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...
I guess that whole silly "innocent until proven guilty" is so outdated.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.
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.
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.
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!
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 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 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.
...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.
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'.
You're a coward. If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't be hiding behind anonymity.
I almost never post anonymous, but this was too good to pass up. I'll be laughing in my head for hours even in nobody else does.
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.
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.
Indeed. It's hard to believe it's illegal to pay someone for sex. What kind of arse-backwards country is that anyway? Time they were dragged into the 21st century. <dons my flame retardant suit>
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.
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.
If prostitution wasn't illegal the prostitutes would just go to the police if the clients or bosses did anything.
Dude, seek professional help. Seriously, that's some effed-up thought process you got going there.
Here is a more direct analogy:
Selling is legal. Donating a kidney is legal. Selling a kidney is illegal (in the U.S.).
I think even George Carlin (who was a comedian, we may need to recall) realized that laws reflect a society's collective (not unanimous!) views as to what is "right" and "wrong".
Then make it a strictly state-controlled business, where legal authority releases prostitution authorizations, regularly check on the health of the operators, etc.
As you clearly state, prostitution needs some sort of authority to prevent abuses on the operators, so make it some legitimate authority, not some improvised pimp.
Prostitution is not going to disappear in any way, at least try to control it.
You mean people should be considered innocent until proven guilty? What a bizarre concept.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The reason prostitutes can be victimized by johns and therefore need pimps to look after them is because prostitution is illegal, if it were legal they could go to the police when their clients abuse them, when it is illegal they don't have the option of going to the police.
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...
Being illegal to sell a kidney is stupid too; but even more stupid is having organ donation after death be opt-in instead of opt-out.
Dilbert RSS feed
Which is somewhat humorous, as selling your body for sex and selling an organ are both prohibited to "protect" someone. As with both cases, if its handled in a safe and regulated way, neither scenario is dangerous nor predatory.
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.
Driving unsafely is illegal. Drinking is legal. Drinking past some arbitrary line has been defined to be unsafe. Thus:
Driving unsafely is illegal. Oh wait, the circular argument made a complete circle. That proves that driving while sleeping should be legal because driving is legal and so is sleeping.
Learn to love Alaska
Then make it a strictly state-controlled business, where legal authority releases prostitution authorizations, regularly check on the health of the operators, etc.
OMG, you want to turn the US into Europe? You must be communist.
(I learned something on /. today. I really didn't know prostitution was illegal in the US.)
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.
But who decides when you are dead, would they be tempted to call it a little early in order to harvest you, is your early death worth saving 3-6 lives? Difficult to trust the doctors if they are also the ones who decide when you can be cut up. What I, and my wife, have done is given each other the right to decide, so we have to be set to opt-out, and we can decide when the time comes, no one else, and if that is not acceptable legally when the time comes, then they won't get anything. Rather than more red-tape, perhaps they need to make option available rather than shoving stuff down our throats... but that's just my opinion, and, if you want my parts, then someone will have to make me comfortable to meet that need :)
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.
You remember those days fondly? How old are you?
There is the police. It can prosecute violent 'customers' just like all other violent crimes. And if they feel the need for extra security, they can hire a guard (just like all other businesses). Health requirements can be set by law, again like all other professions.
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.
So don't come talking about freedom, when personal freedoms quite often are greater in semi socialist countries (ie. Europe).
Off topic here, but please stop calling Europe socialist. Europe is not Socialist, not even close. Just because the world has shifted a lot to the right because of the the total neo-liberal right point the US is at right now, doesn't mean that everything else is left-wing or socialism. It's like saying my car is more bike than yours because you have your car has a powerful engine.
Europe is right-wing. Even the so called "Socialist parties" in Europe are currently technically right-wing. Probably, social-democrats. There's nothing socialist or even social on what they are doing on some of Europe's countries right now with the currently austerity measures being implemented.
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
"whoosh" ? no. It takes a bizarre, out there brain to post that comment.
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
Considering that icebraining advocated that there should be an opt-out for organ donation, then you are worried for no reason because you still have the option to refuse. In fact, being on an opt-out list would mean that the doctors would know that it wasn't worth their time to stop resuscitation early so they can go badger the wife. So you could end up being safer.
That said, I think that 99.99% of doctors would behave more ethically than you describe. And there can be systems in place that require a second opinion from someone on an ethics board before any organ harvesting can take place.
It would simplify things (and be fairer) if the same registry for organ donation was also used as the list of the eligible recipients of organs. Any risk of the rare case of someone dying early for their organs would be offset by the benefit of the far less rare case of requiring an organ transplant.
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...
Considering that prostitution happens outside the boundaries of law, it's very unlikely that a relevant number of abuses is reported to the police. And substituting public law enforcement with private security is exactly why pimping exists.
Setting health requirements without regulating prostitution is simply unenforceable.
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?
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.
What's so special about sex that it requires stricter state control than daycare centers, food processing, compounding pharmacies, etc.?
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?
You compare apples with oranges. It, Did, Not, Work.
You are right, with one little correction only. Europe is old, and is social by default, no matter the party. USA is a new country, and is capitalist, no matter the party. Simple, ain't so?
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.
At least where I'm from (and I'm pretty sure that I was referred to UN/WHO standards that essentially every country agrees to) along with the opt in box is a disclaimer that you shouldn't donate if you've recently been in prison, a IV drug addict, HIV positive etc. An opt out policy assumes that everyone is a safe doner which is not the case.
I opened up the can of worms once when it made no sense to me that someone that was out of prision for 2 years was "safe" but someone that had done drugs in the past ever, or had sex with or been a prostitute was banned for life. Apparently diseases get purged from your system when your record gets cleared. But doing things that may never have resulted in any criminal punishment makes you unqualified for life. Nice.
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?
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.
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.
Prostitution is controlled on a state by state basis in the US, it is NOT universally illegal. The separation of powers between states and federal government is a big deal here that burns a lot of court $$$ in figuring out who gets to decide what.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
If you don't know, I really recommend having sex. Or maybe sex with a more skilled partner.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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.
But the discussion here is why prostitution is illegal. If it was legal, then there would be no problems with informing the police. And the public law enforcement wouldn't be substituted by the guards, it would just be supplemented - just like with all other private guards. A customer is less likely to start beating a prostitute if there is a 300 pound gorilla sitting outside in the lobby.
Everything you know about the world outside America you learned from Fox News, right ?
So, instead of pimps exploiting prostitutes, government will.... Good idea!
I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
See my sig.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Legalising works, right up until the same 'freedom' logic is applied to pimping out your own family.
Its pretty straight forward - if you find this intolerable for your family, others do too for theirs. And everyone either has a family that loves them, or deserves one.
In fact, being on an opt-out list would mean that the doctors would know that it wasn't worth their time to stop resuscitation early so they can go badger the wife.
What about those who haven't opted out, either because they can't (mentally ill, non-residents), or they want to leave that decision to the survivors?
The doctors might see your organ as dollar signs.
And it's at times like these that I remember these immortal words:
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
in all of the directions it can whizz.
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
how amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, ...
'cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.
Can we have your liver then?
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.
As for heavy regulation... most prostitutes are not terribly keen on being known everywhere as a hooker.
I see you've never been to Thailand, where prostitution is seen as a benefit to society and hookers are honored?
Free Martian Whores!
Your wife, sister, mother, girlfriend looses her job
How in the world could one set his or her job free? I hope English isn't your first language.
Free Martian Whores!
I think he was just referring to a single person there... wife, sister, mother, girlfriend in some parts of the country certainly are all the same!
There's a good chance a government officer won't start beating/raping prostitutes.
If by exploiting you mean taxing, then yes, of course, the system has to pay itself somehow.
It would be interesting to know what actual prostitutes think about it.
Just making it legal won't solve the problem for prostitutes, one need to provide the infrastructure (protection, safety, health care, ...) that is currently provided by criminal cartels, otherwise nothing would change. Of course, this infrastructure would be paid by prostitutes' income taxation.
How much extra infrastructure do they need? Protection and safety can be provided by the police - just like for everyone else. Or if they feel the need for extra security they can hire guards, again just like everyone else. And health care is again available. Everyone can go to a doctor to get check up.
What is needed is a law stating that every sex worker has to be checked every X days, use condoms etc. Basic rules just like for every other profession.
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.
Driving unsafely is illegal.
No, driving in certain ways that a government has deemed to be unsafe is illegal. There are plenty of unsafe things which are perfectly legal. For a start the US could improve it's driving test to the point where making 4 right turns and one left turn and knowing how large some fines are (without what they were for being clearly explained!) is not sufficient to pass a driving test.
What about those who haven't opted out, either because they can't (mentally ill, non-residents), or they want to leave that decision to the survivors?
If someone is incapable of understanding organ donation due to being mentally ill when they were alive then they won't care one way or the other when they are dead. Non residents are not necessarily covered by these sorts of laws, so I am sure their needs can be accommodated. If you want your relatives to decide, then tough luck. The problem is that too many people are doing exactly this, which results in too few organ donations.
The doctors might see your organ as dollar signs.
As I already said, I think most doctors are ethical people who care about their patients. But if you are really concerned, then make it so that the doctor who treats a patient cannot benefit from any organ harvesting. It could be done by a central body run by the government.
Then make it a strictly state-controlled business, where legal authority releases prostitution authorizations, regularly check on the health of the operators, etc.
Done already. It's called "marriage".
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
An opt out policy assumes that everyone is a safe doner which is not the case.
That only makes sense if they don't bother to test the organs prior to transplanting them. And I'm fairly certain they already do that under current opt-in policy, so why would they suddenly stop if the policy were changed to opt-out?
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
What's even worse is that prostitutes are often victimized by the police too (or taken advantage of, e.g. forced to trade sexual favors etc.). Legalizing prostitution would also help to address that problem.
No, the unsafe things are not legal. You seem to be confusing "not explicitly illegal" with "legal". Unsafe driving is illegal everywhere. But, as you say, legally unsafe driving is, by definition, defined in law.
Learn to love Alaska
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 I've never seen or heard of job center forcing anyone to work in porn industry either, which is considered by many to be far less stigmatizing and in all ways less worse, I don't see it ever happening that way - and it has not in countries with legalized prostitution either.
With all the potential problems of prostitution, legal or not, this is not one of them really.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
But if they can just test the things and get a result back in a couple hours or whatever that the organ is viable than why would they have reasons for exclusion in the first place? My guess is some things are not easily detected early on in the disease or take a long time to test for. Still a dude waiting on a heart likely would roll the dice that a random stranger is unlikely to have something worse than a heart that is ready to explode.
So, assign a low priority to those organs and give them only to the patients who would otherwise die waiting. I'm pretty sure being HIV positive beats being dead.
Dilbert RSS feed
it is getting usually worse when you criminalize prostitution. To help those involved you can do a lots of other things than destroying lives of otherwise good citizens. I suppose comparing your victimized prostitutes with the lady in question is not really that good either....
At least where I'm from (and I'm pretty sure that I was referred to UN/WHO standards that essentially every country agrees to) along with the opt in box is a disclaimer that you shouldn't donate if you've recently been in prison, a IV drug addict, HIV positive etc. An opt out policy assumes that everyone is a safe doner which is not the case.
Obviously the organs should be tested at least for some viruses, doners health record should be known, etc. and perhaps the organs could also be labeled with "for critical emergencies only" for cases where the condition of organ is not known well enough to label it safe but where it could be used to save a life where no other organs are available at the time, checking a paper should not be enough to label your organ safe.
There is a reason for practice of testing the donated blood for viruses even if doner has drawn an X on a box next to "I have no STD's" - or do you not have such tests!?! (well nothing really surprises me anymore about USA so if you live there then I dunno). Why would they automatically assume organs safe where they don't assume blood to be safe even if doner claims so?
I opened up the can of worms once when it made no sense to me that someone that was out of prision for 2 years was "safe" but someone that had done drugs in the past ever, or had sex with or been a prostitute was banned for life. Apparently diseases get purged from your system when your record gets cleared. But doing things that may never have resulted in any criminal punishment makes you unqualified for life. Nice.
Also why is use of legal drugs not reason for ban? It's about condition of the organs, not legality of those actions after all - and what on earth does having been in prison have to do with anything in itself?
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
they should be hanged by the balls these criminals of yours. I hope jerking off is also a criminal act and police in the land of the free does something to combat this evil activity.
We all use our real names, and pay with credit cards, when conducting transactions like this. Idiots deserve what they get.
I fail to understand why you think the government must control it. We don't have government controlling regular businesses though that's happening more and more, leading to the nanny state that we have.
You're confusion is shared. It was explained to me by a representative of the Canadian Red Cross that this these are guidelines that all countries that are part of the UN/World Health Organization must follow. People that have been in jail have a higher risk of having something than people that haven't. Gay men (at least those that aren't virgins), HIV positive (obviously), people from parts of Africa where Aids is prevalent, anyone that has paid or has received drugs or money for sex, etc. Are all permanent exclusions for blood and organ donation (http://www.blood.ca/centreapps/internet/uw_v502_mainengine.nsf/page/Indefinite%20Deferral?OpenDocument). Organ donors also can't have cancer (again pretty obvious exclusion). Don't see anywhere where it specifically says this comes down from WHO but that was what I was told. You are also temporarily excluded if you are currently sick, had contact with someone who was a high risk, had regional diseases (malaria and the like) etc.
At any rate most of this stuff are things that are behaviors which the doctor might not get an honest answer from next of kin, or they might not even know the answer to them ("Was Tom gay?" "Hell no my son wasn't gay." etc). That a lone, at least until they admit that corelation isn't causation and stop excluding people based on behaviors rather than presence or absence of symptoms, to me means the only logical system is an opt in system where the prospective donor has to answer no to all the criteria of exclusions to be a donor.
Just remember that pimps do not have an unfair advantage of being "the law". We see that a lot around .mx, officers kidnapping and stuff as the system protects them. And dont even think that it cant happen in first world, plenty of abuse cases have been publiciced in the last couple of decades, and a lot more must had happened without going mainstream
I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
Agreed. That is exactly what happens where I live....and prostitution is legal here in New Zealand. The world didn't end...and the lives of hookers improved enormously. The risk to customers declined enormously. The health of all concerned is better protected by having the "profession" out in the open and free of fear.
Only boring people are ever bored.
It's a weird weird world... but thanks for the info :)
I never thought I could be banned because of being bi-sexual (although if they don't ask that and only if I'm gay then I guess that would not ban me as I'm not, lol - that is if I was qualified otherwise).
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Yep. My coworker kind of agreed with the IV drug and prostitution ban being permanent versus temporary for prison. That is what got me and why I sent my questions to the Red Cross my thoughts was if prostitution or prison makes you a high risk of having AIDs or something than why would one be a permanent risk and the other not.
My coworkers argument was that there are clear records as to when your prison experience ended where as someone that was a drug user or went to prostitutes might continue to do that behavior and unless they get caught there would be no record of it. That said if they trust you to be honest enough to say you've been with a prostitute in the first place you'd think you'd at least answer honestly when you were last. Might be worries you'd lie because you did it after getting married or something but still. Seems like if you trust someone to answer one question truthfully you can be reasonably expected to trust their answers to closely related questions.
Medical ethics are interesting. Current one I'm dealing with: my work (hospital) is trying to encourage people to get flu shots (so far so good). As part of the incentives though they have created a game with teams and prizes. I'm not so sure we should be encouraging people to make personal healthcare choices based on prizes and the reasonable expectation of peer pressure from the team to do it. Also: health information being shared in order to determine which team has > 80% vaccination. Argh. People don't think too far I guess.
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
"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
Perhaps they can be understood in those terms, but you explain it like a meth-head in withdrawal.
Learn to love Alaska