Originally Posted by tcsfounder

no this is not exactly true. The real story is that California is a state where this issue was already brought to the courts and set precedent. There are a few counties in the country where porn is outright illegal, but for the most part it is a case of the issue not being brought up and fought to set precedent like in California, so it is a gray area, and not completely outright illegal.

Also, i read the link you provided, and i would be suspect of taking advice from a lawyer who did not know the difference between the word president and precedent, but that may just be me being a stickler for the english language, i am sure most law schools aren't so strict on stuff like that, lol.

some interesting things when googling around,

it appears the nyc nypd movie/tv unit worked with porn productions until the Guliani election.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department


new york supreme court Justice Budd G. Goodman issued a ruling rejecting a claim that porn was a form of prostitution. Justice Goodman "has enunciated the legal distinction between prostitution and paying someone to participate in sexual activity to make a pornographic film," the New York Law Journal reports:

Prostitution, as traditionally defined, requires person A paying person B for sexual activity to be performed on A, Supreme Court Justice Budd G. Goodman wrote in People v. Paulino, 6687/04.

Pornography, on the other hand, involves person C paying B for sexual activity performed on A.