People v. Freeman was a criminal prosecution of Harold Freeman, a producer and director of pornographic films, by the U.S. state of California. Freeman was charged in 1987 with pandering - procurement of persons "for the purpose of prostitution" - under section 266i of the Cal. Penal Code[1] for hiring adult actors, which the prosecution characterized as pimping. The prosecution was part of an attempt by California to shut down the pornographic film industry. The prosecution's characterization was ultimately rejected on appeal by the California Supreme Court. Prior to this decision, pornographic films had often been shot in secret locations.
California v. Freeman: Stay denied, 488U.S. 1311 (1989) (O'Connor, J., in chambers); cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1017 (1989)
Holding
California pandering statute was not intended to cover the hiring of actors who would be engaging in sexually explicit but non-obscene performances. Convictions could only be upheld if the payment to the actors was for the purpose of sexually gratifying the payer or the actors.
Freeman was initially convicted, and lost on appeal to the California Court of Appeal. The trial judge, however, thought jail would be an unreasonably harsh penalty for Freeman's conduct, and sentenced him to probation, despite the fact that this was explicitly contrary to the statute. The State appealed this sentence but lost.
Freeman appealed to the California Supreme Court, which subsequently overturned his conviction, finding that the California pandering statute was not intended to cover the hiring of actors who would be engaging in sexually explicit but non-obscene performances. Freeman could only have been lawfully convicted of pandering if he had paid the actors for the purpose of sexually gratifying himself or the actors. The court relied upon the language of the statute for this interpretation, as well as the need to avoid a conflict with the First Amendment right to free speech. The court viewed Freeman's conviction as "a somewhat transparent attempt at an 'end run' around the First Amendment and the state obscenity laws."
The State of California unsuccessfully tried to have this judgment overturned by the United States Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor denied a stay of the California Supreme Court's judgment, while being critical of its First Amendment reasoning noting "it must certainly be true that otherwise illegal conduct is not made legal by being filmed" she found it unlikely the petition for certiorari would be granted because the California Supreme Court's ruling was founded on an adequate and independent basis of state law. The full Court subsequently denied the petition for certiorari.
As a result, the making of hardcore pornography was effectively legalized in California.
In 2008, in the case of New Hampshire v. Theriault, the New Hampshire Supreme Court adopted the distinction between pornography production and prostitution in their interpretation of The New Hampshire Constitutions' free speech clause.[2]
^"Offer to tape sex nullifies conviction" . Archived from the original on June 20, 2010. Retrieved October 3, 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) by Annmarie Timmins, Concord Monitor, December 5, 2008.
RAME FAQ entry on the Freeman case October 3, 2003, at the Wayback Machine
January 01, 1970
people, freeman, criminal, prosecution, harold, freeman, producer, director, pornographic, films, state, california, freeman, charged, 1987, with, pandering, procurement, persons, purpose, prostitution, under, section, 266i, penal, code, hiring, adult, actors,. People v Freeman was a criminal prosecution of Harold Freeman a producer and director of pornographic films by the U S state of California Freeman was charged in 1987 with pandering procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution under section 266i of the Cal Penal Code 1 for hiring adult actors which the prosecution characterized as pimping The prosecution was part of an attempt by California to shut down the pornographic film industry The prosecution s characterization was ultimately rejected on appeal by the California Supreme Court Prior to this decision pornographic films had often been shot in secret locations People v FreemanSupreme Court of CaliforniaArgued December 10 1987Decided August 25 1988Full case nameThe People v Harold FreemanCitation s 46 Cal 3d 419 758 P 2d 1128 250 Cal Rptr 598 1988 Cal LEXIS 171 15 Media L Rep 2072Case historyPrior historyDefendant convicted Superior Court Los Angeles County conviction affirmed 233 Cal Rptr 510 Cal Ct App 1987 sentence affirmed 234 Cal Rptr 245 Cal Ct App 1987 review granted 734 P 2d 562 Ca 1987 Subsequent historyCalifornia v Freeman Stay denied 488 U S 1311 1989 O Connor J in chambers cert denied 489 U S 1017 1989 HoldingCalifornia pandering statute was not intended to cover the hiring of actors who would be engaging in sexually explicit but non obscene performances Convictions could only be upheld if the payment to the actors was for the purpose of sexually gratifying the payer or the actors Court membershipChief JusticeMalcolm LucasAssociate JusticesStanley Mosk Anthony Kline Allen Broussard Edward Panelli John Arguelles David Eagleson Marcus KaufmanCase opinionsMajorityKaufman joined by Mosk Broussard Panelli KlineConcurrenceLucas EaglesonLaws appliedU S Const amend I Cal Penal Code 266I 647 Freeman was initially convicted and lost on appeal to the California Court of Appeal The trial judge however thought jail would be an unreasonably harsh penalty for Freeman s conduct and sentenced him to probation despite the fact that this was explicitly contrary to the statute The State appealed this sentence but lost Freeman appealed to the California Supreme Court which subsequently overturned his conviction finding that the California pandering statute was not intended to cover the hiring of actors who would be engaging in sexually explicit but non obscene performances Freeman could only have been lawfully convicted of pandering if he had paid the actors for the purpose of sexually gratifying himself or the actors The court relied upon the language of the statute for this interpretation as well as the need to avoid a conflict with the First Amendment right to free speech The court viewed Freeman s conviction as a somewhat transparent attempt at an end run around the First Amendment and the state obscenity laws The State of California unsuccessfully tried to have this judgment overturned by the United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O Connor denied a stay of the California Supreme Court s judgment while being critical of its First Amendment reasoning noting it must certainly be true that otherwise illegal conduct is not made legal by being filmed she found it unlikely the petition for certiorari would be granted because the California Supreme Court s ruling was founded on an adequate and independent basis of state law The full Court subsequently denied the petition for certiorari As a result the making of hardcore pornography was effectively legalized in California In 2008 in the case of New Hampshire v Theriault the New Hampshire Supreme Court adopted the distinction between pornography production and prostitution in their interpretation of The New Hampshire Constitutions free speech clause 2 Contents 1 See also 2 References 2 1 Cases 3 External linksSee also editList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 488 List of United States Supreme Court cases Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist CourtReferences edit Cal Penal Code s266i Offer to tape sex nullifies conviction Offer to tape sex nullifies conviction Concord Monitor Archived from the original on June 20 2010 Retrieved October 3 2013 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint bot original URL status unknown link by Annmarie Timmins Concord Monitor December 5 2008 Cases edit People v Freeman 46 Cal 3d 419 1988 California v Freeman 488 U S 1311 1989 New Hampshire v Theriault 2008 External links editAn article on the Freeman case RAME FAQ entry on the Freeman case Archived October 3 2003 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title People v Freeman amp oldid 1192776000, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
