LOS ANGELES—It comes as no surprise to members of the adult entertainment industry and their supporters that the government, whether local, state or federal, rarely treats our industry fairly—and the fact that there's a worldwide coronavirus pandemic going on has brought one government program, the Small Business Administration's loan program, under particular scrutiny.
As set forth in this writer's articles here, here and here, the federal government employees who essentially create governmental policy, often without having the least understanding of the businesses they're attempting to "serve" and/or regulate, either because of the employees' politically conservative and/or religious beliefs, fail to comprehend that some of those businesses—particularly the ones commonly labeled "adult"—have just as much right to exist as, say, Shake Shack, Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, Potbelly and hundreds of other fairly large businesses who have had no problem receiving small business loans under the SBA's Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).
As has become quite clear, the method these government employees have used to evade their constitutional duty to treat all legal businesses fairly is through the use of language which has a very specific meaning under the law, but which is easily misunderstood by laypersons who may see it and, worse, be called to act upon such language.
In the case at hand, that language is the phrase "prurient sexual nature," and while adult companies certainly deal in materials and performances that are clearly of a "sexual nature," the problem is the government's use of the word "prurient." When laypeople see that word, although they have no idea what it actually means, something ticks up in the back of their minds, especially if they've had a fair amount of common religious training, that "prurient" means "sexually bad." Indeed, Dictionary.com gives three definitions for the word: 1) "having, inclined to have, or characterized by lascivious or lustful thoughts, desires, etc."; 2) "causing lasciviousness or lust"; and 3) "having a restless desire or longing."
Just one problem: None of those definitions, as inflammatory as they may be to the average churchgoer (after all, "lust" is one of the "seven deadly sins"), create a crime under the law. For that, one must consult case law, and pretty much the only place in the law where "prurient" is used is in obscenity cases—and while the "definition" of "prurient" is still pretty vague even in that setting, at least its legal meaning has been confined to describing material that is a "shameful, morbid or unhealthy interest in sex or excretion."
So that leaves us with a dilemma: If "prurient" means a "shameful, morbid or unhealthy interest in sex or excretion," and no established adult companies make movies or other content that fits that definition—and rest assured, if they did, they would have been busted for it—nor do dancers at strip clubs, it becomes clear that even though the government hasn't been able to bust any recognized adult producer for "obscenity" over the past decade, it is nevertheless using its weasel-worded prohibition of "prurient sexual nature" to prevent adult companies from claiming their right to SBA loans just as any small restaurant, shoe store, dry cleaner, clothing store, etc., etc., etc. could claim its similar right.
Now, a couple of lawsuits have already been filed over the SBA's malfeasance regarding these loan applications, and it's likely that more are to come, but so far, there's not much (if anything) being done at the grassroots level. After all, it's the fans of adult movies and web scenes and magazines and strippers who will eventually be hurt by this discrimination, since once businesses begin to reopen after the worst of the pandemic is behind us, the adult businesses who were unable to keep valuable employees on the payroll and who will be unable to maintain their relationships with their suppliers due to unpaid bills incurred because of the COVID-19 closures will no longer be able to provide the entertainment these fans desire.
So in that vein, I've created a petition on Change.org which addresses that problem, and a link to the petition can be found in its title below:
Equality in Small Business Administration Lending
"As someone who works in the adult entertainment industry, I have discovered that due to use of vague *legal* language, which pretends to be applicable to the adult industry but isn't, adult businesses of all sorts are prevented from applying for the Paycheck Protection Program and other SBA programs created in response to the current pandemic, and have essentially been 'redlined' by banks, who similarly don't understand the legal meaning of the words being used.
"When the SBA began accepting applications for its Economic Injury Disaster Loan program and its Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), it barred anyone from applying who 'present[s] live performances of a prurient sexual nature or derive[s] directly or indirectly more than de minimis gross revenue through the sale of products or services, or the presentation of any depictions or displays, of a prurient sexual nature.'
"However, 'prurient' has a specific legal meaning, which has been defined by the Supreme Court in its rulings on obscenity cases. It means a 'shameful, unhealthy or morbid interest in sex'—and none of the adult movie producers, webcam companies, strip clubs or other adult businesses create 'prurient' products—as evidenced by the fact that no member of the adult industry proper has been charged with 'obscenity' for more than ten years!
"Please tell the SBA and the Justice Department to treat adult businesses fairly on SBA loans to help them survive the current COVID-19 pandemic crisis!"
Please sign!
