Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo
seems to be a stretch.
not sure how an agent of an accused major criminal syndicate operating an organized online prostitution business charged with money laundering, pandering, prostitution, etc can be compared to an online adult biz operator, but hey you're the pornlaw guy.
|
Its not really a stretch. Here's some info on the Ray Guhn case in 2006... all those charges you just mentioned ... Ray Guhn was charged with them for operating CumOnHerFace.com in Florida.
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/26/St...en_charg.shtml
And here's a quote from an article written by Q. Boyer for YNOT.com on the Ray Guhn case that occurred in 2006.
Quote:
McCowen?s arraignment is scheduled for Friday, September 14th; however, as McCowen has already entered his plea, he will not actually appear in court on Friday, Walters says.
The question of whether paying porn performers is tantamount to prostitution is a question that has only been settled in the state of California. In People v. Freeman, the California Supreme Court held that pandering and prostitution laws cannot be employed by the government as a means to suppress the creation of erotic materials that are protected by the First Amendment.
The standard laid forth in People v. Freeman has not been adopted by other states, however, leaving the prostitution question very much open throughout the rest of the country.
?Sexual conduct filmed for a movie is simply not prostitution; where sexual activity is engaged in by paid performers for the purposes of being recorded on camera, and intended for a viewing audience, the legal analysis changes dramatically,? says Weston. ?In such instance, the government is precluded from using the prostitution laws, or similar back door censorship theories as a means of avoiding the First Amendment protection otherwise afforded to the creation of sexually oriented content.?
|
Same issue in AZ, shoe horning prostitution into creation of erotic material - there's a good First Amendment challenge to his charges.