On the face of it the participants recieve money for sex.  What's the legal argument that makes this legit where the obcenity laws allow the manufacture of such films?

Try the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  It's called freedom of speech.  

-- Modified on 7/15/2003 10:45:12 AM

as long as I tape or record my session with a provider, I am constitutionally protected???

I'm not a lawyer, and even I know that.  This topic has been discussed in this forum ad nauseum.  If you are in the business of selling the recordings, then that is protected speech.  Otherwise, no, you are just recording an illegal act, which is probably not a good idea.

Wanna buy some tapes???????????

Prostitution:  exchange of lewd acts for $$$ whereby both participants the "seller" and/or "buyer" derive pleasure from such an arrangement.

Adult film:  Two participants "actors"  are paid by a THIRD party to "perform" in a scene.  Since they are "actors" neither is supposed to derive pleasure.  The 1st amendment argument holds more water though as the "film" can be classified as performance art.

Well.... Producers today also write, direct and act... so.. It would appear if one went to the trouble to set it up it might work?

Plus there's the possibility you make a killing doing 'Blair Witch style Porn'  

No "pleasure" is required by either party; consideration for conduct is all that's required.

Then why did this couple get charged with prostitution when they were hired by a third party?

Performing a sexual act as part of an artistic or educational performance is protected by the first ammendment--as long as it's not deemed "obscene." That's why "legitimate' pornographers are not often prosecuted, and usually avoid conviction when they are. For years in NY, arrests of performers in topless (and bottomless) bars were inneffective because of the first ammendment.( NY effectively closed down these bars when with a civil law which forbade bottomless performance where alcohol was sold--but that law seemed to lead the way to lap dance establishments.)

However, if the so-called performance is a mere pretense, it won't protect the participants from prosecution. (The same reasoning applies when the IRS dissalows a tax shelter because its only reason for existence is to avoid taxes, like interest payments on non-recourse loans.) In the case mentioned here of the Wahls, who prfessed to be sexual educators, remember that they've only been arrested, not convicted--little can stop overzealous LE from arre3sting folks. But the likelihood is that charges against them will be dismissed, thanks to the 1st ammendment. Equally interesting was that the Wahls started to have sexual relations behore police stopped them. This means that the police are likely to have committed some prostitution related crime of their own.