Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: California Court Challenge - Prostitution

  1. #1

    California Court Challenge - Prostitution

    This might interest some of you who enjoy analyzing c-36.

    These cases pop up from time to time in the US and never have much success. But if anything good ever comes out of US courts in the next decade, it will certainly start in either California, Nevada or Washington (state). And a lot of scholars have predicted that if prostitution is ever decriminalized in the States it will be because of the Lawrence decision. How can sodomy be okay, but not consensual prostitution?

    http://www.vice.com/read/a-new-lawsu...california-304

    I think there is a way to donate to help. I should donate, but I have no trouble finding "sort of legal" escorts in California since they screen too much to ever get arrested or inadvertently get their customers arrested. The problem is that they charged so much that I have no extra funds left in my US mongering budget to help legalize this activity in California.

  2. #2
    Bemused...
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    742
    There are plenty of good indies in the Bay Area who are at reasonable rates. And K-girls in LA. On the surface, I agree with you - SPs in CA are stupid overpriced. Too much easy money out there...

    Interesting article and development.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    NY State
    Posts
    2,808
    They have an interesting argument because the pornography industry when it was struggling against anti-pornography laws made the same argument. They were making a movie and therefore it was free speech.

    The only difference between porn and prostitution is someone else is paying for the sex to be filmed in porn and in prostitution the person buying the sex is having the sex with the seller.

    But I think if they rule that the verbal part of solicitation is legal, the sex part would not be. So, that would require LE to have sex with prostitutes to arrest them. I suppose governments would just decriminalize prostitution. Of course, you would get a bunch of new recruits wanting to be on the vice squad volunteering to do prostitution arrests. But that's not practical, I think.
    So when will Hillary go to Prison?

    Only the Democrats would have a potential CONVICT as their Top Presidential Candidate. Simply Pathetic

  4. #4
    I am not familiar with the laws that surround prostitution in the US, beyond the fact that prostitution is officially a crime and each state is responsible for legislating on prostitution, in contrast to Canada where the laws are federal.

    What I find interesting here are the constitutional rights listed as being violated. Freedom of association in particular, and freedom of speech. In the Bedford case, the only right at stake was the right to security of the person. The SC had already ruled that the laws did not infringe on sex workers' freedom of speech and freedom of association in 1990.

    Please keep us posted, Patron.

  5. #5
    Here is the Hail Mary (or at least the summary they did in response to the Motion to Dismiss). It is great writing and analysis, and easy to agree with every word. Probably hopeless, but a good fight always slows the general advance of the other side.

    http://esplerp.org/wp-content/upload...to_Dismiss.pdf

  6. #6
    A poor corrupt official
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Casablanca
    Posts
    1,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Patron View Post
    Here is the Hail Mary (or at least the summary they did in response to the Motion to Dismiss). It is great writing and analysis, and easy to agree with every word. Probably hopeless, but a good fight always slows the general advance of the other side.

    http://esplerp.org/wp-content/upload...to_Dismiss.pdf
    Patron, thanks for posting that brief. It's worth reading and it is striking how clearly this case is related to cases involving sodomy and gay marriage.

    This is a case about liberty. It is about the right to be let alone (Bowers v. Hardwick,
    478 U.S. 186, 199 (1986)(Blackmun, J., dissenting), about controlling one’s own destiny
    (Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003)), and about limiting the role of the State in
    certain spheres of our lives (Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 562).

    Plaintiffs are adults who knowingly wish to engage in sexual relationships, and they
    are willing to pay or to be paid in connection with these encounters. California currently
    makes such conduct illegal, even though adult Americans enjoy substantial protection in
    deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. Plaintiffs have thus
    come to this Court to challenge the State’s intrusion on their private, intimate lives.
    The Defendants (collectively, the “State”) have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims.

    The State claims that its ban on prostitution is a valid regulation of commerce that does not
    infringe upon any liberty interest of its citizens.

    The State’s Motion should be denied because it is a promise of the Constitution that there is a
    realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter (Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 562
    (citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 847 (1992)), and
    California’s ban on prostitution breaks that constitutional promise...
    Strasser: By the way, the murder of the couriers, what has been done?
    Renault: Realizing the importance of the case, my men are rounding up twice the usual number of suspects.
    Heinze: We already know who the murderer is.
    Strasser: Good. Is he in custody?
    Renault: Oh, there's no hurry. Tonight he'll be at Rick's. Everybody comes to Rick's.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •