Thank you. I always wondered how could they say that person engaging and filming could be covered. One could say they are a small company. That the law only help big business and prevents others from their freedom of expression and speech. Freedom of speech would also cover non filming because someone doing a play for private is covered for other entertainment.
I know they claim prostitution is illegal so you cannot do it. However, once you claim it is speech then it is not prostitution. It is simply hiring someone to preform with you. I know it is a spin on wording but it is wo4ding that usually determine if someone is guilty or not guilty. I had debates with professors at college on this. I kept telling them that they are looking at it with emotion. I said the law is not emotion. The law is fact, logic, and cold. This is what helps freedom. Otherwise you have someone that feels "triggered" and suddenly you are guilty of a crimeWhat would be the issue to schedule an acting porn shoot? You get a provider to act with you in a performance of sorts. These could be totally for private use. Also, what would be the d8fference if there were jo film but doing a live act? Is it because the video or act is not public? There should jot be an issue with the "boss" engaging because Gonzo has behind the scenes people engage.
As I said I know this was most likely asked and answered. It just seems there must be a way to combine the two while protecting privacy. I look at these things logically and from a true legal sense. If there is a law than there is a law and we focus on a change. However, I cannot see how a porn/provider type set up cannot be combined enough that it would help stop charges.
Does this make sense? It is late so I amy be totally incoherent.
In porn the customer who is getting sex isn't paying for it! Corporate Studio pays actors. Not an actor to other actor or disguised via a studio.
I actually was in Court last week on motions in the Phoenix Studio case from raid in 2014. Going to trial next week.
Gals all pled to felonies, owner has been in jail for about 3 years unable to post $100k bond.
The judge however is making a big point whether the "security cams" that shot Behind the scenes were known to and permited by the "actors" and went public for sale other than just recently as an excuse. So far the State is over looking who is paying who and defense has a very good private attorney.
I have extensive reporting on the legal details but probably can't link it here.
Thank you. I always wondered how could they say that person engaging and filming could be covered. One could say they are a small company. That the law only help big business and prevents others from their freedom of expression and speech. Freedom of speech would also cover non filming because someone doing a play for private is covered for other entertainment.
I know they claim prostitution is illegal so you cannot do it. However, once you claim it is speech then it is not prostitution. It is simply hiring someone to preform with you. I know it is a spin on wording but it is wo4ding that usually determine if someone is guilty or not guilty. I had debates with professors at college on this. I kept telling them that they are looking at it with emotion. I said the law is not emotion. The law is fact, logic, and cold. This is what helps freedom. Otherwise you have someone that feels "triggered" and suddenly you are guilty of a crime
Local business license.
Health inspections.
Mandatory insurances.
Taxes
See where this is going?
It is much simpler to just choose a good escort wisely, and relax
Yea those are good points. I also wondered what happen if a strip club changed the name of their VIP room to "Freedom of Speech Room". However, your points make sense as a person hiring you would be responsible for that. Unless the girls were independent agents you could hire.
Sorry if it is rambling. It is just that I cannot usually discuss this with folks outside of thus interest group.
My local community has required licensing for massage parlors, and for escorts. The rest of the list is included as part of the application and renewal process. HOWEVER, there is a section stating that if the person applying for the massage license or for the escort license has ever been arrested/convicted of prostitution or any sex crime in ANY STATE OR NATION, they are not eligible for a license. Many professional ladies cannot get the license, and to ply their trade without it is illegal in my city, and the gentleman who goes to get a "massage" from an unlicensed parlor is subject to prosecution.
Health inspections.
Mandatory insurances.
Taxes
See where this is going?
It is much simpler to just choose a good escort wisely, and relax
The Freedom of speech is a key issue both in the current Studio case and in the 9th Circuit challenge as it was in Lawrence v Texas.
Emotion vs law is why in my long Studio report from being in court I suggested if not dismissed and goes to a typical conservative mostly Christain Phoenix jury its probably 90% likely to convict. Would have a much better change with a bench trial. I also believe Phx Goddess Temple would have had far better odds if a bench trial vs guilty fast verdict from jury when in my view there was no "fee arrangement".
The 9th Circuit ESPLERP case will be decided by very experienced judges and probably are last hope on these legal issues vs emotin of juries.