Is it possible some people are confounding “obscenity” laws with “child porn” laws? I think adults cannot portray minors having sex, not because it makes it “child porn,” but because it makes it “obscene.”
I cannot imagine any jury anywhere not being disgusted by a movie that has an adult claiming to be a 10-year-old girl getting gang banged by 5 adult men. (I don’t think anyone goes to prison for it, but the distributor gets fined.)
IIRC, paying anyone to perform a sex act on anyone IS prostitution in most states, which is why only a few states have porn industries. But in Cali (FL, NY?) it’s “acting” not “prostitution” as long as the person making it (producer?, director?) is not deriving sexual gratification. (You couldn’t, for example, pick up Julia Roberts on Hollywood Blvd and tape your own encounter then claim: we were just acting, no prostitution here.)
Once the movie’s made in CA, no laws in, say, Michigan, were broken and distribution in Michigan is governed only by obscenity laws, NOT prostitution laws.
Also, age of consent laws are not linked to child porn laws in all states. In Michigan, age of consent is 16. But if two 16-year-olds tape themselves; they’ve committed the serious felony of creating child pornography. (IANAL, but I think we call it “child abusive materials” or something.) Moreover, if they show a photo or video of themselves to someone, it’s distribution, and those who receive it, in a text, let’s say, are in possession.
