There are actors who own the film and are the whole company so they are paying the actors



 

Pornographic Industrial Complex

This is an example of very poor legal reasoning. The article gives this example:

"For clarification, let us take an example from another area of criminal law. Doug the drug-dealer sells Carl the customer eight ounces of marijuana. Both Doug and Carl are guilty of (different) criminal acts for having engaged in this illicit transaction. Assume that there is an audience for such transactions on reality television (all rights reserved). In anticipation of this audience, Fiona the filmmaker pays Doug and Carl to permit her to tape them carrying out their business.

Has Fiona done anything illegal? No, but neither has her First-Amendment-protected act of filming and distributing her recording altered the illegal character of Doug's and Carl's conduct. Doug and Carl may still be prosecuted for engaging in a drug transaction, despite the fact that Fiona may not be prosecuted for taping it or showing the tape."

It is true that Fiona may not be prosecuted for taping it or showing the tape. However, she may be prosecuted for Misprision of Felony where drug sales are felonious and the crime of Misprision exists. More relevantly, because she has arranged the drug transaction, she is a principal to both the sale and the purchase and can be prosecuted for both offenses.

The article's statement that "Because the impact of pornography occurs through the mediation of an audience witnessing a performance, rather than an audience receiving physical services from a performer, pornography and its making qualify as First-Amendment protected speech" is nonsense. Performer A is paid to have sex with B (prostitution) and B to have sex with A (prostitution). A non-obscene pornographic film is protected by the 1st Am. A crime inherent in making the protected film is not immunized. The conclusion, "If, however, both members of the couple are in it for the money, and there is a man with a camera taping them, then the sex is insulated by the Constitution from legal regulation" is simply false. If one sex partner is in it for the money, it's a crime; if both are in it for the money, it's still a crime. The cameraman makes no difference.

The legal opinion adverted to in the article is (a) wrong and (b) not binding on any court anywhere, including the court that issued it.

It is all about the money.

So if in some states it is illegal to make porn movies. What about when a husband and wife make their own movie. In a state where making porn is illegal?

Would need said video evidence to determine guilt.

 

The best darn industrial complex there is.

Whoring is legal in Nevada.

This.  There are only a couple of places in the country where it's legal to make porn, at least as a business.

Or don't get their envelope for the month



 

In some states it's illegal to film a girl naked but legal to have sex with her. Go figure.



 

From 1967:

but honestly we are the land of the free

you know

NFA and prostitution

man big brother sure knows how to ruin the party

First post.

In porn, they sign a paper, or something.

Paperwork makes it legal.

define "pornography"



whatever definition is used it's subjective

seems pretty simple: "i was not paying someone to have sex with me.  i was making a piece of artwork about sensuality between two people, and that obviously requires a second actor.  so i was paying someone to act the role."

EDIT:  Holy crap, fast topic.  Answered above in greater detail.





 

It's from a combination of those who like to crank out as many laws as possible and those who just can't keep from trying to tell other people what to do.

Believe it or not, those two are actually different things.   The former just wants things to bust you for and doesn't really care what it is.

The real question is not why is porn legal, but prostitution is not.

The real question is why is prostitution illegal but formication is not? What difference does it make if I buy a girl an expensive dinner or jewelry because shell have sex with me or simply give her the cash I would have spent on those things?

What I want to know is, if prostitution was legal, and Walmart got into the business of selling pussy, would all of their whores be from China?

Made by kids in sweat shops.

Before I went to Afghanistan some fat woman who was somehow a senior NCO stood up in front of an infantry battalion and said that porn was not allowed in theater. This was reiterated several times. Cracked me up, I didn't take a laptop with a full hard drive plus a full external drive to play video games in my staggering amount of free time.

Also learned real quick to use software to convert my pr0n to mp4 so I could load it up on my iphone. There's just no way to be subtle about taking a laptop into a portashitter.

Even if you don't like the idea of prostitution you should want it legalized to protect the women who choose that path.  Safer for them, condoms could be made mandatory to reduce disease, it would keep it in a confined area, and would help reduce underage age sex workers.

Why do men pay for cam whores to get naked, but if you flash a gal for free on Omegle, she hangs up? It's a crazy, mixed up world.

 

This is the icky side of conservatism;

If prostitution was legal to do, with the exception that it only be performed in a bordello with all employees remaining inside said building during the duration of their shift, it would make the streets cleaner, the practice safer for the people engaging in it, and the local and state govt could scrape a little off the top in taxes.

When you legislate morality, you don't keep people from doing anything, you simply criminalize the act and the actor.

Prostitution is illegal because women want to suppress the competition so they can get more for their services, i.e., marriage.



 

It is illegal to pay someone to engage in a sexual act. If the depiction did not involve actual sex, you'd be right.

i believe making pornography is illegal in some places in the states just as prostitution is legal in other places in the states

go NV!

More proof that those who are anti porn are unpatriotic.

Plus, this is another example of why the American citizenry trust the military more than the po-lice. The soldiery is comprised, for the most part, of normal, horny guys who like porn and want to kill the enemy. Cops, on the other hand, don't give a fuck about porn. You ARE the enemy. They just want to kill your dog and beat your ass in an effort to get on TV and then brag to their crooked buddies about it.

iPhone didn't exist for me. Had to use my iPod.



 

why not?

Because Liberals need to control everything.

Probably something to do with not wanting a published market value on such things.

I dont know OP, lets ask him.

you can't get teh syphs from pron.

The underlying sex act is not criminal, being paid for it is what is prohibited.  The underlying drug transaction is a crime even if no money changes hands.

Guys been asking that question in one form or another for a long time



 

Just the modern equivalent to as news paper, guilty mind made it seem dirty LOL



 

How in the hell do you enforce the use of condoms?



 

Same way you enforce standards on other businesses.  Inspections and laws.

Didn't you hear, pimps will just quit and get jobs at McDonalds?



 

Inspections while the act is going on huh?

Laws don't work unless the parties are law abiding to begin with.



 

Correct, but so what? It is illegal for you to pay a whore for me. It is illegal for you to pay two whores to put on a show for you. It is illegal for you to pay a man and a woman to have sex for your amusement. They are all acts of prostitution.Each of the people paid to engage in sex is guilty of prostitution and the person paying them is guilty of prostitution as a principal and/or of procurement.  Filming the acts doesn't change that.