8 ms·

The fact that consenting adults aren't free to do whatever they please with their bodies is utterly bizarre.

by serg_chernata 10y ago

fluxsauce 10y ago
Well, if you live in California, Proposition 60 is an important issue this election.
- windlep 10y ago
  Indeed, and that proposition is not at all what it appears to be at first glance. Voters in California should definitely do some due diligence researching that before voting or they're going to be in for a nasty shock at the outcome.
  - Zhenya 10y ago
    Can you please elaborate and state the possible outcomes for YES and NO?
    - chimeracoder 10y ago
      If it passes, then a married couple that films a sex tape and posts it on a pay-per-view tube site can be personally sued by any California resident for a share of the profits unless they can prove that they used condoms while having sex. It also provides a way for civilians to discover the real names and residences of adult film actors. The law also specially names the author of the law (Michael Weinstein) and requires the state to pay for his legal bills in "enforcing" the law. The reason this is even an issue is that Michael Weinstein (whom I liken to "Jenny McCarthy meets Martin Shkreli"[0]) was pissed that OSHA didn't rule his way in his lawsuit against porn studio Treasure Island Media[1][2], so he took this statewide as an act of vengeance. [0] Aside from being virulently anti-science, he's also behind Prop 61, which ostensibly reduces the price of HIV drugs, but in actuality includes a special carve-out for the HMO he runs, locking in guaranteed profit for himself. [1] OSHA basically said "okay, you didn't use condoms when filming, but that's only worth a $100 fine, just as if you didn't have a first-aid kit on-site". [2] If you're at work right now, you Google that name at your own risk
      - jcranmer 10y ago
        When I read your comment, my first reaction was "surely there's no way it can be that bad, this must just be partisan overreaction." After reading https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_in_Pornographic_Films_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_i..., I found out that, yes, this proposition really is that terrible.
      - sandworm101 10y ago
        It's been a while, but doesn't California have a bad on private laws? The listing of Michael Weinstein by name in the bill looks like a poisoned pill, something that everyone knows is unconstitutional but they are leaving it in so they can kill it later.
        mintplant 10y ago
        Or chimeracoder has made this up out of whole cloth and the law doesn't actually list him by name. I was surprised by this, too, so I dug up the full text. The only places I can find Weinstein's name are in the letterhead and the signature on the cover letter. Search for yourself: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0004%20%28Safer%20Sex%29_8.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0004%20%...
      - neoCrimeLabs 10y ago
        If I read and interpreted Prop 60 correctly too, it also looks like you can sue for any video re-posted regardless when it was originally released, and it becomes the responsibility of the defendant to prove the video was produced before Prop 60 came into effect (assuming it passes). In other words, someone pirates an old (pre-prop60) video, uploads it to a sharing site, someone can use it to sue the producers and the producers have to prove the video was produced and released before Prop-60 was enacted. Am I reading that right?
        jcranmer 10y ago
        There is a statute of limitations. It is 1 year from the date of the violation, or 1 year from the date the violation is discovered, or through the use of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. I don't know enough about CA law to interpret what the second rule means--it sounds like it should mean at most a year from the date the video is posted, but the wording makes it imply that there's effectively no statue of limitations. It truly is horrible if you read the actual text.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    Agreed, and the same thing goes for Prop 61, which was also written by the same man who wrote Prop 60. At first glance, it's presented as a way to reduce the price of HIV drugs. In reality, it's a way for Michael Weinstein to pad his pockets, at the expense of the VA. (He wrote the bill and included a special provision that guarantees his HMO a special exemption from the price cap). Michael Weinstein, you may remember, is the same man who committed $20 million in Medicaid fraud in LA county a few years ago. He then claimed that the federal case against him had no legal standing because the federal government cannot prosecute for fraud against state-level agencies (Medicaid). Fortunately, the judge was not convinced by that reasoning.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    Oh yeah, just like Prop 1 in Olympia WA this year. Prop 1 is an initiative to "help educate the children of Olympia", using a little tax to help pay for college tuition. So noble! Except: it proposes a levy on households of $200K or more (not constitutional in Washington), is an income tax, also not constitutional in Washington, requires the city of Olympia to fund the administration with no enforcement clauses, and multiple groups have already announced that they intend to sue the City if it's passed (which it will, because it's a 'think of the kids' measure), and the City knows it won't win but could not get the measure struck off so is already budgeting for constitutional lawyers. Hell, the City doesn't have the authority to see these people's tax statements, so it'd rely entirely on self-reporting. It's just a mess. So you look a bit closer, and who is pushing this bill? A bunch of locals concerned about local education. No. A bunch of multi-millionaires from Seattle who want to use this as a proving ground for their challenges to state taxation law. Of the top ten donors, not one has ever lived in the County, let alone the City, nor does any of them have any children who attended school in either. (Olympia, like most state capitals, is far smaller than the largest city in the state), which makes you wonder why they're not pushing this in Seattle/King County - probably because they don't want their own taxes going to fund the defense of a proposition that's very specifically unconstitutional. "Think of the kids" at its worst.
    - jedmeyers 10y ago
      Then why doesn't the City lose on purpose the defending lawsuit since they have no horse in this race?
      - FireBeyond 10y ago
        Because then the proponents of the measure finance lawsuits / campaigns against the City, saying that it is legally obligated to do its utmost to implement measures that have been passed. More money down the toilet.
        sokoloff 10y ago
        When every key element related to the ballot initiative is unconstitutional there, their "utmost" could very well be nothing, right?
howeyc 10y ago
That's true. And unfortunately the act itself usually gets tied to other issues every time it's discussed. Human trafficking for example. I wish people were more willing to separate the act of "consenting adults doing a financial transaction" from all the surrounding "badness" but that rarely happens.
- jessedhillon 10y ago
  You can't advocate for radical liberties without having a serious discussion about the externalities created thereby, and who's going to pay for them. Handwaving human trafficking as something inconsequential "that rarely happens" is the beginning to a position centered on "muh freedoms," than on personal responsibility.
  - fwn 10y ago
    Having sex with whoever you decide. > radical liberties
  - howeyc 10y ago
    How is making something that is happening between consenting adults legal causing externalities that don't already exist by it being illegal? Also, I wasn't insinuating that human trafficking is inconsequential, or that it's even rare, I don't know if it is or isn't. I was merely stating that it is a separate act/crime. Not all prostitutes are created as a result of human trafficking. I'm all for stopping sex that is not consensual. Also, I see "muh freedoms" and personal responsibility as intertwined ideas, I'm not sure I see why you think they are opposed. If I'm free to fuck whoever I want, and another is also free to do the same (regardless of whether or not there is a financial transaction at the same time), then we are responsible for our own sex lives, yes? The state is not involved (I get "muh freedoms").
    - jessedhillon 10y ago
      > or that it's even rare If we can't even agree that the phrase "[something] rarely happens" means to say that something is rare, then I don't think there's any hope for further debate.
chillingeffect 10y ago
Our culture has simply deemed us incapable of consent.
sandworm101 10y ago
Saying that prostitution should be legal is like saying that drugs should be legal. Lots of people applaud because they only understand the issue in terms of their perspective. It's one thing to say that pot should be legal, but ask a doctor about the thousand other drugs you don't know about. There are some scary things out there. The same is true of prostitution. There is a safe way of doing it, but there are some big areas that the general public doesn't think much about. That;s why those countries that do allow it, including a tiny part of the US, heavily regulate the trade. As with drugs, the end result of legalization shouldn't be the ability to pay anyone for anything. Something to think about: Should prostitution be legalized, should people be able to settle debts with their bodies? Instead of paying rent, could a college girl just have sex with her landlord? Doesn't that create perverse intensives? The answer in many countries is to mandate brothels so that the girl is paid in money, not in relief of a debt held by the person having sex with her. That way you cannot suggest, or insist via contract, that anyone who owes you money might settle the debt via sex.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  > Should prostitution be legalized, should people be able to settle debts with their bodies? It would be indentured servitude if a court ordered it be done to satisfy a debt, which I believe is illegal. Otherwise, it seems like it would be no worse than a glassworker being allowed to pay off his debts by making you a window. We do have reasonable bankruptcy laws and other tools for handling debt-related disputes.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    So we are OK with creditors asking for payment in sex? I think that ignores many realities. Those deemed sexually attractive, mostly young women, will be the target of any number of scams meant to force them into a financial corner so that they work off their debts. That may happen often today, but we use words like blackmail or rape to describe it. Nobody should want to legalize the practice by saying it a perfectly acceptable way for a young women to satisfy a creditor.
  - tveita 10y ago
SippinLean 10y ago
The fact that we regulate markets that create a demand for human trafficking, however, is not.
- snewk 10y ago
  as with drugs, the illegality ends up driving more crime (in many cases violent crime) than straight legalization. would human trafficking be so prevalent if it were easy to sell your own body?
  - SippinLean 10y ago
    Not in Amsterdam, where straight legalization has led to a great increase in trafficking; so much so that they are reeling in the red light district.
  - bmj 10y ago
    You seem to be approaching this as if every human that has been trafficked is doing so willingly. Are you suggesting that people should be empowered by the law to take young people and rent them out to people as sex toys? And that such a move would actually decrease the number of, say, young girls are forced into prostitution against their wills? Or, put another way, do you really believe that human trafficking exists because child prostitution is illegal?
    - dave_sullivan 10y ago
      > Are you suggesting that people should be empowered by the law to take young people and rent them out to people as sex toys? More like individuals should be empowered by the law to charge money in exchange for sex. That's the thesis, the whole thing. "Party X paid Party Y for sex" becomes not a crime. > do you really believe that human trafficking exists because child prostitution is illegal? And that such a move would actually decrease the number of, say, young girls are forced into prostitution against their wills? It doesn't matter, it's unrelated to the central thesis. It's possible to agree people should be free to charge for or pay for sex, while also condemning human trafficking and other forceful restrictions of personal agency more generally.
PopsiclePete 10y ago
Considering people trafficking and sex slavery are things, you can't ever be sure that the adults on those videos are consenting. Especially the women.
CptJamesCook 10y ago
Do you think heroin should be legal?
- DanBC 10y ago
  Lots of people think heroin should be legal. I'm one of them. Keeping heroin illegal creates a lot of the harms associated with it - contaminated product; unsafe injecting; acquisitive crime and prostitution. Plenty of harmful stuff is legal. The solution isn't to make it illegal, but to do better at educating people about harm reduction.

The fact that consenting adults aren't free to do whatever they please with their bodies is utterly bizarre.

fluxsauce 10y ago

Well, if you live in California, Proposition 60 is an important issue this election.

windlep 10y ago
Indeed, and that proposition is not at all what it appears to be at first glance. Voters in California should definitely do some due diligence researching that before voting or they're going to be in for a nasty shock at the outcome.
- Zhenya 10y ago
  Can you please elaborate and state the possible outcomes for YES and NO?
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    If it passes, then a married couple that films a sex tape and posts it on a pay-per-view tube site can be personally sued by any California resident for a share of the profits unless they can prove that they used condoms while having sex. It also provides a way for civilians to discover the real names and residences of adult film actors. The law also specially names the author of the law (Michael Weinstein) and requires the state to pay for his legal bills in "enforcing" the law. The reason this is even an issue is that Michael Weinstein (whom I liken to "Jenny McCarthy meets Martin Shkreli"[0]) was pissed that OSHA didn't rule his way in his lawsuit against porn studio Treasure Island Media[1][2], so he took this statewide as an act of vengeance. [0] Aside from being virulently anti-science, he's also behind Prop 61, which ostensibly reduces the price of HIV drugs, but in actuality includes a special carve-out for the HMO he runs, locking in guaranteed profit for himself. [1] OSHA basically said "okay, you didn't use condoms when filming, but that's only worth a $100 fine, just as if you didn't have a first-aid kit on-site". [2] If you're at work right now, you Google that name at your own risk
    - jcranmer 10y ago
      When I read your comment, my first reaction was "surely there's no way it can be that bad, this must just be partisan overreaction." After reading https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_in_Pornographic_Films_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_i..., I found out that, yes, this proposition really is that terrible.
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      It's been a while, but doesn't California have a bad on private laws? The listing of Michael Weinstein by name in the bill looks like a poisoned pill, something that everyone knows is unconstitutional but they are leaving it in so they can kill it later.
      - mintplant 10y ago
        Or chimeracoder has made this up out of whole cloth and the law doesn't actually list him by name. I was surprised by this, too, so I dug up the full text. The only places I can find Weinstein's name are in the letterhead and the signature on the cover letter. Search for yourself: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0004%20%28Safer%20Sex%29_8.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0004%20%...
    - neoCrimeLabs 10y ago
      If I read and interpreted Prop 60 correctly too, it also looks like you can sue for any video re-posted regardless when it was originally released, and it becomes the responsibility of the defendant to prove the video was produced before Prop 60 came into effect (assuming it passes). In other words, someone pirates an old (pre-prop60) video, uploads it to a sharing site, someone can use it to sue the producers and the producers have to prove the video was produced and released before Prop-60 was enacted. Am I reading that right?
      - jcranmer 10y ago
        There is a statute of limitations. It is 1 year from the date of the violation, or 1 year from the date the violation is discovered, or through the use of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. I don't know enough about CA law to interpret what the second rule means--it sounds like it should mean at most a year from the date the video is posted, but the wording makes it imply that there's effectively no statue of limitations. It truly is horrible if you read the actual text.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  Agreed, and the same thing goes for Prop 61, which was also written by the same man who wrote Prop 60. At first glance, it's presented as a way to reduce the price of HIV drugs. In reality, it's a way for Michael Weinstein to pad his pockets, at the expense of the VA. (He wrote the bill and included a special provision that guarantees his HMO a special exemption from the price cap). Michael Weinstein, you may remember, is the same man who committed $20 million in Medicaid fraud in LA county a few years ago. He then claimed that the federal case against him had no legal standing because the federal government cannot prosecute for fraud against state-level agencies (Medicaid). Fortunately, the judge was not convinced by that reasoning.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Oh yeah, just like Prop 1 in Olympia WA this year. Prop 1 is an initiative to "help educate the children of Olympia", using a little tax to help pay for college tuition. So noble! Except: it proposes a levy on households of $200K or more (not constitutional in Washington), is an income tax, also not constitutional in Washington, requires the city of Olympia to fund the administration with no enforcement clauses, and multiple groups have already announced that they intend to sue the City if it's passed (which it will, because it's a 'think of the kids' measure), and the City knows it won't win but could not get the measure struck off so is already budgeting for constitutional lawyers. Hell, the City doesn't have the authority to see these people's tax statements, so it'd rely entirely on self-reporting. It's just a mess. So you look a bit closer, and who is pushing this bill? A bunch of locals concerned about local education. No. A bunch of multi-millionaires from Seattle who want to use this as a proving ground for their challenges to state taxation law. Of the top ten donors, not one has ever lived in the County, let alone the City, nor does any of them have any children who attended school in either. (Olympia, like most state capitals, is far smaller than the largest city in the state), which makes you wonder why they're not pushing this in Seattle/King County - probably because they don't want their own taxes going to fund the defense of a proposition that's very specifically unconstitutional. "Think of the kids" at its worst.
  - jedmeyers 10y ago
    Then why doesn't the City lose on purpose the defending lawsuit since they have no horse in this race?
    - FireBeyond 10y ago
      Because then the proponents of the measure finance lawsuits / campaigns against the City, saying that it is legally obligated to do its utmost to implement measures that have been passed. More money down the toilet.
      - sokoloff 10y ago
        When every key element related to the ballot initiative is unconstitutional there, their "utmost" could very well be nothing, right?

howeyc 10y ago

That's true. And unfortunately the act itself usually gets tied to other issues every time it's discussed. Human trafficking for example. I wish people were more willing to separate the act of "consenting adults doing a financial transaction" from all the surrounding "badness" but that rarely happens.

jessedhillon 10y ago
You can't advocate for radical liberties without having a serious discussion about the externalities created thereby, and who's going to pay for them. Handwaving human trafficking as something inconsequential "that rarely happens" is the beginning to a position centered on "muh freedoms," than on personal responsibility.
- fwn 10y ago
  Having sex with whoever you decide. > radical liberties
- howeyc 10y ago
  How is making something that is happening between consenting adults legal causing externalities that don't already exist by it being illegal? Also, I wasn't insinuating that human trafficking is inconsequential, or that it's even rare, I don't know if it is or isn't. I was merely stating that it is a separate act/crime. Not all prostitutes are created as a result of human trafficking. I'm all for stopping sex that is not consensual. Also, I see "muh freedoms" and personal responsibility as intertwined ideas, I'm not sure I see why you think they are opposed. If I'm free to fuck whoever I want, and another is also free to do the same (regardless of whether or not there is a financial transaction at the same time), then we are responsible for our own sex lives, yes? The state is not involved (I get "muh freedoms").
  - jessedhillon 10y ago
    > or that it's even rare If we can't even agree that the phrase "[something] rarely happens" means to say that something is rare, then I don't think there's any hope for further debate.

chillingeffect 10y ago

Our culture has simply deemed us incapable of consent.

sandworm101 10y ago

Saying that prostitution should be legal is like saying that drugs should be legal. Lots of people applaud because they only understand the issue in terms of their perspective. It's one thing to say that pot should be legal, but ask a doctor about the thousand other drugs you don't know about. There are some scary things out there. The same is true of prostitution. There is a safe way of doing it, but there are some big areas that the general public doesn't think much about. That;s why those countries that do allow it, including a tiny part of the US, heavily regulate the trade. As with drugs, the end result of legalization shouldn't be the ability to pay anyone for anything. Something to think about: Should prostitution be legalized, should people be able to settle debts with their bodies? Instead of paying rent, could a college girl just have sex with her landlord? Doesn't that create perverse intensives? The answer in many countries is to mandate brothels so that the girl is paid in money, not in relief of a debt held by the person having sex with her. That way you cannot suggest, or insist via contract, that anyone who owes you money might settle the debt via sex.

MichaelBurge 10y ago
> Should prostitution be legalized, should people be able to settle debts with their bodies? It would be indentured servitude if a court ordered it be done to satisfy a debt, which I believe is illegal. Otherwise, it seems like it would be no worse than a glassworker being allowed to pay off his debts by making you a window. We do have reasonable bankruptcy laws and other tools for handling debt-related disputes.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  So we are OK with creditors asking for payment in sex? I think that ignores many realities. Those deemed sexually attractive, mostly young women, will be the target of any number of scams meant to force them into a financial corner so that they work off their debts. That may happen often today, but we use words like blackmail or rape to describe it. Nobody should want to legalize the practice by saying it a perfectly acceptable way for a young women to satisfy a creditor.
- tveita 10y ago

SippinLean 10y ago

The fact that we regulate markets that create a demand for human trafficking, however, is not.

snewk 10y ago
as with drugs, the illegality ends up driving more crime (in many cases violent crime) than straight legalization. would human trafficking be so prevalent if it were easy to sell your own body?
- SippinLean 10y ago
  Not in Amsterdam, where straight legalization has led to a great increase in trafficking; so much so that they are reeling in the red light district.
- bmj 10y ago
  You seem to be approaching this as if every human that has been trafficked is doing so willingly. Are you suggesting that people should be empowered by the law to take young people and rent them out to people as sex toys? And that such a move would actually decrease the number of, say, young girls are forced into prostitution against their wills? Or, put another way, do you really believe that human trafficking exists because child prostitution is illegal?
  - dave_sullivan 10y ago
    > Are you suggesting that people should be empowered by the law to take young people and rent them out to people as sex toys? More like individuals should be empowered by the law to charge money in exchange for sex. That's the thesis, the whole thing. "Party X paid Party Y for sex" becomes not a crime. > do you really believe that human trafficking exists because child prostitution is illegal? And that such a move would actually decrease the number of, say, young girls are forced into prostitution against their wills? It doesn't matter, it's unrelated to the central thesis. It's possible to agree people should be free to charge for or pay for sex, while also condemning human trafficking and other forceful restrictions of personal agency more generally.

PopsiclePete 10y ago

Considering people trafficking and sex slavery are things, you can't ever be sure that the adults on those videos are consenting. Especially the women.

CptJamesCook 10y ago

Do you think heroin should be legal?

DanBC 10y ago
Lots of people think heroin should be legal. I'm one of them. Keeping heroin illegal creates a lot of the harms associated with it - contaminated product; unsafe injecting; acquisitive crime and prostitution. Plenty of harmful stuff is legal. The solution isn't to make it illegal, but to do better at educating people about harm reduction.