[QUOTE=Grain56;5491321]I am not as experienced as our local expert, Vincent Gambini, but I have a close relative that has worked in the business in Los Angeles, Atlanta and Miami. My comments on permits and such are based on what he explained to me regarding that process to remove all legal liability to the production team, producers, location owners and performers. I have this info only because I once asked his the same question about the difference between porn and prostitution.
If you read back to the original comment, it involved asking why can't a man enter into an agreement with a provider by paying for sex with that provider and then claiming it was a "porno shoot" that was set up by the girl through her business with the money being paid by the man to the owner (the girl) for the "honor" of the man being able to be in the video and have sex with that same girl. That payment makes it a commercial endeavor. If the production is shown publicly or not was not part of the equation. I simply explained the need for permitting and / or other agreements to protect yourself should you get busted. Could you do it without all this stuff? Sure, but the discussion was about how to do it and to make it legally allowed.
The sticky wicket in this is that actors generally do not pay to be in pictures / films unless it's for something like a personal portfolio. It's usually the other way around, actors are paid for their work. That reversed pay structure alone makes this a shady proposition and having no agreement in place in advance to support that this was a paid performance and not a prostitution situation is extremely risky. That's where I would not want to be the one that challenges the laws.
My suggestion of the getting the permits is to emphasize on how to make it 100% legal and remove all doubt of it being prostitution. Your stance is not incorrect, you can just claim to the cops it is a porno, it's just not easily defensible.
Grain 56.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the shout out, Grain (NOT Gain, right?) much appreciated! Though, if you're a fan of my work, you probably recall my practice is mostly personal injury, with the occasional murder, or accessory to murder, case! So with that significant caveat, here's what I'd add to the discussion.
First, I'm hugely inclined to agree with Vino's earlier post, this conversation seems to have taken a left turn for no apparent reason. If I'm understanding it correctly, one member mentioned the idea of filming the encounter between provider and monger and calling it a porn production, NOT prostitution, and therefore not a crime. Then came comments about licenses, liability, costs and more and then comes the name calling and comments about ass raping someone's mother. Not sure how that happened. Regardless, yes, mountain out of a molehill.
As to the OP, he's actually touched on an old idea, I read sometime back about a guy that did just that, he set up a massage parlor type of building, had clients come in, pay for an "actor", go back into a room and make a porn movie that, just so happened, had them having sex with the actor. The client would sign a release form indicating they agreed that they were producing a film, the business provided the actor, the equipment and the space and the client "directed" the actor. But let's be honest, we all are well aware that if law enforcement thinks you might kinda sorta possibly be committing prostitution, they're going to make an arrest. You know it. I know it. We all know it. We've all heard the stories about law enforcement setting up a sting operation, the suspect doing something maybe close to engaging in prostitution but not quite, and getting arrested anyway. While not a great example, a recent one is the sting that led to the arrest of Robert Kraft. Law enforcement busted a bunch of people and, last I checked, the State had lost several legal battles and was dropping, or already had dropped, all charges.
Unfortunately, it isn't uncommon for law enforcement to arrest people only to have the State drop charges. In defense of law enforcement, they only need probable cause to make an arrest while the prosecuting attorney needs to have a good faith belief that he can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, that's a MUCH higher burden than the cop on the street has! While I can't help but think that it's relatively common for cops to make arrests where they know the State will drop the charges, the fact is that they know they can do that with little to no blow back. Even if the State drops the charges, the suspect is still arrested, processed through the jail, has his mug shot put online, posts a bond and maybe even hires an attorney. Those things can't be un-done!
As to the basic idea of using the video as a defense, that's no so different from the provider putting in her ad the all too common line of "anything that happens between two consenting adults is between those two adults" or whatever such language they may use. Or the one I find really amusing, "no law enforcement". Do the providers actually think that works? Oh well, I digress. My point is that all of these things just create arguments for the defense, they will not prevent a cop from making an arrest. Yes, the State may drop the charges, but you're still dealing with all the things I mentioned above. Plus, and I'm guessing most of us have heard these stories too, sometimes the State won't drop the charges but, instead, they'll offer a reduced charge, something that does not include the word "prostitution", that can be tough for a defendant to pass on. Let's see, I can enter a plea to a charge of disorderly conduct and be done with this OR I can go to trial, have the possibility of my arrest for prostitution be all over the local news and maybe, just maybe, get convicted and go to jail? Yeah, I'll take the disorderly conduct!
You know the old expression of prostitution being the oldest profession in the world? Well, for just as long, those engaged in acts of prostitution have sought ways around the law. Also for just as long, cops make arrests, people go to jail, the State does what it does and the cycle continues. While I doubt this will happen in my lifetime, I'll add my 2 cents to Vino's earlier 2 cents, just make it legal for a person to engage in sex acts for money. In my opinion, this is the only crime based solely on morals, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to prosecute this particular "crime". Oh, and Grain, smart move putting this over in the Rat Trap where it belongs!
