wsj: Is the Party Over for Nevada’s Legal Brothels? Possibility of a Ban Looms

[mcsluggo]

On 6/17/2018 at 8:44 AM, Hersh said:

I wonder if this will have an happy ending? Seriously though, who didn't see this coming?

 

and in the end.... an end to <legalized> "happy endings"   

[Destino]

On 6/17/2018 at 4:09 PM, Renegade7 said:

We've tried this discussion before (looks like you've leaned up a little since 12 years ago and I've matured a little in general). 

I'm still entirely opposed to it, but I've since come to accept that Americans pursuing a good time are willing to destroy anything and everything.  No amount of human tragedy, or even the threat of a militarized police force, seem to even dampen demand. 

 

Quote

I'm not getting where the addressing sex trafficking only comes in when it affects who again?

From the response to shutting down backpage because they constantly facilitated human trafficking. 

 

Quote

This isn't an issue I think #metoo should jump into full force.  If someone is being abused at one of these brothels, they should be banned, that shouldn't be an extra expense to allow men to do that to women.  A brothel has got to be the weirdest places be talking about "unwanted advances".

The most vulnerable populations are the ones that need advocacy the most.  Coercing vulnerable people into sex is an issue whose time has come, and sex work certainly shouldn't be immune. 

 

Quote

A lot of people do it on the side to make ends meet, saying they have to show stable income will lock out the people doing it out of necessity.

Those are precisely the people I want to lock out.  I do not want a predatory industry that turns people into a products using financial pressure to secure a workforce. 

 

Quote

I wish you'd elaborate on "substance abuse", because I'd agree that something like meth or heroin should cause a suspension of the license, but stuff like weed, cocaine, molly, who cares?

I mean addiction.

 

Quote

End of the day, I see cases for both sides, but believe its worth it to devote resources to the people who really are having to do stuff against their will. In Germany, they still have a sex trafficking issue, but they aren't going to the cops because they are afraid of being deported, in US its that and the fact prostitution is already illegal, so they are trapped into saying nothing (we have to stop that).

Afraid of being deported is just one current reason.  People seem to have no difficultly accepting that human traffickers can force people to engage in endless amounts of sex against their will.  Why is it then that we imagine traffickers would find pressuring their victims into not cooperating with authorities difficult?  Change the rules and they'll change how they pressure, threaten, and control their victims. 

 

Enforcement approaches that rely on victims of human trafficking coming forward are naive and ineffective.  Law enforcement should look for signs of trafficking that don't require cooperation.  Monitoring financial records of sex workers, for example, would be more effective.  Traffickers might be able issue paychecks, and make their paperwork and taxes look right, but they aren't engaged in organized crime to run legitimate businesses and pay their "employees" fairly.  They'll make a grab for that money somehow. 

[aszumilo]

On 6/17/2018 at 7:37 AM, Mr. Sinister said:

Seems like this isn't being thought through enough. The issue should be more regulation/inquiry, and a safer environment for the workers, not just a complete ban.

 

Or maybe they don't actually care (always that possibility). With as much money as that industry brings in (especially in Vegas?) I'd be shocked if this didn't die hard at the polls.

Just to clarify, prostitution is illegal in Clark County (the county where Vegas is) and I believe Washoe (where Reno and Carson City are) and Lincoln counties as well.  Not sure if any other counties prohibit it.  Rest of the state allows it.  So, it would have no real effect on the illegal prostitution that occurs, since it is already illegal.  The closet brothels to Las Vegas are about 70 miles or so, in Pahrump, NV. 

 

Making it illegal would probably force some of those women to move to Las Vegas and join the illegal prostitution industry.  Maybe some of those women find other means of work, but, some of them make a lot of money and it would be difficult to duplicate the income in other career fields.

 

[Mr. Sinister]

Thanks for the info. 

[Larry]

6 hours ago, Destino said:

Those are precisely the people I want to lock out.  I do not want a predatory industry that turns people into a products using financial pressure to secure a workforce. 

 

Great idea.  

 

In fact, let's apply it to every job that pays less than, let's say 2 times the current minimum wage.  

 

Any person wanting to work in those jobs, must be required to prove that they don;t need the money.  

 

After all, if we allow them to work in those jobs, then their employers are exploiting them, by paying them.  Can't have employers exploiting their workers by taking advantage of the fact that they need the money.  

 

[Destino]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

Any person wanting to work in those jobs, must be required to prove that they don;t need the money.  

Everyone in the middle class needs the money, Larry.  If they had no need to work they wouldn't be middle class now would they?  Not everyone feels that they need to sell their bodies in order to survive though.  See how that works?  Probably not.     

 

Besides, I'm sure most of the middle class would jump at the chance to love what they do for a living while making great money.  I hear so many great things about a career in prostitution I'm sure they'll be swamped with potential employees. 

 

Quote

After all, if we allow them to work in those jobs, then their employers are exploiting them, by paying them.  Can't have employers exploiting their workers by taking advantage of the fact that they need the money. 

Problem is I feel no need to pretend prostitution is just a job like any other.  Plenty of people doing that already.  You think it's like nursing as you said before, and I will never see it that way.  I'm fine with not agreeing. 

 

[DCSaints_fan]

I always  wondered, couldn't you film the entire encounter and then claim you were "making a movie" so it would fall under free speech?  I don't think there's any laws against producing porn (distribution is another matter)

[Kosher Ham]

You would be wrong. 

[twa]

5 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

I always  wondered, couldn't you film the entire encounter and then claim you were "making a movie" so it would fall under free speech?  I don't think there's any laws against producing porn (distribution is another matter)

 

after OSHA, the Permit dept, Heath dept ect ect ect you would wish the cops had arrested you 

 

besides Kosh is right

[DCSaints_fan]

7 hours ago, Kosher Ham said:

You would be wrong. 

 

Can you elaborate?  Suppose someone puts up an ad for actresses willing to do "erotic" films?   Whats to prevent them from doing so and carrying it out in return for compensation to the actresses? 

 

Yeah, its not exactly the same thing, I guess.  In order to hold up in court as "speech", I suppose you would at least have to film it and show you were willing to publish it.  

[Larry]

As to the suggestion of having prostitutes film their business, claim they're making a porn film, and claiming it's free speech, . . . 

 

I'd have to point out that the courts have ruled that the First does not apply to porn, by inventing the (IMO fictional) claim that the First only applies to political speech. 

 

So, the John would have to wear an orange wig, and the hooker would have to call him "Mr. President". And pee on the bed. 

[DCSaints_fan]

36 minutes ago, Larry said:

As to the suggestion of having prostitutes film their business, claim they're making a porn film, and claiming it's free speech, . . . 

 

I'd have to point out that the courts have ruled that the First does not apply to porn, by inventing the (IMO fictional) claim that the First only applies to political speech. 

 

So, the John would have to wear an orange wig, and the hooker would have to call him "Mr. President". And pee on the bed. 

 

OTOH there's this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_States#Pornography_as_prostitution

 

Pornography as prostitution[edit]

Attempts were made in the United States in the 1970s to close down the pornography industry by prosecuting those in the industry on prostitution charges. The prosecution started in the courts in California in the case of People v. Freeman. The California Supreme Court acquitted Freeman and distinguished between someone who takes part in a sexual relationship for money (prostitution) versus someone whose role is merely portraying a sexual relationship on-screen as part of their acting performance. The State did not appeal to the United States Supreme Court making the decision binding in California, where most pornographic films are made today.^[8]

[Renegade7]

On 6/18/2018 at 6:25 PM, Destino said:

I'm still entirely opposed to it, but I've since come to accept that Americans pursuing a good time are willing to destroy anything and everything.  No amount of human tragedy, or even the threat of a militarized police force, seem to even dampen demand. 

 

This is one of those topics that is so grey the moral high ground doesn't work. 

 

I'd never do it, but I understand why some would from the perspective of both sides.  There's really nothing that can be said or done to make up for the worst nether regions of this topic. At same time we can help people more by legalizing prostitution in general given its going to happen anyway, legal or not (giving us a chance to keep illegal and better enforce the stuff we still don't want to have happen).  

 

Quote

From the response to shutting down backpage because they constantly facilitated human trafficking. 

 

I'm still not sure I follow, I'm trying, but it comes across like you're making some type of generalization here and I don't want to assume that.

 

Quote

The most vulnerable populations are the ones that need advocacy the most.  Coercing vulnerable people into sex is an issue whose time has come, and sex work certainly shouldn't be immune. 

 

Those are precisely the people I want to lock out.  I do not want a predatory industry that turns people into a products using financial pressure to secure a workforce. 

 

You won't win this one, even if you're convinced you're doing the right thing. 

 

Not everyone who sells sex does it against their will, some actually like it and just do it on the side.  I've tried to find some numbers verifying this, but from what I can tell most are doing this part-time.  I can't help but feel like you're focusing the most on what you hate the most about this profession, and I don't blame you.  But a lot of the time, from people I've talked to as well, this is about filling the gaps in regards to underemployment and kids to take care of, not just uneducation and desperation.  There's an extremely high turnover rate and not everyone is paying for sex.

 

Quote

I mean addiction.

 

I agree, knowing people hooked, they are dangerous even when they don't want to be.  Locking yourself in a room with one balls naked is asking for it.

 

Quote

Afraid of being deported is just one current reason.  People seem to have no difficultly accepting that human traffickers can force people to engage in endless amounts of sex against their will.  Why is it then that we imagine traffickers would find pressuring their victims into not cooperating with authorities difficult?  Change the rules and they'll change how they pressure, threaten, and control their victims. 

 

Enforcement approaches that rely on victims of human trafficking coming forward are naive and ineffective.  Law enforcement should look for signs of trafficking that don't require cooperation.  Monitoring financial records of sex workers, for example, would be more effective.  Traffickers might be able issue paychecks, and make their paperwork and taxes look right, but they aren't engaged in organized crime to run legitimate businesses and pay their "employees" fairly.  They'll make a grab for that money somehow. 

 

I'd don't understand why you think anyone pushing for legalization in regards to helping to address human trafficking would just wait around for people to say they were trafficked.  Right now, we don't have enough resources to tackle this issue head on, legalizing will allow law enforcement to focus more on the things you are saying they should focus on.  I don't know how much you've read about human sex trafficking in germany, but they lie to the women that the police won't help them, and they are partially right that they will help them at most by deporting them.  They will threaten families, but the first resort is saying the police can't help you, we have to make it so they can.

 

[Riggo-toni]