Owner of website arrested for prosititution

[imrthr]

Only in America would such a ridiculous thing be the basis to arrest someone. Clearly, more taxpayer dollars at waste -

 

The owner operated the site as a hobby and did not make any money from it. The purpose of the site was to have "a safe place for prostitution Johns to get together without fearing prosecution" and was designed to give users more privileges and access to more women.

 

Here is a link to the article:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/21/new.jersey.prostitution.ring/index.html

 

Just change the gender and the article comes closer to home.

-

[OneFinger]

The parallel between this place and what the professor was doing also struck me. I don't believe he arranged any meetings or had anything to do with exchange of money. He simply hosted a site where people could post messages, reviews, etc.

 

But, not so sure it's only in America. Have you read the thread on Dubai?

[imrthr]

"But, not so sure it's only in America. Have you read the thread on Dubai? "

 

No, I have not read the thread, I will look for it. Thanks for the alert.

 

Update - - -

 

I just read it. It does seems worse there based on the posts. The problem is that in America, we are supposed to have a choice in such matters. I do not see what harm the owner of the site did to anyone.

[GoodFella69]

imrthr: Very enlightening post. It's a reminder that "Big Brother" is everywhere these days. Thanks for sharing this news.

 

Goodfella

[Guest Rich.]

Chilling stuff, Imrthr, thanks for posting.

 

Prostitution is legal in the UK, but solicitation isn't, a perfect British catch-22. Brothels are illegal but are ignored until a celebrity is photographed coming out of one! On this side of the pond, thousands are prosecuted every year for possession of pornography, which is illegal except under certain strict circumstances. The accused have no option but to plead guilty, so it's an easy win for the police. I wasn't surprised to learn that a clampdown on porn has started in the USA.

 

Richard

[seeker630]

.... I wasn't surprised to learn that a clampdown on porn has started in the USA.

 

Richard[/quote[/i]

I'm not aware of a clampdown on porn having started?

[+ Gar1eth]

Chilling stuff, Imrthr, thanks for posting.

 

Prostitution is legal in the UK, but solicitation isn't, a perfect British catch-22. Brothels are illegal but are ignored until a celebrity is photographed coming out of one! On this side of the pond, thousands are prosecuted every year for possession of pornography, which is illegal except under certain strict circumstances. The accused have no option but to plead guilty, so it's an easy win for the police. I wasn't surprised to learn that a clampdown on porn has started in the USA.

 

Richard

 

What exactly is the definition of solicitation. Is it advertising yourself or someone else for sexual purposes?

 

Gman

[+ deej]

I'm not aware of a clampdown on porn having started?

 

You missed the §2257 kerfuffle, which is still going on?

[gcursor]

ok..

 

Ok..we're straying so I can say this "tongue-in-cheek" now

I love you DEEJ!

 

 

ok..remember I'm gcursor and I do this stuff all the time so don't be too mad

Gcursor

 

You missed the §2257 kerfuffle, which is still going on?

[Guest Rich.]

Oh shit, my hijack. :o

 

I'll start a new thread!

 

Richard

[Guest Rich.]

What exactly is the definition of solicitation. Is it advertising yourself or someone else for sexual purposes?

 

Gman

 

Gman,

 

In the United Kingdom, prostitution itself (the exchange of sexual services for money) is not a crime,[2] but a number of related activities, including soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning a brothel, pimping and pandering, are crimes.

In England and Wales and in Northern Ireland it is an offence to pay for sex with a prostitute who has been “subjected to force” and this is a strict liability offence (clients can be prosecuted even if they didn’t know the prostitute was forced).

It is illegal to buy sex from a person younger than 18, although the age of consent for non-commercial sex is 16.

 

 

There is an ongoing argument that such sites as Rentboy are, in fact, allowing prostitutes to 'solicit' in a public place which, if so, would be an offence.

 

Take a look at this, for further info!

 

Best

 

Richard

[Guest Rich.]

There is an ongoing argument that such sites as Rentboy are, in fact, allowing prostitutes to 'solicit' in a public place which, if so, would be an offence.

 

My bad. :o I'll try to make sense!

 

I'm currently hooked up with a small site that a group of med students are using for escorting services. To be able to access it, you need a referral and you're then sent a user id and password. The domain name is meaningless and the logon page is completely blank apart from login boxes, and therefore is completely 'private'.

 

My understanding is that if Rentboy, for example, required you sign-up using a credit card (not necessarily billing you, but as proof of age) and didn't allow you to browse until you'd done so, then this would afford the escorts complete protection under UK law. It is because the site is accessible to the general public (including minors), as to whether Escorts currently have any such protection and could be accused of soliciting.

 

Richard

[seeker630]

You missed the §2257 kerfuffle, which is still going on?

 

No, but that's not what the phrase 'clampdown on porn' suggested to me. And perhaps as a consumer rather than a producer, my outlook is slightly different.

[+ deej]

No, but that's not what the phrase 'clampdown on porn' suggested to me. And perhaps as a consumer rather than a producer, my outlook is slightly different.

 

The rewrite of 2257 was a blatant attempt to "clamp down on" the porn industry. What did you think it was?

 

(The law is still as toxic as it ever was if anyone chooses to enforce it.)

[imrthr]

-

I'm currently hooked up with a small site that a group of med students are using for escorting services. To be able to access it, you need a referral and you're then sent a user id and password. The domain name is meaningless and the log on page is completely blank apart from log in boxes, and therefore is completely 'private'.

 

My understanding is that if Rentboy, for example, required you to sign-up using a credit card (not necessarily billing you, but as proof of age) and didn't allow you to browse until you'd done so, then this would afford the escorts complete protection under UK law. It is because the site is accessible to the general public (including minors), as to whether Escorts currently have any such protection and could be accused of soliciting.

 

 

What you wrote is interesting and it shows some creativity on the part of the web site owners/planners.

 

However, why should it be necessary for consenting adults to have to go through such a charade merely to access a site where they can meet someone?

 

Who is being harmed when all parties are in agreement?

 

Can anyone even begin to guess how much taxpayer money is wasted on stings that are instituted just to catch consenting adults trying to hook up?

 

I am aware of the countless arguments religious people use (sex-traffic etc) to make this activity unlawful. Nonetheless, it seems such a waste of resources to have the police and prosecutors involved in this victimless activity.

 

I am also aware that "enforcement" (harassment) of this type of activity will not stop as long as such silly laws remain on the books of most cities in the U.S.

[seeker630]

The rewrite of 2257 was a blatant attempt to "clamp down on" the porn industry. What did you think it was?

 

(The law is still as toxic as it ever was if anyone chooses to enforce it.)

 

I'm not as familiar with the details as you, and you may be right about it's intent, but I haven't seen a decrease in the amount & availability of porn, nor reports of mass arrests or scores of sites shutting down. Sexually explicit content is not, per se, illegal. Most sites sites seem to have continued under the regulations (which may well be onerous.)

 

So, I won't argue that it isn't a clampdown; I thought the OP was referring to some comprehensive outlawing.