Legal Corner

Fight For Your Right to Post Reviews
FightForYourRight 4193 reads
posted

 
All:
 
As some of you may know, there were many men in the Seattle area that were charged with felony promoting prostitution for doing nothing more than posting escort reviews on a now seized escort review site.  The prosecution in this case was able to levy these charges because the legal definition of "promoting prostitution" in the state of Washington is written in very broad terms, and as one autonomous requirement, includes nothing more than the described outcome of "advances prostitution" in relation to the actions of an individual.  
 
Two of the men charged with felonies for posting reviews are fighting these charges in a trial that will start soon.  The outcome of this trial, and any possible subsequent trials, will have significant implications for everyone who uses such escort review sites.  If the prosecution wins, other states may adjust their definitions of pandering and/or promoting prostitution to levy similar felonies on others who do nothing more than write escort reviews after bookings.  
 
I just learned that they are attempting to raise money for legal costs from a post on the Legal Corner board.  The crowdfunding campaign is ending in less than three weeks.  I've included a link to that post below.  Please refer to this post and PM your friends.  
 
****google fight the legal battle in seattle**** for more information

Update:  The Moderators at TER decided to remove my link to the post on the "Legal Corner" discussion board.  I'm grateful that they decided to leave my post and let you know what to search for on Google through their edit directly above.  Searching on "fight the legal battle in Seattle" on Google should return the crowdfunding campaign as the first search result.  This campaign is hosted by FundedJustice.  
 

-- Modified on 3/15/2017 12:53:37 PM

FightForYourRight743 reads

 
Of all the posts to report a TER rules violation on, you pick this one?  Really?  Do you have any understanding and/or appreciation for what the implications of the results of this trial are?  
 

FightForYourRight659 reads

 
I don't believe that it's in the best interest of anyone who uses this board to attempt to hinder this campaign in any way.  The implications of the results of this trial would likely be profound and far-reaching over time.  
 

-- Modified on 3/15/2017 12:22:38 PM

Posted By: FightForYourRight
   
 I don't believe that it's in the best interest of anyone who uses this board to attempt to hinder this campaign in any way.  The implications of the results of this trial would likely be profound and far-reaching over time.    
  

-- Modified on 3/15/2017 12:22:38 PM

FightForYourRight564 reads

 
Are you a Moderator?  I wasn't under any impression that you were.  
 

FightForYourRight574 reads

 
You didn't answer my question as to whether or not you're a Moderator.  At this point, I'll assume that you're not.  
 
Why didn't you just use the "Report this post" button on the other post that I originally had a link to in my original post in this thread?  That would seem to make more sense than to broadcast on this thread what you think the rules are with respect to what you read on an external web site that is twice removed from this thread that I started.  
 
The other post is still on this board with the original link to the external website.  I've again included a link to it below.  If you want, you can navigate to this other post and report it to the Moderators.  
 

GaGambler537 reads

Don't shoot the messenger. Like it or not, Robbin is ABSOLUTELY correct revealing personal information about other members is one of the cardinal rules of TER that is NEVER to be broken.

Now why don't you get over this minor beef with Robbin, in which you happen to be WRONG, and go back to your original purpose of trying to raise some money for your friends in Seattle. and I might add, try to do more good than harm while you are at it. Right now the vote is out whether you are doing more harm than good.

FightForYourRight601 reads

Posted By: GaGambler

   
... in which you happen to be WRONG, ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Which of my statements in this thread is wrong?  I haven't made any statements as to what I believe TER's rules to be.  
 
Can you provide a quote from one of my posts and explain why you feel that my quoted statement is wrong?  
 

GaGambler585 reads

It's not your post that is the problem, it's the link that is the problem, and contrary to what you said in your post above, TER did indeed remove your link as it's nowhere to be found.

TER rules do not allow the personal info of any member to posted here, and if your link "named names" it would most definitely be disallowed and those kind of links are removed all the time when people start posting links regarding busts in the hobby.

If you don't like the rule take it up with admin, but it's been a rule ever since there has been a TER and it's not likely to be a rule that is ever rescinded.

I know your heart is in the right place, but you seem to have gotten sidetracked here by battling with every one who has tried to explain the rules to you.

FightForYourRight582 reads

 
I never posted a link to this external article.  I posted a link to another post on this board, which in turn had a link to this external article.  My link in my original post was removed because I'm assuming that the Moderator was confused by Robbin's comments, as she decided to post to this thread what she perceived the rules to be with respect to a link on a completely different thread.  As I stated earlier, she should have reported the other post using the "Report this post" button instead of broadcasting to all of TER on this thread what she perceived the rules to be regarding a link that doesn't even exist here.  I never questioned, or made any statements concerning, what TER's rules were.  
 
Did you happen to notice that Robbin posted a reply further down this chain, where she made ridiculous accusations to the effect that my posts in this thread were likely attracting the attention of the FBI?  She then claimed that her earlier posts, which you seem to be reading above, were an attempt to "discreetly warn [me] about NOT posting links to the story", because of her apparent concern that the information in my posts was alerting the FBI to activities by TER's members that they may be interested in.  I've included a link to this absurd post by Robbin below.  
 
This is all coming from someone who has publicly declared on this board her delight at consuming certain human secretions, which you'll see that I pointed out to her in my subsequent reply.  All of this seems to be nothing more than attention-seeking behavior by someone that always wants the spotlight on them.  It's the personalty trait that leads to pointless distractions during serious conversations, no matter what the consequences.  I've seen this personality in certain people before, and I'm never impressed by it.  
 

-- Modified on 3/21/2017 11:29:05 AM

they will throw this shit out..we all have the right to free speech..

Posted By: FightForYourRight
   
 All:  
    
 As some of you may know, there were many men in the Seattle area that were charged with felony promoting prostitution for doing nothing more than posting escort reviews on a now seized escort review site.  The prosecution in this case was able to levy these charges because the legal definition of "promoting prostitution" in the state of Washington is written in very broad terms, and as one autonomous requirement, includes nothing more than the described outcome of "advances prostitution" in relation to the actions of an individual.    
    
 Two of the men charged with felonies for posting reviews are fighting these charges in a trial that will start soon.  The outcome of this trial, and any possible subsequent trials, will have significant implications for everyone who uses such escort review sites.  If the prosecution wins, other states may adjust their definitions of pandering and/or promoting prostitution to levy similar felonies on others who do nothing more than write escort reviews after bookings.    
    
 I just learned that they are attempting to raise money for legal costs from a post on the Legal Corner board.  The crowdfunding campaign is ending in less than three weeks.  I've included a link to that post below.  Please refer to this post and PM your friends.    
    
 ****google fight the legal battle in seattle**** for more information  
   
 Update:  The Moderators at TER decided to remove my link to the post on the "Legal Corner" discussion board.  I'm grateful that they decided to leave my post and let you know what to search for on Google through their edit directly above.  Searching on "fight the legal battle in Seattle" on Google should return the crowdfunding campaign as the first search result.  This campaign is hosted by FundedJustice.    
  

-- Modified on 3/15/2017 12:53:37 PM

DAVEPHX523 reads

Posted By: macdaddy1944
they will throw this shit out..we all have the right to free speech..
 
It is probably not free speech to promote an illegal act, sadly.    

The 9th circuit now has the ESPLER case on appeal which challenges the CA prostitution law which is similar to Washington (and most States) and in the 9th.

-- Modified on 3/17/2017 4:46:36 AM

DAVEPHX516 reads

Posted By: mrfrench
The ACLU is usually only interested in GLB? TS issues (forget the abbreviation).  I have read all the briefs in the 9th Circuit ESPLERP case and as I recall they filed an amicus curiae brief but only because the prostitution law discriminates against transgender sex workers.

Is this the one with the guys running/owning/promoting the board.   Same guys had "ties" to the girls that were brought to the USA?

Because if it is... there is more to the story than just posting reviews.   They used the reviews to dig deeper.

ie: the guys met in person, discussed, and "promoted".... plus some had ties to the girls like I mentioned above.

It will be interesting to see what happens on this one.

FightForYourRight551 reads

 
Can you provide any citations to published sources to support your claim that these men charged with felonies for posting reviews actually owned the escort review site?  I'm not presently aware that this was the case for nearly all of them.  There have been at least 24 men charged, thus far.  Even if it was the case, what point are you trying to make in relation to the charges?  
 
Which of these men had ties to the women who traveled to the USA?  What was the nature of these relationships?  Can you provide a citation to a published source for this claim, as well?  
 
Also, as far as I'm aware, the First Amendment gives us the freedom of assembly as well as the freedom of speech.  Why did you place the word "promoted" in quotes in your statement above?  How is it that you feel they promoted the services of these women?  What mechanisms do you feel they used to promote them?  
 

It was on this site... many posts ago and months ago.   It is when the bust happened... and the other "review" site got shut down.

http://www.seattleglobalist.com/2016/01/07/korean-women-freed-after-seattle-sex-trafficking-bust/46181

http://q13fox.com/2016/01/07/police-free-12-women-make-14-arrests-in-seattle-area-sex-trafficking-raid/

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/online-site-where-men-rated-prostitutes-is-shut-down-charges-to-be-filed/

Like I stated... was this the bust you were talking about.

All you have to do is google.... sex trafficking bust in Seatle.... you will find even more info.

and like I mentioned.... it is more than "just writing" a review with most of these guys.

FightForYourRight525 reads

 
I just read every word of all three articles you provided links to above, plus another that was referenced by one of them.  None of these articles state that all of the men charged owned or even ran any review site.  Furthermore, none of these articles state that any of these men had personal relationships (i.e. "ties") to any of the women, as you claimed earlier.  
 
If you'd care to provide an actual quotation from a published article, along with a link or reference to the article to back up these claims that you've made, I'd be glad to take a look at it.  
 

read the third link....

I have tried many times to post on here and they are not getting published.

But third link tells all.

Tells about a guy who started/owned a "review" site.   Then met with a bunch of the top posters from that site.   They all started a "group"... That group started/owned another "site" that site was for advertising.    Then one of the members of the group who used both sites was found to be running brothels out of hotels, apartments, etc.   Then a guy not involved in group was signing leases for the brothel owner.    Then the brothel owner has links and ties to prostitution and the "T" word... and drug and weed grows.    It is all there in black and white in the third link!!!

With you and the "reviews".... just like others have stated it gives LE a starting point.    Just like when you get pulled over for a license plate light out.....  It give the LE a reason to pull you over... then in that pull over they smell booze on your breathe.... see an empty bottle of whiskey next to you.  They can search your vehicle.... then they find 3 kgs of drugs and 3 illegal immigrants in your trunk.... Guess what... you are going to get nailed for every but the light out.     You see the light out is the reason for them to take a look at you!!!

Now the reason why the media keeps talking about "reviews" and "websites" is they want to put fear in to everyone.    

Also in that 3rd link it states that they have info on over 20,000 or what ever users but charges "might" not get brought up.   Again to strike fear into people to stop seeing escorts.

FightForYourRight552 reads

 
I don't see anything in this last post of yours that defends your original position that all of these men charged with felonies, and there are 24 or more of them, were all engaged in running a review site or that they all had personal connections (i.e. "ties") to the women.  You seem to be conflating what three of these men did with the activities of all 24 of them.  From what I've read in periodicals, most of the men in this subgroup were invited to join based on the number and quality of their reviews on the main board.  It appears to me that most of them didn't set up these operations.  
 
Since you seem to be having trouble including quotations in your posts here, if you'd like, you can reference a paragraph number for a particular article and explain to me how this paragraph defends your earlier statements.  I'd be happy to take a look.  
 

-- Modified on 3/18/2017 1:49:50 AM

All I got to say is I layed it out pretty easy for you to find in the 3rd article.

Let me timeline it one more time for you.

- Guy has a website which reviews people.  HE IS THE OWNER
- Owner from above invites 50 top reviewers to meet.  (assembly which isn't against law...unless doing or discussing unlawful things.
- This meeting of people called themselves "the group" and had frequent meetings.
      - Again nothing wrong but what they talk about is.
- This "group" was video taped and had witnesses identify what they were talking about.
- This "group" and a few of its members decided to start another "WEBSITE" for "KOREAN" women to advertise on.  A couple of those guys owned and ran that WEBSITE.
- One of the owners of that website ran brothels out of hotels for KOREAN WOMEN.
- Another guy not in "the group" signed leases for the above guy.

You see some had ties to the women.  Others are getting nailed for "promotion" because of what they did as a group.   Plus the frequent meetings.

Lets put it this way.... If an undercover cop comes to a bartender and asks.... Where can I buy drugs.   The bartender give him a phone number to a dealer.   The undercover goes and buys drugs from that dealer... GUESS WHAT... Bartender can get nailed with a crime.    

So just because these guys were "meeting".... but they were sharing info which is taped by the cops.... that leads to "promotion".

If you cant find that in the 3rd article I cant help you anymore.

FightForYourRight531 reads

 
Yes, "some" of the men had a relationship with the women.  This is a very small minority of the 24 or more men that have been charged with felonies.  Most of these men did nothing more than visit these establishments and communicate about their experiences later.  
 
You seem to be making the leap to classify the in-person meetings that these men had as promotion, which is what the Prosecution has done.  You don't make the same leap in your last post with respect to their online reviews.  However, those that took a felony plea for promotion made written statements concerning their online reviews, not their in-person meetings.  If you search online, you should be able to find an image of one of their plea statements in an article on reason.com.  I cannot post a link to this article based on TER's rules, apparently.  
 
You seem caught up on the fact that these men chose to meet in person to review their experiences.  I don't see any fundamental difference between that activity and those who post reviews online.  What do you think of the implications of the 15 reviews that you've posted thus far on this board?  This is what's at stake with the precedent that will be set through the results of this trial.  
 

I am not going to research the written statements.

But if you read the 3rd article again.   It states in there that they have info on 20,000 people.  I am sure members and reviewers in the first site mentioned.

But they cant "authenticate" or say they are very unlikely to go after them.

Which I take as the fact they were not involved in the "group"....   so out of the 24 you are talking about I bet they had a little more on them that what is in "the written" statement you are referring too.

Now the media and LE wants to get out there that the "reviews" are the reason and want a "scare" tactic.

Now about my reviews..... just like the disclaimer on the site states... they are all fiction.   No proof of what ever happened.    Just like a novel.

I beat those 24... there is proof!!!

FightForYourRight554 reads

 

Posted By: crsm27
I am not going to research the written statements.
The written statements are relevant.  They constitute the circumstances of their guilty plea in an official record.  
 
Posted By: crsm27
... they have info on 20,000 people ...
Of course they're not going to issue indictments on 20,000 people.  That's not logistically possible.  They're going to go after those that make the best case for them publicly.  It's politics.  
 
Posted By: crsm27
....   so out of the 24 you are talking about I bet they had a little more on them ...
This is an assumption you're making.  We only know what was reported, thus far.  According to the news articles that I've read, most of these 24 or more men did nothing but visit these establishments and communicate their experiences later.  
 
Posted By: crsm27
Now about my reviews..... just like the disclaimer on the site states... they are all fiction.   No proof of what ever happened.    Just like a novel.
You're apparently assuming here that this site in Seattle that was taken down didn't have a similar legal disclaimer.  I don't know if it did or not, but I'm not comfortable making such an assumption.  I'm also not comfortable in assuming that a Prosecutor couldn't make the case that a fictionalized story may constitute an act of promoting.  
 
Posted By: crsm27
I beat those 24... there is proof!!!
This is yet another assumption that you're making.
 

-- Modified on 3/21/2017 12:02:10 PM

You don't think that the 24 that plead were not apart of the initial 50 that met???

That is where they got these guys.

Again you are trying to be argumentative and all I am is stating what I read and with a little inference you can conclude things.

Again you don't know what was plead down or what was said in those rooms.  You don't know the complete evidence that was stacked up against each individual.   Papers and articles are not going to have all the details.  Only place to get that is in the court system... and with an ongoing investigation those documents/evidence will not be available until it is released in the court case.

So quit trying to be a douche and argue.    You should be able to figure out that those 24 you are talking about were targeted for a reason.   Not because of a simple handle on a website.    those 24 I'm sure were in "the group"....

Then they assembled... not a website forum... but in person!!    Hence bigger issues.

FightForYourRight504 reads

 

Posted By: crsm27
You don't think that the 24 that plead were not apart of the initial 50 that met???
I already acknowledged that they met in person in prior posts.  What's your point?  
 
Posted By: crsm27
... all I am is stating what I read and with a little inference you can conclude things.
Trials are based on facts, not inference.  The jury then reaches a decision based on the facts presented during the trial.  
 
Posted By: crsm27
Again you don't know what was plead down or what was said in those rooms.  
Actually, I did read one of the official plea statements from one of the unfortunate 24 that took the felony plea.  I informed you as to where you can find an image of this official plea statement.  You replied by stating that you're not going to bother to look at it.  
 
Posted By: crsm27
You don't know the complete evidence that was stacked up against each individual.  
Do you?
 
Posted By: crsm27
So quit trying to be a douche and argue.
I think that this personal attack by you against me is against TER rules.  However, I'm not going to report it.  I'd rather it be left here on record for other TER Members to read so that they can come to an understanding as to what type of mentality you really have.  
 
Also, isn't presenting arguments in support of opinions one of the purposes of this discussion board, or any discussion board for that matter?  You seem to think that you have the right to belittle anyone who has an opinion on a topic that differs from yours.  You seem to think that your opinion is the only one that matters.  That's an interesting world that you seem to think that you live in.  
 
Posted By: crsm27
Then they assembled... not a website forum... but in person!!    Hence bigger issues.
You've still not presented any argument in this thread as to why you think that the fact that these men met in person to discuss their experiences somehow creates an alternative scenario to when these men discussed their experiences online.  I don't see this as relevant anyway, as I've noted that a plea statement can be found online that shows that their plea is tied to their online discussions only.  You haven't read this plea statement, and you've already stated that you're not even interested in looking at it.  
 

-- Modified on 3/21/2017 2:34:11 PM

DAVEPHX484 reads

A plea deal is not a trial, you have to admit to an illegal act to get a plea deal  In Phoenix take a felony plea and get probation vs most likely a long prison term if lose at trial.  Every trial I have followed have been convictions and prison.  

Only a few cases ever to go trial, probably 95% take pleas and admit as to the facts of the crime before the judge that accepts the plea.  We just had a few receptionists at about 5 massage parlors take pleas. The "crime" was mere association with a "criminal enterprise" (massage places if alleged happy endings occurred)  

Reviews are often in probably cause statements for indictments along with other evidence.  They are often used in part however to get a plea.  At a trial of an escort she can be asked all sorts of things about a review and she either "doesn't recall"  or lies under oath which is perjury.  

In most cases who wrote a review can be obtained by a subpoena duces tecum on the ISP or site owner.  I have seen these and they have to provide info from credit card info if a membership site etc.  If hosted outside the U.S., any "control person" in the U.S. can be served.   If none in the U.S. it becomes very complex but the U.S. has criminal treaties to share information with almost all developed countries.

DAVEPHX515 reads

Posted By: crsm27

 ie: the guys met in person, discussed, and "promoted".... .
I haven't read the Washington law but assume it's similar to Arizona where assisting or promoting of consenting adults is a sex trafficking felony.  

That is why the ESPLER case now before the 9th circuit is so critical

DAVEPHX616 reads

I have followed felony cases in Phoenix for about two decades.  Reviews are often used also in probably cause statements in indictments in Maricopa Superior Court (Phoenix) against escorts, massage gals etc.

DAVEPHX571 reads

The 17 page probably cause statement of all defendants starts out alleging part of a forced sex trafficking to abuse Korean women by the LOEG group.    

However, in the case of C.P.  his only charge seems related to promoting by his posts on the review board.  

The case is over a year old and still in the initial stages which is typical.  

The defense is objecting to the about 150GB and tens of thousands of documents of the States discover and requests a more specific charging document i.e. who is he suppose to have promoted etc.  

The defense has also filed, a subpoena to get all the personal records of the officers involved.  As of 3/2017 the State has objected to most of the request i.e. performance reports etc. and seems to only agree to releasing any disciplinary actions etc and requests an extension of time to do so.

From my brief read of the C.P. defendant's case, it does appear its the first time a promoting charge has been laid in WA for their promoting law (similar to AZ and now proposed in Colorado).  

The defense hasn't really set out from what I read its full defense.  Bail was $75,000 at least initially.  C.P is a war veteran with a very professional position.  

I hope their attorneys read the briefs in the ESPLER case now at the 9th Circuit for defense ideas.  Possibly the ESLPER case will get ruled on before the WA case.  However, whichever way the ruling I suspect there is likely to be an appeal request to the Supreme Court.  If the newly nominated Justice gets confirmed this could be bad.  Especially since the closest similar case was Lawrence v Texas which was a 5-4 split win that the State has no business in private bedrooms and laws can not be based on "morality".  

I am not an attorney, I do not give legal advice which can only be given by a qualified attorney

I understand you're trying to raise awareness about this incident, but by posting about it 24/7 on many of TER's discussion boards, you are drawing the attention of the FBI. Take my word for it, they are now viewing and reading TER's threads! Was LE and the FBI checking out TER before your post...yes, I'm sure they were...but to continue to post about the Seattle bust and the trial of the men, is encouraging more scrutiny of TER and it's members. I've tried several times to discreetly warn you about NOT posting links to the story, but instead of letting it go, you insinuated it's none of my business. Well, you know what...you're right...I could and probably should mind my own business and let the FBI read your posts. So, this will be my final post regarding this matter.  

 
The REAL Reason The Men Are Facing Felony Charges, and Why Review Sites Are Now Being Scrutinized (More Than Before):
The men/hobbyists attracted the attention of law enforcement NOT because its members bought sex, but because of how they worked together. The men/hobbyists wrote reviews...thus, drawing customer's attention to women/providers = encouraging hobbyists to book sessions with the women/providers who were reviewed.

“So they were really operating as pimps,” said the senior deputy prosecuting attorney for King County and one of the lead attorneys on the case.  “They’re charged with promoting prostitution because they expanded the market, they facilitated visits to these women, they connected new buyers to the women and helped with the screening process."  

 
Stay safe, my friends!

Sincerely,
Robbin

FightForYourRight658 reads

 
I have absolutely no idea where you're coming from here.  None of the information in my posts constitutes any secret society procedures that the FBI or any LE would be interested in.  All of the information in my posts is public information and/or conjecture about these cases which exists in either the case files or in publicly accessible periodicals.  The FBI doesn't need to look at my posts for any of this, nor would they.  Why would you think that me discussing the contents of or posting a link to a publicly accessible story on a site outside TER would jeopardize anyone here?  
 
Also, why are you seemingly pasting two paragraphs in your post that describe the Prosecutor's positional statement in this case?  Do you actually agree with their position?  I'm quite certain that the Defense has a very different set of arguments to make about their Clients' online activities.  
 
Lastly, if you're so concerned about what the FBI or LE in general may think about when reading the posts on TER, you may want to review some of your own posts.  I've included a link to one of them below which seems to describe what types of extracurricular activities you seem to be eager to engage in when your Clients pay you for your time and companionship only.  I'd love to hear your explanation.  
 

DAVEPHX602 reads

Posted By: FightForYourRight
   
 I have absolutely no idea where you're coming from here.  None of the information in my posts constitutes any secret society procedures that the FBI or any LE would be interested in. 
    
 Lastly, if you're so concerned about what the FBI or LE in general may think about when reading the posts on TER, you may want to review some of your own posts.   
Having read probably cause statements in indictments and followed cases for two decades, I totally agree with this post.    Especially reviews often show up in probably cause statements for the felony's I follow for in private consenting adults. LE is monitoring all the large sites.

Many posts are not allowed here by moderators but we still have the 1st amendment right of free speech other than if it is directly promoting an illegal act that is being challenged in the courts.  Under current law somehwhat unique in the U.S.,   No one should ever pay for any sex act that would be illegal. Discussion short of that especially exposing the wasted costs and advocacy of law change or the legal challenges to the law should be protected free speech in my non-lawyer view.

Posted By: FightForYourRight
   
f you're so concerned about what the FBI or LE in general may think about when reading the posts on TER, you may want to review some of your own posts.  I've included a link to one of them below which seems to describe what types of extracurricular activities you seem to be eager to engage in when your Clients pay you for your time and companionship only.  I'd love to hear your explanation.    
  
One minute you're accusing me of being a moderator, the next a prostitute. Perhaps someday, you'll actually figure out what I am. ;)

FightForYourRight521 reads

 
I never accused you of being a Moderator.  I asked you if you were a Moderator, and you never answered my question.  
 
Also, I don't need any more time to figure out what you are.  
 

much reporting of various forms of illegal activity.

Does reporting encourage and educate others to perpetuate the activity or does it help educate society as a whole so that society can decide democratically how to handle the problem?

We're all allowed our opinion on this, but I prefer the latter.

DAVEPHX564 reads

Posted By: mrfisher
much reporting of various forms of illegal activity.  
Does reporting encourage and educate others to perpetuate the activity or does it help educate society as a whole so that society can decide democratically how to handle the problem?  
 We're all allowed our opinion on this, but I prefer the latter.
My view is the extreme LE cost and waste going after in private consenting adults needs to be widely known vs the sex trafficking sham argument to justify all the funding of the pretend victim industry vs the maybe 10% of "real victims" that LE should be going after vs the pretend victims to fund the $millions of grants for the sham.

In Phoenix the court system is full of these consenting adult cases with $milions spent on investigation, LE resources and, judges, public defenders etc. vs going after the real cases or following a harm reduction model such as in Canada.

But isn't that best address by someone simply post the $ spend but the LE agencies (police and DA) and hours spent, including the court time taken up? Seems like in this age of "we all drowning in debt but need to spend on the important stuff -- be it guns or butter or both -- that simple graphic with the question "Was that too much to spend to keep two horny people from fucking?" would probably resonate with a lot of people, even those who don't really approve of more relaxed attitudes about sex.

Of course, the other approach would be to convert the $ spend here into a chart showing how many starving children could be fed during the same time, number of additional M-16 rounds out soldiers could have or even how much more we could pay school teachers.

Register Now!