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.
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.
So the important opinion is the state court’s opinion. O’Connor’s opinion is a technical one, dealing with an issue of justiciability.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
