By Mark Kernes, AVN Media Network

 CONCORD, N.H., December 10, 2008- The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled last
 Thursday that a man who offered to pay two adults to have sex while he videotaped the act is
 not guilty of a crime.

 Robert Theriault was charged under New Hampshire Revised Statutes 645:2, which holds
 that a person is guilty of a misdemeanor if that person "[p]ays, agrees to pay, or offers to pay
 another person to engage in sexual contact as defined in RSA 632-A:1, IV or sexual
 penetration as defined in RSA 632-A:1, V, with the payor or with another person."

 However, the statute defines "sexual contact" as "the intentional touching whether directly,
 through clothing, or otherwise, of the victim's or actor's sexual or intimate parts, including
 breasts and buttocks. Sexual contact includes only that aforementioned conduct which can be
 reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification." The statute
 also lists a number of acts which constitute "sexual penetration," but as the Supreme Court
 noted in its opinion, issued Dec. 4, that portion of the statute "does not include the provision
 'for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.'"

 According to court documents, Theriault "was employed as a court security officer in Franklin
 District Court. On December 5, 2005, he asked a young woman, C.H., and her boyfriend,
 J.S., who were at the court paying fines, if they needed employment. After informing them
 that he could not discuss the job at the courthouse, he met them in a parking lot behind a
 bank. The defendant asked the couple if they wanted to make 'f... flicks.' The defendant
 specified the details: he would pay them fifty dollars per hour, he would rent a hotel room,
 and they would use temperature blankets and different condoms while the defendant
 videotaped them having intercourse." (The reference to "temperature blankets" is unclear,
 although we note that the incident did take place in December in northern New England,
 where it gets pretty damned cold at that time of year.) (Of course, the phrase may have been
 misheard.)

 Apparently, the couple wasn't interested, and reported the offer to J.S.'s mother, who in turn
 reported the incident to a court official, who had Theriault arrested on the prostitution charge.

 Theriault eventually went to trial on two prostitution charges, including one in which he didn't
 tell another couple he'd propositioned that he intended to videotape them, and he was
 convicted on that charge.

 However, although the trial court, in a separate proceeding, convicted Theriault on the charge
 involving C.H. and J.S., the Supreme Court reversed.

 Theriault, who was represented by two of the state's appellate defenders, David M. Rothstein
 and Paul Borchardt, had argued to the high court that the prostitution statute was
 "substantially overbroad because it could be applied to criminalize constitutionally permissible
 activities such as the production of a non-obscene but sexually explicit movie." The court
 rejected that overbreadth argument, finding that it was not facially overbroad, but allowed
 that it could be subject to "as-applied" challenges, which Theriault's attorneys proceeded to
 do.

 "In this case, however," the Court noted, "the State did not charge the defendant with offering
 to pay another to engage in 'sexual contact,' and there was no evidence or allegation that the
 defendant acted with 'the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.' In fact, at trial, the only
 witness was C.H. She testified that the defendant asked her and her boyfriend if they needed
 employment, and if they wanted to make videos.  She testified that '[h]e said that he would
 rent a hotel room and he would be the only one recording, so we didn't feel uncomfortable.'
 C.H. said that the defendant offered to pay them fifty dollars per hour, and she specified: 
 'He's just going to pay us to make the video.' The trial court found that the State 'proved
 beyond a reasonable doubt, that [the defendant] offered to pay [the couple] money, that is
 $50 an hour, to engage in sexual penetration. That is, [J.S.] would sexually penetrate [C.H.]
 while [the defendant] videotaped them.'"

 "The facts boil down to the defendant offering to remunerate the couple to have sexual
 intercourse while being videotaped," the Court continued. "There was no evidence or
 allegation that the defendant solicited this activity for the purpose of sexual arousal or
 gratification as opposed to making a video. The State did not charge the defendant under the
 'sexual contact' portion of the statute and therefore there was no finding by the trial court that
 the defendant acted for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. Thus, if the statute
 constitutionally prohibits the defendant's conduct, a request to pay two individuals to make a
 sexually explicit video would be unprotected under the free speech guarantees of the State
 Constitution."

 The Court then proceeded to affirm the concept that making "motion pictures" is a
 constitutionally protected activity, noting however that, as set forth in Miller v. California,
 the state has a "legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material
 when the mode of dissemination carries with it a significant danger of offending the sensibilities
 of unwilling recipients or of exposure to juveniles," but that, as set forth in Ashcroft v. Free
 Speech Coalition, "As a general rule, pornography can be banned only if obscene."

 "We must decide to what extent the production of sexually explicit but non-obscene videos is
 constitutionally protected," the Court stated. "Although this issue has not been widely decided
 in other jurisdictions, those that have addressed it are divided."

 The Court then referred to People v. Freeman, the decision which established the right to
 film sexually explicit content in California, and People v. Kovner, a 1978 New York case
 where that state's high court found that, "While First Amendment considerations may protect
 the dissemination of printed or photographic material regardless of the manner in which it was
 obtained, this protection will not shield one against a prosecution for a crime committed
 during the origination of the act." In other words, while the end product may be legal, the acts
 which give rise to that product are not.

 The New Hampshire Supreme Court, however, found Kovner's logic to be flawed.

 "The reasoning in Kovner is based upon a distinction that has never been adopted by the
 United States Supreme Court," the New Hampshire high court stated. "The [U.S. Supreme]
 Court has never held that for First Amendment purposes, there is a distinction between
 production and dissemination in regulating pornography. Moreover, this distinction is illogical.
 It would mean that sale, distribution and viewing of a non-obscene movie is constitutionally
 protected while production of the same movie is not. Instead, to regulate the production and
 dissemination of sexually explicit films, the Court has established certain categories that are
 simply outside First Amendment protection." The New Hampshire court referenced the U.S. 
 Supreme Court's rulings in New York v. Ferber (child porn) and Miller v. California
 (obscenity). Moreover, the Court noted, the Kovner case referenced a California case,
 People v. Fixler, which involved an underage performer, and its basis was "abandoned" in
 Freeman, with the Freeman court laying the basis for the New Hampshire's logical
 conclusion that it is untenable to make the creation of legal sexual material a crime.

 "To uphold the conviction in the instant case, where the only facts adduced at trial were that
 the defendant offered to pay two people to have sexual intercourse while being videotaped,
 would infringe upon an area of speech protected by the State Constitution," the New
 Hampshire Supreme Court concluded.

 "We emphasize that our holding is dictated by the specific charges and unique facts of this
 case. The defendant was charged with offering to pay two individuals to engage in sexual
 penetration while he videotaped them. We note that the State did not charge the defendant
 with offering to pay them to engage in sexual contact, which would have required the State to
 prove that he acted for 'the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification' and thus engaged in
 conduct that was not constitutionally protected. Thus, our holding today will not prevent the
 State from continuing to prosecute prostitution, even when the acts are videotaped."

 However, it would appear that the Theriault ruling would prevent the state from prosecuting
 adult filmmakers in New Hampshire - a victory for free sexual speech.

 © Copyright 1995-2008 AVN Media Network
 
 Female Libido Enhancer
 
 Attention Ladies: Increase your sexual libido and orgasmic capability by taking two tablets
 per day (one with breakfast and one with dinner) of Tribulus Terrestris, available for your
 purchase at an affordable price at Female Libido Enhancers. Take one tablet with one full
 glass of water at breakfast and again at dinner.
 
 Erectile Dysfunction Herbal Remedies
 
 Stop erectile dysfunction and erection problems from hurting your love life by taking the
 following erection pills two hours before sexual activity: (1) one tablet of Tongkat Ali; (2) one
 tablet of Tribulus Terrestris; and (3) two tablets of Arginine. Take with one full glass of water
 at meal time. You can buy all three herbal sex enhancers at an affordable price at Male
 Erection Problems.
 
 Buy Tongkat Ali, the most effective and safest herbal remedy for
 erectile dysfunction, for worldwide postal delivery.
 
 Buy Premature Ejaculation Stuff (Minyak Lintah Tapa) helps men
 handle premature ejaculation, makes the girl more sexually excited and
 horny during intercourse session, for worldwide postal delivery. 
 
  Also visit our other effective websites listed below:
 
     Health Websites:
 
     ● Bacolod Massage
     ● Certified Herbalists Directory
     ● Dumaguete Massage
     ● Live Longer
     ● Longevity
     ● Massage School
     ● Massage Therapy Training
     ● Massage Therapy School
     ● Massage Therapy Certification
     ● Philippines Massage