4 ms·

Oddly enough, you can....if you film it. Porn actors don't work for free. I always thought that someone would recognize this and create a service where the gi

Oddly enough, you can....if you film it. Porn actors don't work for free. I always thought that someone would recognize this and create a service where the girls are available as "actresses" with boilerplate contracts etc to make the experience quick and easy. When done the video would be the property of the client, who could destroy it or keep it. All of it would be legal. I never built it because that isn't a business I really want to be involved in, but somebody should - even if only to highlight how arbitrary these laws are.

stcredzero 12y ago
There will be a few wrinkles, as there are local laws that apply to filming pornography. From what I've read, it's become difficult enough to make money in porn, that many porn actresses are basically using porn as a means of publicity to promote themselves as high priced prostitutes. It wouldn't surprise me if there was already a website as you describe.
- escortingadvice 12y ago
  More on porn stars becoming escorts: http://www.salon.com/2014/02/24/when_porn_stars_become_escorts_lucrative_new_trend_could_also_be_risky/ http://www.salon.com/2014/02/24/when_porn_stars_become_escor... http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/mindgeek_porn_monopoly_its_dominance_is_a_cautionary_tale_for_other_industries.html?wpsrc=fol_tw http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/... https://twitter.com/EscortingAdvice/status/559800979592192000 https://twitter.com/EscortingAdvice/status/55980097959219200...
- makomk 12y ago
  From what I've heard that's basically always been the case, it's just that porn actresses used to be a lot more secretive about it.
tsotha 12y ago
There are cities in Southern California who have used anti-prostitution statutes to arrest people doing porn. It's logical, IMO, if a bit irregular.
enjo 12y ago
So this is really interesting. I was curious about this awhile back and found this: https://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/why-is-prostitution-illegal-but-pornography-is-not/ https://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/why-is-prostitutio... So interestingly California is the only state in the union, at least as of 2008, where porn is strictly speaking legal. But note that the line of reasoning used to make it legal was that the person paying for the sex wasn't actually involved in the sex. So essentially you have a situation in which two adults engage in consensual sex and are paid by a third party for the performance. Now one fun question that arises: what about single person production? The guy who pays a woman to sleep with him while he films it. Such first person sites definitely exist. This leads to the second part which is a first amendment defense. Incidentally, I think this is where your scheme would fall apart. In order to qualify as "speech" I would imagine a court would require some external purpose for the performance. Typically that would be a commercial one (selling porn). Although I would imagine it could be an artistic one (displaying the video in a show of some kind). Or using the video in some form of protest. The point being that to qualify as speech you have to actually be speaking to someone. Simply making porn for your own amusement would fail that test, thus turning this into a more traditional prostitute/john relationship in the eyes of the court. The more interesting thing is that this apparently hasn't been challenged in other states. I suspect because most state governments either lack standing (people aren't making commercial porn in their state.. or at least haven't been caught doing it) or that they think they'd generally fail a first amendment challenge. I should also note I'm not a lawyer.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  But note that the line of reasoning used to make it legal was that the person paying for the sex wasn't actually involved in the sex. So essentially you have a situation in which two adults engage in consensual sex and are paid by a third party for the performance. What if there was a "registration fee" that went to the website, and it just so happened that this was more than the payment to both "film actors?" In order to qualify as "speech" I would imagine a court would require some external purpose for the performance. What if the website posted the video for members?
  - 12y ago
zaroth 12y ago
Somehow this idea of filming and legally documenting the act, not to mention the 1099 and tax implications... doesn't seem like the best approach. :-/
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

stcredzero 12y ago

There will be a few wrinkles, as there are local laws that apply to filming pornography. From what I've read, it's become difficult enough to make money in porn, that many porn actresses are basically using porn as a means of publicity to promote themselves as high priced prostitutes. It wouldn't surprise me if there was already a website as you describe.

escortingadvice 12y ago
More on porn stars becoming escorts: http://www.salon.com/2014/02/24/when_porn_stars_become_escorts_lucrative_new_trend_could_also_be_risky/ http://www.salon.com/2014/02/24/when_porn_stars_become_escor... http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/mindgeek_porn_monopoly_its_dominance_is_a_cautionary_tale_for_other_industries.html?wpsrc=fol_tw http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/... https://twitter.com/EscortingAdvice/status/559800979592192000 https://twitter.com/EscortingAdvice/status/55980097959219200...
makomk 12y ago
From what I've heard that's basically always been the case, it's just that porn actresses used to be a lot more secretive about it.

tsotha 12y ago

There are cities in Southern California who have used anti-prostitution statutes to arrest people doing porn. It's logical, IMO, if a bit irregular.

enjo 12y ago

So this is really interesting. I was curious about this awhile back and found this: https://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/why-is-prostitution-illegal-but-pornography-is-not/ https://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/why-is-prostitutio... So interestingly California is the only state in the union, at least as of 2008, where porn is strictly speaking legal. But note that the line of reasoning used to make it legal was that the person paying for the sex wasn't actually involved in the sex. So essentially you have a situation in which two adults engage in consensual sex and are paid by a third party for the performance. Now one fun question that arises: what about single person production? The guy who pays a woman to sleep with him while he films it. Such first person sites definitely exist. This leads to the second part which is a first amendment defense. Incidentally, I think this is where your scheme would fall apart. In order to qualify as "speech" I would imagine a court would require some external purpose for the performance. Typically that would be a commercial one (selling porn). Although I would imagine it could be an artistic one (displaying the video in a show of some kind). Or using the video in some form of protest. The point being that to qualify as speech you have to actually be speaking to someone. Simply making porn for your own amusement would fail that test, thus turning this into a more traditional prostitute/john relationship in the eyes of the court. The more interesting thing is that this apparently hasn't been challenged in other states. I suspect because most state governments either lack standing (people aren't making commercial porn in their state.. or at least haven't been caught doing it) or that they think they'd generally fail a first amendment challenge. I should also note I'm not a lawyer.

stcredzero 12y ago
But note that the line of reasoning used to make it legal was that the person paying for the sex wasn't actually involved in the sex. So essentially you have a situation in which two adults engage in consensual sex and are paid by a third party for the performance. What if there was a "registration fee" that went to the website, and it just so happened that this was more than the payment to both "film actors?" In order to qualify as "speech" I would imagine a court would require some external purpose for the performance. What if the website posted the video for members?
- 12y ago

zaroth 12y ago

Somehow this idea of filming and legally documenting the act, not to mention the 1099 and tax implications... doesn't seem like the best approach. :-/

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]