What is the legal distinction between porn and prostitution?

Why does the presence of a camera make porn legal? Why does the absence of a camera make prostitution illegal?

Setting aside the privacy issues and preferences of the provider, would bringing a camera to a session make it legal?

Could providers hypothetically advertise as "create a porno with me" (or something along those lines with catchier phrasing) to make it legal?

Along the same lines, could a hobbyist claim he wants to "audition" a provider for a role in porn and pay her for her time?

Why do hotdogs come in packages of 8 and hotdog buns come in packages of 10?

(kidding about the last one)

Just plopping a camera in front of a pair of people who are fornicating doth not make you a pornographer.

To justify such a defense, you would have to show that you have and continue to work in the field and that you have business dealings that involve making an income through pornography, e.g. web contacts and other videos currently in circulation, etc.

Even if you did manage to prove the above, you then become vulnerable to all sorts of legal restrictions placed on a business such as having a license, zoning ordinances, labor laws, taxes, etc.

The legal ramifications from the latter could well dwarf those related to prostitution.

So, don't go down this road.  Stick to safe and well reviewed providers to avoid hassle with LE and the government.

(still not a lawyer)

Producing pornography is not legal in all states.  Also, in states where it is legal there are permits and paper work that must be taken care of.  For one thing the real names of the performers as well as documentation that they are of legal age must be on file.

Hobbyists are guys who pay for sex. That's illegal. Putting a camera in the room or making up a story won't save your ass.  It's much easier to simply exercise the appropriate caution in your selection process than it is to try and make up stories after the hand cuffs come out...

The difference is because a porn star is paid to act!

But this makes not sense to me either.. Welcome to goverment!

But why not? I'm not trying to be difficult, but has this ever been tested in court? Have states ever attempted to codify the difference?

I don't even know the government's rationale for outlawing prostitution in the first place. Why is it that having sex with another consenting adult is legal... but only if money does NOT change hands? Why should the transfer of money suddenly make it illegal? And what so special about money? If I go on a date, and spend 300 dollars on a dinner, wine, movie, etc and there is sex at the end of it, that's fine. But if instead I were to give 3 Bennies to a provider and then we have sex, that's illegal. Every guy who's having sex is paying for it one way or another. Dinner, wine, movies, diamonds, cars, clothes, time, stress, etc are the price most guys pay, and most civie women charge a lot more than providers charge. It seems very hypocritical to me.

As for things like zoning, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like porn scenes are shot inside people's homes all the time. The only easily defined difference between porn and prostitution is the presence of a camera. In every other way, it seems easy to side step: since when is there a legal requirement for a business to be profitable? Or have lots of customers? Who says I have to distribute over the net? And even if I do, who's to tell me what price I set? I could charge 10 billion dollars a scene.

I know what you're saying regarding well reviewed ladies, but they also screen hobbyists. Granted screening is there to also ensure that a given hobbyist is not a danger, but it's also there to make sure that they don't get busted. It would be so much easier if providers didn't have to talk around issues, didn't have to use code, etc.

I appreciate the reply, and normally I wouldn't ask so many questions, but this is the Legal Corner, and it seems like the right place to ask these sorts of questions.

Shooting Porn is only legal in CA based on a very old court decision.

And strict requirements in CA - member of an recognized actors guild, known producer etc.

In AZ bring your camera and shoot yourself doing porn with gal is an easy prostuttion charge and if more than one person is a criminal enterprise.

Prostitution is sex for pay while pornographic films are films of people having sex. The reason films are not prostitution is because although the actors are paid, the person paying them is not getting sexual gratification from their performance and the players are not paying for the gratification they may receive. I add the following from one of my previous answers,

"In the state of Califpoornia, it is both legal to produce and distribute pornographic *  films based on the Freeman cases, that permitted the hiring of an actor to have sex on the screen. As this was a California decision, it applies only to that state and remains the only state where such activity is legal. Other states may join and New Hampshire has been suggested. One would think other states such as New York and Nevada would be ripe as well. None the less, pornography is legal in many foreign countries.

As  for internet porn, the Supreme Court, in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) stated "indecent transmission" and "patently offensive display" provisions were ruled to limit the freedom of speech guarantee of the First Amendment leaving  the internet porn industry an open door that some states have tried to close unsuccessfully. So at this time you can operate a site unless changes occur in the newly specialized field of internet law.
* by pornographic we are referring to the  run of the mill fuck and suck films, not child porno which is illegal almost everywhere"

The defense of a prostitution charge by claiming it was a filming when the film maker had his cock in the actress's vagina has been tried and failed in court more than once.


-- Modified on 1/20/2012 6:38:33 AM

Believe me, you are preaching to the choir, but as others have pointed out, courts have narrowly ruled on what can and can not be done porno-wise, and to use the porno defense is just not going to fly.

Besides, who wants to go through all the hassle of taking it up the the Supreme Court (Not that it would ever get there in all probability.) just to get your rocks off when there is a much easier way to go about things?

George Carlin also used to lament saying: (paraphrased) Sex is legal, buying stuff is legal, why aren't the two put together legal?

Indeed, why not?