[sblock]Again, one is an incidental and potential crime versus the intentional product of the industry. The first is peripheral, the second is the entire point. One is a fiction, the other is a crime.
I have no problem with porn per se. I have a problem with the porn industry as it currently operates. Big difference.
No, but the opprobrium does not intrinsically attach to Hollywood. Again, their victimization was incidental to the product. They were not drugged it sexually assaulted in order to produce their movies. In porn, however, such victimization is crucial to the production of the product. Sometimes, it is even the point,
And while that is much closer to the porn industry in overall sleaze, it still doesn't rise to...errr...sink to the same depths.
About 50% of human trafficking cases prosecuted in the USA are sexual exploitation cases. Most are just prostitution cases, but a subset of those are for the primary purpose of the production of porn- usually child porn, but some adults (almost all women) as well.
Here's a couple of cases from the USDoJ where the human trafficking victims were filmed and had their images sold for profit:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/mow/news2013/stokes.sen.html
http://www.justice.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/2012/120217-03.html
Hollywood simply doesn't do that. They don't need to.
Again, Hollywood doesn't need to drug or kidnap its actors to make movies. Enough in the porn industry do, though.
Does Hollywood exploit children? To a certain extent yes, but that is n the decline, and in most cases that remain, the parents are complicit. And the commercial product released to the public is one of fiction.
In contrast, when porn exploits children, it is with force, drugs, and without family consent. The end product is also evidence of an actual crime.[/sblock]