Sounds like a very bad law and it could spread if voters are taken in by its sheep clothing.

Worse yet it could spread to other states.

Present the real proposed law or a fair synopsis and let people decide.  There is a real and horrible problem underlining this bill--Slavery, brutality and now large international criminal organizations.

If you, like many, believe this particular bill will do more harm than help, point it out in particulars, realistic hypothetical examples using the actual words in context from the bill.  We aren't stupid and neither are you.

THIS is too important and too little time for anything but the truth and analytic thinking.

That is not the point of the proposition.

It will make the problem worse by worsening the legal penalties, making it harder for those who are caught up in it to obtain justice.

It also goes way beyond the trafficing issue.

I'm sure you can do a search to find the actual wording of the law itself.

By making sex work legal, people are then free to obtain legal help if they are mistreated.

Did CA just give LE an opportunity to reduce the need for probable cause for violating privacy?

If I know my sources at all, I should acknowledge that Andrea pointed me in this direction. Thanks.

I cannot post a direct link to the article in question, as it names a provider's name (though with her full permission), but after some discussion the mods have informed me that I can tell you it is on the Chicago Reporter and titled Escorted to Jail. PM me if you cannot find it.

A few highlights.

The new, anti-trafficking law is almost exclusively being used to charge providers with felonies when it is their second, or any subsequent, time. Clients are just about all being charged with midemeanors under municipal statutes, which means a misdemeanor and no escalation if caught more than once. Public shame may still be viewed by LE as the main deterrent for clients. So the result of the law is the opposite of the End Demand intention - guys are getting prosecuted as lightly, or even less, than before, while the ladies are being further stigmatized (a felony conviction making it that much harder to get into any other sort of job).

Some mild suggestions in the article that End Demand might be a little unhappy with this state of affairs, but I am not certain I am properly reading between the lines.

No real surprises - the primary focus in the world of the vice squad is always going to be on numbers, lots of convictions in each year, for a reasonable price. And they will always go for the maximum, legal penalty they can secure. What that means in practice is that they will do cheap, indiscriminate stings using as wide a net as possible, and when they actually have a pimp, trafficker or underage provider who falls into the net they will promote the hell out of it. But they will not actually launch investigations specifically targeting trafficking or under-age providers because that would take too long, cost too much for a small number of busts (in some cases, zero), and require a lot of cross-jurisdictional cooperation and coordination.

Which is terribly unfortunate in almost every way, but somewhat understandable given the system. What is truly disappointing is that the net result of this is that they are coming down harder on adult providers. And it is more than a little ironic that everyone involved (End Demand, providers and clients) except LE agrees with that.

I admit to being a numbers guy, and the fact that the article provides hard numbers is what I found most interesting.

With other, similar laws, I expect the result would be the same, no matter the intention. The law will be used as a harsher penalty for the same people they have been arresting all along. The key to reducing trafficking and under-age providers is not new laws, for, as MF said, such activities are very much against the law now. The key is to find the resolve to focus on enforcing the laws and target the specific people, and not paid, consensual sex between two adults. New laws will not change the situation in any way, except that there will be more happy press releases from LE and legislators.

That is how I see it anyway.

zig

So who is considered a "trafficker" under the law?
Is it just those who import girls from overseas for work? Is it the local pimp who "manages" local girls? Can escort agencies be considered traffickers?  If so, then the agency business may get much tougher, and tougher to book with.

Chi,

Thanks for posting the link to the article on Doe v. Harris.   Assuming, the what little the article writes about is taken in context, WOW!   If that law survives it would put TER out of biz, have every provider that knows me here pounding on my door.  Not to mention the hobbyist when LE approaches him.  If this law isn't a good reason for staying out of data bases like P411 I don't know what is.  

The basis of the TRO is "overly broad" and may have many other Constitutional issues brought up when there is more time.  I need the entire law as passed.

ithe that they've had the same training they've been getting. ?? I've read both the Sec State notes, her office's rough draft & the final law.  The State of California and  it's uneducated voters, due to it's rotten public schools, redefined and dual defined the meaning of human trafficking, pornography publication & sales and not paying your undocumented slave maid. However, large organized crime running girls and slave labor would be eliminated by untold tactics, lol, while putting more assets in tracking sex offenders.

You guys should love it.  Little legal mumbo jumbo, easy to read.  Not thought out.  But the message is.      

There are also certain states/jurisdictions, that will charge the lady with trafficking HERSELF.....

Escort agency can be part of the traffickers operations.  As I once said, the US Attorney likes to file Conspiracy counts.  That brings in people who wouldn't necessarily come fully under the initial statute.  If they can't get them one way maybe the other, but this is where good defense lawyers come in.

What states charge the lady with trafficking herself?

I seem to recall something on the news where girls going into prostitution were charged, but nothing more.
I was bewildered at the time and wondered if it was for their protection.

Although the court granted a Temporary Restraining Order.  It's in a liberal jurisdiction, but it can eventually go to US Supreme Court that is conservatively balanced.  It's so poorly written, the whole thing might go anyway.

So why not make a contract it's not illegal to entertain people in a bar or other establishment, so a state ID keeping a copy on file and a signed contract between the agency or friends that you are being paid as a booking mngr only they are not forced or told to violate any state city or fedral laws, the girls responsible for her actions, etc doesnt this cover everything down to them being responsible for reporting their monies earned cause no-one is on a payroll Also for the clients posting a disclaimer stating they're paying for companionship only and by contacting the provider they are calling they are not law enforcement or using it as a means of entrapment also they are of legal age and anything that happens is between 2 consenting adults.... oh yeah also a photo release for just incase they decide to use that route and keeping a lawyer paid is like having him as a bank to hold your $ if you never need him he owes you and it looks like he's directly involved vice versa the police love those cases