« More on the academic value of blogging | Main | The Professor's Cliché and My Two Cents on Law Prof Hiring »

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

The distinction between prostitution and pornography

A judge rules: it all depends on who pays. 

(1) As a contract matter, isn't this a distinction without a difference?

(2) As a public policy matter, isn't this a distinction without a difference?

(3) Under this theory, what would happen if the producer of the porn flick is also the actor?

(4) Shouldn't we expect an enterprising pimp to figure out how to avoid prosecution by somehow utilizing this distinction?

[Hat tip: Bashman]

Posted by Hillel Levin on August 2, 2005 at 11:57 AM in Legal Theory | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The distinction between prostitution and pornography:

» Uh-oh: pornography and prostitution in NY from Unused and Probably Unusable
Catchy title, but I mean it this time. Thanks to a link from Howard Bashman's invaluable How Appealing (which, now that I come to think of it, regularly has current news on Bobblehead Justices, Sex toy legal wrangling, Strip clubs, Same sex marriage, ... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 2, 2005 4:30:31 PM

» The obvious loophole from PrawfsBlawg
Hillel and Christine are discussing the Manhattan ruling that porn does not violate anti-prostitution laws because you're paying an actor or actress to have sex with someone else, not with you. There are a number of potential issues, such as the direct... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 2, 2005 6:38:07 PM

» Porn and prostitution. from A Typical Blog
The question of how to distinguish prostitution from hardcore pornography is a difficult one (I'm not sure there actually is much of a distinction). Hillel Levin notes an attempt by a judge to distinguish the two. The difference is supposed to be tha... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 5, 2005 4:34:33 AM

» Why You Think the Net Was Born from Sepia Mutiny
Thanks to Manish and the rest of the Sepia Mutineers for welcoming me to guest-blog here. Theres a new Bollywood film out carrying the same name as one from the early 80s. However, while the old movie was directed by Shyam Benegal and is ... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 20, 2005 12:51:14 AM


You can request the Pre-Trial Decision and Order, Indictment No. 6908/04 by sending $8 to New York Supreme Court of Manhattan, Criminal Term, Room 1000, 100 Center Street, New York, NY 10013. I was told this is the only way to get it, they will not fax it and it is not available online. The $8 has to be a money order. I know this because I am writing a comment for my law journal based on this opinion and the distinction that is made.

Posted by: Colleen R. | Oct 2, 2006 11:16:49 PM

B3st Druugs and Gr8 S3X!
c r e d i t b y m i la n . com
w f h m . c o m / milan-thakkar

[email protected]

Posted by: Jackie S. | Aug 5, 2006 8:13:29 PM

Does anyone have a copy of the actual opinion ?

Or are you just relying on popular press reports ?

Posted by: S.cotus | Aug 16, 2005 12:11:35 PM

I cover this case in exhausting, nay, nauseating detail at my post Uh-oh: pornography and prostitution in NY. There's already one good comment- not mine, I mean, somebody else's.

Posted by: Eh Nonymous | Aug 2, 2005 4:28:02 PM

Mike: it would seem to me that the lawyer would be helping that service conform their conduct to the bounds of the law as asserted by that court in New York, not helping 'em commit a crime. There's a difference between concealing evidence/advising a client how not to get caught and advising a client how to turn an illegal plan into a legal one, and surely a lawyer is allowed to rely on that ruling...

(I'm refraining from making jokes about how said lawyer is getting paid here, really I am)

Posted by: Paul Gowder | Aug 2, 2005 12:53:01 PM

Funny case. I've actually thought about that distinction a lot (for the right reasons!) I think that Dan is right: this is a way for wealthy people to have legalized prostitution. Good call girl services (again, I know this from having a client, not being a client) keep pretty accurate records. IOW, the johsn are known by name. So there's no reason they couldn't set up waivers, install a viewing room, etc.

Ethical question: Would it be ethical for a lawyer to help a call girl service go "legit"? Or would the lawyer be helping a client commit a crime? In our minds, we all know that the service, er, production company wouldn't really be porn; it'd still be prostitution. But I don't think the criminal law can draw a line between the two. Could the law of lawyers distinguish them?

Posted by: Mike | Aug 2, 2005 12:27:00 PM

Interesting case, Hillel, and good questions. I would think that pimps would videotape the activities of the sex workers and johns, and then set up subscription services; johns will pay to act in the movies, and subscribe to the series in which they perform. The johns can put on disguises, and then they wouldn't care about the distribution. This wouldn't eliminate street prostitution, but it might reduce it at the high end of the market (ie, escort services). If this circumvention device would work, then there would likely be bad distributive effects, since the poor johns and sex workers would continue to get busted w/o a first amendment defense.

Posted by: Dan | Aug 2, 2005 12:12:21 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.