egafd.com

This will surprise a few people. The making of hardcore porn in the USA is illegal, but they can not stop the distribution of it as that would be censorship and they can't have censorship because of The First Amendment. So to make it is against the law, to distribute it is not, and to distribute it you obviously have to make it. The ruling concerning distribution over rides the law on making it - so it becomes ok to do.

That does still mean that if someone films a porn scene, where they have paid people to fuck each other, and the scene was never released (it sat in an editing room somewhere) then the guy who made the movie could be arrested for pimping and prostitution type activities. Interesting, huh?

Apparently in some states in the U.S. its also illegal to mix fetish and hardcore porn in the same film, you can have one or the other but not both together in a compilation !confused!

Fact my arse.

I've been on a porn set when the cops have showed up in Woodland Hills, LA. It's only illegal if you haven't got a permit.

Don't know about other states.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/488/1311/case.html

U.S. Supreme Court

California v. Freeman, 488 U.S. 1311 (1989)

California v. Freeman

No. A-602

Decided February 1, 1989

488 U.S. 1311


ON APPLICATION FOR STAY

Syllabus

California's application for a stay of enforcement of the State Supreme Court's judgment reversing respondent Freeman's conviction for pandering under the California Penal Code pending the disposition of a petition for certiorari is denied. It is unlikely that four Justices would vote to grant certiorari, since the state court's decision rests on the adequate and independent state law ground that Freeman's hiring and paying of performers for pornographic films does not constitute pandering under the State Code. The court's discussion of state law is not interwoven with its discussion of federal law, specifically the First Amendment. Even if this Court were to review the case below and find that the state court had misinterpreted the strictures of the First Amendment, on remand that court would still reverse Freeman's conviction on state statutory law grounds.

JUSTICE O'CONNOR, Circuit Justice.

The State of California requests that, as Circuit Justice, I stay the enforcement of the judgment of the Supreme Court of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 2101(f) pending the disposition of a petition for certiorari (No. 88-1054) to review that judgment. Because I think it unlikely that four Justices would vote to grant certiorari, see Hicks v. Feiock, 479 U. S. 1305, 1306 (1986) (O'CONNOR, J., in chambers), I deny the application for issuance of a stay.

In its petition for certiorari, California seeks review of the State Supreme Court's judgment reversing the conviction of respondent Freeman for pandering under Cal.Penal Code Ann. ? 266i (West 1988). 46 Cal.3d 419, 758 P.2d 1128 (1988). Freeman is a producer and director of pornographic films who hired and paid adults to perform sexual acts before his film cameras. In 1983, Freeman was arrested and charged with five counts of pandering based on the hiring of five such performers. He was not charged with violation of any of California's obscenity laws.

Most countries have laws that could be invoked if required to outlaw porn. The fact is countries like the UK are starting to accept porn as an entertainment medium like everything else. They don't see it as eroding moral values. Also they have noticed that the public desire for porn is in decline.

The danger is coming from the US, where right wing groups are attacking certain producers, with the ultimate aim of outlawing porn in total.

Luckily for us, the English legal system is extremely slow and ponderous. Also unlike the USA, it is not so easy for certain pressure groups to manipulate the law to their advantage.

jimslip wrote:

> Most countries have laws that could be invoked if required to
> outlaw porn. The fact is countries like the UK are starting to
> accept porn as an entertainment medium like everything else.
> They don't see it as eroding moral values. Also they have
> noticed that the public desire for porn is in decline.
>
> The danger is coming from the US, where right wing groups are
> attacking certain producers, with the ultimate aim of outlawing
> porn in total.
>
> Luckily for us, the English legal system is extremely slow and
> ponderous. Also unlike the USA, it is not so easy for certain
> pressure groups to manipulate the law to their advantage.
>
planeterotica wrote:

Jim we are in the EU so we have to comply with their guidlines on porn like it or not, and i fucking love it, anyway the U.S. is heading towards an election and both sides will pledge the moral high ground to try and get elected, it dosnt mean that they will implement it.

Let's hope you're right!

in australia its illegal to own porn but not to sell it.

except in the capital that is where u can own as much as u like.

We are a pretty fucked up country sex laws wise which isnt surprising given where we came from originally

The adult industry association has been threatening to out some big name consumers.I'd love to see it happen



Estimates have it that 80% of the australian porn industry are pirates

Not so sure about that Jim. It was the misinformed (in that ultimately s & m porn had nothing to do eith the case according to the judge) petition organised by the mother of a murdered girl a couple of years back, that gave Labour the opportunity to band wagon jump and bring in the so-called 'extreme' porn legislation that will be harrassing many a user of porn in this country come january 1st 2009.

jimslip wrote:

>> Luckily for us, the English legal system is extremely slow and
> ponderous. Also unlike the USA, it is not so easy for certain
> pressure groups to manipulate the law to their advantage.
>
>