http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/opinion/02KNEE.html?th
by Jonathan A. Knee ... an article calling for criminalization of the PORTRAYAL of sex acts for money.
"The law of obscenity has not fundamentally changed since the Supreme Court in 1973 vaguely directed a jury to apply 'contemporary community standards' in reaching a verdict. In the Internet era, the question of what community and what standards is even less clear....
"What we need is a kind of regulation that does not implicate the First Amendment at all "” yet goes to the heart of the enterprises that fuel the multibillion-dollar pornography industry. The value of laws against prostitution is well established. What if we were to enact laws that made it illegal to give or receive payment to perform sex acts?
[And how does THAT bypass the First Amendment?]
"The policy justifications for such a law are similar to those for laws against prostitution: society objects on principle to the commodification and commercialization of sexual relations, even between consenting adults.
[This would effectively outlaw MARRIAGE too which is au fond a financial arrangement.]
"Such a law would not implicate the profanity or nudity that has been the recent focus of the F.C.C. "” it would deal exclusively with sex acts, which the Internet seems to revel in.
"This law would put the largest pornographers out of business: they could not pay someone to perform in a hard-core pornographic film. The First Amendment does not protect otherwise illegal activities simply because they are part of a movie. If it did, bank robbers would bring along a film crew to every heist and seek constitutional protection for their chosen vocation."
By this logic however, film producers could not show SIMULATED bank robberies or murder... ! Or for that matter seduction, or bedroom scenes... all those actors are such whores anyhow as we know.
Mr. Knee must have had a hard time recently opening Mrs. Knee, after she asked for more house-keeping money.