Sex and the 6th Circuit

Katherine Mangu-Ward | November 2, 2007

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled[PDF] that posting dirty pictures on (in this case) swingers sites is protected speech, and need not be subject to the same record-keeping and reporting requirements as ordinary commerical porn.

Regina Lynn, Wired's Sex Drive columnist, writes that technology has confused this issue, muddling the distinctions between different kinds of speech and behavior, including sex:

We can do a better job of accepting how adults adapt new technologies to sex. And we need to stop underestimating our own ingenuity....Certainly laws designed for VHS don't fit very well into a web 2.0 world.

The root of this particular case is that modern tech bridges the gap between sex (interaction) and porn (entertainment). Some forms of sex look a lot like porn: documenting and publishing our lovemaking to an adult community site, for example,

The cliché is that we like porn because it's sex without the work of a relationship. But now we've developed technology that lets us experience one part porn, one part prostitution and one part long-term relationship. Our only commitment is an hour or two a week and a credit card. It's a compelling combination.

So, while this kind of hybrid speech is safe for now, porn attorney Christopher C. Corwin writes on his blog NY XXX Law that this case might go all the way. To the Supreme Court, I mean. Obviously.

More on dubious online solicitation and the courts here. More on swingers and the law here.

Comments

|11.2.07 @ 4:25PM|#

All I can say is they better not touch my Youporn.com. There will be hell to pay.

|11.2.07 @ 7:30PM|#

giggity giggity good

The Wine Commonsewer|11.2.07 @ 7:50PM|#

I still don't get why it's free speech to pay money to watch someone have sex who is getting paid to have sex but it is not free speech to cut out the middleman, go directly to the source, and pay for sex directly. In either case the chick is getting paid for having sex.

|11.2.07 @ 7:55PM|#

TWC, I don't get why it is illegal to do for money what is legal to do for free. I'm kinda dense, I guess.

M|11.2.07 @ 8:25PM|#

J sub, the rationale is that those who engage the services of volunteers wield less coercive power over their engagees than those who pay employees. At least that would be my rationale if I were tyrant.

|11.2.07 @ 11:52PM|#

The reason is simple: politicians' wives don't like prostitutes.

The Prostitutes|11.3.07 @ 7:08AM|#

But Honey, we say the nicest things about them!

|11.3.07 @ 8:44AM|#

"The cliché is that we like porn because it's sex without the work of a relationship."

Isn't it also sex without, you know, sex?

|11.3.07 @ 11:22AM|#

J sub, the rationale is that those who engage the services of volunteers wield less coercive power over their engagees than those who pay employees.

Yeah, cause nothing says "I'm forcing you to do this" like "Here's some cash."

Christ, I thought the very essence of coercion was not paying.

The Wine Commonsewer|11.4.07 @ 12:31PM|#

I find it amusing that the term cocktails is back in fashion again. That and martooni swilling. How 1950's. :-)

The Wine Commonsewer|11.4.07 @ 12:32PM|#

Oh wait, should have said......

....how mid-century.......

there, now I'm too hip.

|11.4.07 @ 3:40PM|#

Are these the same judges who say you cant have a vativity in your town square but saying fithu words in music are protected? what a bunch of judicial idiots