What is Digg?Sponsored by Norton 2010
Kimbo Slice vs. a caterpillar. Who would win? view!
everyclickmatters.com - The street-fighting legend takes on a leaf-eating menace. See the showdown. Seriously.
90 Comments
- Pyehole, on 05/19/2009, -2/+56Craigslist should sue the hell out of the SC AG. A lawsuit wouldn't exactly be what McMaster was hoping for when he was looking for publicity to support an upcoming run for the Governors office.
- Khast, on 05/20/2009, -3/+51Censorship is a ████████████. I thought we had ██████████ of speech? What gives?
- dagr8tim, on 05/20/2009, -0/+47As the late, great George Carlin said (paraphase):
I don’t understand why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal, ***** is legal. So why isn’t it legal to sell *****? Is the worst thing you can do is to give another human being an orgasm? In vietnam they give you a medal for spraying napalm on somebody. - Zarokima, on 05/20/2009, -1/+46Why the ***** is there a problem with this in the first place? It's just two or more adults performing a consensual act for money -- an act which is perfectly legal to do for free.
- replaysMike, on 05/20/2009, -0/+34You stay classy, South Carolina.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/20/2009, -2/+34The bigger picture here is that prostitution should not be illegal int he first place because it is a victimless "crime".
Prostitution laws are nearly impossible to regulate because no one is being unjustly hurt. No one's rights or freedoms are being violated. There is no victim to accuse a perpetrator in court. There are merely 2 (or more) adults who consented to a mutually agreed upon exchange of money for a service.
Here are some potentially good ways to avoid technically being a prostitute or a john:
1. Film the act and claim to be producing a low budget erotic film. The money given to the actress is no longer for the sex but for her acting ability.
2. Do not pay your "companion" for sex, but merely sweep her off her feet with lavish dinners and gifts (preferably gifts with receipts that can be returned for cash).
3. Get married to your new "lover" with a carefully worded prenuptial agreement that will transfer an amount of money roughly equal to what a prostitute might charge in the event of a divorce.
4. Maybe buying one of your "date's" hastily created amateur paintings for a couple hundred dollars causes her to become, temporarily (for a couple hours), uncontrollably infatuated with you to the point that she can't help but make love to you.
It is ridiculous to criminalize selling a service, that is perfectly legal to give away for free. We should not be legislating who adults are allowed to have sex with and under what conditions. In fact the whole phenomena of "trophy wives" can be seen as an elaborate form of prostitution. - inactive, on 05/20/2009, -1/+27And South Carolina wonders why they have no high-tech industry in their state.
- Paranor01, on 05/20/2009, -1/+27Everyone always pays for sex.
Prostitutes are just honest about the price. - inactive, on 05/20/2009, -1/+26The problem is that the big newspapers blame Craigslist for their lost ad moneys so Craigslist is made out to be evil and needs to be removed from the internet at all cost. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone from crime.
- dampeal, on 05/20/2009, -0/+17I was wondering about the First Amendment issue when I first heard about this, there's something funny going on here... and I agree with the author that he thinks Craigslist just took it down to avoid the bad PR and court costs. Still though, this could set a bad precedent for things online, now these people will think it's ok to bully sites where they don't like the content, figuring they'll just cave as well to the pressure of it all.
- daddymcguire, on 05/20/2009, -0/+16Looks like yet another "public servant" trying to get their soundbite and cash in on the Craigslist thing.
- Schweppesale, on 05/20/2009, -1/+17yea, except legalizing that service allows for government oversight.
Exhibit A:
1) certified hookers who get tested periodically
2) pimps who are arrested because hookers don't need to fear the cops
clearly you put a lot of thought into your argument though, so good for you. - mrsteveman1, on 05/20/2009, -0/+15I don't think violating the first amendment is a good platform to run for office
- sykotik, on 05/20/2009, -1/+15I have to kind of disagree here. She chose to do that, so she's not a victim. He chose to have the woman with cold sores and breasts sagging to her feet (sorry ladies, I just know what having a child can do to a woman, having a 7 year old son myself) so he can't complain that he's a victim either.
Perhaps, you are meaning that because of her being "tweeked out," with "no teeth and raging case of oral herpes.." causes her to automatically become a victim of circumstance, but I guess I could start again with; no one puts the meth/crack/whatever pipe in her mouth, at first, or thereafter. She should have known better than to sleep with people without protection or finding out in advance if there was anything worry about, never mind the scum that would simply say they didn't, when they did, and so on and so forth.
Basically, I disagree with her (the theoretical 40 year old) being a victim, but understand where you're coming from (or so I would assume) that it would really REALLY suck to have to blow guys off, or worse, for cash(disregarding the fact it's not too tough to get a job sweeping floors somewhere)
However, I do agree that some prostitutes are literally forced into it, whether here or abroad, and that those women are indeed victims.
Please take no offense friend, I offer only a different point of view! - norman619, on 05/20/2009, -1/+14Hmmm... I meet a girl and take her out on a date, pay for her drinks, dinner, maybe a gift, and whatever else and at the end of the night we have sex.
A man meets some woman on the street, they have sex, and he pays her for it.
The very same thing in both cases. Only dif is the 2nd scenario is a business transaction. - pierreb, on 05/20/2009, -0/+13Can someone explain why similar actions are not being taken with respect to the advertising in Yellow Pages? Aren't they doing the same thing under their "escorts" category?
- marmotjmarmot, on 05/20/2009, -1/+13I hate being in SC sometimes.
- dalittle, on 05/20/2009, -0/+11Craigslists should sue South Carolina. I bet there are a large number of people that would each pitch in $5 each to help them.
- Rivetgeek, on 05/20/2009, -0/+10Even uncensored I don't get it:
Censorship is a toaster oven. I thought we had eggplants of speech? What gives? - acknotSW, on 05/20/2009, -0/+8This one has always driven me crazy. To quote the late George Carlin, "selling is legal, ***** is legal, why is selling ***** illegal?"
Since making porn is legal, couldn't you just slip a 3rd party twice the amount that the hooker is charging and have the 3rd party pay both of them to make a movie? It just seems like there are so many ways you could get around prostitution laws that no one should ever go to jail for it. Or just do what I've seen ticket scalpers do, sell a pen for $300 and give the tickets away for free.
I know the reasons of course, the religious ***** who think that even free consensual sex between unmarried adults should be illegal because it's sinful according to a sci-fi novel written thousands of years ago. - MacEnvy, on 05/20/2009, -0/+8@mrsteveman1
It might be in South Carolina ... - norman619, on 05/20/2009, -4/+11Typical idiot suffering from anal cranium inversion sydrome...
- TexMexRex, on 05/20/2009, -0/+7The fact that craigslist is making good money off Hookers in this tough economy should be applauded.
- Reddog_x2000, on 05/20/2009, -0/+7That's why I advocate that politicians and even high level bureaucrats be held personally accountable for their violations of people's constitutional rights. It's BS that they get to violate the public's trust, use taxpayer money to defend themselves and the taxpayer foots the bill if they lose. Personal accountability would make them tread a hell of a lot more lightly.
- mrsteveman1, on 05/20/2009, -0/+6That won't happen, those who oppose prostitution are ideologically motivated and are unlikely to care how safe or unsafe the practice is, or how easily it can be taxed.
- maz2331, on 05/20/2009, -1/+7Actually, it may be just the kind of thing he would love. It keeps his name in front of the public, and as a state official he can only be sued in his official capacity (which means the state foots the bill for legal fees and any judgements). Even a loss can be used politically as a great way to excite his supporters and raise campaign dollars.
Elliot Spitzer did the same sort of grandstanding, as does Andrew Cuomo. - TheUngod, on 05/20/2009, -0/+5It's illegal because prostitution is classist. Us poor people should be able to buy good hookers too, not those 5 dollar crackwhores. It's illegal to stay politically correct obviously.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/20/2009, -0/+5Sure prostitutes are victims in the sense that every single person who's life didn't turn out exactly the way they wanted is a victim.
You are implying that because this "40 year old mother of three with no teeth and a raging case of oral herpes" is not living the life of an aristocrat, that she is being victimized by a person she agreed to have sex with for money. She may have been victimized when she was a child by her parents or local drug dealers, but now she is an adult, and should be respected enough to be treated as such.
If you are taking the position that it should be the governments job to protect people from themselves, then we can just agree to disagree, but that is the opposite of a free country. - BridgeBurner, on 05/20/2009, -0/+5Last paragraph: my thoughts exactly.
- Schralpy, on 05/20/2009, -0/+5"Really?!?" is a classic? Really?
- allocate, on 05/20/2009, -0/+5Did you read the article? The point is that a THREAT to prosecute can be a constitutional violation when it constitutes an improper state action.
- o76923, on 05/20/2009, -0/+5have you ever looked at any of the studies on prostitution? This isn't the third world (not yet anyway). The overwhelming majority of prostitution is not managed through pimps and is by people under the age of 30. Most of it is just women who enjoy sex finding a way to make it profitable.
- maz2331, on 05/20/2009, -0/+4@Pyehole
And even if it does backfire, he's never going to lose a single cent from his own wallet.
AND he can play politics with the loss. Just accusing his opposition of "being for prostitutes and spreading DISEASE through our COMMUNITY...." can work.
I want an amendment banning all personal immunity from official acts now... - TsuruchiBrian, on 05/20/2009, -0/+4That's what the prenuptial agreement is for. You are SUPPOSED to end the hastily planned marriage and give her a cash settlement as a result of the divorce a couple hours later when you realize the horrible mistake you've made rushing into a institution as sacred as marriage. Sadly you will now have to part with several hundred dollars as specified in your prenuptial agreement. Thankfully though, you had the foresight to have a prenuptial agreement and avoid being locked into years of alimony payments.
- inactive, on 05/20/2009, -0/+4Yea just like the girl working at that ***** fast food joint for minimum wage is a "victim", she choose to work there, she can choose to work somewhere else. She can also choose to get an education and work a good paying job. When your situation is your choice, you're not a victim.
- inactive, on 05/20/2009, -0/+4Don't be a fool for the fools. It's illegal because we're a Christian nation with a deeply hypocritical self-loathing when it comes to our sexuality.
- mrmudgeon, on 05/20/2009, -0/+4The legal system is used more and more to bully people. The threat and costs of litigation make is hard to say no when the issue is not crucial for you. There are some provision for this guy to be sued by other parties, but that is unlikely. The guy from SC threatened criminal action when the law is clear, and settled.
- norman619, on 05/20/2009, -1/+5I know this is foreign to you but adults often will engage in erotic activities for money.
- temsi, on 05/20/2009, -0/+4What Craigslist is doing is not illegal.
What the SC AG is doing is unconstitutional. - boundless316, on 05/20/2009, -0/+3I posted this as a reply to a higher thread in this discussion however after a little bit of editing I think it's relevant enough to the conversation to be posted again where more people will see it. Because frankly it needs to be seen.
When a seller has no recourse and no protection under the law he/she turns to force. This has been proven time and time again, prohibition doesn't work, period. Prostitution is going to occur no matter what, better to have it operate under the due process of the law with the full protection that entails than to take place in back alleys and neighborhood street corners under the imminent threat of violence.
And more to the point, what right do any of you have to deny something to two consenting adults? If getting a $50 blow job makes a guy happy who the ***** are you to say, "you don't have the right to be happy"? What happened to the right of contract in this country? What happened to the right to the pursuit of happiness?
People make the argument that prostitution speeds the spread of STD's. Well yeah, it can if one doesn't practice safe sex. But that's not something you have to worry about if you're smart about sex, practice monogamy, make sure you and your partner are tested and all that. Things you should do whether prostitution exists or not, because it's just common sense. And by monogamy I don't neccesarrily mean one partner for life, I mean one partner at a time and make sure you get tested in between relationships. Or if you prefer polygomy (it can be fun) make sure all partners are tested and if sex outside the set relationships occur get tested again.
The government doesn't exist to protect people from their own stupidity. If you go to a prostitute, don't use a condom and get a disease that's on you. And if you spread that disease to anyone else that's on both you and your partner. You for not getting tested after having unprotected sex with a prostitute, and your partner for not insisting on safe sex practices. On a side note this is one of many reason why state health care is such a bad idea; it encourages the state to pass nanny laws to lower health care costs. Laws that almost always restrict our rights.
If prostitution was legal and regulated you wouldn't have to worry about your property values because the thousands of girls/guys walking the streets would have safe places to practice their trade. Hell a good whorehouse might increase the property values in some neighborhoods (doubtful but a guy can dream (-: ). Pimps who, entrap and enslave workers with drugs and violence would find themselves being turned into the police much more often because the prostitutes wouldn't have to fear going to jail themselves. The reduction of prostitution related crimes would probably be as drastic as any drop in crime we've seen seen since the prohibition of alcohol was ended. - Gguillorn, on 05/20/2009, -0/+3No teeth, huh? I'd throw down a five for that.
- MewtwoReturns, on 05/20/2009, -0/+3And this is why all religious beliefs need to be removed from politics.
- absurdist, on 05/20/2009, -0/+3Threats made by authority are in a completely different class.
- AbsurdParadox, on 05/20/2009, -0/+3maz2331, are you saying that people shouldn't break a law, even if its a bad law?
- inactive, on 05/20/2009, -0/+3If it floats, flies, or ***** it is cheaper to rent it.
- inactive, on 05/20/2009, -0/+2There's a price on everything. Women pay for it by putting up with our *****.
- maz2331, on 05/20/2009, -3/+5True, but it is illegal. Whether the law itself is good or bad is another issue, especially with the courts.
I hope a good constitutional lawyer can shred them, but the courts do seem to have a way of ignoring the Constitution when it is politically expedient to do so, or at times to "nail the SOB". - Pyehole, on 05/20/2009, -0/+2That didn't occur to me at the time, but you're right. It could backfire. But then again, if the state loses the case and has to pay those expenses, it will probably piss off a lot of SC voters.
- LVDave, on 05/20/2009, -0/+2I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me, assuming that Craigslist has no offices in SC, and making sure none of CL's execs ever set foot in SC, couldn't CL just give the middle finger to this jackass??
- maz2331, on 05/20/2009, -0/+2@mrsteveman...
I agree with you, but there are a lot of "moralists" out there who feel differently. -
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is