Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DamageX
"The cops are claiming that paying people to perform sexually on camera is prostitution."
Just curious if where people have sex, when paid, matters. On or off camera, they're still getting paid to fuck and they do it for the money.
|
Ask an attorney about the implications of the case
People v. Freeman AKA
California v. Freeman.
In the case, the California Supreme Court held (among other things) that "in order to constitute prostitution, the money or other consideration must be paid for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification."
No state other than California has adopted the precedent set by the ruling in this case. The US Supreme Court denied cert when the state of California appealed the ruling, leaving it (for now) an open question throughout everywhere in the country other than California.
That said, seems to me that the CA precedent certainly can't hurt the defense in the FL case.
You can 'blame' the defendants in the case if you wish, but i think a fair question in response to tony404's question is "why would you produce porn anywhere outside the state of California?"
The answer, IMO, to both questions is the same: "I believe I have a Constitutional right to create material that is presumed to be protected by the First Amendment, regardless of where I live, and I am willing to fight for that right in court, if need be."
- Q.