‘Bizarre Use of the Law’

Your editorial (Jan. 22), “Upholding a Bizarre Use of the Law,” was somewhat disappointing. In that editorial, you criticized “overzealous state prosecutors” and Appellate Justices Robert Kingsley and John Arguelles for being “apparently unaware” of state and federal constitutional nuances. Unfortunately, your editorial lacks knowledge of the totality of facts that led to the decision in the case and embodies a serious misunderstanding of the specific law involved. Your constitutional interpretations and conclusions are therefore faulty.

In the first place, you chose to ignore the fact that administrative vice division of the Los Angeles Police Department conducted the investigation of film maker Harold Freeman and enthusiastically pushed for the conviction that was eventually reached. Prosecutors were merely doing the job for which they are paid. In this particular case they performed in an outstanding manner.

Secondly, you failed to recognize the difference between the crimes of prostitution and pandering. As you stated in your editorial, the “hiring of a prostitute for sexual gratification” is a form of prostitution. This crime, however, involves only the prostitute and the “client.” Pandering, which Harold Freeman was convicted of, is a felony and involves the procurement of persons other than one’s self to commit sex acts. The motive and scale of this procurement process involved in the crime of pandering, is the important issue. Sexual gratification is not a necessary element of either law.

Film makers have, on numerous occasions, required actors and actresses to be involved in simulated sex acts incidental to the story being filmed. In the case of hard-core pornography, any possible story is incidental to the sex acts for which the actors and actresses are hired.

Finally, your understanding of the constitutional guarantee of free speech is at best puzzling. According to your rationale, the commission of a crime should be protected by the First Amendment if it is perpetrated in furtherance of a motion picture. Utilizing this theory it necessarily holds true that the commission of actual murders, rapes and robberies, would therefore be reasonable and protected in order to capture stark realism on the screen.

Incidentally, the spirit and intent of what you describe as the “anti-pimp law in 1982” involves only the enhancement of existing sanctions against persons involved in pimping and pandering. It has nothing to do with the actual statutes themselves, which have been part of the California penal code for many years. These penalty enhancements were enacted because of the California Legislature’s belief in the seriousness of the concerned offenses.

Fortunately for this great community, justices such as Robert Kingsley and John Arguelles are sitting in the Court of Appeal and The Times is restricted to reporting misinformation.

DARYL F. GATES

Chief of Police

Los Angeles