Prostitutes And Porn: 1st Amend. Protects Porn But Not Prostitutes? Absurd CA Supreme Court

STEVELACKNER.COM ^ | November 24, 2011 | Steven W. Lackner

[PieterCasparzen]

America is sliding down the slippery slope we started on when morality laws were abolished.

[goldstategop]

In the old days, it was clear. Obscenity has never received First Amendment protection. Pornographic matter has always fallen within that orbit and that’s why government can zone X-rated theaters and adult bookstores. There is no constitutional protection to promote, sell or distribute obscene matter.

[gman992]

What if there is a political message in it?

[gman992]

And who determines what is pornographic...there’s tons of incest and “begeting” in the Bible, but try to ban that, and people go nuts...

[Lou Budvis]

The true descendants of the Puritans of the Northeast are the Liberals of the Northeast - same desire to control aspects of peoples’ lives. The gov’t has no business telling consenting adults with whom they can have sex.

[nathanbedford]

We have laws against immorality since the 10 Commandments, somehow they seem not to have had the intended effect. I do not understand how the repeal of these blue laws has much of an effect either.

As I dictate this I can look out the window and see the steeple of the church in our little Bavarian village. The second biggest building in the village is the rectory which stands to the left of the church. After the war when Gen. Patton swept through here the Americans occupied this village and the rectory served as the American officers' Poof -bordello.

Today the building has reverted to its higher calling of service.

Prostitution has been legal here in Germany and regulated and it seems to be far less problematical than it is in hypocritical, puritanical America.

We do not need more blue laws but fewer.

We do not need more laws about morality but more morality.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

This is a very interesting article written from a legal perspective and exposing a legal conundrum - or at least an apparent contradiction.

Although I do not wish to step into the debate regarding “obscenity” what seems to be left out of it, in my opinion, is the following (which I freely admit are generalizations):

The “normal” prostitute on the street is often a victim herself. She is not engaged in this “business” as a positive choice, but rather does so under the control either of a pimp or at least a drug addiction. The manner in which law enforcement and society deal with such problems is a primary issue. In some countries the decriminalization of this “job” at least allows for a dramatic reduction in its hazards. Keeping it illegal and punishing the women (and sometimes men) of course does little to alter the core causes of the act. Naturally there will be a minority who happily and voluntarily sell themselves in this manner, but they are a small percentage of the total.

In pornography there is no doubt that many of the women, at least, are not wholly sound in their psychology. However the danger factors are not present and the line between “acting” and “prostitution” may be clear, but nevertheless a porn star still has more in common with an actress than with a street prostitute. To name a few, this includes “normal” hours, safe working conditions, contractually obligated payments and, if she is “talented” opportunities for advancement.

Naturally, as prefaced, none of this truly addresses the legal issues mentioned in the article - which were valid open questions. However just as the statement “obscenity is hard to define but you know it when you see it” is somehow acceptable. The reality that porn and prostitution are different follows the same train of thought.

Lastly, porn is a very big business in CA. To make it illegal would be a huge economic hit. That's the last thing they need right now.

[stevelackner]

And who determines what is pornographic?

If you look at the article I linked within this one, it tries explaining some of the background of the “obscenity” framework (within an illustrative framework). It shows that the federal judiciary has essentially declared that the vast majority of pornography, aside for the real fringe of that product, is not “obscene” and therefore, according to the Supreme Court, is protected by the First Amendment. In other words, the decision has largely already been made by the federal judiciary. That’s the whole point. The correct Constitutional approach would be to leave the decision as to what is obscene to local legislatures and juries. Again, see http://www.stevelackner.com/2011/05/right-constitutional-approach-to-first.html for more that is more directly applicable to that question.

[HiTech RedNeck]

It’s not a fair comparison to put religious teachings held to be received from God on the level of a public morality law that can be passed or rescinded at the whim of men.

German prostitutes may be savvy about avoiding venereal disease, but there has yet to be a condom that can be placed over your heart. It’s better to have high standards but fail to meet them, than absurdly low ones however easy.

[stevelackner]

What you point out are policy differences as to why prostitution *should* be illegal while prostitution should not. But here the issue being dealt with is the First Amendment, obscenity precedent, and a CA Supreme Court ruling. There is no true legal distinction between the two, as my article argues, they essentially criminalize the very same conduct. The fact is that within the State of California just over twenty years ago a case dealt with someone that was convicted for pornography under a prostitution statute. The Court specifically was dealing with arguments based on the First Amendment of the Constitution. I think your points may fare well with a particular legislator, but they don’t quite translate well when dealing with a legal principle announced in something as fundamental as the Constitution’s right to freedom of speech.

[John.Galt2012]

So lets think hypothetically for a moment. Let’s say you are a “adult film maker” and you decide to start a business where you could search for new talent. Complete discretion is afforded along with anonymity to wannabe male stars. They would have a private screening room with a stand alone camera recording the screening. A female “professional actress” would be provided. The wannabe male star would have to pay several hundred dollars for the screening. Following the act, the female actress and wannabe male star would review the video together and if it didn’t pass muster, it could be destroyed right then and there. If it was pretty good they could then take it to the “Director” to see if they had a promising future in the adult film industry. Would that be legal or illegal? Studio and business licenses already granted of course.

[knarf]

If Woody comes alive, it’s sexual ... if it’s without my wife, it’s porn.

[monocle]

Two women go to a bar to pick up a man for sex. One does it just for the sex and the other does it for money. What’s the difference?

[The KG9 Kid]

Things like this are why polygamist Mormons tend to leave Utah and go to live in the bordering states, safest place typically being here in Nevada. I don't see them all the time here, but I've surely seen them.

Heck, prostitution is legal in most of Nevada. How can you tell some guy he can't get married to multiple wives where hookers have been legal since before the Civil War?

[exnavy]

The Lord your God says "Let there be not even a hint of sexual immorality".

Any sex outside of the marriage bed is?

That this discussion is even taking place shows us all why this once great nation is about to crash and burn.

[Berlin_Freeper]

The idea of a civilized Christian society is to be well separated from living like wild animals.

The goal is and always has been, to build societal structures that encourages people to make and maintain stable families.

Where do you find all the dope addicts and prostitute filth?

In the alleyways and on the edge of town, the dark cracks and fringe of society.

Where the Liberaltarians want to take us.

[Cronos]

bluntly they should be banned.

[wiggen]

The first one gets a gift,maybe a lavish dinner. Just to muddle it further.

[monocle]

Has a raped woman sinned in your eyes? She must have sinned in terms of your query because your question “Any”. Are you implying that we should follow the muslims and stone rape victims?