MANY Red States Now BLOCKED!

[SomewhereonNeptune]

3 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

I just read this post from the beginning of the month and you said production of porn has been Illegal in Florida for quite some time.  Well that is news to me because I know during 2023 Raw Fuck Club was filming in south Florida.  I recognize jacuzzi and shower areas used in the filming of one group scene, I have been in that jacuzzi a number of times.  Maybe this was on an OF account I saw that was downloaded but I am almost certain Raw Fuck Club has filmed in Florida, at least in 2023.  Hope I got that wrong, they shot  a lot of material, but the video I saw (and I could kick myself for deleting it) had a number of group scenes where a lot of Spanish was being spoken.  Now some could argue that could be anywhere in the US BUT I HAVE BEEN in that jacuzzi and that was in south Florida.  So if I am correct, how did they get around that, cause that place was awfully busy when I was there.

I'm inclined to agree with you because if you look at Bang Bros and the U.S.C 2257 disclosures, it continues to list their address as Miami. If it was illegal, I'm inclined to think that there would be a huge stink in the media and by politicians and a certain governor to make sure that was shut down. 

2 minutes ago, ellentonboy said:

They don't exactly strike me as the law abiding types.  viking8X6  adds some information for those that are concerned about the production of porn in Florida because I don't think there is a law on the books that prohibits the production of it, at least according to what our fearless moderator mr. viking8X6 has found.  I can't see them finding every house, apartment or motel room where people are filming porn, it's just not feasible and I believe law enforcement has more serious things on their hands than consenting individuals allowing themselves to be filmed having sex.

Probably true. But those of us familiar with NYC and Times Square pre-and-post Giuliani recognize that one of the things he cracked down on were "quality of life crimes" and ensuring that 42nd Street was transformed from the inherent sleaziness we all knew and loved (I still remember the theaters with live sex on stage and hookers working the crowd) into an urban Disneyfied experience that now just seems comical. Perhaps safer...but comical. 

I can't imagine eradicating all of that from Miami and letting more people go to Lauderdale. 🤣

[ellentonboy]

7 minutes ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

I'm inclined to agree with you because if you look at Bang Bros and the U.S.C 2257 disclosures, it continues to list their address as Miami. If it was illegal, I'm inclined to think that there would be a huge stink in the media and by politicians and a certain governor to make sure that was shut down. 

Probably true. But those of us familiar with NYC and Times Square pre-and-post Giuliani recognize that one of the things he cracked down on were "quality of life crimes" and ensuring that 42nd Street was transformed from the inherent sleaziness we all knew and loved (I still remember the theaters with live sex on stage and hookers working the crowd) into an urban Disneyfied experience that now just seems comical. Perhaps safer...but comical. 

I can't imagine eradicating all of that from Miami and letting more people go to Lauderdale. 🤣

Lauderdale? I would venture to say there is just as much porn shot (no pun intended) or produced in Broward county as there is in Dade.  But I get your point (again no pun intended).  

I just can't imagine if people are not causing a disturbance at a private residence why would police show up? Unless a disgruntled performer decided to get some revenge, I just don't see the police interested.  Perhaps a nosey neighbor who wants to know why only men between 21 and 40 are going into a residence they might call in a "nuisance complaint", but if producers are smart they will film during the day and try not to attract any attention. The Sheriff's are too busy riding up and down I-95 and all the other interstates looking for DUI's.  

You can do a lot with an IPhone these days.  It's amazing what you can record in a one bedroom apartment or even a single family home that has a pool and a privacy fence.

[BootmanLA]

Regarding porn production in Florida:

As some have noted, there are some in power who have opined that since you're paying the porn performers, and you're specifically paying them to have sex, that amounts to prostitution. Which is at least a defensible, if not entirely valid (in my view) position to take.

So why is porn still being produced even in those jurisdictions? Most likely because it's a lot easier to prove "porn was produced" (which is not illegal on its face, especially if no money changes hands) than it is to prove prostitution (which generally requires either documentary evidence like financial records, or direct testimony from someone who witnessed someone being paid for sex. That witness would have to (a) witness the payment, or the agreement to accept payment, and (b) witness the agreement to have sex - that is, connecting the dots between the payment and the called-for activity. For street prostitution where an undercover cop solicits a prostitute, that's easily accomplished by the cop's testimony (leaving aside questions of the possibility of him lying).

But for porn production you'd have to have someone on the inside willing to flip, or else you'd have to have, say, ledgers of payments that can be linked to bank payments (cashed checks, transfers, etc.) - and the authorities aren't likely to be able to get those without probable cause to seek them in the first place, and without someone on the inside, say, willing to testify, probable cause is going to be hard to meet.

So even if porn is prostitution, proving it's a lot harder than street prostitution. 

[ellentonboy]

@BootmanLA - another reason it's being shot in Florida.  Availability of models.  Though I don't live in South Florida, there are literally guys who will perform or appear for free so they can A. Establish an @name to be used in the future, and more importantly - to promote their escort work.  Nothing better than having video proof of your skills or attributes.  Talking to many of them on X, I can tell you they don't want Cash App or some other payment service, they want gift cards and get the cash off of those.  I am much more practical, I think the fees they charge for these cards are exorbitant, but if you ask to see some of their "content", most want to be paid in gift cards.  It's ridiculous but they feel, at least many of them, that it leaves little to no trail.  Now this is just for their "content", I am sure for " in person" services,  cash is always the desired form of payment, but I have limited experience in that area.

[BootmanLA]

4 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

I thought I just heard that the Supreme Court is not going to mess with this ban on adult sites and kicked it back to the states?  I thought I heard Alito got a real laugh out of it, asking how there was any way this was going to be enforced.  Will this mean some states will lift their bans?  He pointed out that parents should be responsible for the conduct of their under 18 year old children, I got the feeling it was "well kids are going to find it anyway" theory from him.

All I have to say to the conservatives on the Supreme Court - VPN.  Say it again - VPN!

I live in Florida and Governor DeSatan is too stupid to realize that there is always going to be a way around any block they try to put up.

I strongly believe that there are two things that will never go out of business - booze and porn.   You don't have to partake if you don't like it but it's always going to be accessible.

I did not yet listen to the entirety of the arguments from the Court, but I've seen reports from various legal scholars who did, and those reports lean both ways.

On the one hand, there seems to be a pretty clear agreement among the justices that the lower court used the wrong standard by which to judge the constitutionality of the law. The Fifth Circuit had held that the law was subject only to rational basis review (that is, if the government has a rational basis for passing the law, it's constitutional). That's the standard used for most laws, such as (to use a basic example) jaywalking: the government has an interest in preventing traffic accidents with pedestrians, so it can inconvenience them by requiring them to cross at intersections rather than randomly on the street. While people have a general right to walk about freely in public, it's not such a significant right that minor burdens on it can't be made.

But First Amendment issues, because they deal with a core right under the constitution, are generally subject to higher scrutiny, and when the right is spelled out - as the right to freedom of speech is - then strict scrutiny is required; that means the government interest being addressed must be compelling (ie extremely important), and the law must be the least restrictive way of accomplishing that interest. (There is another level, called intermediate scrutiny, where the rule is that the governmental interest being asserted must be "important" and the means by which it's being addressed must be "substantially" related to that interest.)

And several justices seemed to think that the Fifth Circuit erred, from the start, by using rational basis review instead of strict scrutiny review. When that happens, the Court usually (but not invariably) will remand the case back to the appellate court with instructions to reexamine the law under the proper standard. (The other alternative would be for the Court to find that the trial record is complete enough for it to render a decision as to whether the law meets strict scrutiny, and make a decision now rather than wait for it to percolate back up to them after further lower court review.) Justices Kagan, Jackson, and Barrett seemed inclined 

Contra what @ellentonboy noted, if *anyone* is inclined to uphold the law as is, with no further discussion, it's Alito. He specifically cited back to the same cases the Fifth Circuit had cited in upholding the law, saying it was no different than the laws that prohibit stores from selling "girlie magazines" like Playboy to minors, which have been consistently upheld.

[BootmanLA]

15 minutes ago, ellentonboy said:

@BootmanLA - another reason it's being shot in Florida.  Availability of models.  Though I don't live in South Florida, there are literally guys who will perform or appear for free so they can A. Establish an @name to be used in the future, and more importantly - to promote their escort work.  Nothing better than having video proof of your skills or attributes.  Talking to many of them on X, I can tell you they don't want Cash App or some other payment service, they want gift cards and get the cash off of those.  I am much more practical, I think the fees they charge for these cards are exorbitant, but if you ask to see some of their "content", most want to be paid in gift cards.  It's ridiculous but they feel, at least many of them, that it leaves little to no trail.  Now this is just for their "content", I am sure for " in person" services,  cash is always the desired form of payment, but I have limited experience in that area.

Oh, I'm sure there are many reasons porn might be shot in south Florida - good weather for outdoor work most of the year, for one thing. As for the specific payment methods, you're probably right about privately produced, one-on-one porn. But I think the original discussion was more about quasi-studio porn, where record keeping (as you've eloquently discussed before) is legally required and where I'm sure the "producer" in question is going to have financial records for payments to performers regardless of their preferences. 

[BergenGuy]

7 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

It does not appear that the Florida legislature has specifically addressed the question of pornography production, apart from a "revenge porn" law similar to those in many other states.

Since adult, consensual pornography is not inherently illegal, I think that there would be serious First Amendment issues in trying to ban its production.  Porn is a form of expression.

[Erik62]

7 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

They don't exactly strike me as the law abiding types.  viking8X6  adds some information for those that are concerned about the production of porn in Florida because I don't think there is a law on the books that prohibits the production of it, at least according to what our fearless moderator mr. viking8X6 has found.  I can't see them finding every house, apartment or motel room where people are filming porn, it's just not feasible and I believe law enforcement has more serious things on their hands than consenting individuals allowing themselves to be filmed having sex.

Here's hoping that somewhere within the expected "carnage" of the next 2 - 4yrs, there will be some people who can & will put reason & logic above pandering to the "4" Qislings that seem committed to universal chaos, that will be residing in the White House. 

[rawTOP]

A few updates…

I started a separate thread about it, but the UK will be blocked come July. 

@viking8x6 is right - prostitution is defined so broadly in Florida that it includes porn production (except maybe content swaps between creators where no money is exchanged). Porn isn’t illegal, and distributing porn isn’t illegal - just paying the models is illegal. 

And @BootmanLA is correct - it’s unclear what SCOTUS will do. On the negative side even one of the liberal justices started with the assumption that kids need to be protected (not with the assumption that free speech needs to be protected). On the other hand it’s not clear that Texas will get an outright win. More likely is something in the middle which is still a loss for free speech.

FSC is not happy that they only got a half hour to present. I may hit up one of the board members because they seem to now be looking for examples that aren’t traditional porn sites - and community sites like this are good examples of AV being unworkable. At the same time, I don’t want the attention that would come with a mention in a high profile court case. 

[GAwhoreSub]

I think one of the most hypocritical aspects of the recent SCOTUS oral arguments is that conservatives on court are making the claim the technology advancements, the types of content available online, and the ease of access to it when compared to magazines and films from the 1950s modifies the constitutional question as it relates to the 1A. Compare this to the number of times the same conservatives have dismissed arguments the technology of guns and increased availability modifies in any way the constitutional question of the 2A.

I've long known this version of SCOTUS has zero consistency and is simply a mouthpiece for the American Right, but this is a yet another level of hypocrisy. Originalism or Textualism as judicial philosophy should be dead after the Roberts Court goes away. They have shown that they have no philosophy beyond Christoauthoritarianism. 

[TaKinGDeePanal]

On 1/14/2025 at 4:48 AM, rawfuckingonly said:

Is it? So, what's wrong with that? What alternative(s) would you rather have for cops who are suspended?

That’s not what this is about. Next time if you wish for a timely answer, you might wish to tag me. 

[hntnhole]

6 hours ago, rawTOP said:

At the same time, I don’t want the attention that would come with a mention in a high profile court case. 

Hopefully, your concerns will prevail.  

It seems that a lot of BZ'ers either are too young, or simply don't remember the repressions some of the more 'experienced' guys remember too well.  

In any case (on behalf of us all), thanks for this splendid and most useful site.  It's a real treasure.  

[stillbreedin]

8 hours ago, rawTOP said:

A few updates…

I started a separate thread about it, but the UK will be blocked come July. 

@viking8x6 is right - prostitution is defined so broadly in Florida that it includes porn production (except maybe content swaps between creators where no money is exchanged). Porn isn’t illegal, and distributing porn isn’t illegal - just paying the models is illegal. 

And @BootmanLA is correct - it’s unclear what SCOTUS will do. On the negative side even one of the liberal justices started with the assumption that kids need to be protected (not with the assumption that free speech needs to be protected). On the other hand it’s not clear that Texas will get an outright win. More likely is something in the middle which is still a loss for free speech.

FSC is not happy that they only got a half hour to present. I may hit up one of the board members because they seem to now be looking for examples that aren’t traditional porn sites - and community sites like this are good examples of AV being unworkable. At the same time, I don’t want the attention that would come with a mention in a high profile court case. 

as i recall, a judge ok'd tn to be added to this list of shame, bnt i imagine the defendants filed a motion to block enforcement until there could be an appearl.  pornmd is already blocked, as i one other.  i am spending a lot of time on bbastards copying files i want to keep. i am jsut not sure if tn is added to that list, if the ones i have copied  to real player will still be available.  any one know about such things?

[Alaric]

This type of knee jerk reaction from the legislators will just drive more folk to taste the onion of the Dark Web where controls are non-existent. BZ is a bit like an adult club in neighbourhood. Tolerated by authorities, but still subject to safety rules, such as building fire regulations. Going "prohibition" will just create criminal activities.