Prostitution laws are simply regulations on our personal freedoms. I believe that prostitution laws violate everyone's rights, but the federal government allows states to fashion their own laws regarding sex. Remember that sex itself isn't necessarily illegal but there are many laws regarding it. Everything from gay marriage and sodomy to age of consent and adultery have been addressed in various states law. So your first amendment scenerio could very likely be restricted in some way. Funny, I can go to a bar and meet a random young lady and we can agree to have a wild night of sex and never even get her name and maybe even catch some STD. But if I pay a different young lady for the same activity and we do things safely the way it's supposed to be done it's a crime. With our government I think it's a miracle that were even allowed to fuck at all.
This is a Dumb question I am sure. What if someone wanted to exercise their 1st Admendment rights and artistically wanted to show how they feel the government is treating the average US citizen? How would that be challanged by LE?
Let me ask you, if you do not mind.........how would you artistically show how you feel the government is treating the US Citizen and exercise your 1st Amendment right?
From a few experiences I have had in the past this is what happened to me.
LE and the Press are pretty much going to do what they want to do, simply because they can. Except if it entails they may endanger their own existence or family. Like going after the REAL crime makers, Drug Lords, you know, People who can go bang, bang you are dead and no one misses you or cares.........
Thank you Kelly. I was wondering if you could call it play acting or any other type of performance. Art. Think of some of the artist that as protests gets other students to play dead. I know there is an argument against it but was curious if anyone ever tried it. If both parties before the meeting state that they wish to symbolize something as as art or speech why will that not work. I was thinking of the bars in Minnesota that had people sign forms as actors so they could smoke in the bar. The law in Minnesota allowed smoking in theatre performances. Thought that possibly if any court allowed this bar to do so then there would be a Precedent. So nobody is being tecnically being paid to do anything illegal but they are simply hired to help with an "art" project.
I was also wondering if anyone did fight it how far did they fight? This argument would challange someone from saying "then any illegal act could use this argument". The counter to that argument is the act of sex is not illegal. Many artists have used graphic sex scenes or filmed acts in the name of art. What is the difference between those artists and speech and an some consenting adults doing the same? Art does not need to be recorded to be art.
I am sure this argument could be made much better by an experienced attorney to courts. If a lawyer kept this challange it would cause headlines and make a name for themselves. Even if it was defeated it could help public opinion to see that the law may need to change.
As I said before it may be a dumb question. It is simply a question that I thought while watching TV.
-- Modified on 11/17/2014 4:52:40 AM
-- Modified on 11/17/2014 4:54:40 AM
Prostitution laws are simply regulations on our personal freedoms. I believe that prostitution laws violate everyone's rights, but the federal government allows states to fashion their own laws regarding sex. Remember that sex itself isn't necessarily illegal but there are many laws regarding it. Everything from gay marriage and sodomy to age of consent and adultery have been addressed in various states law. So your first amendment scenerio could very likely be restricted in some way. Funny, I can go to a bar and meet a random young lady and we can agree to have a wild night of sex and never even get her name and maybe even catch some STD. But if I pay a different young lady for the same activity and we do things safely the way it's supposed to be done it's a crime. With our government I think it's a miracle that were even allowed to fuck at all.
That is one of my main arguments. Many have tried to compare that my idea is just as ridiculous are trying the same argument to justify murder or any other crime. My argument is sex is legal. Since sex is legal how can it be illegal for me to use this legal act to promote my speech. I know they say the courts will argue that the person knew what they were doing and it was not speech. When people were arrested for burning the flag in public they were sometimes arrested violating local fire codes. However these were usually and rightfully dismissed due to speech challanges.
I just wonder if it was challenged with this arguement. If it was not would it be possible to find a legal firm or individual lawyer that would like to make money from the publicity of possible taking it to a higher court.