? video taping for porno SNL skit i think

is it true its not considered prostitution if u video tape it, will video taping it be considered a porno?

If you're ever busted, just ask LE they'll let you know.

I think we should have a new rule in the legal forum: No lawyer will answer a hypothetical question unless the person who posted the question explains the PRACTICAL significance of the question. (This proposed rule may be a variation on the "don't feed the trolls" rule.) Too often I read questions here that have no basis in reality -- at least a reality based on what intelligent human life does on planet Earth.

SJ, is that new avatar your current "Sugar Boy"










just joking around....sure hope it isn't

SJ, is that new avatar your current "Sugar Boy"










just joking around....sure hope it isn't Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Nah, man! Tomorrow (Tues. 5-24-11) is Bob Fuckin' Dylan's 70th birthday!

is it true its not considered prostitution if u video tape it, will video taping it be considered a porno? Originally Posted by charliebrown

To clarify your question- first let's assume all parties are of legal age and know they are being videotaped. Then videotaping a sex act is not illegal when no money changes hands. But exchange of funds between persons for the express purpose of a direct sex act is prostitution and illegal in some form in almost all states. I think everyone knows where the exceptions are.

A short and brief answer to your question is that in every state except California the act of getting paid to perform a sex act is pretty much illegal under some state statute.

Somewhere in the 1980's, California passed a law that distinguished that actors getting paid to perform (even though it was a sex act) was not illegal. ( First Amendement rights, freedom of expression, etc) Small but important difference and it is not the same as the "john" paying for the sex act itself, which is prostitution.

The results being that is why all the porno-shops are in California. If you are interested, there are several books and in-depth articles that cover how it went from a very, underground industry to the open for-profit business that it has become. Several companies are even registered on the stock exchange.

And a little more information- the "Registration Information and Age Verification" that is shown on all Porno's is a direct result of the underage and ex-porn star who's name I will not mention.

Hope this helps.

i was just curious thanks. like to know weird things like that.

SJ lets all wish Robert Zimmerman a happy birthday he has made us all happy for many years.

Wonder why he still looks younger than I?

I believe The Pink Bull has nailed it. That question has been bandied about for years. Someone in Houston tried to use their reasoning about 3 years ago with no success.
Just because Texas Film Commission wants the world to think of Texas as the third coast does not mean we are moving out of the Bible Belt.

If Dylan Thomas were alive today he might change his name to Thomas Dylan to fit Americas greatest living poet. But everyone here knows the story of why he is Bob Dylan surly. Naw, don't call me
Shirley.

We need the tax money - come shoot in Cali! LOL.

And a little more information- the "Registration Information and Age Verification" that is shown on all Porno's is a direct result of the underage and ex-porn star who's name I will not mention.

Hope this helps. Originally Posted by jframe2

That would be a rock band, right? (Actually punk, or new wave, I think)

Ok, the reason I recently thought about this "idea" is due to the totally corrupt Family Guy...

(sorry that it's a foriegn site....all the you tubes cut off before it tells you who the message is brought to you from - which makes it even funnier to me)


http://patrz.pl/filmy/family-guy-its-not-prostitution


So, I guess I need to do more again since I'm returning as a provider after several years - to reaquaint myself with what the laws are and how to better cover my own ass....cuz no one else is gonna do it for me.


Ang

SJ, is that new avatar your current "Sugar Boy"










just joking around....sure hope it isn't Originally Posted by atlcomedy

No its where he got his Law degree

Pornography is protected by the first amendment, unless it is judged to be "obscene". The definition of obscene was determined by the Supreme Court in Miller v California.
Delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote,
The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

There is no federal law against making a pornographic movie. If any state wishes to create a law limiting the production of porn, they must do it in a way that does not infringe the First Amendment protection federally mandated. That's tough to do, but California took a shot at it, with disastrous results.

California v. Freeman was the criminal prosecution of Harold Freeman, a producer and director of pornographic films, by the U.S. state of California. Freeman was arrested in 1987 for hiring adult actors, which the prosecution interpreted as pimping, as part of an attempt by California to shut down the pornographic film industry. The prosecution's interpretation was ultimately rejected on appeal by the California Supreme Court. Prior to this decision, pornographic movies had often been shot in secret locations.

Freeman was initially convicted, and lost on appeal to the California Court of Appeal. Freeman appealed to the California Supreme Court, which subsequently overturned his conviction, finding that the California pandering statute was not intended to cover the hiring of actors who would be engaging in sexually explicit but non-obscene performances. Freeman could only have been lawfully convicted of pandering if he had paid the actors for the purpose of sexually gratifying himself or the actors. The court relied upon the language of the statute for this interpretation, as well as the need to avoid a conflict with the First Amendment right to free speech. The court viewed Freeman's conviction as "a somewhat transparent attempt at an 'end run' around the First Amendment and the state obscenity laws."
As a result of this precedent, the making of hardcore pornography has less chance of running into an over reaching prosecutor in California than other states.

In 2008, in the case of New Hampshire v. Theriault, the New Hampshire Supreme Court, citing Freeman, upheld the distinction between pornography production and prostitution in that state.

Here's a link to a news article about the New Hampshire v. Theriault case, which is closer to what is being discussed here.
Offer to tape sex nullifies conviction It's not prostitution but speech, court says
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...PAGE/812050304

So, you can make a pornographic movie in any state, as long as it is not "obscene", and California's attempt to get rid of their porn industry backfired, making it less likely that any attempt will be made to stop it again.
Each state has their own "blue" laws, but they have to be in line with the 1st amendment or it could backfire like in California.

If the producer joins the action, or indicates in any way that making the movie will be sexually gratifying to him personally, it's prostitution. If he indicates in any way that his intent is for any of the actors or crew to be sexually gratified, it's pandering.

Like my grandpa used to say, "Even a fish wouldn't get caught if he kept his mouth shut."