Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mat
From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile)
Newsgroups: net.legal,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Re: Swinging fists (was AG's Commission ...)
Message-ID: <1583@mtx5a.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 12:32:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1583
Posted: Mon Sep 29 12:32:46 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 21:08:40 EDT
References: <1803@mmintl.UUCP> <1567@mtx5a.UUCP> <354@cullvax.UUCP> <416@cci632.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801.
Lines: 67
Xref: watmath net.legal:5210 soc.singles:220

> [ on the ``make a porn flick or starve'' question ]
> Actually, many of us would work for a living.  We might be doing something
> other than what we are doing now, but boredom, lonliness, and a desire
> for better things (assuming work for pay) would be good motivators.
> 
> As to the "that or starve" issue.  There are other alternatives, such as
> working at lower paying jobs.  Minimum pay for a film is usually over
> $100/day.  With film schedules running several weeks.  Add royalties,
> residuals, and side income such as interviews, and you have a tidy sum.
> Replace "that or starve" with "that or sell my caddy", and you have a
> better picture.

Almost.  What about a student carrying a full workload, or a person with
skills that require a sophisticated job to take advantage of?  Minimum wage
can't keep you housed in many cities.

Also, things like royalties and residuals may be common in the more legit
side of the sex film industry, but apparently there are many places where
the ``actors'' are paid for their time on stage or for the number of acts,
and get no further monies from the film.

> Actors DO risk extended periods of unemployment, even starvation.  This
> is a choice, and not necessarily an irreversable one.

The legit film industry and the sex film industry have very little in
common.  Even the sex film recruiter and the ``models'' who spoke before
the Commission indicated that if you were interested in acting, sex films
of the sort they were involved with were the *worst* thing you could do.

> If there were still 65% of some material that was filmed coercion, I would
> still seek to protect the 35% who do not use coercion.  If that group
> was persecuted in the same way as the 65% indiscriminately, the 35%
> would go out of business, while the 65% would find a larger market.
> In other words, why turn 65% into 100%?

Fair enough.  But there are still some problems (mentioned in another article.)

> One important issue here.  Neither the federal government nor the
> locals are allowed to ban the sale and distribution of pornography
> entirely.  It can be restricted to adults, sold only in certain
> "red light districts", liscenced, rated, or otherwise regulated.
> It is even legal to harass dealers, if there is reason to believe
> that other activities (prostitution, public sex, drugs, other crimes)
> are also being committed.

Not quite.  When the material falls into the domain of true legal obscenity,
distribution (though not posession) can be prohibited.  If you don't want
it prohibited, write your legislator.

> If the issue is what to do about the 65%, then perhaps giving the 35%
> better marketing conditions would increase the growth of that market.
> The growth of that market might "crowd out" the coercive and unethical
> segment of the market.

Fair enough.  Is there a way to put a ``union label'' on these films?

I hope to soon post the three ``dissenting'' statements that were written by
three of the Commissioners.  They are lengthy, and it takes a while for me to
type them.  I hope that you examine them carefully.
-- 

	from Mole End			Mark Terribile
		(scrape .. dig )	mtx5b!mat
					(Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a!
						mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat)
					(mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me)
    ,..      .,,       ,,,   ..,***_*.