or guys will not TOFTT and stick with their regular ladies

Sorry for the alias, I prefer to be anon.
I seldom advertise anywhere these days because I have a string of regulars to keep me occupied.
I am low volume, have a super discreet incall place and the guys knows is safe to visit.
Because I have seen them many times, I don't need to keep any information or even write the appointments down somewhere. Is all memorized
Is where the hobby will go, back to the way it was before - quiet and UTR, with guys sticking to their regular ladies.
At least for the guys who wants to avoid this kind of reversed sting on themselves. Many already deserted the boards, booking new ladies by referrals only.
Networking helps a lot! I know my clients will be bored from just seeing me so, when I know of a nice girl visiting town, I will suggest her to them.
I am not afraid of losing clients, because I have plenty.
And I found out that helping them to get some diversity, actually made them return to see me more often.

Privacy is becoming a thing of the past.  Security cameras are going up everywhere.  Embarrassing john's is has been used for decades in places, usually after arrest.  

Will it change anything?  Not as long as men think with their little heads.  
Read the reviews, they do stupid things. How many times do read " I knew I should have left, but I was there..."  and do how many reviews mention the STD's the caught when not thinking the situation out-not one that I've read.  
Must mean my city is STD free or a reviewer would do an update-not.

However, it will threaten hotel/motel owners and providers causing long but usually temporary shut down of sections where providers have incalls in geographically large cities.  That will slow business down for awhile, but not for those with private incalls.

I've got your back with my two cents on your comment. Here in Memphis there is a forward thinking city council member who suggested creating a "red light" district in an area that juts out into the river (Mississippi). Strangely enough the first veto came from Homeland Security for a variety of reasons which to tell you the truth were an incredible stretch. I agree with your comment about the right to spend time with who we want (as consenting adults) and the comment about sex trafficking; so, be vigilante who we elect to public office whatever the position or level of government.
I would rather see law enforcement go after cut throats that sell loans on auto titles for 222% APR than a guy that wants some relief from a willing and adult provider. This is one fucked up society with some very mismanaged priorities. gf60

I think the First Amendment will trump any potential lawsuit for damages regarding 'accused Johns'.  The press regularly publishes the names & photos of people charged with a wide variety of crimes.  Consider the points below:

1. Being arrested is a matter of public record.  
2. Being prosecuted for a crime is a matter of public record.  

Even if an accused John is eventually cleared, that doesn't change items #1 and #2 above.  Note that the press will almost always refer to the defendant as the 'accused' to protect themselves.   A John that's cleared may have grounds for a false arrest lawsuit.  But I think the police have quite a bit of leeway here as well.  --z

Hope it happens soon.  Hope he gets a huge settlement.

Add in the simple-mindedness and self-centered mentality of your average American and you'll start thinking that things will never change. Imposing restrictions and punishments on people based on archaic religious ideals. Like how so many conservatives accuse Obama of being a Muslim and pushing those ideals on our God-fearing country, yet in the VP debate Paul Ryan makes it very clear that his Catholic beliefs drive the policy decisions he would make.

"Keep religion out of the White House, unless it's MY religion of course!"

The topic at the time was abortion, but it's in the same realm as prostitution or marijuana, where other countries have legalized or decriminalized something that we Americans see as horrific, and yet they somehow did not burn to the ground or get swallowed into Hell for their sins.

99% of the people that would be outed and shamed aren't the intended predators. They're fairly innocent guys looking for a brief escape from an unhappy relationship or just normal men looking to get laid, and they hire escorts of legal age that have joined the industry of their own free will. In the case of this Maine bust, were there minors involved? Drug-addled helpless girls being taken advantage of? Illegal immigrants being smuggled in crates, living in a basement cell, forced to perform sex acts under threat of death? Not from anything I've read, which makes this whole shaming process nothing more than self-serving bullshit.

It's like a knee jerk reaction of outlawing kids walking around by themselves or dressing up in costume when going to the movie theater, maybe you'd prevent the occasional tragic incident, but would it be worth the effort? I don't mean to sound cold when lives are at stake, but should we burden millions to save one? Would this policy actually hinder the darker side of the escort world?

and some act as if it's shocking.