What's the legal difference....

[Guest trekker]

>The answer to your question is

>already given in my previous

>posts, except for the marriage

>issue.

 

So? What does the marriage issue do to this little screenplay?

 

>Do you think that Hollywood big

>shots are never prosecuted for

>offenses committed in the course

>of making big-budget films?

 

Prostitution, connected with the movie?

[Guest pickwick]

>So? What does the marriage

>issue do to this little

>screenplay?

>

 

As regards the statute I mentioned, the answer is in section 796.07(1)(a). Go look it up.

[Guest trekker]

>As regards the statute I mentioned,

>the answer is in section

>796.07(1)(a). Go look it

>up.

 

Sheesh, pick, what side of the bed did *you* get up on?

Section 796.07(1)(a) of what? And we're not all lawyers, you know, and we don't all have law libraries with all 50 states and the District of Columbia and the feds too.

I assume you're a lawyer, since you jumped into this thread a few times with very authoritative-sounding comments and you're quoting law codes. And it sounds like there are some other lawyers that have been commenting on it, too. This is an interesting issue, and so I took it a little further and asked for an opinion. Just posing a hypothetical. I thought you guys get off on that.

If you asked me about Drosophila melanogaster I wouldn't tell you to "Go look it up"...

So, anyway, what does the marriage issue do to this little screenplay? And who is John Landis?

[Justice]

A friend and I discussed this topic this afternoon. He tells me that he was channel surfing recently and briefly paused on a program about pornography. He tells me that there's actually an "agent" in Hollywood who specializes in "adult" talent. He and I both thought that this agent could be technically be guilty of pandering or some other prostitution related offense.

[Guest pickwick]

>Sheesh, pick, what side of the

>bed did *you* get up

>on?

 

Same side as always.

 

>Section 796.07(1)(a) of what?

 

Already answered that in a previous post.

 

And

>we're not all lawyers, you

>know, and we don't all

>have law libraries with all

>50 states and the District

>of Columbia and the feds

>too.

 

Your nearest public library should have a complete set of the statutes for your state.

 

>I assume you're a lawyer, since

>you jumped into this thread

>a few times with very

>authoritative-sounding comments and you're quoting

>law codes. And it

>sounds like there are some

>other lawyers that have been

>commenting on it, too.

>This is an interesting issue,

>and so I took it

>a little further and asked

>for an opinion. Just

>posing a hypothetical. I

>thought you guys get off

>on that.

 

Nope. I don't participate in this message board to amuse you, but to amuse myself. If you want me to answer your questions, you'll have to make them a lot more interesting than the ones you've asked so far.

 

 

>If you asked me about Drosophila

>melanogaster I wouldn't tell you

>to "Go look it up"...

>

 

I don't think the issue is likely to arise, so we'll never know.

 

>So, anyway, what does the marriage

>issue do to this little

>screenplay? And who is

>John Landis?

 

See above.

[Guest trekker]

>>Sheesh, pick, what side of the

>>bed did *you* get up >>on?

>

>Same side as always.

 

In that case, maybe you should change sides.

 

>>Section 796.07(1)(a) of what?

>

>Already answered that in a previous post.

 

Oh, just a minute, while I get out my concordance to the complete pickwick posts. Silly me for not memorizing them.

 

>>And >>we're not all lawyers, you >>know, and we don't all

>>have law libraries with all >>50 states and the District

>>of Columbia and the feds >>too.

>

>Your nearest public library should have

>a complete set of the >statutes for your state.

 

Ah, but will that have the Section 796.07(1)(a) that you are citing so I can find out what you are trying to say? Maybe my nearest public library has the misfortune of being in another state. Maybe Section 796.07(1)(a) in that state deals with inheritance, or maybe there isn't a section with that number. Wouldn't it have been a lot easier just to answer the question?

 

>Nope. I don't participate in

>this message board to amuse >you, but to amuse myself.

 

Isn't that a little selfish? We all try to help each other out here and amuse each other. All except you, I guess.

 

>>So, anyway, what does the marriage >>issue do to this little

>>screenplay? And who is >>John Landis?

>

>See above.

 

Well, no, you didn't answer that one before. You asked "Does the name John Landis ring a bell?" I give up. Who is he?

[Guest pickwick]

>In that case, maybe you should

>change sides.

 

If I ever feel in need of your advice in the matter, I'll be sure to let you know.

 

>Oh, just a minute, while I

>get out my concordance to

>the complete pickwick posts.

>Silly me for not memorizing

>them.

>

 

They're all right on the board in front of your eyes. Is your scrolling finger paralyzed?

 

>Ah, but will that have the

>Section 796.07(1)(a) that you are

>citing so I can find

>out what you are trying

>to say? Maybe my

>nearest public library has the

>misfortune of being in another

>state. Maybe Section 796.07(1)(a)

>in that state deals with

>inheritance, or maybe there isn't

>a section with that number.

> Wouldn't it have been

>a lot easier just to

>answer the question?

>

 

Easier for whom? The question is absurd. The behavior in your example took place in another country, so it should be obvious to you that neither the statute I cited nor those that apply in your state have anything to do with it. If you want to know how the law applies to this issue where you live, go look it up.

 

 

>Isn't that a little selfish?

>We all try to help

>each other out here and

>amuse each other. All

>except you, I guess.

>

 

If you were trying to amuse me you are going to have to try a lot harder. And just how would the answer to this question help you? Are you planning to produce a porn film?

 

>See above.

>

>Well, no, you didn't answer that

>one before. You asked

>"Does the name John Landis

>ring a bell?" I

>give up. Who is

>he?

 

Do you know how to use a search engine?

[Guest regulation]

>

>Isn't that a little selfish?

>We all try to help

>each other out here and

>amuse each other. All

>except you, I guess.

>

 

 

Trek, to be honest many lawyers find it annoying when people expect them to "perform" by answering silly questions that have nothing to do with reality. Some lawyers I know who are AOL members end up deleting their member profiles when they discover that listing their occupation as "Attorney" results in IMs and emails from other members asking such questions or seeking free legal advice. You can certainly post whatever questions you like, but if pickwick doesn't volunteer answers you should assume he isn't interested.

 

>>>So, anyway, what does the marriage >>issue do to this little

>>>screenplay? And who is >>John Landis?

>>

 

Generally speaking, there can be no charge of prostitution if the persons who have sex are legally married. John Landis was one of the most celebrated directors in Hollywood during the 80s and was prosecuted in connection with the filming of "Twilight Zone."

[Guest trekker]

>If I ever feel in need >of your advice in the

>matter, I'll be sure to >let you know.

 

I'm holding my breath, picky.

 

>They're all right on the board >in front of your eyes.

> Is your scrolling finger >paralyzed?

 

Well, this is a long thread, and you get to see only one post at a time, so you can't just scroll.

Wouldn't it have been quicker and easier to write the name of a state (1 word, maybe 2) instead of the sarcastic comment above?

 

>Easier for whom? The question >is absurd. The behavior

>in your example took place >in another country, so it

>should be obvious to you >that neither the statute I

>cited nor those that apply >in your state have anything

>to do with it. >If you want to know >how the law applies to

>this issue where you live, >go look it up.

 

Now *you're* the one who isn't keeping track of what was said. As someone said to me recently, "Is your scrolling finger paralyzed?"

This is a hypothetical situation, and my earlier post said that it could just as well have been filmed here, and by a director who is still alive. So "moot" and "other jurisdiction" aren't relevant. And it is not about the laws in my state or another; you outlined a scenario in which the law is written in a certain way, whether it exists in any state or not, and I asked a question about it.

As you understand quite well, the question is not about that particular movie, but about how the situation might change if the actors were married to each other. Since you were quick to jump into this thread several times with a very forcefully stated opinion, I was naive enough to think that you might deign to comment on this particular twist.

Educate us. Spread enlightenment to the masses.

 

>If you were trying to amuse >me you are going to

>have to try a lot >harder. And just how

>would the answer to this >question help you? Are

>you planning to produce a >porn film?

 

No, I wasn't trying to amuse you. I was trying to learn something from you. No, I'm not planning to produce a porn film or any other kind. Just general interest. You were eager to respond to the original question and some follow-ups, (which were not from me, BTW), and this is just a further elaboration.

 

>>>See above.

>>

>>Well, no, you didn't answer that >>one before. You asked

>>"Does the name John Landis >>ring a bell?" I

>>give up. Who is >>he?

>

>Do you know how to use >a search engine?

 

Well, *you* brought him up. Why should I have to go use a search engine to try to figure out what you are trying to say?

 

If you want to take your marbles and go home, that’s your privilege. But you don't play nice, and I'm going to tell your mommy.

[Guest JustANametoPlay]

John Landis was charged with manslaughter I believe (may have been criminal negligence or some simialr charge) in conjunction with the death of children as well as some actors on the set of the Movie The Twighlight Zone. A stunt involving a helicopter resulted in 2-3 deaths. Again, something very diffent then the issue of prostituion.

 

I still disagree with the comment that porn films and the actors could result in the charge of prostituion. Yes the charge could be made, and as stated before it has been. However, it has not yet been succesful to my knowledge. the fact remains that the 1st amendment is used as a defense to charges, and so far it has been upheld.

 

 

The law is all about creative arguing. Also, no one here knows what anyone else does unless they tell us. If your an attorney (and as an FYI I did practice law for many years including a period of time as a prosecutor), and choose to particpate in a thread like this, then you shouldn't get POd when folks as questions.

[Guest trekker]

Regulation,

 

First, thank you for the short and simple answers to the two questions. If those had been provided in the first place all of the above exchanges could have been avoided. Since the answer to the first question is so clear-cut, it should be obvious to a lawyer that the question was not posed by another lawyer, and that a cryptic response citing a section of an unnamed law code is therefore neither polite nor appropriate. If someone were no longer interested in the conversation, total silence would have been better, and would have passed without further comment. That's what usually happens on discussion boards when someone is not interested any more.

 

I also appreciate your kindness and good will in intervening both with the answers and with your other remarks.

 

Beyond that, I'd like to say that lawyers are not the only people who get asked professionally-oriented questions in an outside setting. I, too, am in a field where I get a lot of uninvited questions and remarks from non-specialists outside a professional setting, often displaying a fundamental and sometimes annoying lack of understanding of very basic facts or concepts that are so much second nature to me, and so I know what that is like. But however silly or ignorant a question may seem to the specialist, it does not seem silly to the questioner. There are polite and non-offensive ways of turning off such questions, and I choose one of those options. It is hardly ever necessary to be impolite in such situations.

 

I certainly was not asking for free legal advice (I am not a filmmaker, and I have no intention of becoming one), and I would not have initiated an approach to lawyer with a question like that. The original question was not mine, nor were several transformations of it which followed. I entered this thread well into its life, and posed an additional elaboration on a scenario which had already been stated on the thread by others. pickwick had been quick to join the thread, and at that point had already made 6 of 22 posts in it; that didn't seem like a sign of disinterest. Others who seemed to know what they were talking about were also posting in it. Lawyers who did not want to be recognized as such (the equivalent of what you said about deleting their profiles on aol) did not have to post and reveal their legal training.

 

The scenario about a director being prosecuted under prostitution laws had already been introduced by others. My only contributions to that were to point out that, while a porn director might be subject to such prosecution, a mainstream director would almost certainly not be, even if his movie involved sex acts (like "Eyes Wide Shut"), and to inquire how the situation might be changed if the actors were married to each other (like "Eyes Wide Shut"; that could also apply to porn flicks, just not ours...yet).

 

John Landis was cryptically, and (I think) irrelevantly, introduced by pickwick. I knew who he is as a director, but didn’t recognize the reference pickwick was making; but after you mentioned Twilight Zone, if I’m not mistaken, I think that’s the incident where a stunt man was killed during the filming and there was a prosecution for negligence in connection with the death. That's a little different from prostitution, and I still find it extremely unlikely that a mainstream director would be prosecuted for prostitution or soliciting or pandering arising from a sex scene in a movie, though the same may not be true for a porn director in a lot of jurisdictions (though the prosecution might well not be successful; but they might try that since they probably can't get him for obscenity). That's the point I was making.

 

In any case, there was no call for the outright rudeness and hostility in pickwick's tone and comments. The answers to the questions were simple and straightforward enough; you proved that. Discussion boards are for discussions, and comments or questions may sometimes be naive or annoying. If someone doesn't want to answer a question, he doesn't have to post to it. That's what the other (apparent) lawyer(s) did.

 

Sorry for the length of this. If I ever meet up with you (yeah, I know, how likely is that?) I'll buy you an ice cream (a beer? a tequila? a boy?) to make up for it. And I do appreciate your comments. Peace.

 

Trekker

[Guest regulation]

>John Landis was charged with manslaughter

>I believe (may have been

>criminal negligence or some simialr

>charge) in conjunction with the

>death of children as well

>as some actors on the

>set of the Movie The

>Twighlight Zone. A stunt

>involving a helicopter resulted in

>2-3 deaths. Again, something

>very diffent then the issue

>of prostituion.

>

 

Pickwick didn't say it was about prostitution. He just said that it was an example of a situation in which a Hollywood big shot was prosecuted for something done during filming a movie. That is accurate.

 

 

>I still disagree with the comment

>that porn films and the

>actors could result in the

>charge of prostituion. Yes

>the charge could be made,

>and as stated before it

>has been. However, it

>has not yet been succesful

>to my knowledge. the

>fact remains that the 1st

>amendment is used as a

>defense to charges, and so

>far it has been upheld.

>

 

I noticed that you disagreed with the other poster's conclusion, but I didn't notice that you cited anything to support your position. He did. I think his position is the better one. If I have a statute in front of me that says that certain behavior is a crime, I'm not going to advise anyone that he can get away with it when I have no statutory law and no case law that says he can. No competent attorney would do that.

 

 

>

>The law is all about creative

>arguing.

 

I don't agree. The law in any stare decisis jurisdiction is about precedent. If you can't cite a precedent to support your position, you are nowhere.

 

 

Also, no one

>here knows what anyone else

>does unless they tell us.

> If your an attorney

>(and as an FYI I

>did practice law for many

>years including a period of

>time as a prosecutor), and

>choose to particpate in a

>thread like this, then you

>shouldn't get POd when folks

>as questions.

 

Who made that rule?

[Guest regulation]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-01 AT 11:38PM (EST)[p]>Regulation,

>

>First, thank you for the short

>and simple answers to the

>two questions. If those

>had been provided in the

>first place all of the

>above exchanges could have been

>avoided. Since the answer

>to the first question is

>so clear-cut, it should be

>obvious to a lawyer that

>the question was not posed

>by another lawyer, and that

>a cryptic response citing a

>section of an unnamed law

>code is therefore neither polite

>nor appropriate. If someone

>were no longer interested in

>the conversation, total silence would

>have been better, and would

>have passed without further comment.

> That's what usually happens

>on discussion boards when someone

>is not interested any more.

>

>

 

That's your opinion. The way I see it, the other poster indulged your curiosity to a certain point and then decided not to do it anymore and you got rather testy with him. You seem to think he owed you something.

 

As for Pickwick's behavior, I suppose you don't know many trial lawyers. Expecting them to pass up a chance to slam someone is like expecting a Doberman to ignore a juicy steak. As Garry Wills pointed out, we all have the defects of our virtues.

 

Frankly, some of the comments on this thread are so silly that I felt tempted to make some caustic remarks about them myself, but I'm in an unusually placid frame of mind this week so I didn't.

 

 

>I also appreciate your kindness and

>good will in intervening both

>with the answers and with

>your other remarks.

>

 

That's okay.

 

>John Landis was cryptically, and (I

>think) irrelevantly, introduced by pickwick.

 

 

I don't think it's irrelevant at all. The Landis prosecution is a good example of a case in which an ambitious prosecutor went after a high-profile defendant to get the man's scalp on his belt. I can easily see that happening with a charge of prostitution.

[Guest trekker]

LAST EDITED ON May-01-01 AT 00:48AM (EST)[p]>That's your opinion. The way >I see it, the other

>poster indulged your curiosity to >a certain point and then

>decided not to do it >anymore and you got rather

>testy with him. You >seem to think he owed

>you something.

 

No. I don't want to get into an argument with you after you were kind enough to answer my questions, but what you said is simply not correct. No poster "indulged my curiosity" to any point whatsoever (until you came along). All of the previous questions and scenarios being discussed were posed by *other* people, not me, and none of the previous posts was directed towards me or my curiosity.

 

I entered the discussion in post #23 and raised only 1 question, about the marriage issue. The first post after that, #24, was from pickwick, and was addressed to my question in a very curt and dismissive way. ("The answer to your question is already given in my previous posts, except for the marriage issue." But my question *was* about the marriage issue, and he avoided saying anything about it. That was when he also introduced the John Landis remark, which gave rise to my second question, which he also never answered.)

 

I did not get "testy" with him, and in the very next post (#25) simply restated my question: "So? What does the marriage issue do to this little screenplay?" And I questioned whether prostitution charges had arisen from making a mainstream movie in the reference he had made.

 

In the next post (#26) came the cryptic reference to an unnamed law code and the instruction to "Go look it up."

 

No curiosity was indulged, and who was being testy with whom?

 

And I have to disagree with your remark about "owed you something". Someone who posts on a discussion board has to expect that someone else may post a response. The first poster, of course, is free to ignore the responder if he wants to, but he has no right to get annoyed because someone responded.

 

>As for Pickwick's behavior, I suppose

>you don't know many trial

>lawyers.

 

You're right about that. And I'm starting to think I don't want to.

 

>>John Landis was cryptically, and (I

>>think) irrelevantly, introduced by pickwick.

>

>I don't think it's irrelevant at >all. The Landis prosecution

>is a good example of >a case in which an

>ambitious prosecutor went after a >high-profile defendant to get the

>man's scalp on his belt. > I can easily see

>that happening with a charge >of prostitution.

 

Maybe there's something in the law that would cause this to be overridden, but I think that most people, including most jurors, would see a BIG difference between prosecuting a director for negligent homicide and prosecuting a director because the script called for a sex scene.

[Guest]

>As for Pickwick's behavior, I suppose

>you don't know many trial

>lawyers. Expecting them to

>pass up a chance to

>slam someone is like expecting

>a Doberman to ignore a

>juicy steak

 

Well, I know a few trial lawyers, and they're all obnoxious and deceitful. He brought up the irrelevant example of John Landis. The example is obviously totally irrelevant because it related to safety issues resulting in human death. It had nothing to do with what actors are permitted to do on the set.

 

 

He quoted some mystery law which he not only not only refused to quote, but even to say where it came from. The purpose of the this mystery quote was not to inform. The purpose was to look cutesy and to go "nyah, nyah, nyah" in a childish manner to the person who was responding to him.

 

There are so many films in which the actors have had sexual scenes, that I'm sure their numbers exceed the number of molecules in Pickwick's brain. Obviously the location where the film is made has some relevance. I don't know how many gay porn movies are made in Florida, and that isn't terribly relevant. Ultimately it's not Pickwick's interpretation of the Florida statutes that determines whether actors can have sex on the set in Los Angeles County.

 

What matters is how local courts interpret the laws. I'm sure you can't have actors engaging in gay sex in Afghanistan. And a prosecutor could probably convince a jury in the Oklahoma panhandle with the collective brains of an ice cube that hiring actors with sexual scenes is pandering.

 

The reality is obvious even to any blind dufus. Actors are being paid to have sexual scenes on film, on video, and on TV shows from HBO to Showtime. There are obviously jurisdictions where paying actors for sexual scenes is not considered prostitution (yes, this is dependent on time and location). Anybody who can't see that has his head up somewhere dark.

 

Ahhh. I feel so much better now! }>

[Guest regulation]

LAST EDITED ON May-01-01 AT 01:07PM (EST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON May-01-01

>AT 00:48 AM (EST)

>

>No. I don't want to

>get into an argument with

>you after you were kind

>enough to answer my questions,

>but what you said is

>simply not correct. No

>poster "indulged my curiosity" to

>any point whatsoever (until you

>came along). All of

>the previous questions and scenarios

>being discussed were posed by

>*other* people, not me, and

>none of the previous posts

>was directed towards me or

>my curiosity.

>

>I entered the discussion in post

>#23 and raised only 1

>question, about the marriage issue.

> The first post after

>that, #24, was from pickwick,

>and was addressed to my

>question in a very curt

>and dismissive way. ("The

>answer to your question is

>already given in my previous

>posts, except for the marriage

>issue." But my question

>*was* about the marriage issue,

>and he avoided saying anything

>about it. That was when

>he also introduced the John

>Landis remark, which gave rise

>to my second question, which

>he also never answered.)

>

>I did not get "testy" with

>him, and in the very

>next post (#25) simply restated

>my question: "So? What does

>the marriage issue do to

>this little screenplay?" And

>I questioned whether prostitution charges

>had arisen from making a

>mainstream movie in the reference

>he had made.

>

>In the next post (#26) came

>the cryptic reference to an

>unnamed law code and the

>instruction to "Go look it

>up."

>

>No curiosity was indulged, and who

>was being testy with whom?

>

 

You say you don't want to argue about it, but you are posting a great many words in an effort to do that which you say you don't want to do. The fact is that your first post specifically asked other posters to address a hypothetical that you created. Pickwick was good enough to respond, although to a limited extent, but you were not satisfied with his response and you have been needling him about it ever since. If you wanted to avoid an unpleasant exchange with another poster you could easily have done so. No one forced you to pursue the matter, so it's clear that you pursued it because you wanted to.

 

 

>

>And I have to disagree with

>your remark about "owed you

>something". Someone who posts

>on a discussion board has

>to expect that someone else

>may post a response.

>The first poster, of course,

>is free to ignore the

>responder if he wants to,

>but he has no right

>to get annoyed because someone

>responded.

>

 

Seems to me that's exactly what you did.

 

>>>John Landis was cryptically, and (I

>>>think) irrelevantly, introduced by pickwick.

>>

>>I don't think it's irrelevant at >all. The Landis prosecution

>>is a good example of >a case in which an

>>ambitious prosecutor went after a >high-profile defendant to get the

>>man's scalp on his belt. > I can easily see

>>that happening with a charge >of prostitution.

>

>Maybe there's something in the law

>that would cause this to

>be overridden, but I think

>that most people, including most

>jurors, would see a BIG

>difference between prosecuting a director

>for negligent homicide and prosecuting

>a director because the script

>called for a sex scene.

>

 

But a "sex scene," in the sense that the actors are pretending to have sex, is not the situation you proposed for our consideration. You asked people to consider a situation in which intercourse actually occurs and was intended from the outset. And it isn't jurors who decide who gets charged with a crime, it is prosecutors. The jurors in the Twilight Zone case acquitted Landis.

[Guest regulation]

LAST EDITED ON May-01-01 AT 11:51AM (EST)[p]>Well, I know a few trial

>lawyers, and they're all obnoxious

>and deceitful.

 

If a time comes when you need to hire one, will you tell him what you just said about trial lawyers, or will you deceive him by keeping your true opinion a secret?

 

 

He brought

>up the irrelevant example of

>John Landis. The example

>is obviously totally irrelevant because

>it related to safety issues

>resulting in human death.

>It had nothing to do

>with what actors are permitted

>to do on the set.

>

 

No, I've already explained that it is quite relevant to a discussion of whether movie big shots are immune from prosecution for things they do on a movie set. That is exactly why Landis was prosecuted. Trek suggested that in the real world such people are never prosecuted, but the Landis case is a case in which it happened.

 

 

>He quoted some mystery law which

>he not only not only

>refused to quote, but even

>to say where it came

>from. The purpose of

>the this mystery quote was

>not to inform. The

>purpose was to look cutesy

>and to go "nyah, nyah,

>nyah" in a childish manner

>to the person who was

>responding to him.

>

 

No, that's not true. Pickwick did say that he was referring to the 2000 Florida Statutes. I have checked it out and his comments on Chapter 796 are accurate.

 

>There are so many films in

>which the actors have had

>sexual scenes, that I'm sure

>their numbers exceed the number

>of molecules in Pickwick's brain.

> Obviously the location where

>the film is made has

>some relevance. I don't

>know how many gay porn

>movies are made in Florida,

>and that isn't terribly relevant.

> Ultimately it's not Pickwick's

>interpretation of the Florida statutes

>that determines whether actors can

>have sex on the set

>in Los Angeles County.

>

 

He never claimed it was. He referred to a specific statute as an example, and I don't see anything wrong with that. He is the only person on this thread who actually gave any concrete information about the law on prostitution. Everyone else has merely been speculating, which in my opinion is not very useful or very interesting. If not for his comments, there'd be nothing to discuss.

 

 

>The reality is obvious even to

>any blind dufus. Actors

>are being paid to have

>sexual scenes on film, on

>video, and on TV shows

>from HBO to Showtime.

>There are obviously jurisdictions where

>paying actors for sexual scenes

>is not considered prostitution (yes,

>this is dependent on time

>and location). Anybody who

>can't see that has his

>head up somewhere dark.

>

>Ahhh. I feel so much better now! }>

 

You don't seem to have understood the hypothetical being discussed. It's one in which actors are not being paid to mimic sex. They are being paid to have sex. That is a major difference under the law.

 

And if insulting other people makes you feel good, you might want to consider becoming a trial lawyer yourself. That's one qualification for the job, although there are a few others.

[Michael]

... and, of course, if the jurisdiction didn't happen to be within the US then neither the constitution or any of the ammendments would have anything to do with it ...

[Guest trekker]

>You say you don't want to >argue about it, but you

>are posting a great many >words in an effort to

>do that which you say >you don't want to do.

 

Only because what you said was not correct.

 

> The fact is that >your first post specifically asked

>other posters to address a >hypothetical that you created.

>Pickwick was good enough to >respond, although to a limited

>extent, but you were not >satisfied with his response and

>you have been needling him >about it ever since.

 

That is not correct. I do wish you would not keep misstating the facts. pickwick was not "good enough to respond", except in the meaningless sense that he posted a reply which made no response to the question. All the answers in his previous posts that he referred to were addressed to other questions and other posters. Read them and you will see. Then he mentioned the issue in my question, he explicitly said that the answer to it was not included in what he posted before, and he said nothing in response to it: not "to a limited extent" or to any extent. I simply restated my question and was not "needling him". His reply was to cite a section of an unidentified law code and the instruction to "Go look it up", instead of stating simply that prostitution does not arise when the parties are married even if money is paid, as you did. (That's just as short and easy as what he wrote.) His replies to me, from the very first one, have been deliberately uninformative, dismissive and hostile.

 

Charging the producer was introduced into the scenario by Justice; pickwick said that some statutes may cover that. My post assumed the statutory provision outlined by pickwick, suggested that a mainstream producer (as opposed to the porn producer brought up by Justice) is unlikely to be prosecuted under the prostitution laws, not as a matter of law, but as a practical matter in the real world, and asked how the situation as a matter of law would be changed if the actors were married to each other (with someone still paying them to have sex).

 

>If you wanted to avoid >an unpleasant exchange with another

>poster you could easily have >done so. No one

>forced you to pursue the >matter, so it's clear that

>you pursued it because you >wanted to.

 

The unpleasantness in the exchange was initiated by pickwick, not by me. And "no one forced" him to react that way. I pursued the matter initially because I was interested in the answer to my question, and I think that's entirely reasonable, and then, later, also because pickwick had no call to be so impolite. My question was not even addressed to him or anyone in particular. It was a question to the thread. He chose to respond to it (no one forced him to do that, either), and in a deliberately uninformative and dismissive manner. Someone else has already remarked on that in this thread as well. (And I had not done anything earlier either in this thread or elsewhere to cause him to react to me in that way.) pickwick didn't have to make any response at all, or he could have given the short and simple answer that you did, or he could have found many ways to bow out of the discussion politely. He chose instead to be hostile and impolite. This was just a discussion, and didn't call for that kind of attitude. And this is not a lawyers' forum, and we don't all have access to every state's legal code, even when the state is identified.

 

>>And I have to disagree with

>>your remark about "owed you

>>something". Someone who posts

>>on a discussion board has

>>to expect that someone else

>>may post a response.

>>The first poster, of course,

>>is free to ignore the

>>responder if he wants to,

>>but he has no right

>>to get annoyed because someone

>>responded.

>

>Seems to me that's exactly what >you did.

 

This comment makes no sense at all. I didn't get annoyed because someone responded to my post, unless you mean that someone responded in form but without content by putting up a subsequent post that was purposely unresponsive to the comment that it purported to be addressing. That's not reacting to the fact that someone responded; that's reacting to the snide attitude of the responder.

 

>>>>John Landis was cryptically, and (I

>>>>think) irrelevantly, introduced by pickwick.

>>>

>>>I don't think it's irrelevant at >all. The Landis prosecution

>>>is a good example of >a case in which an

>>>ambitious prosecutor went after a >high-profile defendant to get the

>>>man's scalp on his belt. > I can easily see

>>>that happening with a charge >of prostitution.

>>

>>Maybe there's something in the law >>that would cause this to

>>be overridden, but I think >>that most people, including most

>>jurors, would see a BIG

>>difference between prosecuting a director

>>for negligent homicide and prosecuting

>>a director because the script >>called for a sex scene.

>

>But a "sex scene," in the >sense that the actors are

>pretending to have sex, is >not the situation you proposed

>for our consideration. You >asked people to consider a

>situation in which intercourse actually

>occurs and was intended from >the outset. And it

>isn't jurors who decide who >gets charged with a crime,

>it is prosecutors. The >jurors in the Twilight Zone

>case acquitted Landis.

 

I don't see that the attempt to prosecute John Landis on a much more serious charge, and one which failed, rebuts the suggestion in my post very well. And there is apparently at least one former prosecutor who thinks so too. If anything, prosecutors, being aware of the Landis matter, would probably be even more hesitant to bring charges in such a situation. The Landis case may well be "the exception that proves the rule": it seems to be the only example, and its failure makes it rather unlikely that something like that will come up again.

I am aware that charges are brought by prosecutors, not jurors. My reference to jurors was that it would be very hard for a prosecutor to get jurors to buy the charges in such a situation, and this knowledge, too, would tend to inhibit them from bringing the charges. The inverse of your remark about "scalp on his belt" is "egg on his face".

[Guest regulation]

>>You say you don't want to >argue about it, but you

>>are posting a great many >words in an effort to

>>do that which you say >you don't want to do.

>

>Only because what you said was

>not correct.

>

 

So you DO want to argue with my comments on your post. Which is what I said.

 

 

>That is not correct. I do

>wish you would not keep

>misstating the facts. pickwick

>was not "good enough to

>respond", except in the meaningless

>sense that he posted a

>reply which made no response

>to the question. All

>the answers in his previous

>posts that he referred to

>were addressed to other questions

>and other posters. Read

>them and you will see.

 

I did. His response to your post specifically stated that all elements of your hypothetical except one had been covered in his previous discussion of the statute to which he referred. That seems like a response to me. It just wasn't the response you wanted.

 

 

>His

>reply was to cite a

>section of an unidentified law

>code and the instruction to

>"Go look it up", instead

>of stating simply that prostitution

>does not arise when the

>parties are married even if

>money is paid, as you

>did.

 

In fact he had already identified the statute in question in an earlier post.

 

 

(That's just as

>short and easy as what

>he wrote.) His replies

>to me, from the very

>first one, have been deliberately

>uninformative, dismissive and hostile.

>

 

So when you asked him whether he had gotten up on the wrong side of the bed, that was meant to be a compliment?

 

 

>The unpleasantness in the exchange was

>initiated by pickwick, not by

>me. And "no one

>forced" him to react that

>way.

 

And no one forced you to respond that way or to respond at all. If you don't think addressing other posters in such a manner is a good thing to do, then why do YOU do it?

 

 

>>>but he has no right

>>>to get annoyed because someone

>>>responded.

>>

>>Seems to me that's exactly what >you did.

>

>This comment makes no sense at

>all. I didn't get

>annoyed because someone responded to

>my post, unless you mean

>that someone responded in form

>but without content by putting

>up a subsequent post that

>was purposely unresponsive to the

>comment that it purported to

>be addressing. That's not

>reacting to the fact that

>someone responded; that's reacting to

>the snide attitude of the

>responder.

>

 

I see no substantive difference between the two.

 

 

>I don't see that the attempt

>to prosecute John Landis on

>a much more serious charge,

>and one which failed, rebuts

>the suggestion in my post

>very well.

 

I think it does. If the District Attorney of a major metropolitan area like Los Angeles was willing to bring an extrememly serious charge against one of the most celebrated directors in Hollywood, how much more willing might such an official be to bring a much less serious charge?

 

And there

>is apparently at least one

>former prosecutor who thinks so

>too. If anything, prosecutors,

>being aware of the Landis

>matter, would probably be even

>more hesitant to bring charges

>in such a situation.

>The Landis case may well

>be "the exception that proves

>the rule": it seems to

>be the only example, and

>its failure makes it rather

>unlikely that something like that

>will come up again.

 

Not really. I would cite as another example the charges brought against rock star Don Henley at about the same time.

[Guest trekker]

>So you DO want to argue >with my comments on your

>post. Which is what >I said.

 

No, not "argue". "Correct". There is a difference.

 

>>That is not correct. I do >>wish you would not keep

>>misstating the facts. pickwick >>was not "good enough to

>>respond", except in the meaningless

>>sense that he posted a >>reply which made no response

>>to the question. All >>the answers in his previous

>>posts that he referred to >>were addressed to other questions

>>and other posters. Read >>them and you will see.

>

>I did. His response to >your post specifically stated that

>all elements of your hypothetical >except one had been covered

>in his previous discussion of >the statute to which he

>referred. That seems like >a response to me.

>It just wasn't the response >you wanted.

 

Then read them again. Those elements of the hypothetical were not mine. The scenario was created by Justice and pickwick. All I did was to take their scenario, make it a mainstream movie instead of porn, put names on the characters in order to point out that a mainstream situation would probably be treated differently in the real world, though it shouldn't be under the law (not a question, and not a matter that was addressed in previous posts), and then to raise the marriage question (yes, a question, and one which by pickwick's own statement was not addressed). I was well aware that the legal elements of their scenario had already been addressed, and was not asking about those. I was just making an observation about the real world and asking how the marriage angle might change things (for the director, obviously, not for the married actors). And the "response" was empty.

 

>In fact he had already identified

>the statute in question in >an earlier post.

 

Aside from the fact that it was unlikely that I would have access to the law code that was cited, it probably took more time and effort for pickwick to look up the particular subsection to cite than it would have to provide the answer that you later did. I think that qualifies as a fairly hostile and uncooperative form of response.

 

>>(That's just as >>short and easy as what

>>he wrote.) His replies >>to me, from the very

>>first one, have been deliberately

>>uninformative, dismissive and hostile.

>

>So when you asked him whether >he had gotten up on

>the wrong side of the >bed, that was meant to

>be a compliment?

 

It's not a compliment, nor is it the opposite, as your "question" seems to imply. As I'm sure you know, the expression is a way of saying that someone is in a bad mood and is being grouchy or uncooperative. Which pickwick was, for two posts before I said that.

And if someone is behaving that way, I see nothing wrong in pointing it out.

 

>>The unpleasantness in the exchange was

>>initiated by pickwick, not by >>me. And "no one

>>forced" him to react that >>way.

>

>And no one forced you to >respond that way or to

>respond at all. If >you don't think addressing other

>posters in such a manner >is a good thing to

>do, then why do YOU >do it?

 

I didn't say anyone did, and that's not the point at issue. You were suggesting that the unpleasantness in this situation started with me, and I was pointing out that it came first from him.

 

>>>Seems to me that's exactly what >you did.

>>

>>This comment makes no sense at >>all. I didn't get

>>annoyed because someone responded to >>my post, unless you mean

>>that someone responded in form >>but without content by putting

>>up a subsequent post that >>was purposely unresponsive to the

>>comment that it purported to >>be addressing. That's not

>>reacting to the fact that >>someone responded; that's reacting to

>>the snide attitude of the >>responder.

>

>I see no substantive difference between >the two.

 

I would have thought that the difference is one that lawyers understood well. If B speaks up in answer to a question from A, but doesn't say anything that answers the question, it could be said that "a response" was made, in the broad sense of that word (B addressed some words to A, prompted by the fact that A had addressed words to B), but not in the narrower and more usual sense of the word in that context (B provided information relevant to A's question).

 

 

As should be obvious by now, I consider that I was the aggrieved party in the earlier exchanges with pickwick on this thread, and you don't agree. Equally obvious, I won't be able to convince you of my position, and you won't be able to convince me of yours. So perhaps we can just agree to disagree.

Peace?

[Guest regulation]

>No, not "argue". "Correct".

>There is a difference.

>

 

But since I've already stated that I believe my version IS correct, you are indeed quarreling with what I said by insisting that it is not.

 

>Then read them again. Those

>elements of the hypothetical were

>not mine. The scenario

>was created by Justice and

>pickwick. All I did

>was to take their scenario,

 

Exactly. You created a hypothetical that incorporated elements of the one previously discussed. The fact that you didn't originate them doesn't mean they were not a part of the question you asked.

 

 

>I was well

>aware that the legal elements

>of their scenario had already

>been addressed, and was not

>asking about those.

 

Then why didn't you say that you wanted a response with regard to only one element of your hypothetical?

 

>Aside from the fact that it

>was unlikely that I would

>have access to the law

>code that was cited, it

>probably took more time and

>effort for pickwick to look

>up the particular subsection to

>cite than it would have

>to provide the answer that

>you later did. I

>think that qualifies as a

>fairly hostile and uncooperative form

>of response.

>

 

No, that is not true. There is no way to answer the question you asked with respect to that statute without identifying the section that addresses that question.

 

>>So when you asked him whether >he had gotten up on

>>the wrong side of the >bed, that was meant to

>>be a compliment?

>

>It's not a compliment, nor is

>it the opposite, as your

>"question" seems to imply.

>As I'm sure you know,

>the expression is a way

>of saying that someone is

>in a bad mood and

>is being grouchy or uncooperative.

> Which pickwick was, for

>two posts before I said

>that.

>And if someone is behaving that

>way, I see nothing wrong

>in pointing it out.

>

 

I suppose one definition of "insult" could be "pointing out some aspect of another's behavior that one considers objectionable," which is what you did.

 

 

>I didn't say anyone did, and

>that's not the point at

>issue. You were suggesting

>that the unpleasantness in this

>situation started with me, and

>I was pointing out that

>it came first from him.

>

 

So what? As I've said again and again, if you think it's wrong to make personal attacks on other posters, why do it? If it's wrong, the fact that someone else does it surely doesn't make it right for YOU to do it. If it's okay for you to do it, how can you criticize someone else for doing it?

 

 

>

>As should be obvious by now,

>I consider that I was

>the aggrieved party in the

>earlier exchanges with pickwick on

>this thread, and you don't

>agree. Equally obvious, I

>won't be able to convince

>you of my position, and

>you won't be able to

>convince me of yours.

>So perhaps we can just

>agree to disagree.

>Peace?

 

Surely you know better than to say such a thing to a lawyer.