Sign in to follow this  
Importunate Tom

ESPLERP

Recommended Posts

Prosecuting Teen Porn
 

Quote

 

Corey, a junior at Naperville North High School in Naperville, Illinois, was a perfectly normal, social, good-looking 16-year-old. He was an honor roll student with dreams of attending a Big Ten college. He had typical interests for a teenager boy: hockey, fishing, and, yes, girls.

Corey committed suicide in January, just hours after a school resource officer confronted him about an alleged illegal item on his cell phone—a recording of Corey having sex with a female classmate. The girl had informed a dean at the school that she believed Corey had played the recording for his friends (it's not clear whether he did), which prompted the authorities to summon Corey to the principal's office. They called his mother and told both of them that Corey was being investigated for possession of child pornography.

Corey left the meeting, headed to a nearby parking garage, and jumped.

 

I'm not so sure that's typical. I don't think that at age 16 I'd have even thought about diverting my attention to hit a "record" button, let alone actually done it in the... um... limited time available.

It is sad. And I don't think he committed any crime that should be covered under a child porn law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2018 at 5:25 AM, Shortforbob said:
On 9/9/2018 at 4:31 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

OK, but asking for a link then saying you don't open links is kinda odd behavior, especially if you already found the link yourself.

No matter, I'm not picky. Now, about that blow job, if price is a problem I could go as high as $25 since it would be a special occasion.

Hmmm as you'll be wanting Board and breakfast...make it $550 :D

And I can't get busted because prostitution is legal here.:rolleyes:

It seems that

encouraging and inducing an alien to remain in the United States for the purposes of financial gain

May be OK, at least in the 9th circuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

So I just read it - they 'sort of' overturned it.  They kept the two mail fraud charges but overturned the two 'incite' charges. It's a bit of an older case and doesn't appear to be a case of a good Samaritan trying to save those poor Guatemalans.  I do think it's important to reiterate exactly what she did:

------------------

in San Jose, California. Her clients were mostly natives of
the Philippines, unlawfully employed in the home health care
industry in the United States, who sought authorization to
work and adjustment of status to obtain legal permanent
residence (green cards). Sineneng-Smith assisted clients with
applying for a “Labor Certification,” and then for a green
card. She signed retainer agreements with her clients that
specified the purpose of the retention as “assisting [the client]
to obtain permanent residence through Labor Certification.”

The problem was that the Labor Certification process expired
on April 30, 2001; aliens who arrived in the United States
after December 21, 2000, were not eligible to receive
permanent residence through the program. See EsquivelGarcia
v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1029 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010).
Sineneng-Smith knew that the program had expired. She
nonetheless continued to sign retainer agreements with her
clients and tell them that they could obtain green cards via
Labor Certifications.
And she also continued to sign new
retainer agreements purportedly to assist additional clients
in obtaining Labor Certification. At least two of SinenengSmith’s
clients testified that they would have left the country
if Sineneng-Smith had told them that they were not eligible
for permanent residence.
Sineneng-Smith’s words and acts
which allegedly violated the statute were alleged to have
occurred from 2001 to 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cmilliken said:

So I just read it - they 'sort of' overturned it.  They kept the two mail fraud charges but overturned the two 'incite' charges. It's a bit of an older case and doesn't appear to be a case of a good Samaritan trying to save those poor Guatemalans.  I do think it's important to reiterate exactly what she did:

The opinion is only 5 days old but the crimes go way back.

But I was talking about the incitement thing. Apparently, it might be OK for me to incite Meli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, "incitement," as entertainment.

Hi Tom. In 2013, you named me as a supporter of a Ms. Mason's rape (as she thought of England on my behalf), and you used such unseemly innuendo for years. Yet I'd never heard of her... and no rape happened.

Then, in October of this year, you denied the episode you had created. Any comment, you sorry turd? What was up with all that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF? I was minding  my own business one day, on a fine thread, when this deal hit, out of nowhere.

Quote

Tom Ray Posted 16 October 2013 - 11:56 AM

Your silence strongly suggests you think Ms. Mason should have just laid back and thought of England, you know...

 

Tom Ray Posted 25 October 2013 - 06:56 PM

Admit that you would not mind if Mason was raped, as long as she did not defend herself with an evil gun. That is your position, right? Say it loud and proud!

I was pretty pissed off when you simply denied it a few months ago. You are a real piece of work Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On0/Dogballs/2017 at 6:58 AM, dogballs Tom said:

ESPLERP

OK, so obviously they never worked for Congress and are terrible at the acronym thing.
 

Quote

 

A federal court heard arguments yesterday challenging California's criminalization of prostitution, in a case that could have implications for sex work laws across the nation.

Brought by the Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education, and Research Project (ESPLERP), the constitutional challenge claims that California's prostitution laws violate residents' right to privacy, free speech, and free association.

...

"Lambda Legal's landmark Supreme Court victory in Lawrence v. Texas, the case that struck down laws that criminalized sex between same-sex partners, underscored that our right to liberty protects our decisions about adult, consensual sexual intimacy," says Kara Ingelhart, a Lambda Legal law fellow. "It is merely logical that Lawrence extend to the adult, consensual sexual intimacy that occurs between sex workers and their clients; the fact that money is exchanged shouldn't matter."

 

In case anyone was wondering, ESPLERP lost that case in January of this year in the 9th circuit.
 

Quote

 

In January, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously recognized the truth that sexual exploitation is nobody’s job by affirming that prostitution is not a constitutionally protected fundamental right in the case of Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project (ESPLERP) v. Gascón.

On the contrary, the Court ruled it is a commercial activity fraught with dangers that the state has a “substantial interest” in preventing. This was a major victory for victims of sexual exploitation, as well as for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, which had filed an amicus brief in support of the State of California and its prostitution laws.

Following the Court’s decision, our opponents in this battle filed a petition for rehearing en banc by the full 9th Circuit. Today, their petition was denied, reaffirming the initial victory in January.  

 

Letting women control their bodies is only sometimes good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this thread need reverse race-baiting? How can we control race-baiting on our threads, Tom? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexting among teens could be considered legal in some cases under new laws aimed to reduce the risk of consenting children being convicted of possessing child pornography.

Key points:

  • The reforms build on changes made since the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
  • The grooming of parents and carers is now an offence
  • It's also illegal to fail to reduce or prevent a threat of child sexual abuse in an organisation

common sense rules

 

The laws — which come into effect in New South Wales today — provide a legal exception for children under 18 taking, sharing or keeping nude photographs of themselves and others, particularly if the sexting is consensual.

The changes will reduce the risk that children engaging in "normal sexual development and experimentation among teenagers" becoming criminalised, the Government said.

The laws also provide a "similar age" defence for consensual sex between children where both are at least 14 years old, and when the age gap between them is less than two years.

The new laws are among a raft of changes introduced across the state in the wake of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Attorney-General Mark Speakman said the reforms were "putting the safety of children front and centre and fixing shortcomings in the law" identified by the royal commission.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Yes, yes, we know.

Help me out here.

1.You are either a fine-minded intellectual, or a redneck douche. 

2. If we're gonna have race-baiting elsewhere, there may be similar consequences on yer threads.

3. When you show up elsewhere, you can sound pretty dumb.

 

I give you sea lion.  Below is a collection which shows your persistent dumbing down gags, elsewhere:

Quote

Kelo Tom is fine. But these other faces are marginal

  • JAPAN TOM (the suicide whisperer)
  • CDC TOM (shits on the CDC, unless cherry picking them)
  • ROAD KILL TOM (will stamp out mass shootings for us)
  • CHICAGO TOM (tools: uses gun violence epidemic to further gun cause)
  • JUDGE TANEY TOM (had a big eureka, and long did it last)
  • MILLER-EXTOLS-THE-PEOPLE TOM (permanently confused by his own cover sheet)
  • GANGSTAS-DISPROVE-WHITE-GUN-OWNER-PROBLEMS TOM (with the race-baiter slide job)
  • DYLANN ROOF TOM (posits religious or political assassination)
  • RACEBAITER TOM (whoops, soiled himself for several years, on the interwebs)
  • DEBATE WINNER TOM (begins by inventing a position for his opponent)

 

 

(on holiday, but should be in the big house):

  • -- STANDARD MODEL TOM (hmm, won't support or reject it)
  • -- MLK TOM (spammed an interesting poster boy for must issue)
  • --REV. MOSTELLER TOM (shits up on MLK's church the month before, and the month after, Dylann Roof
  • --THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS TOM (not a hard charger if the cadavers are warm)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Key points:

  • The reforms build on changes made since the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
  • The grooming of parents and carers is now an offence

The first one sounds good but I'm uncertain of the public purpose served by ungroomed parents and carers. A tidy appearance is important. Well, not to me, but to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Shortforbob said:
On 12/10/2018 at 7:02 AM, dogballs Tom said:

In case anyone was wondering, ESPLERP lost that case in January of this year in the 9th circuit.
 

Letting women control their bodies is only sometimes good.

USA, looking backwards to tomorrow.:rolleyes:

Both sides have a point, it seems to me.

If you decided to have sex for money, that's your body and your business in a way.

OTOH,

Quote

the Court ruled it is a commercial activity fraught with dangers that the state has a “substantial interest” in preventing. This was a major victory for victims of sexual exploitation, as well as for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, which had filed an amicus brief in support of the State of California and its prostitution laws.

It is a business, there are public health and crime problems that arise in association with it, and governments regulate such businesses.

Sometimes, "regulate" means "prohibit entirely," as in the case of prostitution in most of the US.

I think the prohibition is stupid and harmful, like most. Does that mean I think prostitution businesses, if legal, should be completely immune from regulation because of the sacrosanct woman's body involved? Nope.

By the way, have you noticed that this thread reeks of sea lion shit for some reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2018 at 4:32 AM, dogballs Tom said:

By the way, have you noticed that this thread reeks of sea lion shit for some reason?

Have you no humor? This thread reeks of karma.  But we have 2019 to look forward to. If the race-baiting stops, (and ideally, if you stop dumbing down other topics), I will honor the thread purity which benefits our community.  Rape-baiting, on any thread, sucks, too, mate.

Then you want to sound lofty (and highbrow) elsewhere. WTF?

 

In my home town, a man of honor would not have race-baited (a member of any continent) the first time. You made a habit of it, starring MLK. Interesting.

DRED, MLK'S PERMIT.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 9:46 AM, jocal505 said:
On 12/12/2018 at 7:32 AM, dogballs Tom said:

By the way, have you noticed that this thread reeks of sea lion shit for some reason?

Have you no humor? This thread reeks of karma. 

No.

Karma would be me invading all your non-gun threads and hijacking them with gun talk, as you proudly do to me.

But there's only one such thread in your whole time here and I couldn't bring myself to do it, so made an on topic post instead.

And now the people who claim to be offended by gun-obsessed sea lions will once again show that they're really offended by something else: people who break the taboo and say bad things about TeamD gun bans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2018 at 6:20 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Prosecuting Teen Porn
 

I'm not so sure that's typical. I don't think that at age 16 I'd have even thought about diverting my attention to hit a "record" button, let alone actually done it in the... um... limited time available.

It is sad. And I don't think he committed any crime that should be covered under a child porn law.

That is a sad case.  It sounds like another case of easier to prove 'possession of' and not 'intent too' so that's where they school went.  

One of the most important parts of child development is testing boundaries, trying stuff out, and seeing what works and what doesn't.  We've apparently decided that such activities are bad for kids (outside play, walking home from school, etc.) but then turn around and fully document such activities in teenagers at high-school with cell phones and social media in every kids pocket.  Poor bastards.  They have no chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On0/Dogballs/2017 at 10:00 PM, Ishmael said:

They don't want the competition to their own networks.

It has been argued that dependency on deviance creates a steady state of convicted crimes, even if the definition of deviance in general has to be ratcheted up and down to keep punishment numbers on an even keel- it helps society at large know who they truly are, what expectations might be, and how much money to budget for enforcement, courts, and incarceration.

:)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

That is a sad case.  It sounds like another case of easier to prove 'possession of' and not 'intent too' so that's where they school went.  

One of the most important parts of child development is testing boundaries, trying stuff out, and seeing what works and what doesn't.  We've apparently decided that such activities are bad for kids (outside play, walking home from school, etc.) but then turn around and fully document such activities in teenagers at high-school with cell phones and social media in every kids pocket.  Poor bastards.  They have no chance.

Yeah, I guess the tradeoff would be the almost limitless availability of real time radar images. And porn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

No.

Karma would be me invading all your non-gun threads and hijacking them with gun talk, as you proudly do to me.

Racebaiting habits on Political Anarchy? What a gold mine. What an opportunity for advancement!

 

Karma is when Tom Ray glibly chooses race-baiting, in public, from 2013 through 2018...then becomes confronted by it.

You need to demonstrate, to our community, the finer up sides of the trail of TR race-baiting, because it spiked in 2018.

You picked a thread, with a Tom transfer, then didn't discuss it there. Does this call for a dedicated race-baiter thread?

This is fun.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Racebaiting habits on Political Anarchy?

If you want to start a thread about that, Joe, feel free to. You will note, however that:

1) This thread isn't about that.

and

2) There is already a thread about your racist commentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

If you want to start a thread about that, Joe, feel free to. You will note, however that:

1) This thread isn't about that.

and

2) There is already a thread about your racist commentary.

Yeah. Stupid shit, getting spread around. Tom failed to deal with this matter, after transferring there, from here.

Tom would benefit us all by abandoning 3.5 years of racebaiting. A gentleman would apologize as well.

Quote

Jocal 505 Posted May 17, 2015  ONE MONTH BEFORE DYLANN Post 473 This Non-Violent Stuff

Let's see if this works:

Tom, from one gentleman to another, I would like to ask you to stop race-baiting me. And others.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

Oh, it'll work.

Police and prosecutors have got to get around the reduction in 'possession of marijuana' busts somehow.  Just like they do with racketeering and financial crimes, they'll find some schmuck, make him wear a wire or hand over passwords, gather up evidence against some prostitutes, make THEM consent to having their online accounts monitored, and move up the food chains, looking for the fish they actually want to catch.  

Ends justifies means.  Get citizens to rat out each other.  Far more effective than, you know, actually collecting evidence for the crime you think the perp has actually committed.  With Pence --->  <--- to being president, I'm dumbfounded that democrats wouldn't filibuster such puritan nonsense - except the hard reality is democrats LOVE tools they can selectively employ as much as the republicans.   The 4th amendment is just so annoying when you're doing the State's work.  After all, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

With Pence --->  <--- to being president, I'm dumbfounded that democrats wouldn't filibuster such puritan nonsense - except the hard reality is democrats LOVE tools they can selectively employ as much as the republicans. 

That and the feminist wing, who sometimes seem to think that prostitution, porn, or anything else indicative of a sex drive, is sexploitation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2018 at 5:32 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

They're sex traffickers for rhetorical purposes, but when it comes to actual charges against them,
 

Quote

 

Notably, none of the charges against Backpage are for sex trafficking, which is against federal law. In fact, for years Lacey and Larkin's outfit had been integral to law enforcement efforts—reporting suspected minors who turned out to be runaway teenagers, providing records on criminals who had used the site, and testifying in trials that led to federal indictments against abusive pimps.

Carl Ferrer, a previous vice president and CEO of Backpage under Lacey and Larkin who bought the company from them in 2015, even received a commendation from the Department of Justice for his help fighting sex trafficking. "Can't do this without your help," an FBI agent working juvenile exploitation cases wrote to Backpage staff in 2015—one of hundreds of positive comments the platform received from law enforcement officers. And since the site was seized in April, numerous local news reports have cited cops saying it's now harder to find missing young people and to nab potential pimps.

The disparity between rank-and-file police comments and those made by elected officials is stark. The former generally acknowledge that commercial sex—yes, sometimes involving minors and/or victims of abuse—will go on with or without digital tools to facilitate it. Shutting down Backpage didn't even make a dent in the volume of online adult ads, according to a Washington Post analysis. It simply dispersed them through a wider range of platforms. Yet politicians insist on casting classifieds websites as the biggest cause and a main hub of forced and underage prostitution. Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) has described Backpage as the world's "top online brothel."

That the public case against Backpage bears so little resemblance to the actual charges against it is partly a result of a mass panic over the confluence of sex and technology. That cultural near-hysteria has been stoked by a strange-bedfellows coalition of the Christian right, progressive feminists, and opportunistic lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle.

Initially, the target was Craigslist, the earliest and most prominent platform for online classifieds. But that site escaped relatively unscathed by caving to a demand from the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) to remove a section explicitly labeled for adult advertising. The move didn't stop people from publishing ads for prostitution, of course—the posts merely moved to other parts of the platform. When NAAG made the same demand of Backpage, its founders refused, arguing, with Craigslist as evidence, that doing so would make no difference.

 

If we just NAAG and censor people enough, the oldest profession will disappear!

It also helps to loot their assets so they can't defend themselves.
 

Quote

 

...

In general, as the Supreme Court held in Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana (1989), the Fourth Amendment says that "any and all contraband, instrumentalities, and evidence of crimes may be seized upon probable cause." But this changes "when materials presumptively protected by the First Amendment are involved."

Nonetheless, federal prosecutors are arguing that they're entitled to all money made by Backpage, even proceeds derived from unquestionably legal ads, and that decades worth of earnings made by former Backpage leaders before the website even existed are also tainted.

Since the defendants' arrests in April 2018, prosecutors "have created constant interference with the Defendants' ability to defend this case," states a January 2019 status report filed by their lawyers. "Virtually all of the Defendants' assets have been seized, virtually all of the money in their attorneys' trust accounts designated to fund the defense has been been seized or is effectively frozen," and defense lawyers "may expose themselves to criminal liability if they use those funds to pay fees" from the case.

Last week, the Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, and the Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes Reason magazine) filed a brief in support of the defendants on this matter. The groups say they want "to amplify the danger that the government's use of civil forfeiture to seize the assets and proceeds of expressive material poses to free expression."

"The government has shut down a major internet site and confiscated millions of dollars of assets and proceeds not only from that site, but also from defendants' numerous other publishing venues—ventures completely unrelated to the alleged criminality of the site and indisputably protected by the First Amendment," the February 13 amicus brief states.

Backpage founders Michael Lacey and James Larkin, who sold the company in 2015, also published alt-weekly newspapers around the country for more than four decades before selling Village Voice Media (the papers' parent company) in 2012.


 

 

I guess the idea here must be that BackPage, the Village Voice, etc, are not "the pre$$" corporations mentioned in our first amendment and so it presumptively doesn't apply. Or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate Kamala Harris Runs From Prosecutor Kamala Harris' Record
 

Quote

 

Since Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Ca.) announced her 2020 presidential campaign, she's been criticized by sex workers, activists, and media over her long history of advocating policies that harm sex workers. That includes the shutdown of websites where sex workers advertise, like Backpage.com, and the disastrous 2018 law, FOSTA, that made hosting web content that "facilitates prostitution" a federal crime.

Now, Harris appears to be trying to counter that critique by suggesting that she would be open to the decriminalization of prostitution.

In a video interview with The Root published today, Terrell J. Starr asked Harris about her support for FOSTA despite sex workers saying that it puts their lives in danger. Instead of answering, Harris pivoted to her history as a prosecutor. Harris claimed that all the way back in 2004, as district attorney for San Francisco, she was insisting "that we have to stop arresting these prostitutes."

However, as Harris pointed out, she also supported an increase in crackdowns on "johns," a.k.a. the clients of sex workers. This is what's known as the "Nordic Model" or the "End Demand" strategy. It's focused on arresting people who pay for sex but not those offering paid sex. Both sex workers and human rights groups like Amnesty International oppose this strategy.

...

Harris reiterated that people who do harm in the commercial sex arena should still be punished. That's certainly true, but that's not what's on the table. Advocates for ending the illegal status of prostitution aren't arguing that people who use violence, fraud, threats, or teenagers in sexual activity should be decriminalized.

But this is a space full of weasely language, and it's common to find people professing that they only want to go after those who engage in exploitation and harm, yet include in those categories any person who simply pays for sex or for sex-related activities.

Before the interview moved on, Harris told Starr "we should really consider that we can't criminalize consensual behavior."

 

Candidate Harris is busy running away from Prosecutor Harris' drug warrior record on that last issue too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this