Porn movie vs Prositution

Just had this thought while going through another thread on prostitution sting by LE..
May be if there is a legal expert around here I would like to hear his opinion..

why is acting in/making porn not illegal but prostitution is..? (I could be wrong and making porn is illegal as well. if so pls. correct me)
Even there money is being paid to a woman to have sex with a man.
Ok the male actor is also paid by the porn movie maker but that would make the male actor a prostitute as well right?
So what makes it legal?
a)Does all porn movie makers have to register with the government and that makes them legal..?
b) because both parties are paid by a third party to perform the act?
c)because they are supposedly "acting" in a movie and the act is being taped and sold to the public?

I think porn may be exempt from many things due to the courts ruling that it falls under art.

In the 70s and early 80s the producers were often arrested for pandering.

Some aspects are still illegal. Some are not. But the argument is that the payment is for "acting" not sex.

Some aspects are still illegal. Some are not. But the argument is that the payment is for "acting" not sex. Originally Posted by hotlips_houlihan

That's just too easy.. isn't it.. i can just bring in a cam for the session and if busted by LE can claim we were making porn movie.. i paid the girl just for acting..

And she was . . .

Here are some of the reason(s) I have heard:

A. Mst Americans think prostitution is immoral from a religious standpoint.
B. it would posiibly weaken the instution of marriage
C. Generally where prostitution is legal crime thrives.
D. maybe because it would empower women
E. Government can't tax it and thereby Big Brother can't make money from it.
F. Many say because it spreads HIV/STD's (even though Prostitution has been around longer than hIV or STDS that we know of).
It may sound hyprocritical but I think the main reason is the govt can't tax it- people who make porn pay taxes- everyone from the video distributor to the actors pay taxes- I think all the other reasons are B.S- take a look at the Brotherls aka Bunny ranch in Nevada- everything is safe- the Ladies don't have pimps and you don't hear about STD's, but since we were founded on Puritan principles people will always point a finger of how immoral it is.

I've heard that all porn made in the U.S. is done either in California or Florida. Apparently, the laws in both states are much less restrictive.

So what makes it legal?
a)Does all porn movie makers have to register with the government and that makes them legal..?
b) because both parties are paid by a third party to perform the act?
c)because they are supposedly "acting" in a movie and the act is being taped and sold to the public? Originally Posted by gregory_m2003

(a) may be true -- I'm not sure -- but since you're asking why, the best answer is "none of the above." (Prostitution laws typically do not differentiate between who pays -- it can be the lady, and for that matter even someone who does not participate -- and do not have an exception for it being filmed. Texas statutes are here.)

See [ame="http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=56954&postcount =12"]here[/ame] for more details.

And before someone asks, no, this is not a way for an end-run around the prostitution laws. Even if it were worth the time, money, and public exposure of fighting it in court, you would lose. A jury would have no reasonable doubt about what was going on, regardless of what your or the lady said or whether there was a videorecorder in the room.

Most of us typically think of prostitution as involving a customer who pays a prostitute for providing sexual services. We view that pornography, by contrast, involves a customer paying an actor for providing sexual services to another actor.

In other words, prostitution is generally understood as the bilateral trading of sex for money, while pornography involves the customer of an adult film paying money to watch other people have sex with each other, while receiving no sexual favors himself in return.

Most distributors of pornography would express shock at the prospect of being prosecuted for promoting prostitution. Under Miller v. California, as long as a work, taken as a whole, has "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value," the First Amendment protects its distribution. Given this legal principle, pornography is not considered criminal, in the way that prostitution is.

It's kind of along the lines that it is illegal for 2 individuals to sell or buy drugs from each other, but it is not illegal for someone to film 2 individuals pretending to sell drugs to each other.

It's a fine line, but case law has determined that it is protected under free speech.

In other words, prostitution is generally understood as the bilateral trading of sex for money, while pornography involves the customer of an adult film paying money to watch other people have sex with each other, while receiving no sexual favors himself in return. Originally Posted by BushDrummer

This is a distinction between buying/viewing porn and making porn. In the former there is at best an attenuated relationship between the ultimate customer and the parties who actually engaged in sex. In the latter, the producer is in fact paying someone to perform sexual services. So buying/viewing porn is a fairly easy call, while making porn is more difficult -- at least, outside of California.

Thanks Chevalier for the details and links.. very informative..

So buying/viewing porn is a fairly easy call, while making porn is more difficult -- at least, outside of California. Originally Posted by Chevalier

Oh I agree totally, only in CA or FL can you advertise in the local paper for erotic modeling and encounter no major issues. But even they take that part somewhat underground by the actors and actresses signing up with modeling agencies and they (the agencies) handle the connection between videographers and models.
I have a 3rd cousin who was a big star in the 90's. She's now in the "mature" category which also does quite well. Of course these days, whatever your fetish, it's covered. If you want to see tatooed midgets spanking and peeing on shaved grandmothers while wearing leather female lingerie in a car wash, there's a web-site for that.

If you want to see tatooed midgets spanking and peeing on shaved grandmothers while wearing leather female lingerie in a car wash, there's a web-site for that. Originally Posted by BushDrummer

Please, for the love of God, don't share the link with us. *shudder*





(Just kidding. My apologies to any readers who enjoy that particular fetish.)

"I've heard that all porn made in the U.S. is done either in California or Florida."

Maybe "mainstream studio" porn is mainly shot there, but the product for companies like Home Grown (homegrownvideo.com) is produced all over the place – a lot of it here in Dallas. The advent of cheap HD cameras has made it easy to produce high-quality product in a low-key location - but at the same time, the glut of product has driven the prices offered for finished product way down. Also, free sites like RedTube and Tube8 have already caused DVD sales to be cut in half, so revenue is not growing - at least in rentals.

In Section 2257/Chapter 110/Part 1/Title 18 of the U.S. Code, the people appearing in porn films are specifically referred to "as performers" - the feds seem to differentiate that from prostitution for some reason. I asked a person I met who works at one of the big adult distributors how often the Feds come in and peruse their records on actors ages, etc. - she said "So far, never."

I thought that was interesting.

Is it the actual soliciting that makes it illegal? Really, just a thought and a real question.

I did't read the link so if the answer is in there then I apologize in advance for my laziness