# Why aren't porn stars considered prostitutes? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 8, 2005, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-porn-stars-considered-prostitutes/283702 "2005-01-08T03:56:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-porn-stars-considered-prostitutes/283702/21 "2005-01-11T17:18:10Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > and the appeal rejected for consideration at the Supreme Court level by Justice O’Connor. > > O’Connor more or less concurred with the SSC’s opinion, and the matter was closed. A quibble here, if I may. O’Connor did not reject the appeal for consideration, she denied the state’s motion for a stay. And she didn’t concur with the California Supreme Court’s opinion. She found that there was an adequate and independent state ground for the court’s decision. > [@](#): > > This Court will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment. See, e.g., Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210 (1935); Klinger v. Missouri, 13 Wall. 257, 263 (1872). This rule applies whether the state law ground is substantive or procedural. See, e.g., Fox Film, supra; Herndon v. Georgia, 295 U.S. 441 (1935). In the context of direct review of a state court judgment, the independent and adequate state ground doctrine is jurisdictional. Because this Court has no power to review a state law determination that is sufficient to support the judgment, resolution of any independent federal ground for the decision could not affect the judgment, and would therefore be advisory. See Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U.S. 117, 125 -126 (1945) (“We are not permitted to render an advisory opinion, and if the same judgment would be rendered by the state court after we corrected its views of federal laws, our review could amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion”). [_Coleman v. Thompson_, 501 U.S. 722 (1991)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=501&invol=722#729) In other words, she found that the Court did not have jurisdiction to grant a stay. The Supreme Court does not render authoritative interpretations of state statutes, and it doesn’t give advisory opinions (or so it says). O’Connor neither upheld the California Supreme Court’s First Amendment theory nor agreed with their analysis of the California statutes–she simply said that the Supreme Court would not stay the California Supreme Court’s opinion. > [@](#): > > Were we to review the state court’s decision and hold that it had misinterpreted the strictures of the First Amendment, on remand the court would still reverse Freeman’s conviction on state statutory grounds. This is precisely the result the doctrine of adequate and independent state grounds seeks to avoid. . . . . > > Because the decision of the California Supreme Court rests on an adequate and independent state ground, the State of California’s application for a stay of enforcement of the judgment of the California Supreme Court is denied. > **[FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/488/1311.html)** > > FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since So the important opinion is the state court’s opinion. O’Connor’s opinion is a technical one, dealing with an issue of justiciability. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-porn-stars-considered-prostitutes/283702/22 "2005-01-11T18:19:15Z")
> [@Roland Deschain](#): > > So if I live in California and I hire five “actors” to have sex (possibly with me or my wife) and then film the whole thing (throwing in a few bad lines and some corny music) I can pay them right? As long as the film was not in violation of any California obscenity laws, then, as far as I can tell, yes. That pretty much is what happens in the San Fernando Valley every day. > [@Roland Deschain](#): > > Maybe, this could be turned into a business (just for extra security all of the “actors” would pay the fee and fill out the paperwork to join the screen actors guild). Actually, you more or less need to apply to be invited to join the Screen Actors Guild, so what you pay them might just depend on whether they have lines. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-porn-stars-considered-prostitutes/283702/23 "2005-02-23T20:30:16Z")
Sorry to break with custom and zombify this thread, but this is pretty interesting stuff. > **[Prostitution Vigilante Hooked For Pimping](http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/prostitution-vigilante-hooked-pimping)** > > FEBRUARY 9--An Oklahoma man who has gained national exposure for his "video vigilante" campaign to expose street prostitution in his hometown was arrested yesterday for allegedly paying hookers to ens > [@](#): > > An Oklahoma man who has gained national exposure for his “video vigilante” campaign to expose street prostitution in his hometown was arrested yesterday for allegedly paying hookers to ensure that they serviced customers in an area where he could easily film the illicit trysts. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Bates is able to assert any First Amendment-related defenses. . . . and now back to our regularly scheduled programming. ---
**Author:** ![Nolies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/45deac/32.png) [@Nolies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nolies)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-porn-stars-considered-prostitutes/283702/24 "2005-02-23T20:56:18Z")
OSHA should put a stop to it. If you don’t swap bodily fluids you won’t get the work. What other so called profession can this happen in and the liberals not come a running screaming about work place conditions. If you worked at a hospital and they told you you must swap body fluids with someone to get the job, there would have a law suit filed on them so fast… It is prostiution to pay someone to have sex, whether you film it or not, or if you are the one who pays or not. This just illustrates how broken our judicial system is. It is not a justice system, it is just a system… The death and dying continue ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-porn-stars-considered-prostitutes/283702/25 "2005-02-23T21:02:41Z")
> [@Nolies](#): > > OSHA should put a stop to it. If you don’t swap bodily fluids you won’t get the work. Perfect example of a law that goes unenforced. > **[Safety in the Adult Film Industry](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/AdultFilmIndustry.html)** ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-porn-stars-considered-prostitutes/283702/26 "2005-02-23T21:12:17Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Perfect example of a law that goes unenforced. > > [Safety in the Adult Film Industry](http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/AdultFilmIndustry.html) :smack: Well not totally unenforced. [http://www.dir.ca.gov/DIRNews/2004/IR2004-10.html](http://www.dir.ca.gov/DIRNews/2004/IR2004-10.html) [http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/2004/LT040412.html](http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/2004/LT040412.html) ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-porn-stars-considered-prostitutes/283702/27 "2005-02-23T23:49:19Z")
Most jurisdictions don’t ban “prostitution” so much as “ **common** prostitution.” The difference is, a common prostitute will _do tha nasty_ with pretty much anybody with the money; this is not usually the case with porn stars, kept women or call girls. Basically, the law cracks down on someone who might _git it awn_ with you, but not with lawmakers or other gentryfolk. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-porn-stars-considered-prostitutes/283702/28 "2005-02-24T00:01:11Z")
> [@Nolies](#): > > This just illustrates how broken our judicial system is. It is not a justice system, it is just a system.( Yes, the American justice system is broken. But it’s not broken because porn is legal. It’s broken because prostitution, and all the other victimless crimes that only hurt those who engage in them, are illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-porn-stars-considered-prostitutes/283702/29 "2005-02-24T00:31:56Z")
I must confess I still don’t get it. Somebody is getting paid to have sex. Period. Why is gratification relevant as a definition of “lewdness”? I mean, money shots can’t happen without some degree of “gratification”; so the one getting paid to get the other off is comitting a “lewd act”, it would appear. It also appears no “lewd act” can trump the first amendment, so why can’t johns just film their patronage and distribute the recording as “art” so as to legally procure the services of a prostitute? This makes my head hurt. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-porn-stars-considered-prostitutes/283702/30 "2005-02-24T00:53:10Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > I must confess I still don’t get it. Somebody is getting paid to have sex. Period. Why is gratification relevant as a definition of “lewdness”? I mean, money shots can’t happen without some degree of “gratification”; so the one getting paid to get the other off is comitting a “lewd act”, it would appear. It also appears no “lewd act” can trump the first amendment, so why can’t johns just film their patronage and distribute the recording as “art” so as to legally procure the services of a prostitute? This makes my head hurt. You know, it makes my head hurt too. This one has been revived from the dead, debated in the wrong forum, politicized by members and Guests alike. Let’s bury it. I think the OP has been answered about as well as it can be. Closed. **samclem** GQ moderator [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-porn-stars-considered-prostitutes/283702.md?page=1)