Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus
Yes, I'm quite aware of the loophole and the reason it is allowed. Thus the reason I called it ironic.
You can deem it "acting" all you want. It's fucking for money and its prostitution.
|
To be pornography, money is not the criteria. It's still pornography without paying as long the intentions are the same (an audience). Prostitution is a personal service and money is the criteria.
It can also be pornography even if a movie is not dedicated to porn only. Are actors/actresses doing pornography in a Hollywood movie prostitutes because they are paid for acting?
If you consider free speech a loophole, then
everything we do and say legally must be a loophole.