Posted April 23, 2015 I wish things could be easier for us girls. http://nationalreport.net/prostitution-temporarily-legalized-new-york-following-court-ruling/ 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 23, 2015 "...while a second woman described her acts as ?interactive pornography,? which makes her not a prostitute, but an ?actress.? I've had this thought before. How stupid is it that it's legal if you make a video of it? I think I should start a "Star in Your Own Porno!" production company. You pay to make a porn video with a girl and we put it on a web site. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 24, 2015 Story is a fake. There is no "Judge Kevin Knowles" in New York, and the "National Report" is a fake news site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Report 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 24, 2015 LOL, that was pretty funny. I've never heard of National Report -- but it reminds me of The Onion which does similar political satire. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 25, 2015 Story is a fake. There is no "Judge Kevin Knowles" in New York, and the "National Report" is a fake news site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Report I would have never guessed it was fake. How did you verify that? I would like to be able to verify that next time i read something like that. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 25, 2015 I would have never guessed it was fake. How did you verify that? I would like to be able to verify that next time i read something like that. Disclaimer https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CBMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnationalreport.net%2Fdisclaimer%2F&ei=6aY7VbHNCsmyogTA3IGoDg&usg=AFQjCNHIQzukUVYri0ENXvmAQKzlygMdjw&sig2=MouazBH3baTrRUr9jhMjow Kinda comes back to the joke; "I read it on the Internet so it must be True".... 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 25, 2015 "...while a second woman described her acts as ?interactive pornography,? which makes her not a prostitute, but an ?actress.? I've had this thought before. How stupid is it that it's legal if you make a video of it? I think I should start a "Star in Your Own Porno!" production company. You pay to make a porn video with a girl and we put it on a web site. Sorry for this thread hijack, but what needs to be pointed out here is that you are now talking about "The Hal Freeman Act" that was passed in the 1980s that made the making of pornography legal.Prior to this, it was legal to distribute and sell porn, but not to shoot it. You have fallen into the trap of misconception of the law. One cannot simply whip out a camera and make a video of a session in order to make that session legal. Instead, one has to go through a number of regulations,ranging from current HIV/STD tests to having a shooting permit to having a business license, model releases etc etc etc. Now, back to your regular thread. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 25, 2015 You have fallen into the trap of misconception of the law. One cannot simply whip out a camera and make a video of a session in order to make that session legal. Um. It was a joke. I'm not really planning to quit my job to make porn movies. But it does point out something ironic. It's legal to pay porn actors to have sex, but it's not legal to pay prostitutes to have sex. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 25, 2015 Actually it was the California Supreme Court decision in Peolpe v. Freeman that determined paying actors to engage in sex acts in films was protected by the First Amendment. Similar ruling in New Hampshire. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 25, 2015 it does point out something ironic. It's legal to pay porn actors to have sex, but it's not legal to pay prostitutes to have sex. As "buffalosoldier " pointed out, paying actors to perform a sex scene in a film is protected by the 1st amendment. Paying prostitutes..isn't. Why you insist on confusing the two is mindboggling. Sugest you google and read The Hal Freeman Act. aka California Supreme Court vs Freeeman. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 25, 2015 As "buffalosoldier " pointed out, paying actors to perform a sex scene in a film is protected by the 1st amendment. Paying prostitutes..isn't. Why you insist on confusing the two is mindboggling. Sugest you google and read The Hal Freeman Act. aka California Supreme Court vs Freeeman. That's why they call me the Mindeboggler. Or maybe your mind is just easily boggled. Whatever passes the time. I'll go read the... wow, you seen how long that is? I'll pass. But thanks for the great suggestion. If you want to spend a few hundred hours reading case law, look up some of the stuff that has been protected as "speech". Then tell me again how mind boggling it is that I think sex could easily fit the definition. Mind boggling? Really? I'm gobsmacked that you would say that! 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 26, 2015 I'll go read the... wow, you seen how long that is? I'll pass. But thanks for the great suggestion. Yes, I'm very aware of it. I knew Hal Freeman and ,as a mild mannered reporter for The Rocky Mountain Oyster ( and a couple other rags ) ,covered his entire case from day one to the California Supreme Court decision that led to the making of porn becoming legal. Too bad you decided to pass on reading it.But...thats your choice. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) what is mind boggling is that citizens are still being prosecuted and jailed for violations of obscenity laws on the books. http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Ninth-Circuit-Panel-Hears-Ira-Isaacs-Obscenity-Appeal-551299.html Porn is presumptively protected by the First Amendment but if it is determined to be obscene you can go to jail for it under both state and federal law. It is also mind boggling that dildoes are still illegal in several states and were in Colorado until 1985. Edited April 28, 2015 by buffalosoldier spelling 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 28, 2015 4 years for obscenity conviction. Appeal denied. http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Ninth-Circuit-Panel-Rejects-Isaacs-Appeal-553215.html 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
