18 March 18, 2013
“Pay her for sex, but film it”
As a nation we have put a high value on the rights of the individual. To be the first nation to look at this industry as criminal activity as opposed to an artistic depiction would be ahead of our era. When slavery was abolished our nation showed it prioritized human rights over the economic wellbeing of the plantation owners. The plantation owners just as the film makers have a huge financial incentive to keep their industry’s practices legal. Being the first to make major strides in the field of human rights, as we have punctually in the past, is a characteristic of the United States worthy of praise. The Oxford definition of prostitution “is the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.” The filming and marketing of this act has led this to it being classified into free speech and is somehow constitutionally protected. Pornography must be outlawed for its extreme likeness to the already illegal act of prostitution, as well as the severe side effects this behavior has on participants and society.
The reason that porn stars are not “prostitutes” is addressed in the adult-entertainment case, People v. Freeman. The initial charges against the film maker were five counts of pandering, defined as “procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution”. The charges were deemed unconstitutional, and since porn has received protection from the First Amendment but the reason is a cause for criticism. The court doesn’t object to the fact that a camera present doesn’t make a robbery or assault legal, but this is mysteriously different. The distinction they made is that in pornography the payment was not coming from the party that was receiving sexual gratification. Even with this taken into account the fact remains that sex is used as an occupational service. Regardless who is receiving physical satisfaction, we see that...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document