Slashdot Mirror
Proposed Posting of Clients List In Prostitution Case Raises Privacy Concerns
An anonymous reader writes "An interesting case touching on privacy in the Internet age has erupted in Kennebunk, Maine, the coastal town where the Bush family has a vacation home. When a fitness instructor who maintained a private studio was arrested for prostitution, she turned out to have maintained meticulous billing records on some 150 clients, and had secretly recorded the proceedings on video files stored in her computer. Local police have begun issuing summons to her alleged johns, and have announced intentions to publish the list, as is customary in such cases. Police believe such publication has a deterrent effect on future incidents of the kind. However, the notoriety of the case has some, including newspaper editors, wondering whether the lives of the accused johns may be disproportionately scarred (obtaining or keeping a job, treatment of members of their families within the community) for a the mere accusation of having committed a misdemeanor. Also, the list of names will be permanently archived and indexed by search engines essentially forever."
I am so happy I pay by wire and never use my real name! Yay, go me!
The more names of 'important' people who are on the list, the more it should be published. Maybe then someone will actually decide that prosecuting consensual crimes like this isn't generally worth the risk.
Though, waiting until she and her partner are found guilty might be a good plan.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
wouldn't it be pornography and be legal?
No sympathy for the johns. The prostitute was arrested and her name is in the public domain, why not the johns who also broke the law? Could be pretty funny, too, if the Bush family turns up on that list...
What's this bullshit?
How about legalizing prostitution like civilized countries?
Anyway, those guys are idiots for giving out their real names.
I guess that whole silly "innocent until proven guilty" is so outdated.
I'm just going to leave this here for everyone who hasn't stumbled across it already:
http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com
It's one of the few blogs I keep up with consistently, and though I don't entirely agree with her on every facet of her worldview, I do agree prostitution should be de-criminalized/legalized.
>Police believe such publication has a deterrent effect on future incidents of the kind.
Easy to say that when you aren't on the receiving end. Yet how many times have cops buried investigations under mountains of secrecy because another cop was the one under investigation? Next you'll be telling me that I'm a coward, and if I don't have anything to hide I should not be hiding behind anonymity.
She was charged with invasion of privacy, among other things.
Sounds like the cops would be guilty of the same. If the Johns had an expectation of privacy, they still have that expectation. The videotapes she made will undoubtedly be used against the Johns, as the cops would have to prove their cases.
In any case, I agree with the article. If misdemeanors are regularly published, then publish it. If not, they should not. However, the list will be published one way or another, in full or piecemeal, unless they decline to charge the Johns because those charges will be public record.
I don't get it. So these characters had sex with a presumably "hot" gym instructer. So what!!!!
That they paid for it - well again, So what???
That the instructor kept records- Good practise in case of communicable disease - again, so what???
That it's immoral - O.K. - cool - that's a personal call that's been made in to law - stupid but then many laws are.
What in God's (and I use that word intentionally) name gives these people the right to compound a legally unlawful act (yet, yes, immoral) with an immoral act? (that of publishing the list of names) Can someone explain to me how the "Land of the free" has become a theocratically conservative state?
just make prostitution legal (and regulated) like most of Europe. You can even tax the income, while ensuring the safety of the workers and the clients. For bonus points, I grew in Wells, ME, about 10km south of Kennebunk ... and this kinda of ridiculous attention to foolish stories/details like this is one of the reasons I left (small town politics, anyone?) A john's life destroyed? Hardly, especially not by an "employer" with half a brain.
Now I'm more curious as to who's names are on the list. Which party or parties is trying to hide something? I find it odd that a newspaper reporters are worried about the privacy of anyone these days. Makes me wonder if some of the reporters or someone higher up at a newspaper is on the client list.
Next, were the payments for the Zumba lesson or sex? Maybe the sex was the free choice of adults that just happened to be conducting other legal business at the time? Just wondering here.
Ahhh memories.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
The reasons for this 'outing of johns' is meant to keep young impressionable women from being exploited by more worldly men of low moral character, I'm all for that, and history usually judge's a society by how well it treats it's women. In Maine everyone pretty much knows everyone else. This posting of names would have defamation of character lawsuits occuring constantly, if the state does not have complete proof that the accused is the actual john. Presently, letters do get sent to the addresses linked to license plates of cars seen in areas of prostitution. Perhaps it's time to legalize and regulate prostitution instead of ruining lives.
If there is a criminal, prosecute them. Think no further and go no further. It is not anyone's place to preempt in such a manner. Just stay in your own lane.
Personally, I feel that people need to stay out of someone else's pants. Prosecuting people for selling sex is a lazy approach to human rights and a sign of the populace sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong in the first place.
The whole concept of "having sex with a woman" is just too horrifying and bewildering for the average slashdot member!
then you dont have to waste time on shit like this.
Somehow, I recall George Carlin's words on the topic:
I don't understand why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?
If selling fucking were legal (as in some other jusrisdictions of the world), the criminal in question would not be a criminal, and the perpetrators of the misdemeanor in question would not have committed a misdemeanor.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
The lists may be 99% true but I know if I were in that business and I went down I would want to take others down. Specifically those in power be they in government, police or influential businessmen. 80% of those people probably are already customers so that would only be a few names would need to lie about.
It sends a message to those that publicly persecute prostitution that their names will be dragged through the mud as well.
Unless they involve minors, misdemeanor charges--DUI, shoplifting, simple assault, etc--are matter of public record. Why should these charges be an exception?
"Love is a familiar; Love is a devil: there is no evil angel but Love." --William Shakespeare ('Love's Labors Lost')
It's really simple. This needs to be kept quiet for three reasons:
* it will cause actual harm to the lives of many people on the list
* most of the people who had sex with a prostitute did so expecting the act to remain private. they had a clear "expectation of privacy" as a lawyer would put it
* there is no proof that the list is accurate. it could theoretically contain names of people (especially celebrities/etc) who did not have sex with a prostitute
I'm OK with posting a summary of the information, perhaps even times/dates, but names should be kept out of the public. And I think anyone who does leak names on the list should be charged with defamation unless they back it up with proof (video surveillance, etc).
It's 2012, why does this search engine stuff come up all the time, when it's *so* easy to fix? If they want to publish the names, but not have them come up when people are searching for individual people, shove the list in robots.txt. Not complicated. A moron can figure out robots.txt
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
So, it is a few minutes of pleasure, alifetime of suffering. Almost like marriage.
...on a criminal f-cking conspiracy?
Why is it ok to give it away, but not ok to sell it?
....why the hell this is any of the government's business at all.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
history usually judge's a society by how well it treats it's women.
Wha-wha-WHAT?!? Are we living on the same planet? This is humanity we're talking about right?
...so we can deter future johns. Otherwise they'll just victimize more -- oh, wait, are the johns the victims? Or is it the johns who victimize the prostitutes? Both?
OK, let's publish the list so that future johns will be deterred from victimizing themselves. Or something.
Find free books.
The "victim" is the prostitute of course! We need to send her to jail for self harm.
Sounds like they were making legal pornography to me.
Here in Minnesota, that's all you see on Adult Friend Finder. Legal prostitution under the guise of making pornography. As long as you record it, you can pay her for it.
If I were the defense attorney I'd be harping on this crucial fact. IANAL and I do not know if making pornography is illegal in Maine.
Police believe such publication has a deterrent effect on future incidents of the kind.
Police should not base their actions on belief, but on evidence. There are studies in almost everything, I'm sure there are studies on this. If not, it's time one was made. I'm not at all convinced it has much of an effect, but convince me otherwise.
Until then, I think we can leave the pillory in the dark ages. I thought we had.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Being Canadian, I am surprised prostitution is actually a crime in the United States. Strictly speaking, it isn't here.
Seems kind of parochial, just sayin'.
I am so happy I pay by wire and never use my real name! Yay, go me!
The problem with this is what happens when the pseudonym that you use happens to be someone else's name? That person will be completely innocent of any crime but will probably have their name dragged through the mud because it is included on a list. A similar thing happened in the UK a few years ago when the police busted a child pornography ring. They then went around and very publicly arrested all the people whose credit cards had been used. While they undoubtedly exposed and arrested several child molesters they also tarnished the reputations of completely innocent people who had had their credit cards stolen.
My feeling is that they should not release something like this until all those on it have at least been charged with the associated crime. Even this can lead to mistakes - as seen in the UK - but at least then there will be a clear record of the mistake and the possibility of consequences for truly incompetent ones that should motivate police to act carefully. After all if they have sufficient evidence to convict someone of a crime in a law court then surely they have a duty to do so? If they don't have that much evidence then they should not be trying to convict someone in the court of public opinion instead - it's unprofessional and potentially wide open to abuse.
John Smith
...
Bob Jones
Mickey Mouse
John Doe
I.P. Freely
Rosie O'Donnell
Robert Jones
Jim Johnson
I.M. Sparticus
Mayor Quimby
Dave Smith
John Johnson
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Sound like certain Journo's are on the list.
Normally they would be begging for the list...
John Cooper
John Smith
John Baker
John Howard
John Davis
John Brookhead
John Wilson
Juan Mendez
Juan Morales
Johen Schmidt
Jean Billet
Jean Claude
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
If someone wants to pay for anonymous sex and someone else wants to be paid for providing it, why is the government sticking it's nose in? What is wrong with selling sex? Sex doesn't kill you like cigarettes will but you can legally buy cigarettes everywhere, but most places you'll be arrested for trying to buy sex. Prostitution is illegal because the law is part of the mechanism men implemented to control women. Prostitution is illegal because men made the law to oppress women. Don't let them get an education, don't let them have men's jobs, don't let them vote, don't let them sell themselves. The law is meant to keep women dependent on men.
Publish the names, but only in connection with each of the 150 charges that would be brought against the Johns... Don't just publish the list and disallow them an attempt at defense.
Sure they are on tape, and their names are on record - but they STILL have rights, and are still innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.
A list doesn't wholly prove guilt. A tape doesn't wholly prove guilt. The court decides who is guilty and it is based on ALL the evidence presented.
This appears to be extra legal punishment.
If the authorities take it in their own hands to humiliate and punish the "johns"
it leaves the door open for damages. A high profile exec could see is finances
crushed and for some it is BIG bucks.
Someone will pay, some shield laws exist but not from willful illegal acts.
.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
So since drinking lots of alcohol is legal and driving a car is legal then drink driving should be legal? Voltaire is correct but the absurdity here is your argument.
she had quite a clientele, many were politicians in high places in washington, she was mysteriously suicided (murdered?) and i think she had a clientele book that mysteriously disappeared too, probably had some important washington politician's names in it and their fetishes and favorite whores...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
So since drinking lots of alcohol is legal and driving a car is legal then drink driving should be legal? Voltaire is correct but the absurdity here is your argument.
Drinking is legal. Driving is legal. Having had drinks prior to driving is also legal, up to a limit. That's because after that limit you're a danger to yourself and also society. How is having sex a danger to society?
I remember the old days when crimes had victims.
Witchcraft? Blasphemy? Heresy? Capital cases back in the old days.
Publish them all - including the newspaper publishers on her client list (if any). Perhaps they'll finally stop criminalizing prostitution, and regulate it properly.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Prostitutes are routinely victimized by johns, thus creating a need for pimps. Who also victimize prostitutes, but in a way where the prostitutes at least can still make money. It's a fucked up system that has existed for centuries and there should be no reason to continue tolerating its existence.
If you want to make a crappy living off your body, do some exotic dancing. Where the bar owner can victimize you, but typically to a lesser extent.
I don't see that this is much of an "internet" story. Yes, records will be available by search engines for the foreseeable future. That's in minor contrast to the practice of keeping them in hardcopy files and newspapers available to any member of the public who wants to come and take a look.
The records shouldn't be released until each individual is proven to have been a customer. After that, I don't care. You don't have a right to demand that your crimes be kept secret.
Walking out of a store is legal. Putting things in your pocket is legal. But putting things in your pocket and walking out of the store is considered a completely different act.
I guess you cannot deconstruct laws and debate the individual parts in an attempt to make a rational argument about the whole.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Seems to me that if I find some hot chick on the streets, and offer her (by, for example, gesturing towards my groin with a number of folded-up negotiable instruments, such as $100 bills,) and she proceeds to perform sexual acts upon my person, and then upon completion I hand her the aforementioned stack of bills, that no crime has been committed should this act have taken place in anywhere in the United States, provided the acts were between consenting adults, and occur in a private place where we were both permitted to be. The law that makes these acts of pandering and prostitution legal, in my NAL opinion, is the US Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.
The way I understand it, the exchange of money for anything, (to wit, in that case, the giving of money without any meaningful or timely accounting of who gave it, to whom it was given, how much was given, what was promised or agreed in exchange for it, or what was ultimately done with that money, which could easily include actions that any sane society would consider election tampering, vote-buying, influence pedaling, and interfering with the good order and function of a democratic republic's most vital political organs,) is considered inviolable "free" speech, protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. I have even toyed with the idea of going out and hiring prostitutes, hoping to find an undercover officer to proposition, just so it can be brought to court, so that I can defend myself with the first amendment's newly endowed power (given by the Citizens United ruling,) to protect anything for which some money changes hands as "speech".
I would say I "told" her (by handing the whore the cash,) that I would like her to suck-start my dick, then take it for a spin, bouncing her ass up and down on me until I'm ready to nut. I would argue that her taking the money constituted her "listening" to my constitutionally protected speech.
I imagine the judge would then shoot me down, saying that that was not an allowable defense, to which I would reply, (and most likely be held in contempt of court for saying,) "so it's okay for whores in Washington D.C. to get paid to fuck people over, and somehow that's protected speech, but somehow when I do it, it's a misdemeanor? What kind of freeze-dried fucking bullshit is that, you pretentious bitch?
If I'm going to jail for contempt, fuck, I say, might as well show it... why not piss on the judge's face? It's not like it's going to change what happens!
OTOH, I've heard bad things about jail, and I like being able to go for walks and not being stuck in a fucking cage, so I'll let someone who's more of a tough-guy take this idea and run with it. Post back on /. how it works out! I'll check back from time to time.
You mean people should be considered innocent until proven guilty? What a bizarre concept.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Consider the listing of so-called "sexual offenders" on websites, often extrajudicially, by the government. This is shaming — nothing more — and it has been accepted up to and including the supreme court. So you're going to have a hard time making that argument. When society jumped the shark for the children, it also bought into the idea that the government can list anyone it wants, for any reason it deems sufficient. Turning that around? Well-nigh impossible. The government rarely gives up power willingly, and the public loves both scandal and revenge.
1. A Kennebunk whore gets busted with a pile of evidence about rich Johns.
2. Rich Johns work their local news contacts to prevent publication
3. Newspaper editors become concerned about the fate of their careers
4. Staff writers are dispatched to write lengthy hand-wringing stories about the implications
5. Slashdot privacy zealots invent the legal concept 'disproportionately scarred' out of whole cloth.
Unless the evidence (The 'List') is sealed by the court for some legitimate reason it is public information. The First Amendment protects 'The Press' from interference while publishing public information, among other things.
The Johns will be charged with solicitation (unless powerful Kennybunk Johns have their way there as well) and those charges will be public knowledge, and published by the papers, regardless of whether the list itself is published. So this 'disproportionate scarring' is inevitable anyhow.
The activity of our law enforcement must be public. No 'secret' charges or 'secret' evidence regardless of how embarrassing. The consequences of whatever 'scarring' you imagine are far less than letting the powerful hide the activity of the police. Whatever mechanism you can dream up to hide embarrassing evidence WILL BE ABUSED to protect powerful criminals.
Publish the fucking list. Publish the solicitation charges.
Ordinarily you'd expect some regard for freedom of the press around here. Not to mention the usual instinct to burn the powerful that you've all been trained with. Someone puts a privacy angle on it, however, and shazam! All that goes out the window...
they just had sex in exchange for money, whats the big deal?
Paying for & doing the aerobics girl at my health spa who bends over in my face everyday. What a great fantasy. Why the hell is this illegal again? I'm sure she spent that money and was likely taxed. Dumbass hypocrites.
i am not a prude. but if there were a way to REGULATE (yes, this would have to be a highly regulated business, my libertarian friends) prostitution heavily, then i have no problem with it
so prostitutes would have to get regular screening. and the kind of human trafficking you see attached to the skin trade would have to be closely monitored and cracked down on. europe has legal prostitution. now ask europe about it's human trafficking problems. this is not a glamorous and lucrative and carefree industry, it never was. it is very easily and very often abusive and miserable. heavy regulation has to predominate
the problem with selling sex is that it is not just sexually adventurous carefree libertines. it often and easily turns into a particularly vile form of economic exploitation. so if prostitution would ever be made legal, it would have to be regulated heavily
regulate it heavily, i have no problem with it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time. Baretta When a pothead gets busted his picture is published immediately, innocent or guilty It's time we are all held to the same standards. There should not be special justice for the politically connected, the well off or so called pillars of the community.
Those actually made sense at the time. You just need to think religiously to follow it. If heretics are damned to eternal torment, then their attempts to convince others to join there heresy are a crime far worse than mere murder. They must be silenced, for the good of society, to prevent them from dragging and more gullable souls to Hell.
My first thought about this story is that the timing is remarkable. The story first broke locally at the beginning of September, and is just now getting national attention, exactly timed to become a scandal right before election day.
Kennebunk is in a Democrat stronghold, and the incumbent representative Pingree is expected to win re-election easily; her Republican challenger Courtney is woefully behind in both funding and polls.
But what if Pingree's husband Sussman is on the list? Would that be enough to sway Maine voters?
Or it could also be a prominent Republican. I'm doubtful that it's Romney or Ryan, but who knows?
It'll be interesting to see if the police hold off on publishing the list for two more weeks. They've been sitting on it for over 6 weeks, so what's a couple more?
I remember the old days when crimes had victims.
Witchcraft? Blasphemy? Heresy? Capital cases back in the old days.
Every single one of those makes Baby Jesus cry, you insensitive clod!
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Prostitution has been legal in Canada for over 100 years and it hasn't caused a problem up here.
You remember those days fondly? How old are you?
Prostitution is illegal in the US? Really?
Hey, let me Google that for you!
Nope, we were happily using it long before Biden popped up with it in the debate. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The evidence in crimes is usually public record. The results of DNA tests, the testimony of experts. The accounting records of fraudsters and prostitutes.
The government is acting in a clear, consistent, and fair manner, but is getting blamed because the people, when given information, misuse it? That just seems backwards to me.
Learn to love Alaska
Way to miss the point. Carlin was the court jester, the only one allowed to mock the King. He was a philosopher who made a living picking out absurdities and presenting them to an audience. He didn't have an "Act", he had a lecture.
He wasn't making an argument, and everyone here trying to pull apart an argument that doesn't exist are tilting at windmills which also do not exist.
He was not making an argument, he was simply pointing out something that, in a certain context, appears to be an absurdity. It is more word play than anything else.
If you watch his lecture, he specifically says he doesn't understand it, not that it should be legal. The closest he gets to an argument is
Further, he compares military recognition for killing or maiming people, with going to jail for giving someone an orgasm. There's your argument, if you want to find one.
This whole "thing plus other thing" nonsense is a red herring, and everyone who participated is an idiot.
This is obviously only news because there are some rich people on the list ...
If they're so worried that their lives would be disproportionately scarred (obtaining or keeping a job, treatment of members of their families within the community).. then why not just LEGALIZE prostitution already? That way you won't have to hurt anybody's social ego, and it couldn't be used as an extortion tool as efficiently. This prompts me to believe that some familiar names are on this list...
The logic in this boggles the mind otherwise.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
This is only a problem because powerful men have their names on that list. If it were blue-collar workers, teh list woudl already have been released.
These guys want to pay to fark some hotties who likes to make videos of her masturbating with a popsicle? The law says that their names will be published since she was arrested for prostitution?
Let the law be the same for everybody here. Perhaps the powerful men will learn a valuable lesson.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
So, other than what she says, do they have any proof of those people being the actual Jones?
If she claims that Barack Obama was a client, is his name going to be published and he issued a summons?
just asking.
Adultery isn't illegal. Just ask the two guys that slept with my wife. Even though they destroyed a family by lying to and manipulating my wife. Three years later and I'm still picking up the pieces of my life. My kids' lives are ruined, and my wife who I loved unconditionally before will never get any emotion from me like 'love' ever again.
It was illegal for me to threaten to kill them though. It was illegal for me to fight them, or harass them, or anything else. Everything I could have done to them was illegal to do. There was no recourse for me within the realm of 'legal'. They are living their lives in peace with no idea how much pain they caused me, my kids, my extended family, and my wife. My whole future was destroyed by people who would cheat and coerce another to cheat.
Publish the names of the Johns!!! If they are so destroyed by it, then so be it! If they were cheating on a spouse then he/she deserves to know! Better yet, make adultery illegal again!! Frikkin' politicians who dip their hands in the cookie jar didn't want to get accused of committing crimes so they made it legal to cheat on a spouse.
The act of prostitution deprives prostitutes of their freedom and of the control over their bodies.
No matter how "high class" things get it is still closer to slavery than to a job of an entertainer.
If you find slavery to be a bit over the top, try thinking about what you'd rather admit to your friends and family - that you're working in a sweatshop or that you're getting paid to be fucked up the ass?
On the other hand...
Clearly, making it illegal does nothing but keep some people on their high horses and others in the office.
So, it should be made legal. BUT... heavily regulated and the regulation should be there to protect both the sex workers and their customers.
Unionization, health benefits, vacation time etc. should naturally be a given.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The saddest part of this kind of crap is just how silly it all is. If instead of just paying her for private sex the "johns" were paying her to make a private "adult film" (with them as director and co-star), then she would simply be an "adult film star" and they would be making "pornography" which is perfectly legal. Take away the camera and suddenly it's "prostitution" which is illegal. Even though the participants and the sex acts will be exactly the same.
What... the... FUCK?
How many more decades or centuries will it be before society at large finally acknowledges that it is complete bizarro-world insanity for "consensual sex for money" to continue to be highly illegal while "consensual sex for money IN FRONT OF A CAMERA" is perfectly legal? It's the same goddamn thing for Christ's sake! Make up your fucking mind!
Prostitution should be exactly as legal as pornography. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, and test sex workers for STDs/HIV at least once a month just exactly the same as they do with "adult film stars". Any other course is utter nonsense. A few of the actual civilized countries of the world seem to have figured this out, but I give the US another century before it happens here. At least.
However, the notoriety of the case has some, including newspaper editors, wondering whether the lives of the accused johns may be disproportionately scarred (obtaining or keeping a job, treatment of members of their families within the community) for a the mere accusation of having committed a misdemeanor.,...
should be
However, the notoriety of the case has some, including newspaper editors, wondering whether they or those people in town they beholden to are on that fucking (!) list or video tape and just what they might have said on that video tape and holy shit we're all fucking ruined someone think of something fast... gotta get to that the evidence locker and find a magnet... a BIG ASS magnet like the ones they use to pick up cars in junkyards with...
Until there is a guilty verdict, John lists should not be published. Various victims of gold diggers, honey traps and extortion plots are not all the work of fiction and movies. Some comely ho' says he's my rich boyfriend with lots of cash, and later says he's my regular John, with the action videos. Who's to say otherwise if he was discrete?
What a weird situation! Prostitution is illegal in the USA? If it is illegal for a woman to offer sexual services for money and for a man to buy those services then all those trophy wives and their husbands should be arrested. This will cause disquiet in the upper ranks of society. Less flippantly - laws against prostitution are a class-based punitive measure.
Where I live selling sexual favours has never, strictly speaking, been illegal. Soliciting for prostitution in a public place is illegal but brothels are legal because they can be regulated and have health inspections. There are illegal brothels but only because they break the planning laws and operate in a residential area.
And why should visiting a prostitute make it difficult to find a job? Cause hurt to their partner, probably, and make them the target of ribald jokes, certainly, but how does it impact on their employability?
And why do so many of the posts above accept this situation?
Look, the wealthy and powerful in the US ( and many other countries too )
are often "above the law". Aren't you tired of that ? I know I am. The law
should apply to everyone or no one. That's how it is supposed to be
in the US, and we the people have the power to see that it happens, if
we quit accepting the double standards our so-called masters enjoy.
Publish the list, and let the rich bastards scream when they receive the offer
of negotiated settlement from their wife's divorce lawyer.
Fuck 'em all.
Simple test: if any of them ever said, seriously, "You have nothing to lose if you have nothing to hide" then post their name.
How is that different than what's going on now?
The ______ Agenda
What a weird situation! Prostitution is illegal in the USA?
No, not in the USA in general. Just in some (most) local jurisdictions.
Have gnu, will travel.
In a lot of countries there was a much larger difference between the male and female populations after World War One than there is in the most extreme examples in China or India.
For an even more extreme difference (this time with a vastly larger male population than female population like you are seeing as a problem) consider just about any remote mining town on the planet, and a lot that are not paticularly remote at all. Society copes.
She broke the law and her life is ruined. Her clients broke the law by purchasing her services. How come the worker bears the all the guilt in public while her clients get to hide behind anonyminity?
Unless there is proof of cohersion involved what damn business is it of the government what two consenting adults do, whether it involves money, or just paying for dinner and pretending to be interested in a 2hr conversation about horseback riding that gets you what you want either way individuals chose what to do and under what terms.
it's just a misdemeanor so close enough. Go nuts.
It seems that "shaming" is fine for sex crimes, but why stop there.
Everyime someone is convicted of corruption, or stock fraud, or white collar crimes, we should publish a list, with names, and faces, and shame those bastards into honesty?
good idea?
Legalize prostitution yes, but then make hiring a prostitute illegal. This has worked well in at least one country (too lazy to google it).
I live in Holland where prostitution is legal, to the extend politicians had to decide on how to treat jobs in the sex industry in regards to job centers and people on benefits having to take any suitable job or loose their benefits. (Decision was that they are allowed to advertise but it can't be mandated as a suitable job or suggested by a consultant helping you to find a job.
The problem is that the happy hooker is a lie, pretty woman is not reality-TV. No mentally stable, non-self-loathing woman with options will choose to be come a prostitute. There is the idea of female students putting themselves through school by selling their body but lets face it, no woman who really has a future would do it, since having a history of being a prostitute will hurt your career and social future.
Be honest, would you date a hooker? Marry her? No? Well there you go.
There are women who want to be a prostitute but they do it for money/laughs. Problem with that is, they want to make a decent living with it and charge through the nose. High class escort really just means "you expect WHAT per hour", they don't come cheap. I know, I made websites for them. Think 2000 euro per night and then extra for extra's. These are NOT the women who walk the streets. Hell, some escorts even are picky as to who they take as clients. Do you think a street walker or a woman working behind the glass in Amsterdam has such options?
The reality of most prostitution is that the women has to do anything that any john asks and lets face it, nice guys don't use street hookers. And you might think a slut as being a woman who has men in the high double digits. For a hooker? Closing in on 4 digits. Think about it. Say it is 100 per fuck (a very high price). A developer might charge the same but can do it for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, all your long. That is 2016 johns in a year, just to get the same income as a crappy web developer. Remember, if prostitution is legal, you have to pay the same taxes as any other self employed person. You can do web development in a cheap t-shirt and jeans. An expensive hooker needs more expensive clothes.
And all the time, she risks some insane person coming along and killing her off. Really want the most dangerous job in the world? Prostitution, the favorite target of serial killers.
The simple fact is that in Holland, with legal prostition, human trafficking for the sex trade hasn't dropped at all. That is because the amount of Dutch women who have decent social protection who choose prostitution to make their living is far to low and isn't serving the low end of the market. You don't think a college girl putting herself through school who has any reason to want that diploma is going to work several johns a day for what amounts to minimum wage after they payed their pimp for protection and all the other costs?
The porn industry is probably better known on Slashdot, check income. (and remember, this is income of a self-employed person so the prices are pre-taxes with no benefits) of actresses, the majority not the statistically insignificant few who made it to the top. A picture shoot earns as little as a few hundred, maybe 500 if she does all the site asks. A VHS tape might earn 1-2 thousand back in the day. If you are self-employed in IT, would you even bother answering the phone for such amounts? Especially knowing that the porn industry is always looking for fresh faces, so it is not as if you can do 5 shoots per day, every working day of the year.
Yes, I know, cases such as this show rather decent amounts of money being made. They are the exception, same as some programmers on Wall Street make 1 million dollars or more. Do you make 1 million dollars or more? No? Well, then you are the street walker, no the high class pretty woman escort.
I am not saying making prostitution illegal is the answer but making it legal in Holland has not magically fixed everything. In fact, in some ways it has become worse. It used to be possible for the police to liberate women who were
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The logical consequence of making prostitution legal is that it becomes just another job. In socialists countries people get benefits from the state if they can't find a job. A suitable job. If they do get a suitable job offer, they got to take it or lose their benefits.
Your wife, sister, mother, girlfriend looses her job and can't find another one. The job center tells her the local whorehouse has a vacancy. Are you okay she should take it rather then keep claiming benefits?
No?
Then legalizing prostitution is not a simple solution that will fix everything.
As for heavy regulation... most prostitutes are not terribly keen on being known everywhere as a hooker. Would you want your loved one to be known by all official instances and her doctor as a streetwalker as she needs to make ends meet?
The entire problem with it all is that statistically nobody who does the job is proud of it, does it while they have other options, that everyone else looks down on it and that those who buy it don't want to be known for buying it. And you are not going to change society anytime soon. Proof me wrong, bring a hooker home to your mother and put a ring on her finger. Until YOU are capable of doing that, prostitution will remain a shadowy underworld were lives are ruined.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In Holland, before prostitution was legalized, the police could and did liberate traffic victims on the mere suspicion of prostitution which was easy to proof. Once the women were out of control of their pimps, they could testify and set free.
Now the police needs evidence that the prostitution is forced for which evidence can only be obtained by the women going to the police which they won't/can't do when they are under control of their pimps.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
...and I keep a client list, I will be sure to seed the client list with the names of prominent persons, such as judges, mayors, and Senators.
This is why you should aim low and settle for the truck stop hookers rather than paying hot, tech-savvy gym instructors for sex.
Different cultural basis. People got better at lying to themselves.
If you want to combat prostitution, Sweden showed the most effective way. Stop prosecuting prostitutes altogether (in most cases they are the victims) and go after the Johns aggressively. After you have convictions for the Johns, then publish their names.
...is that if you want to reduce prostitution, the most effective thing is to stop going after the prostitutes and start going after the customers.
Why should prostitution be illegal?
Here in New Zealand it was legalised a few years ago, basically because it's happened since the dawn of time and making it a black-market and illegal activity denies women (mainly) protection from employment laws and healthcare. It also opens them to abuse and the hands of their employer (if your pimp beats you up you can't really go to the police can you?)
BTW it was never illegal (as far as I know) to pay for sex, solicitation was illegal until recently.
How about thinking of consequences? How many marital partners suffer AIDS or other diseases due to their partner straying now and then. Whether if is with a pro or the next door neighbor people need to be willing to have others examine their sexual activity. Not getting deceived and injected with awful diseases might be also taken as a privacy issue. I have no objection to hookers at all, although I do think they are foolish. But I do have objections to living in a world that shields liars. And frankly anyone that relies on employment that is so fragile that being exposed for sexual activity causing unemployment already needs a lot of help. Employability should not rest on the whims of an employer.
Luckly for her, none of the Johns live in Washington ... link
How is pointing out that he Bush's have a vacation home near there relevant to the story?
The fact that this is a misdemeanor should not be the reason the clients' names aren't published. Each one of them knew what they were doing, and that it was illegal. They have to face the consequences just like the prostitutes have to. Men always look for ways to protect each other when they are caught doing wrong. SMH
I am from outside the USA, Holland.
If you had any brains you would know I was making a hypothetical example, not describing how things are.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I notice you don't counter my argument mere attack individual sentences on details not the general message.
The true hallmark of a person with no original thought of his own. Go away and grow a spine.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
How is having sex a danger to society?
I was not arguing in favour of making prostitution illegal I was simply pointing out that the OP made a really stupid argument. Your point is far more poignant. The problems I see with prostitution are twofold: disease and the safety and potential exploitation of the women involved. Both of these are bad things for society. It is not clear that illegality is a good way to address either issue but, equally, I'm not convinced that making it legal would do this either.
Live and let live.
I know that this is going to be unpopular, but why should criminals get the right to break the law in private?
It's illegal, they broke the law, it should be a public record. Period. Just like any other criminal violation.
Why should other, law-abiding citizens be forced to associate with or employ criminals if they don't want to? What about THEIR rights? What about their freedom of association?
Or is this like smoking, where the rights of the smoker override my right to breathe clean air?
The ONLY reason this is an issue at all is because it involves the rich and powerful, who believe that they have the right to do anything they please, and not be subject to public disapproval.
You know... i most of Europe, one can just walk down the street to an eros house or similar, take care of business and be on their way. Why is it that "in the land of the free" sex is criminalized and violence is perfectly okay?
The history of prostitution has always been closely tied to that of religion. At one point, the Catholic church accepted it, but then the Protestant Reformation caused a reversal of this position, when the Catholic church attempt to be even more like the Protestants during the period of time now known as the Counter-Reformation. Ironically, prostitution is now legal in a number of the countries where Protestantism originated. All of this is well documented in a number of historical sources, including a special done by The History Channel.
There are many historical examples showing that regulated prostitution is far better for a society than the illegal kind. Those wishing more information might look into the history of regulated versus unregulated prostitution during the American Civil War, World War I, and World War 2. The vast majority of soldiers did seek out this form of sex, usually the only kind available, at one time or another during their service. That's the way the world works. In every case, incidence of venereal disease was vastly lower when prostitution was legal and regulated than when it was forbidden.
Laws that make prostitution illegal are something one finds in today's world in those countries that still allow religions to strongly influence or determine the legal system.
In the USA, all such laws violate a fundamental right to have separation of church and state, arising under the 9th and 10th Amendments. Police officers, prosecutors, and judges who enforce such illegal laws are infringing the Bill of Rights, which is a violation of their oaths of office, which in turn immediately and permanently disqualifies them from holding any position of public trust or responsibility.
Civil officials have a responsibility to refuse to enforce illegal laws, just as military personnel have a responsibility to refuse to enforce illegal orders. For a government official arrest someone under an illegal law is conduct indistinguishable from that of a private citizen engaging in kidnapping.
We all use our real names, and pay with credit cards, when conducting transactions like this. Idiots deserve what they get.
(gosgog)
Legalizing the oldest profession in the world, has quite a few major benefits! 1/. Taxable, ( think Seattle Financial History). 2/. Elimination of PIMPS & JAILING OF SAME. 3/. Ensuring of proper clean HEALTH standards. 4/. Having a major impact on Human Trafficking. 5/. Removing a lot of necessary police work. 6/. Allowing better efforts to combat Pedophelia.
Freedom of choice for participants, if they wanna be fine....if the don't wanna be also fine!
They are releasing some names and not others. So I just want to know who has to owe you a favor to keep your name from being published? Who do you have to tick off to get your name published?
The evidence in crimes is usually public record. The results of DNA tests, the testimony of experts. The accounting records of fraudsters and prostitutes.
In this case, there is no crime. That's the problem. The "law" that has allegedly been violated is an illegal law, violating separation of church and state rights
and fundamental human rights regarding what people do with their own bodies, both of which can be asserted as fundamental rights arising under the 9th and 10th Amendments (rights retained by the people, rights reserved to the people).
As all judges swear oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights, any precedents to the contrary are necessarily violations of these oaths and hence are null and void.
The connection between laws prohibiting prostitution and religion is well established. There was even a History Channel special that discusses the many beliefs of various religions regarding this subject over the centuries. For that matter, look at the connection between human sexuality and Greek and Roman religious values. Educated citizens understand these things. Unfortunately, just as religious nuts in the US have kept creationism alive, they've also managed to keep laws like this on the books. The real shame of this incident is lack of integrity (or perhaps just lack of intelligence and competence) showed by the police and the prosecutors in enforcing these illegal laws.
The civil equivalent of the Nuremberg precedent can be asserted under the 9th and 10th Amendments. Thus, not only do military officers have a responsibility to refuse to obey illegal orders, but civil officials have a responsibility to refuse to enforce illegal laws.
In this case, not only have the government officials violated their oaths of office (which require upholding the Bill of Rights, and hence also the open-ended portions arising under the 9th and 10th Amendments) by illegal prosecution and arrest of one person, they've also violated their oaths of office by violating privacy rights (which also arise under the 9th and 10th Amendments) of a whole bunch of others.
Unfortunately, events like this where government officials in the USA demonstrate their inability to act with integrity and to do their jobs in a competent manner seem to be increasing in frequency and the violations seem to be getting more and more excessive.
In this case, there is no crime. That's the problem.
You then went off on some wild chain that didn't support that statement.
Learn to love Alaska
A crime is wrongful conduct in violation of a legitimate law. A legitimate law is a law that government has the authority to be able to pass. No wrongful conduct exists unless a government has the legal authority to treat a particular form of conduct as "wrongful".
For example, suppose some government passes a law that makes the possession of tomatoes, on a Tuesday, when the moon is full, a crime. This would clearly be an absurd law (but not more so than many laws that have been passed), and not within the legitimate authority of any government to create or enforce. Therefore, no crime would be committed by any person possessing tomatoes.
Perhaps you prefer a more historical example. Under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, it was defined to be a crime to aid an escaped slave. That law violated all sorts of fundamental rights (such as permitting the enslavement of children), and as such, the government never had the legal authority to pass it: aiding a slave to escape was not a crime and no person who engaged in this behavior can be considered a criminal. The Bill of Rights, in this case as in so many others, superceded the text of the Constitution.
Similarly, during the segregation era, when Rosa Parks sat in the "white" section of a bus, and refused to move, the state government treated her as a criminal and arrested her. No crime, however, was actually committed by Rosa Parks, as the state government did not have the legal authority to segregate African-Americans (again, due to a violation of fundamental rights) and the laws to this effect were therefore illegal laws. It is instead appropriate to view her action as an exercise of the right to travel, one of those rights subject to "strict scrutiny".
Arguably, a crime was committed by the police officers that arrested her, and those officers that held her in jail, and perhaps by others in the government, but no sensible person would consider the actions of Rosa Parks a crime. We should praise her, not criminalize her: there was nothing "wrongful" about her actions and we are far better off as a nation because of her and others like her.
Determining whether the police officers committed a crime ultimately comes down to consideration of what responsibilities an oath to uphold the law, which all police officers swear, actually places on individual officers. The precedents set by World War 2 and Nuremberg make this fairly clear, so no more need be said.
Any law that infringes fundamental rights is an illegal law. James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights (in part) to address the objections to the Constitution posed by the Anti-Federalists. There were two powerful objections: 1. The Constitution had no Bill of Rights, and 2. Any Bill of Rights would necessarily be incomplete. The Bill of Rights is one of the first places we must look to determine whether or not government (at any level within the USA - recall that only the 1st Amendment specifically limits Congress) has the legitimate authority to pass a law. The 9th and 10th Amendments play a key role in thinking about the limits of government authority, because it is in these Amendments that James Madison attempted to address the second objection: these make the Bill of Rights open-ended, allowing for the assertion of fundamental rights not explicitly listed in the other Amendments.
There is no crime in the situation being discussed in the current thread because the government in question did not have the authority to make the actions of this woman or her customers illegal. It can reasonably be supposed that the laws prohibiting prostitution are based upon religious values. The views of the Founding Father's regarding separation of Church and State are fairly clear. The historical period leading to the creation of the American Republic -- known as "The Enlightenment" -- involved the creation of a scientific worldview and limiting the authority of religion, and many of the Founding Fathers were active participants in this process. Further, the Founding Fathers wer
"not within the legitimate authority of any government to create or enforce."
So says you. Even the confederationist libertarians agree that localities get to pass stupid laws. They have the authority to do so. Your argument is that anarchy is the *only* legitimate government, by definition. That's not a useful assumption for a discussion.
Learn to love Alaska
The word anarchy is not used anywhere in the argument, nor is it relevant, or even meaningful, as anarchy and government are contradictory states. As such, it is pure sophistry to claim the argument is about anarchy "by definition". A definition must first exist for something to be derived from it.
The concept of limits on what laws governments can create (i.e. the concept of "legitimate authority" to create or enforce laws) is inherent in the very existence of the Bill of Rights (or, for that matter, the Declaration of Independence): no state of anarchy or "anarchy as a legitimate government" is required for these limits to exist.
Also, the concept of these limits is far more general than just the Bill of Rights: it considerably predates the Founding Fathers, as some research into the history of ideas leading up to the American Revolution will show you.
The positions taken by particular named political parties are not particularly relevant to this issue, either. Arguments are countered by showing either a) the assumptions are invalid, or b) the logic is invalid. They are not countered by claiming an assumption that is not even being made is "not a useful assumption": that's just more sophistry.
In the USA, under the Bill of Rights, if the people decide a law is invalid, then it is not a legitimate law and not within the legitimate authority of government. This can be shown by a logical proof technique known as proof by contradiction, attributed to Euclid several thousand years ago. We first assume that the people can not so decide. Then it follows that any law the government passes is necessarily not subject to limitation by the people. But if the people can not limit the laws government can pass, then laws could be passed infringing any right that might otherwise be retained by the people, and hence no rights are retained by the people. However, the Bill of Rights expressly provides for rights retained by the people. Hence, we have a contradiction: the original assumption was incorrect and the people DO have the authority to decide that there are laws no legitimate government can create or enforce.
There is no need for name calling ("anarchist"), for appealing to the supposed authority of obscure political parties, or for irrelevant assumptions: the statement made can be understood in terms of one of the oldest techniques in logic found in human history.
Perhaps they can be understood in those terms, but you explain it like a meth-head in withdrawal.
Learn to love Alaska