Historical Sex Workers summit, EFF files challenge against Fosta
http://coyoteri.org/wp/watch-out-congress-us-sex-workers-are-coming-for-their-rights/I think it passes strict scrutiny because it is fulfilling the legitimate government objective of curbing new providers, which I have seen it certainly is. CL allowed tons of new providers especially girls on summer school break. Which we have not being seeing this summer.
Of course the current providers are suffering but they are being sacrificed to prevent new younger providers from coming on the scene. Eventually the old provider will be forced to walk the track like every other provider after their websites are deleted, which will lower rates.
Hey Mr Know it All.
CL is gone, and Fosta is retroactive and even DOJ says it is unconstitutional. Why would any of our websites be deleted, there are tons of new sites that we can al post for free and it seems the younger providers are the ones that cant seem to get an eros ad up. If this is your fantasy, you seem to have this delusion that you have some kind of power over providers.
This idea that older providers will be forced into the street is nonsense, as we are the well established providers that have survived Fosta because we don't need to advertise because we have tons of regulators because we have been well established for years. This idea that older providers will have to lower their rate is just down right nonsense, many of us have raised our rates since fosta.
Not every man is looking for desperate women just so they can save a buck and end up in a incall in a shady neighborhood. In my experience most clients wont call any provider who isn't at least 30 or 40 year old. 50 and 60 year old men don't want to be with 22 year olds.
In the beginning there was CL. It was free, it an an erotic section, and during summer months tons of young girls posted their own ads (not trafficked) to get extra money. Black guys eventually tried to pimp them and it was shut down. Then backpage picked up the slack and for a while during the short tenure of free backpage posting there was a renaissance of younger providers similar to the golden age of CL, which is now long gone.
Now significant hurdles have occurred to the "national guard" / reserves of providers - those that work one weekend a month, two weeks a year and mainly live with their parents at home and need extra money occasionally. These younger newbe providers are not willing to go through the hoops and research new sites to post an ad, so mainly they will just ask guys by word of mouth for cash and not become full on providers.
This is why older providers can ratchet up their rates (no pun intended). Due to the lack of influx of young providers willing to work cheaply, as you said you have increased rates and effectively killed the hobby for new guys. Now the government will be going after established providers with websites since the lack of younger providers being pimped has significantly decreased.
Of course this is predictable due to the government being run by the chosen people (who have higher IQ's that whites which pimp agencies and black which pimp on the street.
Black guys eventually tried to pimp them" really there is no such evidence anywhere in the US that black men were pimping out women on CL. That statement is racists as hell. But there is evidence based research that showed that female homicide rates fell 17% once Craigslist opened its adult section.
I am glad you think you know so much about younger provider and older providers. LOL I am sure tons of clients want to see a provider who is so young that they still live with their parents, and yes desperate women are always willing to work cheap, if that's the kind of thing you are into, just to save a buck.
The going rate has been 200 to 300 for the past 10 years until a bunch of desperate young women started posting for under 100 bucks. I am sorry that you got use to those low rates, but in reality escort are a luxury service, and not something everyone can afford. I hear the sugar daddy sites are much cheaper, if you can deal with the drama of young women.
If you really think the court system is not rigged and you think your challenge to FOSTA has a chance, you are delusional.
If you are not sure if certain people pimp, then I would recommend you cruise on over to the Circle K at 27th Avenue and Indian School, probably anytime between 10 pm and 3 am.
The judicial branch is bought and paid for by a certain group. More so than any other branch of the government. Dave's legalization case and your constitutional challenge case will be the same outcome. The constitution on means not what it says, but what the legal system says that it means.
It does not matter that 17% murder rate has fallen, because the government has no duty to protect anyone. The supreme court ruled so in various cases. See Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) which also invalidated "shall arrest" statutes.
The aim of the government with FOSTA is to protect impressionable young providers 18-20, to prevent them from providing so they will then get knocked up and increase the population which will increase the tax base. Older providers (some over the age of fertility even) the government knows it cannot change hearts and minds of the older ones so it will be content seizing assets (house, car, bank accounts) of older providers and the FOSTA will help them get search warrants and shut down websites. I envision a profit sharing system similar to the drug profit sharing government system where the state LE provides evidence for federal court civil forfeitures, etc. Assuming the younger providers are taken out of the equation, the profitable system of taking down agencies and rich older providers will be relished by the government.
EFF was successful in 2015
Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Anonymous Speech in California ...
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/appeals-court-rules-favor-anonymous-speech-california-prop-35-case
You might want to actually read the brief before forming an opinion, because much of it is based on the same argument that was used to challenge Prop 35
https://theappeal.org/broad-anti-trafficking-law-faces-its-first-constitutional-challenge/#.WzV1so0bsSQ.facebook
They haven't taken out the younger providers because over 3 million of them were on sugar daddy sites before Fosta, tons of them are on snap chat, in BP Facebook groups, tinder, POF. The goal was to abolish the sex industry, it has nothing to do with younger women vs older women.
PS it wasn't Dave's legalization case, it was ESPLERPs case that died in the 9th district. I spend over 5 years as ESPLERPs secretary and board member.
It seems like the EFF lawsuit has lack of standing. They need to have a poon board as a plaintiff because all the other people do not have standing it seems because you have to facilitate the prostitution of another to be prosecuted. Thus an individual provider cannot sue under the statute, nor can a purely informational board which does not facilitate prostitution. Only a legitimate poon board or ad board has such standing.
Thus it appears it could be dismissed on lack of standing.
Also I predict the Internet Archive will be dismissed as a plaintiff because it cannot be prosecuted due to ex post facto prohibitions.
Only the current website hosting or domains of current provider sites can be prosecuted after the date of effectiveness of the law, not those sites which were archived or continue to be archived prior to the enactment of the statute.
You might want to read Fosta, it clearly states it is retroactive,
SESTA-derived language that the DOJ says runs afoul of ... prohibition on ex post facto laws — i.e., laws applied retroactively.
https://frontpageconfidential.com/fosta-sesta-frankenstein-passes-doj-unconstitutional/
on the Unconstitutional Retroactivity of 'Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA'
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/03/more-on-the-unconstitutional-retroactivity-of-worst-of-both-worlds-fosta-guest-blog-post.htm
Nobody has standing to challenge that except particular defendants charged with a state crime which previously immunized and prosecutors probably will likely (to prevent needless litigation) only charge FOSTA violations from the date of the enactment of the statute.
What is legal and what is illegal?
Legal:
General information about prostitution and/or protocols for the hobby including individuals to avoid as well as protecting the community from violence are legal.
Political debate regarding legalization and such is protected under protected political free speech.
Archived sites and ads archived prior to the effective date of FOSTA are protected by ex post facto.
Illegal:
Current boards (not archived) showing ads and websites by providers are illegal. Agency websites are very much illegal since more than one provider. Ads to rent rooms to providers, for drivers or appointment takers are illegal and/or agency recruitment are illegal.
Maybe:
Reviews can go either way as the law on reviews is not well settled. There is no appellate level cases on point in the United States. Cuba Dave in Costa Rica was vindicated and reviews and stories were found to be legal under a promoting law in Costa Rica. In Arizona two hobbyists who wrote reviews of an agency were vindicated eventually. In Washington, some hobbyists who wrote reviews of Asians plead guilty and thus lost their right to seek appellate review of their convictions. Thus, since the government likely will argue reviews are illegal and in light of the law not being settled, no review writer should admit or indicate his real identity.
This also begs the question. Is O.J. Simpson's book, "If I did it" promote murder? Do violent video games games promote murder or assault? Does a rap song about banging bitches and hos promote prostitution? Does Stevie Nicks, "Edge of Seventeen" promote sexual conduct with a minor?
In Arizona two hobbyists who wrote reviews of an agency were vindicated eventually.
Desert Divas supposedly had two VIP customers (not sure what a VIP versus a normal customer is). But two wrote reviews then plead guilty and then filed a motion to set aside judgment and was granted by the court saying that they should have not been charged.
Also I think all customers info was leaked by the government on that.
It could be because the reviews were featured by the the agency in promoting their ads not just a review written tangentially to a session.