Here's the deal. Reading the Law Journal as I'm wont to do (usually while bored sitting in my boss' office waiting for her to get off the damn phone) I stumbled across this little tidbit in yesterday's news:
A Manhattan judge has enunciated the legal distinction between prostitution and paying someone to participate in sexual activity to make a pornographic film.
I'm sorry...what?! Here's the deal. A woman in Manhattan's upper east side was on trial for running - I'm sorry, allegedly running a prostitution ring. Multimillion dollar ring, I might add {waggling the finger at some of you}. Her defense came up with what i'd call an absolutely brilliant strategy: that "'no legal distinction' existed between a man who paid for sexual activity to be performed on him and a nonparticipating third party who paid for an actor to participate in sexual activity, because both involved the essential elements of prostitution: sexual activity in exchange for a fee".
Wow. And why hasn't this come up before?
Think about it. Why is prostitution illegal, but pornography a big business - and legal? Seriously folks, is there a difference? In each case, you're paying for sex. Show me the money, honey! The only real question might be who the recipient is, of that sex.
This was the judge's ruling:
Penal Law §230.00 defines a prostitute as one "who engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee." The word "fee," Goodman wrote, represents the key to distinguishing prostitution from paying someone to perform sexual activity in making pornography.
The "fair import" of the word "fee" is "payment in return for professional services rendered," Goodman wrote, quoting People v. Block, 337 NYS2d 153.
"Because the definition of prostitution is generally confined to a bilateral exchange between only two parties, escort services and 'Goliath' corporations are not similarly situated," he concluded.
The "court concludes [that] because the pornographic motion picture industry has flourished without prosecution since its infancy, that industry was not intended to be covered," Goodman wrote. "If it had meant to be covered, the legislature would have taken up the matter long ago."
Wowzers. So because the law didn't specifically cover pornography, and because the legislature hasn't done anything about it yet...it isn't illegal.
Now...I'm not even remotely suggesting that pornography should be illegal. Cuz I have enough problems with the RIAA, I sure as hell don't need the Feds busting down my door because of my porn library!
But...does this even make sense?
He goes on to rationalize his decision even further:
Now...if person C ponies up the cash for person B to have sex with person A, and watches it...that isn't prostitution, if person B is getting paid to have sex with A? Are you telling me that the only real distinction, according to this court, is that I can't be the beneficiary of the transaction?
Prostitution, as traditionally defined, requires person A paying person B for sexual activity to be performed on A.
Pornography, on the other hand, involves person C paying B for sexual activity performed on A.
Well hells bells, man. Can you see the buddy system kicking into full gear after that decision? "You spot me this week, I'll spot you next!" The term wingman takes on brand new life! If A pays B to have sex with C, and it isn't illegal - it's porn, because they're going to FILM it...wow. Talk about having your cake and eat it too!
It'll be like going on one of those rides at Disneyland, where they take a picture of you screaming after a big drop. Your buddy pays, you get to ride, pick up your video on the way out. Have a nice day!
It isn't prostitution. It's pornography.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment