In People v. Kovner, 96 Misc.2d 414, 409 N.Y.S.2d 349 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co.1978) a broader definition of prostitution was adopted. There, the Court found that the producer of various pornographic films may be guilty of promoting prostitution if he advances or profits from the hiring of actors and actresses for the purpose of filming them engaged in explicit sexual conduct. The court stated: Neither the statute itself (Penal Law Sec. 230.00), nor any decisions interpreting it, exclude explicit sexual conduct by a paid performer from the definition of prostitution, that the fee paid for the sexual activity was provided by a nonparticipant or that the defendant's object was to photograph the activity creates no legal distinction. Id. at 417, 409 N.Y.S.2d 349.
31 West 21st Street Associates v. Evening of the Unusual, Inc. 125 Misc.2d 661, *668, 480 N.Y.S.2d 816, **822 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct.,1984)
However, one presumes that the cops generally have better things to do than raiding porn studios.
--- Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> Chris:
>
> OK, prostitution is illegal in the States.
> Prostitution is being paid to have sex with a
> client.
>
> Now, porn actors/actresses are also paid to have sex
> with other porn actors/actresses. Why is being a
> porn
> actor legal and being a prostitute isn't?
>
>
> [WS:] Would not that have more to do with the rules
> of admissible evidence
> rather than the act itself? It would be difficult
> to prosecute someone
> based on what he/she reveals about him/herself in a
> work of art or fiction
> (no matter how suggestive.) If the cops raided a
> place where such works of
> art are being shot, that would be a different story,
> I presume.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com