Oct 3, 2005

okay

we are going to take a time out with the hate fest
everyone in their corners

lets move on to something more lively, enjoyable
like porn
Oregon supreme court has decided that live sex acts are protected under the free speech clause of the constitution
as long as they do not involve two people
then it's prostitution or intent to solicit
which is to say, a girl can masturbate on stage, but not perform an act with someone else
I question the logic of this
mostly because it seems most of those scenarios involve several people...IE the audience

does this mean that you are allowed to pay a lady to masturbate and it ISN'T prostitution?

the law is a fascinating semantic tool

I guess I just don't understand how anyone wandering into a strip club for entertainment would be shocked and offended by two girls touching each other

but then, I'm naive

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey :)

You have a great blog here, keep up the great work! I'll definitely bookmark you.

Do you wanna check out The Coolest Guy On The Planet's website?

Check it out if you get some time, and I'll be sure to check back here regularly!

Anonymous said...

I'm sure no legal scholar, but .perhaps the intent of Oregon's Supreme Court was to limit the level of exploitation of sex workers? I know I'd feel better about masturbating in front of a crowd for money than having sex and exposing myself to all kinds of fluids. Then again, it's probably like the time I thought England's 11pm pub closing law had to do with letting the poor bartenders be done with work at a reasonable hour...later I learned it was a morality/ no drunk people thing.

Bjetsey said...

yeah, my first thought was also that it was a way to protect the workers. kinda like the no-smoking in bars rule. Does OR have that yet? I can't remember.

heydt said...

Protecting the workers is a laudable goal... but rarely are the workers in question asked what they want. This thing in Seattle, for instance, where new ordinances are being proposed that prohibit customers from any kind of physical contact at all; great as far as it goes, but it prevents the dancers' major sources of tips, lapdances. (Not to mention the classic bills in the g-string.) On the bright side, they are requiring that dancers be employees and not independant contractors, which eliminates the oppressive stage fees, and gives them a whole raft of employee benefits and protections, including the one that I feel is most important for sex workers, the right to unionize. (Not that they didn't have that right as independant contractors, but it's harder to do, and there are less state and federal protections and assists involved.)

heydt said...

Oh, I forgot to mention private booths and girl-girl shows, both of which would be elimated by this decision and by the Seattle ordinances, and both being very important sources of income.

Bjetsey said...

yeah, when I posted the "protect the workers" thing, I realized that it's not an industry where things aren't done exactly that way.
re: employee benefits - I can imagine that workers comp and health benefits would be high for such a (potentially) physically demanding job, and great for the employees. It seems like this industry is continually harmed by the hype surrounding it. I can imagine, for instance, that NIOSH isn't heading into clubs to make sure that the noise level isn't too high or that other working conditions are being met.

Clayton said...

If you want a more detailed examination of what's wrong with this decision, look here.

heydt said...

Hrm... what I'm getting from your blog, Clayton, is that yer rather a strict constructionist, constitutionaly. (Double entendre not intended, but appreciated.) My feeling is that since the pre-existing laws you reference date to a time when social strictures were decidedly different, and since most obscenity law (as I understand it) is based on "community standard", perhaps the standard has, ehm, changed? A wee bit? Moreover, since the establishments are already regulated to a certain degree, disallowing minors, subject to alchohol statutes, etc., it's not like the performers are doing this in the proverbial street to the horror of the proverbial horses, is it? Thus perhaps, just perhaps, the ACLU's interpretation of free speech has some bearing on the matter?

Of course, IANAL, or a particularly well-informed constitutional scholar... I am an artfag, and we tend to be a bit bullheaded about obscenity.