everyone knows that's where you go to find a prostitute ... what law is keeping these shops open for business.

oh and my apologies if I'm upsetting some of you.. don't really want these sites down; they're a paradise of possible pleasures... just curious... so enlighten me.

but WTF----those websites have attorneys to tell them to put up legal disclaimers; women are discreetly listed as "escorts" ( NOT prostitutes, "77"----btw, does that number refer to your I.Q.? )

Lastly, lemme enlighten you about something else--------you're a fucking moron-----ahhhh---that felt better------

Because it's also a wonderful place for LE to screw you over.

is the recipe for lynch mobs and has no standing in a society that pretends to have a system of justice.

"everyone knows" the earth is flat and witches should be burnt at stake.

1.Either it's the enraged wife of a of a hobbyist
who just discovered his "extracurricular activities". 2 It's a judgmental, "Bible-thumping" cretin. 3. Or, a troll who just gets his rocks off by pissing people off,in a pathetic attention seeking disply.      

Loser city.


-- Modified on 2/28/2010 8:58:49 AM

this is not an alias and if you paid attention to the GD board you would recognize they have posted some general questions like this before.  Get over yourself your not the board police, and if you are your doing a crappy job.  I would think such a job would call for being able to i.d. an alias.
Doc

1st off, "haven't paid attention to GD board"
because, unlike some ( ), I have a life.
2ndly, didn't see "envelope" next to OP,so modified my above thread. 3rdly,it's spelled "you're", "genius"---------.

a little smarter eh? What ever it takes I guess.  At least you were observant enough to notice the misspelling of a word but miss the fact that the OP was not an alias.  Bravo
Doc

No one has got the answer right yet.

      The First Amendment does not per se allow the advertising of illegal activity, and putting up disclaimers on web sites would not negate language that violates solicitation laws, or creates a public nuisance.

     Further, state attorney generals are trying to shut down Craigslist and related sites. They have already got Craigslist to voluntarily eliminate its erotic services section and police the escort ads better. The SC AG has a case pending as we speak.

Lighten up, PP - it was a fair question

the OP 's opening statement reads : "everyone knows that's where you go to find a prostitute".

Not only is the word "prostitute" offensive to the providers/escorts here & on Eros/Cityvibe, but the statement is such a jaw dropper,that it denotes someone who is with LE, or just a plain idiot.

Secondly ( & this excludes CL ),through my personal experiences I've found the wording on Eros/Cityvibe to be quite discreet & within legal boundaries. You think those sites don't get legal advice ? Of COURSE, disclaimers don't negate illegal services !

Lastly, my friend, YOU need to lighten up----at least when JohnGalt does "Devil's advocate", he does it with intelligence & wit; you, on the other hand, become simply annoying------

Try to put aside pending cases that likely will go nowhere, weather it is because of the current laws lack of merit or no precedence to rely on or it flat out does not economically and politically fit the community. Then please consider the following:

    The DA’s and County Prosecutors of this land have found it to be burdensome and fruitless to go up against the rights of “free speech”.  It has been proven over and over and over again. If you’re argument had merit, would we have already cleaned the streets of Las Vegas of pamphlet and card distributors? That is precedence right there. Of course it does not hurt one bit that the owners of those companies are the very lawyers themselves, who fought and won the “free speech” rights again.

    Think of these points. How long did it take before Big Doggie was right back in business and with the same name? I wonder what constitutional right was enforced on that. Do you really think that ERO’s, CityVibe and other venues, which might include Back Page and even the hated Craig’s List, would have been taken down already, if the laws would allow for it? They are advertising venues plain and simple and protected by the First Amendment. Now, you might argue that those same companies could be charged with “contributing”, but to what, a misdemeanor? That will not happen either.

    One thing is for certain, and that escorts and in risky territory with websites that state “services” and go into specific detail regarding the sexual acts one can obtain from her services and for what fees. Crazy I say.

    But I too agree the OP raised a fair question.

Forget prostitute, think escort.  Last time I checked there was nothing illegal with being a regular escort. (unless you get caught doing more of course)
Doc

-- Modified on 2/28/2010 12:39:41 PM

Have Eros/Cityvibe ever been temporarily shut down due to legal issues ? Is there a realistic danger of that happening in the near future ?

I haven't been to the Strip in awhile,but ( & correct me if I'm wrong about this ), isn't it still filled with "erotic pamphlets" ? Although, that's what I think you've just said.

I agree with you that language that is too explicit can raise an unwelcome "red flag".

Lastly, it's spelled "whether" & "your argument".

I'll entertain THAT notion.... or

I'll entertain A motion.....

Just sayin. Of course we can play that game all day, I just figure on a discussion board of providers and hobbyist, I can forgive misspelling a bit. lol

cocaine sales, nuclear bombs etc because the First Amendment protects advertising venues, right?

   Sorry, Judge, back to the bench for you, and make that the Group W Bench. The First Amendment does not per se protect commercial speech that advertises criminal activity, or activity that constitutes a public nuisance. Note also that some states like Nevada have statutes that expressly criminalize advertising prostitution services.

     Whether the Craigslist and EROS ads cross the line between legal companion services and prostitution offers is an ad by ad analysis, but before the recent Craigslist crackdown a lot of those ads were pretty damn explicit. Hence Craigslist got the heat. You’ll notice Eros is much more G rated. And you do not need to violate state solicitation laws to constitute a public nuisance if “everyone knows” – like the OP – that prostitution is being offered.

     But here is a hint for you – the First Amendment is not what is stopping LE from sending takedown letters to Eros and company –check out the Communications Decency Act and the meaning of “internet content provider.” No, that is not the kind of provider we all know and love.  Amazingly, even this statute did not stop the Michigan sheriff from filing his lawsuit last year, although the judge spanked him.

    But even the CDA will not protect these venues from a Travel Act prosecution (prohibiting the use of interstate facilities to further state law prostitution) should LE be so inclined.

      It is a complex and unsettled area of the law indeed and, at the risk of annoying my buddy PP again,  the OP could fairly ask why are these venues still in business?

I am CERTAIN that anti-hobby activists are either:

1. Too dumb to think their way out of a wet paper sack

or

2. Not REALLY interested in shutting down those avenues


Why do I say this? Because LOTS of first-amendment protected publications have been *shut down and shut down hard* using a variety of techniques over the past 15-20 years.

I'm not going to be explicit. I'll just say that if they were both intelligent AND really wanted results -- those avenues would long since have been shut down.

with "It is a complex and unsettled area of the law indeed and, at the risk of annoying my buddy PP again,  the OP could fairly ask why are these venues still in business?"

    However, the answer remains the same. “The First Amendment Right of Free Speech" I'm surprised at you counsel, that you would take such a position, without the facts, err the case law and precedence, and in particular for the State of Nevada. That case has been to the Circuit Court of Appeals and back again. The peddlers on Las Vegas Blvd. have a right of free speech and can distribute all the crap they want to whether it is "too your room in 20 minutes", scantily clad ladies. Perhaps the truck billboards advertising same should be pulled over (on probable cause of course), the occupants, searched for condoms and detained and interrogated to find out who the main money people are behind such illegal activities.

    I'm going to rest now and the Jury has been given instructions to disregard you're silly argument. You are also admonished by this court to return to the law library for further research before returning to this court with any similar arguments pertaining to the Constitution.

    Court Adjourned!!  BAMB

lmao

Please stay in the fields of sociology, psychology and junk science.

Second time this week I’ve been able to use this one.

      I will leave you with the Nevada Supreme Court concurring opinion from the Mirage’s lawsuit against these street peddlers that give out those handbills. Those judges seem to disagree with you Roy:

“ At the outset, we must determine whether the
 expression is protected by the First Amendment. For
 commercial speech to come within that provision, it
 at least must concern lawful activity and not be
 misleading. …


 On the record before the court, I believe that the appellants'
commercial speech fails the first prong of the Central Hudson
test. The handbills in this case advertise in-room erotic dancing
with suggestive slogans. As such, they appear to solicit offers
of illegal prostitution. And if they do not, they certainly
create that misleading impression. Accordingly, I would hold that the appellants' commercial speech is unprotected by the
First Amendment.”

riddle me this please.

    Why are they still out there peddling the smut cards? That's all I am asking.

    Darned if I might enjoy having you one day as my law clerk. Although the both of us are going to have to stop paying for pussy. There's something unsavory involved in this that clearly would not help either of our careers. Would you agree?

I will defer to Little Phil on 24/7 information but when I was out there in December I did not see any of those guys in front of the Mirage, the Venetian, the Bellagio sidewalk or any major house.

      Their employers know since the Mirage lawsuit they have no First Amendment protection, so now I see them only in front of properties who apparently do not complain or construction sites.
They are fairly well behaved and I presume LE has greater priorities.

     But again I'll defer to the Vegas natives as to why. I speak only to the First Amendment.

     As for your final question...ah, that is where the Constitution does come into play on a strictly outcall basis - but we will save that for another day.

Many many outlets that relied upon the first amendment to protect them from CRIMINAL charges -- and quite successfully -- have found themselves SKEWERED on the basis of CIVIL liability for DAMAGES allegedly enabled by their materials.

Please see Paladin Press's publication of "Hit Man: A Guide for the Independent Contractor" by Rex Feral.

The criminal law could not shut them down. But the family of a woman who was killed by someone who used that book successfully stopped Paladin Press from further publication of that book plus a whole bunch of others. In fact, they stopped publishing one of MY books (published under a pseudonym) shortly thereafter.

(http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15793)

But that's not the limit of using the civil law creatively to shut down controversial free speech.

Please see TE-TA-MA TRUTH FOUNDATION—FAMILY OF URI, INC. v. WORLD CHURCH OF THE CREATOR as decided by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on July 25, 2002.

The World Church of the Creator is an out-and-out hate group based on a religion they call "Creativity." One of their members was responsible for a shooting at a Jewish daycare center in Illinois. SERIOUSLY hateful stuff. But the criminal law couldn't shut them down because their religion and rhetoric are protected by the 1st Amendment.

Even though their so-called "Holy Books" had been written a couple of decades before the Te Ta Ma Foundation decided to register "Church of the Creator" as a Trademark, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Te Ta Ma; and ordered all of the Church of the Creator's so-called "Holy Books" seized because they contained the trademarked phrase!

Look it up -- I'm not kidding.

So, your honor, I STILL maintain that there DO exist methods that can be applied under civil law to shut down those ads. Its simply that no anti-prostitution advocates or organizations have gotten creative in finding wives who have contracted cervical cancer from HPV their husbands got from escorts advertising on those venues.

Care to rescind your remarks on the fields to which my thoughts should be constrained?

shut down this board, or could have.

The Supreme Court (and a very conservative one, at that) shot the law down.

They do try, we need to be constantly vigilant.