reat Radio Legal Discussion
Using Lawrence v Texas, later 5th Circuit case etc and sharing of many approaches to challenging the prostitution laws as well as the unique Rhode Island situation.

Lawyer Laurence J. Cohen, Esq. was very good especially reacting to my many comments.  Gina (Bella of COYETE-RI who I have had tons of e-mail discussions with) and Maxine (from meeting in my home leading up the Calf/9th Circuit approach) and myself were so fast talking we almost overwhelmed the host Charlie. He never got to his Initiative so will be continued on Wednesday 1PM our time.  Charlie really did great with the fast discussion of the 4 of us.

The 77 minutes went very fast and after some general topics by the 'gals".  I haven't dared hear myself yet, but I called in after maybe 20 minutes and the discussion really got going.  Charlie kept wanting me to introduce myself but never got to that with all the legal discussion, so at the end I was just the mystery guest caller.

I have concerns how the Charlie Spice Initiative/lawsuit is going to work, involves some media attention (supposedly a good CNN contact) and some think raising $100K+ for legal fees will not be a problem - I am skeptical but hopeful.

The attorney who won in the 5th Circuit and other cases has agreed to be a future guest as well as some other notable sexwork related attorney's supporting the ideas of the current proposed court battle challenging the constitutionality of the prostitution laws for in private consenting adults.

The goal is for the broadcasts open to all with be a uniting rallying point for organization and support from sexworkers, advocates and all interested trying to coordinate a potential legal fight in the U.S.

The prior great shows are available to hear and announcement of next show at
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/charliespiceshow
My call in is on the January 28th Episode with the great discussion.

Legal Basis:
Although the US Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to privacy, the Supreme Court, and Appeals Courts in a serious of various factual and legal settings, has recognized that the right to privacy -, including sexual privacy is a constitutionally protected liberty embodied in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. This right has been upheld to restrain the reach of government into personal lives in various settings and there are arguments that it should extend to private consenting adult sexwork.

guarantee privacy by the use of the term "secure" in the Fourth Amendment. (See below.)

"Privacy", being a term at the time the Constitution was written, used to denote activities that take place in the bathroom ("privy", in that day's parlance) and would not be appropriate for the purpose the Founding Fathers meant it to be.


Relevant text:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]


(still not a lawyer)

prior court ruling, interpreted "street walking" & similar to not prohibit indoor prostitution.  The current statute is harsh.  I don't expect any enlightened thinking in Puritan RI.

That is a different argument than what is basically used in Lawrence and the latest 5th decision.

I took the 5th and replaced a few words to make it sexwork related and it fits perfectly.  There are some very well respected lawyers (including the one that won the 5th Circuit case) willing to take on the fight - but of course huge legal fees to do so.

The RI case remember back from the 1970's Margo St James case when they forced RI to stop arresting indoor sexwork.  Then in 2009 they changed the law to cover it.  Long complicated history here but some of the original people still involved so have standing potentially for a declaratory action.

I am not convinced the RI situation is easier than the broader attack on constitutional grounds but at least the win in the 5th Circuit expanded the privacy issue in Lawrence to commercial sex products which is one step removed from commercial sexual services.

A good history of RI prostitution statutes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Rhode_Island

The current statutes:
http://prostitution.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=760