# Should the porn industry have less restrictions? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 4, 2006, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-porn-industry-have-less-restrictions/382805 "2006-12-04T14:11:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-porn-industry-have-less-restrictions/382805/41 "2006-12-05T04:58:51Z")
I agree with Renob on this one. The Constitution clearly protects freedom of speech and court decisions that have since said that sexual material is not protected because it’s “different” are wrong. In my opinion, the only acceptable limits on individual liberty should be those cases where there is a clear and direct danger to society. And while a lot of people may dislike pornography, they are not endangered by it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-porn-industry-have-less-restrictions/382805/42 "2006-12-05T05:08:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Because it’s perfectly legal to film a fifteen-year old going fishing, for the movie Meet Billy Bluegill. It’s not legal to film a fifteen year old performing oral sex for the movie Eat Billy Bluecock. > > Other entertainment producers do not violate the law in their products even if their subjects are underage. Porn producers are in the clear if their actors are adults but acting criminally if their actors are underage. As Random pointed out, this is not the issue. Other sellers are not required to assume the burden of guaranteeing the products they sell were not produced illegally. Only the producers who broke those laws are held responsible. I think it’s pretty clear that this extended liability is just another attempt to eliminate pornography by other means. If a legislature is unable to simply outlaw something outright, they will often place numerous burdens on it so that the result is that while it might be legal in theory it’s impossible in practice. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-porn-industry-have-less-restrictions/382805/43 "2006-12-05T06:25:21Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Because it’s perfectly legal to film a fifteen-year old going fishing, for the movie Meet Billy Bluegill. It’s not legal to film a fifteen year old performing oral sex for the movie Eat Billy Bluecock. Other entertainment producers do not violate the law in their products even if their subjects are underage. Porn producers are in the clear if their actors are adults but acting criminally if their actors are underage. [/QUOTE] Well, actually producers of movies with underage actors need to follow specific procedures (like providing tutors) not necessary for actors over 18. That’s why kids over age 15 have such a hard time getting work. I’m not sure of the record keeping requirements for productions using child actors, but I’m fairly sure that those that don’t don’t have to keep records of the age of all actors, just in case. I’d appreciate you outlining your thought processes a bit more. No one seems to have the opinion that it should be legal to use underage porn actors. No one seems to have said that a claim of ignorance by a producer would help. I assume such a claim would not be much of a defense, right? If anyone using actors who look anywhere near 18 doesn’t get the proper documentation, they suffer the consequences, as they should. Why should this have anything to do with a production where all the actors are very obviously of legal age - and perhaps have a decades long track record? As for the registry of actors idea, there appear to be plenty of amateurs who are covered by the law also. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-porn-industry-have-less-restrictions/382805/44 "2006-12-05T14:52:25Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Your claim here seems to be that the law, in its zeal to ensure that all performers are in fact 18 or older, unduly burdens legitimate website operators. Yes? [/quote] Yes. > [@](#): > > Consider statutory rape laws. Of course, this is greatly dependent on your jurisdiction, but these are often strict liability laws – if as an adult you have sex with a fifteen year old, you have committed a crime, _regardless of the protective measures you took_. You could have secured a copy of her birth certificate, a sworn and notarized statement from her parents that she is over 18, and a video of her high-school graduation party in hand before you sleep with her – but in many cases, if it happens that all those documents were phony, you are guilty. (In practice, someone who did all that would likely be saved by prosecutorial discretion… but NOT by the letter of the law). > > Now, do we say that this sort of approach unduly burdens those who wish to sleep with 18-year-olds? Some undoubtedtly do, but most recognize that this burden, combined with a reasonable approach by prosecutors exercising their discretion in bringing charges, is sufficient to create a safety net that enables us to punish true offenders while avoiding innocent mistakes. > > I think that’s a valid analogy for this. As has already been pointed out, there’s no logic or sanity in adult website operators expecting reasonable discretion from prosecutors, which is where your whole train falls apart. Prosecutors have a history of persecuting adult website operators. This law is just another way for sexual frustrates in Chagrin Falls, Tennessee, to get their jollies. You shouldn’t be signing on to it. And BTW, I am somewhat nonplused to see someone who has often expressed political ideas of a conservative/libertarian bent so intent on supporting a law that imposes a huge and unnecessary regulatory burden on small businesses. I thought you guys didn’t like that sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-porn-industry-have-less-restrictions/382805/45 "2006-12-05T15:02:39Z")
[QUOTE=Random] But this dodges the question. Films, music, books and other media can be illegally produced for any number of reasons. Necessary copyrights may not have been obtained. People shown onscreen in a movie may not have signed model releases to allow us of their images. Animals might have been harmed in making the movie (in violation of anti-cruelty laws). Underage actors in a G-rated movie may have worked too many hours in violation of child labor laws. Cars may have been blown up in violation of Federal explosives control laws. But no one imposes a massive record-keeping duty on Borders Books Records and Video to document compliance with all these laws. [/QUOTE] Excellent point. Really gets to the heart of the issue. And it’s not just the big guys that are analogous to Borders or Blockbuster (i.e., Vivid, Wicked) but the small mom and pop outfits are the ones who are most affected. And they’re also the ones who were coming up with the most creative, humanistic adult stuff on the Web. The stuff that might eventually make adult stuff into something creative and respectable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-porn-industry-have-less-restrictions/382805.md?page=2)