Prostitution versus Pornography

[uwsman2]

Here's an interesting news item from today's issue of the New York Law Journal.

Jenny Paulino, who runs American Beauties Escort Service on the upper east side of Manhattan, is being prosecuted by the Manhattan District Attorney for "promoting prostitution." She asked the court to dismiss the charges on the ground of "selective prosecution," arguing that the D.A. only goes after small operators like her but ignores the "Goliath" corporations that make millions from producing and distributing pornographic materials in which actors are paid to have sex. She argues that such selective prosecution violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Rejecting her claim, New York Supreme Court Justice Budd Goodman says that this is the difference between prostitution (which is illegal in NY) and pornography (which is legal so long as it is not "obscene"):

Prostitution, as traditionally defined, requires person A paying person B for sexual activity to be performed on A. Pornography, on the other hand, involves person C paying person B for sexual activity performed on A. In other words, prostitution is and has always been intuitively defined as a bilateral exchange between a prostitute and client. Justice Goodman characterized Paulino's argument as resting on a "specious" interpretation of "prostitution." Goodman asserted that because commercial producers of pornography have flourished for a long time without anyone thinking they were engaged in prostitution, it was up to the legislature to decide if it wanted to prosecute them.

This suggests interesting possibilities. I'm sure regulars on this board can work them out for themselves, but one need not fear prosecution before Judge Goodman, I guess, if one hires an escort to be a birthday present for a friend - provided one sets up a video camera and films the resulting delivery of the present....

[Curmudgeon]

>one need not fear prosecution before Judge Goodman, I guess, if one

>hires an escort to be a birthday present for a friend - provided one

>sets up a video camera and films the resulting delivery of the

>present....

 

The way I read what you've posted, the distinction is that both people having sex have to be getting paid by a third party, not that video cameras are involved.

 

I'm going out on a limb here but I'm betting most clients are unlikely to get paid for it.

 

The problem with making something foolproof is the universe keeps making better fools.