch71.html]The Obscenity laws; (Both State and Federal)](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.htmlSection 18 United States Code # 2257[/url) are found on the federal level in Title 18, chapter 71 of the US Code and contain no reference to permits for producing obscene material. This chapter deals with the possession, distribution, broadcast and transportation of obscene material, not the production of it. I did not check the obscenity laws of all 50 states to see if any discuss permits; perhaps handy would care to enlighten us which states have a permitting process for making obscene materials?
The D.M.C.A. Digital Millennium Copyright Act appears to be silent on the subject of permits for producing pornographic material.
“The regular copyright laws; Licensing laws; Trademark laws; Laws of Publicity and Entertainment law” are so vague as to be laughably useless.
Once again, handy has babbled out complete nonsense on a topic about which he clearly knows nothing.
“Once again, handy has babbled out complete nonsense on a topic about which he clearly knows nothing.”
Me? Naw, I got the info from a website on how to do legal porno by someone who was into that, so I don’t doubt it’s complete nonsense Otto. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion of their information. I had to put the info into my words so I wouldn’t have to quote & give a link to a porno site.
At least handy is in the right forum for offering his opinion. I hope he can acknowledge the correction, however, since it’s not true that “To make a legal porn film you need a permit.”
handy is of course entitled to continue to keep that as an opinion. But I would hope that other readers understand the opinion is not based on any particularly solid ground.
- Rick
I don’t doubt it’s complete nonsense either. It’s been shown to be complete nonsense.
If you don’t want to post the link, email it to me; my email address is public to these boards. And it is not my “opinion” of their information. The information has been proven false by reference to the actual laws cited.
But please, feel free to explore the non-porn links I provided and supply the cites from the actual law which support your contention that
Please provide the names of these two places, along with a link to the law which authorizes permitting and describes the permitting process. Laws are widely available on the internet and are easily accessible without clicking on even a single porn link.
Or in the alternative you could acknowledge your mistakes, admit that you were wrong and promise to stop padding your post count by posting demonstrably false, factually unsupported information which serves no purpose but to confuse people and foster the spread of ignorance.
In my haste to disprove yet another of handy’s errors I screwed up the links so let me fix those, because I’m sure handy will be desperate to check them out…
"Section 18 United States Code # 2257
Federal obscenity laws
The D.M.C.A. Digital Millennium Copyright Act"
So, what is your point, are you saying these don’t apply to pornographic films?
If you’re going to be like this:
“OK, let’s play the “correct handy’s bullshit” game again!”
you should respectfully take it to the Pit Otto, where it’s more appropiate in my opinion.
He has. But we know you won’t go.
Um, no, I’m saying that your citing them to support your claims that there are only two places in the country where you can legally make porn films and that permits are required to make porn films is incorrect.
It has been pointed out to you several times that there are more than two places in the United States where producing pornographic films is legal. It has been pointed out to you that there is no permitting process for making a pornographic film. It has been pointed out to you that the cites you list in support of your inaccurate statements do not support your inaccurate statements.
Please acknowledge your errors.
If you would like to join me in the Pit, where this has been taken, I welcome your participation.
Phoebe’s sister “Ursula” made porno films in her own apartment <g>
Handy:
The laws you cite all apply to porn films. They do not say that you need a permit to make a porn film, though, do they?
They also don’t say anything about there being only two places to get a permit. No surprise there – there is no such thing as a “porn film permit” required by any federal law. The laws you quote require record keeping. They protect copyrighted material. They don’t require permits.
You said that a permit was required, and that there are only two places to get such a permit.
Why would you lie like that?
- Rick
"You said that a permit was required, and that there are only two places to get such a permit.
Why would you lie like that?"
I said ‘that’s what I remember’. Did you read the full paragraph of what I said? I guess not. Can you prove that in no time in history that there was not two places to get a permit or that a permit was required? It seems certain people think the laws are the same all throughout history. I wouldn’t want to hire them to defend me.
I might not be a lawyer & I wouldn’t want to be one, but I know enough about law that they vary from area to area & time to time.
Can’t we just get along without all this nitpicking?
OK, fair enough. You did say that, and this thread is in IMHO, which is, after all, a place to offer opinions as opposed to concrete facts.
I guess my ire arose when, after a correction was offered, you didn’t acknowledge that your memory might have been a bit off base.
But as you correctly point out, you did qualify your statement with “That’s what I remember.”
I assure you that if I were still practicing law, I would ascertain the time period in which the acts I was concerned with occurred, and then discover what the state of the law was at that time.
Here, there’s no real reason – other than your memory, I suppose - of presuming the discussion centers around anything but the present state of the law. What leads you, handy, to believe that the question involved some period in the distant past?
In any event, it’s not incumbent on me to prove anything. Youare the one making the claim; it falls to you to prove the accuracy of your statement – or, as you seem to be wisely doing now, withdrawing it.
On a message board devoted to a columnist who has made a career out of exposing the Straight Dope – nitpicking about truths great and small - I would venture to say that nitpicking will be the order of the day. An off-hand assertion isn’t taken as fact – it’s rigorously checked. This is a bad place to toss out unverified “I heard somewhere that…” stories.
- Rick