There aren’t a lot of laws against shooting porn anywhere, because it’s pretty much impossible to write one that doesn’t impair constitutional rights of free speech. So why did “they” always say that California was the only state where it was legal to shoot porn? The answer has to do with laws against prostitution, and prosecutors who can’t resist pretending a porn shoot is an act of prostitution (it isn’t), and courts who don’t let them get away with it. It’s a little bit complicated, but if you’re curious about it, this here is about the clearest and simplest article you’re ever going to find to explain it to you.

In California, it all traces back to a landmark case, California v. Freeman, in which California prosecuted porn director Harold Freeman on pandering charges. Freeman was convicted at trial, a conviction that was upheld by the court of appeals, but later overturned by the California Supreme Court.

In a nutshell, the state’s highest court ruled that “in order to constitute prostitution, the money or other consideration must be paid for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.”

The key verbiage there, the lawyers tell me, is “for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification,” and the fact that the court meant for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the person who is footing the bill. Since Harold Freeman’s primary purpose was to create a sexually-explicit movie, and not to get his rocks off, California couldn’t sustain a charge of pandering against him. The court put a pretty fine point on their assessment of Freeman’s prosecution, calling it “a somewhat transparent attempt at an ‘end run’ around the First Amendment and the state obscenity laws.”

The Freeman case was originally decided by the jury in 1987. Following the overturning of the conviction two years later, no prosecutor anywhere brought pandering charges against a porn producer again for almost 20 years…

Similar Sex Blogging: