Slashdot Mirror
Amazon and Microsoft Directors Charged in Prostitution Sting (kiro7.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A director from Microsoft and a former Amazon director have been charged with promoting prostitution after an investigation into Seattle-area sex trafficking, according to a local news report. Investigators say the director of worldwide health for Microsoft submitted over 70 reviews of prostitutes that he had allegedly hired since April 2012, according to the report, while the director of software development at Amazon, who worked on Fire TV, "allegedly hired prostitutes at least 29 times through The Review Board and TheLeague.Net, according to court documents." Both men have pleaded not guilty and are free on $75,000 bail, part of a group of 19 people now facing criminal charges. "These defendants, we allege, were absolutely devoted to the commercial sexual exploitation of vulnerable, powerless immigrant women," King County Prosecutors said in January, adding that the women, who were forced into prostitution to pay off debts to organized crime bosses in Asia, are not being charged.
Last January a Seattle newspaper reported that one alleged brothel owner "previously had made his living off illegal marijuana grows, but moved into prostitution when the drug was legalized."
Last January a Seattle newspaper reported that one alleged brothel owner "previously had made his living off illegal marijuana grows, but moved into prostitution when the drug was legalized."
Everyone knows Amazon and Microsoft are in bed together to screw over consumers.
It sounds like these guys committed "patronizing a prostitute", which is a misdemeanor:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defa...
They've been charged with "promoting prostitution"( being a pimp), which a felony:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defa...
Is by the prosecutor and the police. In countries where prostitution is legal, women selecting this as their choice of work of their own free will are the norm and exceptions are so rare that they make the papers. Also, "pimps" basically do not exist. Hence what is going on here is a deranged war on women that find selling sex for money gives them a sound economic basis and on men that are willing to buy that service. All the "trafficking" nonsense and "helpless" bullshit is just the same vile lies used to justify locking up as many people as possible (and most certainly those "rescued" face the same fate and will have the money they earned stolen in addition) over what in any sane country is a matter of a service rendered between consenting adults. The very kind of language used by the "authorities" already shows what this really is.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
To be fair, the Amazon employee was a Prime Now customer and had gotten so used to getting what he wanted in two hours that pumping drinks in to a girl all night in a bar (let alone the traditional three-dates before sex route) was just too damn slow.
The prostitutes may be victims of sex trafficking but, the people being charged had nothing to do with that if it did take place. They should be going after the traffickers who brought them to this country if they were brought here either illegally or against their will or if they extorted them. Going after these guys is just the prosecutor trying to get his name in the paper, not trying to actually go after criminals.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
"Can anyone provide any real evidence to disprove these facts?"
I can't disprove that your head is a giant cabbage either, but in this case that would be a pretty good guess.
Yes. Unfortunately, most of the recent bills passed to fight actual slavery (including sex slavery) have been used to fight sex work instead.
With legalized prostitution, it is much easier to help actual trafficking victims escape. This is the real harm of conflating trafficking/slavery with sex work.
As this article titles: The War on Sex Trafficking Is the New War on Drugs. And the results will be just as disastrous, for "perpetrators" and "victims" alike.
http://reason.com/archives/201...
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
Do you have evidence outside that that would be her political stance (not personal) on the topic.
Hillary is too much of a political sell out fe be a Feminazi.
Beside in the United States prostitution laws are controlled by each individual state. For the most part doesn't have much political action asking such rules to be pushed on a national level.
Besides her stance on women's rights has been towards less regulation on what a woman can do because they are a woman not more.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
A lot of prostitutes are exploited - by their employers. It's an underground industry, so they can't go to the police for help - if their pimp threatens them with violence, or withholds pay, or assaults them, there's nothing much they can do - certainly can't go to the police. Legalisation would make it a lot easier to maintain safe working conditions.
Read a little closer. These aren't women who chose to be prostitutes rather than being dental hygienists or auto mechanics. They were coerced or forced into prostitution to pay off debts to organized crime bosses. Debts that may have not have even been their own but of their family members. They were neither safe nor secure and it's doubtful they were allowed to keep much of the money.
How much were the Amazon and Microsoft directors aware of this exploitation? Don't know, but apparently the prosecutors think they knew these women didn't have many other options.
> The prostitutes may be victims of sex trafficking but, the people being charged had nothing to do with that if it did take place
The traffickers should be charged, of course. But the condition of these victims of sex trafficking as frightened, often brutalized, under-age, underpaid, slaves of their traffickers is not normally any surprise to the clients.
I started to read the links you sent.
The first one. Not bad. Jeff Bezos is a fucking ass.
Second one looks like it is commentary from a local radio station, and he seems to be more intent on bitching about unions (the very thing that could fix the problem in post one) and claiming that they work they do is just make busy work, and they don't focus on getting traffic to flow freely. His bitches here was a noise barrier wall to protect a neighborhood from freeway noise and animal over/underpasses. Honestly I am in favor of both of these things, and it sounds like he just wants to bitch.
Third one looks to be a forum of Seattle haters for Seattle haters. Of which the first post is bitching about not enough women in the city and how he cant get any of their attention cause they are always looking at their phones.
You went down hill fast here buddy.
Why is prostitution illegal at all?
One of the most common lines is "prostitution exploits women" -- if that's the case, then why are prostitutes arrested? Wouldn't they then be the victims? At least in the EU that seems to be emerging model, with Sweden and now France making accepting money for sex not illegal, but paying money for sex illegal. But that's very recent, and not generally reflective of long standing practices and criminal law.
A more enduring answer seems to be that it's merely reflective of anti-sex morality, the same mindset that used to criminalize pornography, birth control and made sodomy and adultery actual crimes. Although most all of those things have mostly stopped being illegal, as society on balance has become accepting of sex as recreation -- sodomy and adultery laws have mostly been overturned or aren't enforced anymore, singles bars, Craigslist/Tinder/Grindr, etc. And also, in not the not so distant past, society was more tolerant of prostitution -- brothels operated more openly -- despite a generally stronger social prohibition on sex outside of marriage.
I think prostitution remains illegal -- with the public justification shifting in spite of general acceptance of sex outside of wedlock -- because women don't like prostitution. Despite the general changes in attitude about sex outside of marriage, women still see sexuality as a significant bargaining chip in social relations with men. Legalized prostitution thus represents a threat to women's bargaining status in relationships.
If men can buy sex whenever they want it for only money, women lose a significant bargaining advantage in relationships with men. Their sexuality no longer represents a scarce good or service and they can no longer structure their relationship demands around controlling access to sex. Which seems really ironic, since women often loudly decry being seen as "sex objects" and want to be valued for their intelligence or other personality traits, yet it seems as in spite of that, women continue to see their sexuality as primary tool in attracting and maintaining mail interest in relationships.
You would think that *women* would want prostitution legal, though, because it would in theory act as a kind of filter for men they wish to engage in more substantive relationships with. It would, in theory, make the pool of men they encounter to more likely be interested in non-sexual aspects of a relationship, reducing the effort needed to filter men who falsify their intentions in order to gain sex.