Bostonguy, I was being FACETIOUS... But here is a CNN article about just SUCH a court case....

This is a really great article!  Here's a small excerpt, but you folks should really read the whole thing!  

And Bostonguy, while I would hardly consider CNN to be the PREMIERE legal authority on such matters- if there is a PERSON behind the "accidentially malfunctioning" camera... and there is the "illusion" that both parties are "in it for the *MONEY*"... this article DOES imply that these factors render whatever else is going on within the law... That being said, my argument was of a more philosopical and sarcastic nature!


"Why court protects adult movies

It's almost certain that on its current precedents, the U.S. Supreme Court would hold that garden-variety pornographic actors are indeed engaged in First-Amendment-protected activity, so long as obscenity is not involved. Odd as it may seem, what appears finally to make all of the difference is the mode of gratification for the person who is paying but not himself seeking money.

The ultimate demand for pornography comes from the viewer of pornography, and what excites him is the watching of the adult film, rather than any physical act performed on him by another person. The "enjoyment" of pornography is therefore as "speech," rather than as action.

Though real sex occurred in the making of the pornographic film, this fact is only relevant insofar as it is known (or believed) by the viewer. If, for example, the entire film were created with highly realistic computer graphics, but the viewer believed that what he saw was real, then he would enjoy the material just as much.

Because the impact of pornography occurs through the mediation of an audience witnessing a performance, rather than an audience receiving physical services from a performer, pornography and its making qualify as First-Amendment protected speech.

Does this make sense? Consider again the significance of the sexual act: legal consequences can follow from it and it can, accordingly, be regulated by the law in a variety of ways. Though two people may very much want to have sex with each other in private, the law can intervene to say that they cannot, just because one of them seeks money and the other gratification, for example.

If, however, both members of the couple are in it for the money, and there is a man with a camera taping them, then the sex is insulated by the Constitution from legal regulation."

"a smart guy with a LOT of money"...?? How about a collective of smart LADIES...??

I tire of seeing almost every strip club, porn company, and legal brothel owned and opperated by MEN! In my more cynical moments I feel like guys like Dennis Hof (owner of the Moonlite Bunny Ranch a la HBO'S series "Cathouse"..)are in SOME ways legal "pimps"...!!

During World War II, the "ladies of the evening" in Honolulu faced increased police persecution and so they banded together and went on strike!  The military members stationed there made the gender ratio 500 men/1 woman...  The ladies in the Hotel District apparently saw arround 8,000 men per evening! The army, desperate to preserve morale, stepped in and negotiated with the local police to relax their enforcement...!! And history was made...

HOWEVER, I don't see the National Guard declaring "A Pussy Shortage State Of Emergency" any time soon... and lobbying on any of *OUR* behalves for national decriminalization... but hope springs eternal!