Camera sex on line
In anticipation of this audience, Fiona the filmmaker pays Doug and Carl to permit her to tape them carrying out their business. No, but neither has her First-Amendment-protected act of filming and distributing her recording altered the illegal character of Doug's and Carl's conduct.Doug and Carl may still be prosecuted for engaging in a drug transaction, despite the fact that Fiona may not be prosecuted for taping it or showing the tape.In keeping with this portrayal, one could reasonably characterize pornography as the payment of prostitutes for having sex in front of a camera.Though the film itself might be protected by the First Amendment, it could constitute evidence of paid-for sexual encounters -- that is, evidence of prostitution -- if a statute were designed to extend to that sort of prostitution.In our example, Doug and Carl have engaged in a drug transaction, and the only element that Fiona has added to the mix is her filming of that transaction.In the case of pornography, however, the actors having sex are doing so precisely because they are being filmed.
In other words, prostitution is generally understood as the bilateral trading of sex for money, while pornography involves the customer of an adult film paying money to watch other people have sex with each other, while receiving no sexual favors himself in return.The taping, in other words, is not just "evidence" of their having sex; it is the entire point of that sex.In pornography, then, the recording is an integral, rather than a peripheral, part of the transaction.In such a case, of course, there would be no grounds for prosecuting the two men.The distinction between pornography and prostitution is not, however, quite so straightforward as the latter analogy suggests.
A couple having actual sex for the camera -- let's call the people Jason and June -- is different from Doug and Carl pretending to deal drugs.