it arizona, they have gotten convictions by trial because of the terms gfe or fs on an ad/website.  our courts have defined the acronyms as illlegal sex acts and the girl showing up is considered the act of furtherance.

but what if you defined the acronyms used in your ad differently.

for example:

I'm 100% GFE (great freaky experience)

i offer bbbj (big bouncing boobie jokes)

$200 fs (furry slippers)

seems as if YOUR definition would over-ride the court's definition.
or at least provide some reasonable doubt.

i think legally they have to accept the definition in your ad.  i'd be interested to find out if there's any case history from another industry, if none from ours,  that would support this logic.

A court clearly DOES NOT have to accept literal interpretations or the defendant's expressed meaning.  It can alway hold that the wording is an innuendo or double entendre and does not mean "furry slippers) or anything else.

This becomes clear if you were to ask does the court really have to accept "400 diamonds."  Indeed, at a modest $100 per diamond, that would make the ad asking for the value of 40,000.  The same applies to  X number of kisses, roses, or what ever.  

In a world of questionable legality, a court can assume that people may be less than literal in public declarations.

Why put those acronyms on your web site at all?  Unless you are just a jokester (and I don’t think I’ve ever seen you post before so I can’t tell), presumably the purpose of the acronym is inform customers of the services you actually provide. And if the customers understand this is just a subterfuge, why should the law treat it any differently?

       Remember also that conviction and arrest are two separate creatures.  Arizona is one of the few, if not the only, state that allows warrantless misdemeanor arrests solely on probable cause – the offense does NOT have to be committed in the presence of LE.

    Now whether even an explicit ad on a website alone can be considered an offer of prostitution is an open question in most states since these statutes are often construed as requiring an offer to a specific person rather than an offer to the world. But you seem to imply that in your state (“they have gotten convictions by trial because of the terms gfe or fs on an ad/website”) that an offer to the world is enough without any step in furtherance thereof.

       So, if that is accurate, in theory any LE who could connect you to that ad could arrest you without a warrant and drag you through at least the probable cause hearing where the more knowledgeable magistrate may, or may not, uphold the arrest.
At trial maybe your silver tongue atty could create reasonable doubt but he would have to offer some explanation as to why it cost $200 to enjoy your "furry slippers."

      And given that there is mandatory first offense jail time in Arizona, why bother at all? The risk is too great. And if you also happen to look Hispanic and habla esponol, I don’t even want to go there.

Unfortunately, there is no winning method.  The ladies have to advertise.  Any advertisement that a DA can convince a judge is an offer of prostitution will result in a conviction.  It doesn't matter what acronyms you use, or what disclaimers you put on your website stating that it's not an offer of prostitution, that it's only companionship or whatever.  If the DA can make a valid claim that a reasonable person would recognize it as an offer of prostitution, you're fighting a lost cause.

The best example of what I'm talking about comes from an episode of Boston Legal.  I think it was in their second season.  Denny Crane (William Shatner) went into a public bathroom and started humming and tapping his foot.  He was arrested when the guy in the stall next to him turned out to be an undercover cop.  The charge: solicitation.  Why?  Because, as the DA argued, it was public knowledge that going into a men's bathroom and tapping your foot and humming is a signal to the guy in the stall next to you that you're looking for sex.  The number of times you tap your feet had something to do with the price.

The episode was hilarious and Shatner, as always, did a tremendous job as did James Spader defending him.  But, the point of the story is that any signals used, any acronyms used, or clever wordings, once they become known to the police and the DA in the community, become evidence.

So, the women who use "roses" or "hugs" or some other term on their website instead of "dollars" in order to avoid it looking like they're asking for money - it'll never fly if they're caught.  Acronyms like GFE, FS, etc. are already well known acronyms for sex acts, or types of dates.  If escorts started claiming to offer gerbil throwing, farting lessons, or klegel training it would probably only take hours before the police and/or the DA recognize the ad for what it is based on the context:  terms used to describe certain sex acts or types of dates, i.e. evidence of an offer of prostitution.

As I see it, there are really only two ways to completely avoid the problem:
1.  Move to a country where it's legal
2.  Get prostitution decriminalized in the U.S..

Frankly, I think the chances of #2 happening are about the same chance as my being hit by an asteroid made of chocolate, while riding on a orange elephant in a purple tutu while a flock of geese play "She works hard for the money" on oboes.  But, that's just personal opinion.

Excellent point, and perhaps the most important thing, that an arrest and conviction are two different things.

In fact, the arrest may be worse than the conviction.  In L.A. (and a lot of other placess where the jails are full, a conviction may result if 45 minutes custody, a fine equal to 4 dates (depending on who you see), and a mandatory class where you will be forced to associate with other people convicted of similar offenses.  The last is kind of a judicial meet and greet.

On the other hand, the arrest may be in the papers or 5:00 news.  "No. That is someone who looks like me. Yeah, funny how the name sounds similar.)

something of value that you're trading.

the agreement has nothing to do with money.

in the past couple of years, women have been prosecuted for agreeing to accept baseball tickets and in another case, the agreement was for a case of frito lay potato chips.

so in your example, whether or not the court accepts the words in the literal sense is irrelevant.  it's still a crime.

if you're advertising a service, it is expected that you're looking to be compensated in some way.  and that compensation is going to have a monetary value, regardless of what it is.

1. (“they have gotten convictions by trial because of the terms gfe or fs on an ad/website”) that an offer to the world is enough without any step in furtherance thereof.

no. the offer is made on the website and the girl showing up is the act of furtherance.

2. you've seen me post before and you should know i'm quite a ho-larious girl. click my review link.

if you can find case history where acronyms have been defined as something other than the "understood" definition in that industry, and the courts ruled that the definition used by the person using the acronym has more weight than the understood definition, that's what the law is.

whats so unreasonable about a companion who is offering to tell jokes, and maybe my slippers are made by jimmy choo.  i think it's MORE unreasonable to assume i'm doing something that is illegal.. escorting IS a legal profession so the REASONABLE assumption should be that i'm doing something legal.

no marikod i wouldnt put it on my website but i think the other dude is right about the chances of this industry being decriminalized which means we need to find ways to legally do what we want to do.  

if you know the law well enough, it's not necessarily to break it.

It doesn't matter if it is 400 diamonds, bugs, winks, kisses, or smiles.

Regardless of what is said, the court, police,  and/or jury do not have to take it literally.

There have been scores of cases where people had their phones bugged or other wise had their conversations and other communications monitored.  

The Aryan Brotherhood never uses literal language in their communications in prison. The use of cryptic language does nothing more than create a question of interpretation.  "What does that mean?"

Go back to the "furry slippers" example.  If someone said, "200 furry slippers," and the cops showed up and there was not one pair of slippers, do you think they would have to stick with "furry slippers."  

Likewise, if the customer is supposed to have 200 furry slippers, and shows up with no baggage capable of carrying that many shoes, and he gets in the door with no excess footwear, right there hyou have established that furry slippers is something else.

That very example does not make literal sense, so right there they have to ask what it means.

The law may be dumb at times, but it does not require stupidity.

Slippers, bugs, kisses, or hard core CASH. Doesn't matter what the literal words mean.

It is really quite simple. You set up your web site that way and go on 500 dates where you are strictly a nonsexual companion. Then, when you get arrested for “showing up” by overzealous vice bc he assumes the words are pretextual, and when you get prosecuted for solicitation by the DA who also has this assumption, you can call those 500 dates as witnesses to your true calling, and other character witnesses who will testify as your virginal past, and then you will have a chance for the jury to return a “not guilty” verdict.

     Unfortunately, however, when the DA sees this parade of character witnesses, he plays his ace in the hole - he links you to TER. Now the jury won’t even believe your 500 witnesses.

       But the good news is, while you are serving your mandatory jail time,  you can then write a book telling the world that all that bad publicity Sherriff Joe gets is so overrated.

they wouldnt want to do the extra paperwork.

i'm pretty sure the cops like grabbing some beer and hookers on friday night.

the only person the da has to convince you're guilty is YOU.

Actually if more would FIGHT the charges which can be expensive and risk publicity we could possibly have a favorable outcome.

At least we have Lawrence vs Texas Supreme Court decision on our side.  In private consenting adult sexuality is no place for the law (gay case but could apply to all) and laws can not be based on morality.

I've done massive writing on the case and it has gotten the interest of judges in some cases.  But its never been fully used at trial.

Almost was in the case of D.C. Madam and I had great discussion with her first attorney (Montgomery Sibley) and he wrote a excellent brief with a Lawrence vs Texas defense.

Sadly was not used by the final criminal attorney just the lame "gee I didn't know they had sex" useless defense under the the circumstances.

Sadly she committee suicide instead of face years in jail as a very honest great reputation Madam.

It would have been legal and no big deal in almost all the world except the U.S. in private consenting adults...

Last month-I went and sat in the wrong court room and watched a prostitution case.
The defense pitched something similar to this...
It did'nt work.
she was found guilty.

I've noticed this myself and wonder why noone has ever used it.  It seems so blatant, but would definitely cause a stir as well as public attention.  With most of the educated providers having another professional life or family and friends who don't know or simply don't get caught, I guess it may take awhile.  I just hope at some point justice is served and people won't have to worry about being judged by expressing their sexuality, in a safe manner.
  Realistically, prostitution has only been illegal since 1910.  This leaves the vast majority of history with it being legal.  Not to mention that when it was made illegal it was because of the strong influence of the Women's Christion Temperance Movement; seems to strike a moral point made in Lawrence v. Texas.  Maybe someday, people will look back and compare to the days of prohibition.  Legal - illegal - Legal