Well, most everyone liked the first post (link above) and wanted more.  You know who you are if you didn’t like it.  And if you didn’t like it, comrade, good luck with your attempt to convert us to a police state.  

But since we’re not in a police state YET, here’s our lesson for today.  

All of this is from  THE PEOPLE v. HAROLD FREEMAN. This case was decided by the Supreme Court of California.
Harold  Freeman was the president of Hollywood Video Production Company, a porno film company.  LE had it in for the poor guy.  Harold hired some actors for a video.  “As part of their roles, the performers engaged in various sexually explicit acts, including sexual intercourse, oral copulation and sodomy.”  Harold paid them for it.  LE arrested him, accused him of pandering for prostitution.  
To jump to the end of the story, poor Harold was eventually found not guilty.  Yes, the poor guy was arrested.  But we should consider him a folk hero!
I.  Remember from my first post -- the misdemeanor of “prostitution” requires a “lewd act”.  The California Supreme Court was nice enough to define this for us …
“First, the definition of "prostitution" ... depends on the definition of a "lewd act." .. this court construed the …"lewd act" requires "touching of the genitals, buttocks, or female breast for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, annoyance or offense . . . ." … "[For] a 'lewd' or 'dissolute' act to constitute 'prostitution,' the genitals, buttocks, or female breast, of either the prostitute or the customer must come in contact with some part of the body of the other for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the customer or of the prostitute." (Italics added.).  
Why do we care?  Because (reviewing my first post) -- prostitution requires offer/ acceptance/ act.  One of those must be a “lewd act”.  A lewd act requires “touching of the genitals, buttocks, or female breast for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, annoyance or offense”.  
So, to establish “prostitution”, LE must show that one of the “offer”, “acceptance”, or “act” was a lewd act.  
Oh, and by the way, Comrade, anything said on TER is an out of court statement, and can’t be introduced in court -- it’s “hearsay”.  
So, “hi, would you like to meet?” .  “Sure”.  Show up at the same location, both smiling.  NO LEWD ACTS.  Can they arrest you?  Sure.  If it were up to them, they’d arrest me for posting this.  Is it a proper arrest?  NO F_ING WAY.  
Part 3 to follow - it’s more about poor old Harold Freeman, and the great little loophole he left for all of us…  Until then, enjoy the hobby.

This is all interesting reading, but one can avoid all of this headache by proper provider screening.  Thanks to the current LE climate here it's made it a necessary step for the hobbyist.  

I broke my own rules one time and got stung so I think I know what I'm talking about.  Needless to say, I won't break my rules again.  I won't divuldge my screening methods here because I don't want give up any help to LE.  Just be careful.

Great post.  But I must take issue with your interpretation of the hearsay rule.  I believe TER posts would be admissible in court to prove the existence of offer or acceptance.  You are correct that out of court statements are hearsay, but such statements are inadmissible only to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  (Cal Ev. Code Sec 1200.)  They are not inadmissible to prove an operative fact, in  this case, the existence of an offer or acceptance.  So, for example, if somebody posted on TER "I am coming to your town and offer GFE" and another poster responded "Can't wait to see you" I believe the first would be admissible as an offer and the second would be admissible as an acceptance.  

Your best advice is in your other post:  "Don't say a word!"

in contacting ME at my e-mail address listed below, I'd appreciate any screening tips you might want to suggest.  *THANKS A BUNCH*

xoxo ~ Lara
[email protected]

-- Modified on 6/17/2005 4:52:55 AM

OK, I wasn't going to post but I have some concern after reading both of Otaku's posts.

While this discussion has focused on the crime of prostitution it has not covered the crime of "solicitation of prostitution".  Solicitation is in fact the more likely charge, especially given the fact that the "other party" to the crime is actually going to be LE setting you up.

The statute cited by Otaku also states "No agreement to engage in an act of prostitution shall constitute a violation of this subdivision unless some act, in addition to the agreement, is done within this state in furtherance of the commission of an act of prostitution by the person agreeing to engage in that act.

Otaku's reference to a required "lewd act" does not apply to solicitation.  Here, a simple act in furtherence of the crime will satisfy the element (for example asking for a BJ for $, then the act of pulling into a parking lot will suffice.)

Just pointing out other issues and looking forward  to part 3.

Actually, "I am coming to your town and offer GFE" would constitute an advertisement and only be an "invitation to bid" an not an offer...  oh wait, that's contract law.  (He he)

I am not a lawyer, nor have I really been keeping up on the topic so I may be off-base on this...

My understanding of the legality of "digital signatures" is that they're not legally binding. In an age of DHCP and changing IP addresses, anonymous e-mail accounts, easily spoofable e-mail, and the expectation that the hot 18 year old you're chatting with is really a 50 year old bloated hairy guy, everything is easily discreditable and inconclusive. "I read it on teh intarweb so it must be true!!" has become a cliche on so many message boards (normally from a much younger demographic than what patronizes this site).

Unless you pay for your TER membership via a creditcard, there's really no reliable way to tie a hobbyists identity to the posts here. Even then, TER would need to be subpoenad to give out the billing information, and after that, the reasons above mean that is not a definitive nail in the coffin.

The providers however can't claim this anonymity since most of them have their own domains (specific websites, not just cityvibe/other malls) that they've paid for. Tracing the money is reliable.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't authoritatively state that this is inadmissible. As a system's engineer, I can tell you that a post here doesn't mean that Carbon-Based-Life-Form-with-this-specific-DNA-pattern posted it.

I hope you all understand that you should NOT RELY ON THESE POSTS.  But ... you should understand the elements that the statute requires.  Because LE will try to make reference to those elements, as specifically as they can.  And that's your first hint to RUN, not walk, the other way.  

With all due respect, I disagree with some of the points made above, for instance, I think the stuff on the board IS hearsay.  It's like shouting "I love you" while you run past a stranger.  That might be admissible to show that you yell for no reason, but not to show that you really love that person.  (and the analog is that TER makes you AGREE in advance that everything you say is fictional)

Whether it is or isn't hearsay, it shows that reasonable minds can differ.  The whole point is that you know about the elements that LE will want you to perform, and be careful not to perform them.  

Part 3 is still coming, gotta get to Costco and replenish the Tequila first.  

Thanks for sharing, good info.

Reont Rely Soley on this Advice

while it has it its good intentions, it is also hopelessly naive.