Why aren't porn actors charged with prostitution?

[echowit]

From “Why aren’t porn actors charged with prostitution?”

 http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2845/why-arent-porn-actors-charged-with-prostitution

As it stands, there’s a big sign over California saying “PORN PRODUCTION LEGAL HERE.” Only an idiot, a porn lover, or perhaps an Illinois governor would risk erecting another sign saying “HERE TOO.”

I detect some redundancy.

(Sorry for the Bold ((but subtle)) edit to your text - did not want to offend porn lovers)

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Slug’s cartoon is a bit more risque than usual, I’d say. Check out how the director’s glasses and (I presume) headphones are placed. And note on what the man in the bed’s baseball glove is placed.

[Jimmy_Joe_Meager]

@Elendil_s_Heir

Slug’s cartoon is a bit more risque than usual, I’d say. Check out how the director’s glasses and (I presume) headphones are placed. And note on what the man in the bed’s baseball glove is placed.

And… the *lady *is “pitching” while the *man *is “catching”. Yow.

[Humble_Servant]

As it stands, there’s a big sign over California saying “PORN PRODUCTION LEGAL HERE.” Only an idiot, a porn lover, or perhaps an Illinois governor would risk erecting another sign saying “HERE TOO.”

It’s the stealth stuff like this that I find admirable.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” - Mark Twain

[HawksPath]

The obvious followup is can regular hookers film the acts with their customers and now be all legit? I know most wouldn’t care for evidence, but still there might be some way with ingenuity to get around that and guarantee the film dissapears quickly. Possibly even forgetting to load the camera.

[Gfactor]

@HawksPath

The obvious followup is can regular hookers film the acts with their customers and now be all legit? I know most wouldn’t care for evidence, but still there might be some way with ingenuity to get around that and guarantee the film dissapears quickly. Possibly even forgetting to load the camera.

The *Freeman *court

cited precedent establishing that “for [an 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” [emphasis added].

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2845/why-arent-porn-actors-charged-with-prostitution

and it held that Freeman, the producer wasn’t paying for his own arousal or gratification. If you are the customer, *Freeman *doesn’t help you.

[Muffin]

In California prostitution is illegal but filming porn is legal due to protection of freedom of speech, whereas in Kanukistan, prostitution is legal but advertising it publicly is not despite similar protections of freedom of speech. Curiouser and curiouser.

[HawksPath]

Couldn’t the customer/prostitute claim that they were making a movie for future profit and any gratification was purely incidental to the filming?

[Gfactor]

@Muffin

In California prostitution is illegal but filming porn is legal due to protection of freedom of speech, whereas in Kanukistan, prostitution is legal but advertising it publicly is not despite similar protections of freedom of speech. Curiouser and curiouser.

While the Freeman decision said Freeman’s activities *might *have been protected as free speech, the actual holding of the case was that what he did was not pandering as the statute defined it. And the part about free speech was really bad (to use a technical term ) First Amendment law because the Supreme Court had already rejected that line of reasoning.

Conduct or depictions of conduct that the state police power can prohibit on a public street do not become automatically protected by the Constitution merely because the conduct is moved to a bar or a “live” theatre stage, any more than a “live” performance of a man and woman locked in sexual embrace at high noon in Times Square is protected by the Constitution because they simultaneously engage in a valid political dialogue.

Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 66-67, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 2640, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=413&invol=49

[Gfactor]

Heh. Sorry Muffin, I misread your post. You may ignore last post as non-responsive.

[Gfactor]

@HawksPath

Couldn’t the customer/prostitute claim that they were making a movie for future profit and any gratification was purely incidental to the filming?

Sure. You can get out of just about any crime with enough perjury, as long as the jury belives you. But

@HawksPath

there might be some way with ingenuity to get around that and guarantee the film dissapears quickly. Possibly even forgetting to load the camera.

(Emphasis added.)

This part is going to hurt you with the jury.

Prosecutor: Ms. Hooker, was the payment you received for sexual gratification?
A: No. It was for acting in this film that we both intended to profit from.
P: I see. Can you explain why we’ve got a recording of you telling an undercover officer that you’d destroy the tape or “forget” . . . . . to load the camera?
A: Errrrrr . . .
P: And here is the advertisement that the officer answered, can you tell us what a “GFE” is?

That said, I actually saw an advertisement for a deal like the one you are describing when I was in LA in the 90s. So it does happen.

And if you consider gonzo porn like the stuff Ed Powers produces, I take it that is exactly what he would argue. Of course, he really is filming the sex to sell it.

[Lumpy]

@Elendil_s_Heir

Slug’s cartoon is a bit more risque than usual, I’d say. Check out how the director’s glasses and (I presume) headphones are placed. And note on what the man in the bed’s baseball glove is placed.

Somehow, the baseball cap the actress is wearing does it all for me.

[SeanArenas]

@Gfactor

And if you consider gonzo porn like the stuff Ed Powers produces, I take it that is exactly what he would argue. Of course, he really is filming the sex to sell it.

I got warned by my browser that his site has malware

Also, what if filming it in order to sell it is what gets him gratification? If someone could prove that, would he be on the hook?

(you decide if pun intended)

[Gfactor]

@SeanArenas

I got warned by my browser that his site has malware

Also, what if filming it in order to sell it is what gets him gratification? If someone could prove that, would he be on the hook?

(you decide if pun intended)

Well, on the one hand, the Freeman case announced its holding as:

The payment of acting fees was the only payment involved in the instant case. This payment was made to the actors for performing in a nonobscene film. There is no evidence that defendant paid the acting fees for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, his own or the actors.’ Defendant, of course, did not himself participate in any of the sexual conduct. Defendant, the payor, thus 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.

So you could distinguish *Freeman *from that case because in that case it is proven that he paid the fees for gratification. But the statute says that the body contact has to be “for the purpose of for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the customer or of the prostitute.” So if it’s only the act of filming, it probably doesn’t satisfy the “purpose of gratification” part of the statute. Yet again, though, we’re not done, and this is where I think the logic of *Freeman *is a bit strained.

Some of the acting in *Freeman * was for the purpose of giving the male actors erections, which is sexual arousal. That means that some of the genital-body contact was “for the purpose of sexual arousal.” Viagra might reduce the need for that sort of thing, but it remains a staple of gonzo porn. You could make a similar argument about most of the gonzo porn I’ve seen.

[outlierrn]

@echowit

From “Why aren’t porn actors charged with prostitution?”

 http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2845/why-arent-porn-actors-charged-with-prostitution

As it stands, there’s a big sign over California saying “PORN PRODUCTION LEGAL HERE.” Only an idiot, a porn lover, or perhaps an Illinois governor would risk erecting another sign saying “HERE TOO.”

I detect some redundancy.

(Sorry for the Bold ((but subtle)) edit to your text - did not want to offend porn lovers)

I’m curious, did blago do something specific to warrant this comment or is it just a general dig?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

This question just got asked again in GQ and I posted links to some of the numerous earlier threads on the issue.