TheEnforcer
02-28-2006, 06:40 PM
Number three actually surprised the hell out of me. I've never gotten into the content biz so didn't have to explore the issue but I didn't think it was that restrictive as to doing hardcore shoots.
http://avnonline.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Editorial&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=232071
3. You can legally hire people to perform sex acts in photographs and motion pictures throughout the United States.
My clients and other persons seeking to enter the adult entertainment business are usually very surprised when I tell them that California is the only state in which persons can be legally hired to perform sexual acts for the purpose of creating photographic or motion picture works. They’re shocked to learn that the same explicit materials sold legally in “liberal” locations like New York, Chicago, and Las Vegas cannot be produced in those cities without the risk of prosecution for violation of state pandering or prostitution laws.
Under the laws of every state, the payment of money or other consideration for such sexual performances constitutes prostitution. Depending on the circumstances, the procurement of persons to perform in such works will constitute the crimes of pimping or pandering. So how are thousands of porn shoots legally conducted in California each year? The answer can be found in one case, People v. Freeman, 250 Cal.Rptr. 589 (Cal. 1988).
In the Freeman case, the California Supreme Court held that “in order to constitute prostitution, the money or other consideration must be paid for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.” 250 Cal.Rptr., at 600. The court characterized the payments made to the performers as “acting fees” and held that “there is no evidence that [ Freeman] paid the acting fees for the purposes of sexual arousal or gratification, his own or the actors.'” Id. Thus, the court held that Freeman “did not engage in either the requisite conduct nor did he have the requisite [intent] or purpose to establish procurement for purposes of prostitution.” Ibid. In fact, the court said that “even if [Freeman’s] conduct could somehow be found to come within the definition of ‘prostitution’ literally, the application of the pandering statute to the hiring of actors to perform in the production of a non-obscene motion picture would impinge unconstitutionally upon First Amendment values.” Ibid.
The California Supreme Court’s ruling paved the way for today’s multibillion-dollar international adult video industry centered in the San Fernando Valley. Unfortunately, so far no other state’s high court has adopted the California Supreme Court’s sound reasoning and the Freeman case is only legally binding law in California.
http://avnonline.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Editorial&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=232071
3. You can legally hire people to perform sex acts in photographs and motion pictures throughout the United States.
My clients and other persons seeking to enter the adult entertainment business are usually very surprised when I tell them that California is the only state in which persons can be legally hired to perform sexual acts for the purpose of creating photographic or motion picture works. They’re shocked to learn that the same explicit materials sold legally in “liberal” locations like New York, Chicago, and Las Vegas cannot be produced in those cities without the risk of prosecution for violation of state pandering or prostitution laws.
Under the laws of every state, the payment of money or other consideration for such sexual performances constitutes prostitution. Depending on the circumstances, the procurement of persons to perform in such works will constitute the crimes of pimping or pandering. So how are thousands of porn shoots legally conducted in California each year? The answer can be found in one case, People v. Freeman, 250 Cal.Rptr. 589 (Cal. 1988).
In the Freeman case, the California Supreme Court held that “in order to constitute prostitution, the money or other consideration must be paid for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.” 250 Cal.Rptr., at 600. The court characterized the payments made to the performers as “acting fees” and held that “there is no evidence that [ Freeman] paid the acting fees for the purposes of sexual arousal or gratification, his own or the actors.'” Id. Thus, the court held that Freeman “did not engage in either the requisite conduct nor did he have the requisite [intent] or purpose to establish procurement for purposes of prostitution.” Ibid. In fact, the court said that “even if [Freeman’s] conduct could somehow be found to come within the definition of ‘prostitution’ literally, the application of the pandering statute to the hiring of actors to perform in the production of a non-obscene motion picture would impinge unconstitutionally upon First Amendment values.” Ibid.
The California Supreme Court’s ruling paved the way for today’s multibillion-dollar international adult video industry centered in the San Fernando Valley. Unfortunately, so far no other state’s high court has adopted the California Supreme Court’s sound reasoning and the Freeman case is only legally binding law in California.