Please get the word out to anyone who you can tell about this. It is imperative that funds be raised to pay the attorney. This link has information about the case. To the right of the page is a place to make donations. Millions of federal dollars have been spent on propaganda about human trafficking. The grass-roots movement to educate people about the difference between that and consenting workers is under-funded.
http://esplerp.org/sex-workers-file-appeal-for-decriminalization-of-sex-work/Update on 9th Circuit challenge to prostitution law.
Reply brief of ESPLER to State 1/13/2017 Highlights
1) Argues the State misapprehends the liberty interest at stake
Goes beyond just a "fundamental right to engage in prostitution." It does not have to include as the State argues "highly personal relationships with deep attachment of commitments" This case is not about sex trafficking or children that the State references in its brief. The case is about consenting adults and their rights to be free of government intruding into their private, sexual lives. Cites Lawrence v Texas and Reliable Consultants v. Earle, and others. (Dave notes years ago I argued how the Reliable case could apply just as well to prostitution)
The State argued cases that were before Lawrence, Casey and Obergefell Supreme Court cases, which show the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause extends beyond deep and committed relationships. Goes into detail on each cited case to support this argument.
2) Lawrence did not decide the issue of State laws criminalizing prostitution as constitutional as the State argues. The State distorts the Lawrence case which simply was not addressing prostitution other than noting this was not the Lawrence case. Long discussion followed.
3) Rational basis review is not the proper standard to review Section 647(b) (legal issue I don't understand)
4) Citizens do not forfeit liberty if transact commerce in the exercise of that liberty.
Give example from George Carlin - that government cannot say it is legal for you to engage in sex, but it is illegal for you to for sex. Selling is legal. So why isn't it legal to sell sex? Why should it be illegal to sell something that's legal to give away?
5) None of the State's interests justify Section 647(b)
Argues against the State's position that prostitution creates a climate conductive to violence against women. The State cited a case of a minor being sex trafficked across state lines, but that IS a violent crime but has nothing to do with consenting adult prostitution. "This is nothing more than another attempt by the State to conflate voluntary prostitution with sex trafficking."
State's concerns about risky sex without condoms that can spread disease may justify public health initiatives, but none of these government interests justify the outright prohibition of prostitution.
A question:
Has the argument already been made that any number of civilized western societies, including England from whence our common laws were taken to say nothing of the countries that border us allow legal sex for hire to one extent or another? (To say nothing of legal brothels in parts of Nevada, or the fact that sex for hire was legal and commonplace in America up to around 100 years ago.)
I'd find that a rather compelling argument.
Has the argument already been made that any number of civilized western societies, including England from whence our common laws were taken to say nothing of the countries that border us allow legal sex for hire to one extent or another? (To say nothing of legal brothels in parts of Nevada, or the fact that sex for hire was legal and commonplace in America up to around 100 years ago.)
I'd find that a rather compelling argument.
I do not believe in the present 9th Circuit case or many other cases at Appeals or higher that this is much discussed.
I am not an expert on this but off the top of my head, common law or historical customs seems more important absent a direct law on an issue - such as prostitution being very clear - its illegal in all except NV in the U.S.
More common is using court cases i.e. in Arizona going back to territorial laws before we were a State. But usually when a law is unclear and look at the historical aspects.
I don't believe laws in other countries have much of an impact on our Courts.
I do believe the issue of "harm reduction" as part of the State argument about "compelling interest" the defense could bring up zillions of studies in other countries including Canada where it has been shown that the illegal nature increases harm. Much of the anti's hype is based on false discredited studies. Our infamous MF. whose studies are widely used by those that claim all prostitution is an abuse of women testified as a friend of the Canadian Supreme Court. The judge in her very long opinion specifically discredited MF's and similar research as self-serving and basically made no sense that all prostitution promotes violence against women etc. Canada tossed all the prostitution laws (incall etc as outcall was always legal) solely based on safety and "Harm reduction" and the strong rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In the current 9th Circuit case the State broadly argued these issues in the opposite way (more harm if legal) and the latest ESLERP brief counters those issues. Remember there is a page limit to briefs and this is probably the end of briefing before goes to the Court. I don't recall if the State used MF cites (I guess can't use names here) but wasn't relying too strongly on her fake research so the Reply didn't rebutt it directly.
In any of these cases, why is it never argued comparative activities? In most states boxing is legal and selling or buying of these services are legal. How is the sex trade more of an exploitation than boxing or mma? It is done purely for the entertainment of the viewer. It is highly damaging to the body. Yet our nation has no problem with exploitation for violence. Using the states arguments back at them, does mma not create the same public concerns?
Is this not treating one issue different because, 1 more women are involved and they silently should not have a day over their bodies, and two because religion leads some to believe it is wrong?
Please get the word out to anyone who you can tell about this. It is imperative that funds be raised to pay the attorney. This link has information about the case. To the right of the page is a place to make donations. Millions of federal dollars have been spent on propaganda about human trafficking. The grass-roots movement to educate people about the difference between that and consenting workers is under-funded.
http://esplerp.org/sex-workers-file-appeal-for-decriminalization-of-sex-work/