Free Speech

Conviction for Praising Prostitutes (as "Promoting Prostitution") Upheld

Not sure that paying for sex makes you an "extraordinary gentleman," even if you do try to "give something back" by providing expert consumer reviews.


From State v. Peters, decided Monday by the Washington Court of Appeals (opinion by Judge Stephen J. Dwyer, joined by Judge Linda W.Y. Coburn and Chief Judge David S. Mann):

Charles Peters … was a frequent sex buyer—he engaged sex workers once or twice a week while trying to "limit" his spending on these episodes to $2,400 per month.

Peters located information concerning which sex workers were available for hire and which services they offered on a review website called "The Review Board." Because he wanted to "give something back," Peters also wrote and posted reviews about his own experiences with various sex workers. Peters' reviews included detailed and graphic narratives describing his encounters with the particular sex worker he was reviewing, as well as booking information and an Internet hyperlink to that sex worker's online advertisement.

Peters was also a founding member of another, smaller group of enthusiasts called "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen." This group focused its collective attention specifically on Korean sex workers in the greater Seattle area. The League began as an e-mail chain but eventually grew into a private discussion board website. Peters served as a moderator to the online discussion board and was able to invite new members into the group. The members of the League also held occasional, informal, in-person meetings, which were often organized by Peters.

Peters regularly helped to connect various actors within the sex trade to one another. Peters introduced independent sex workers who wanted to work with agencies or bookers to pertinent agency representatives or bookers. He recommended specific sex workers and explained the screening process to would-be customers. He made appointments for other customers and "vouched" for new customers to help them pass through screening processes.

Peters was also one of several creators of an advertising website for Korean sex workers in the greater Seattle area, Peters paid the website hosting fee for and also purchased the .net and .org versions of the same domain name. Agency owners and independent sex workers sent Peters advertisements, which he posted on the website.

In the spring of 2015, the King County Sheriff's Office and the Bellevue Police Department began a joint investigation into the Internet sex trade in the greater Seattle-Bellevue area. Detective Luke Hillman, working undercover as "LucasK1973," created an account on The Review Board and noticed that Peters, under the name "Peter Rabbit," was a frequent poster and appeared to be "kind of a leader." Eventually, Peters invited Detective Hillman to join the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. This proved unwise.

Peters was ultimately charged with nine counts of promoting prostitution in the second degree….

Peters was convicted, and challenged the conviction on various grounds, including the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals was not persuaded:

Speech that is intended to "incit[e] or produc[e] imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" is not protected by the First Amendment. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Our Supreme Court has determined that "the only kind of speech punished" by the prohibition of advancing prostitution, as defined by RCW 9A.88.060, is "[s]peech directed toward the persuasion of another to enter into an illegal arrangement." Because such speech is intended to incite imminent lawless action (i.e., engaging in prostitution) and is likely to do so, it is not protected by the First Amendment.

Peters … [argues that] the speech for which he was prosecuted was not an offer to enter into an illegal arrangement but, rather, "the fact that he wrote detailed positive reviews describing his experiences with prostitutes, and referred others to sex workers upon his recommendation." In support, Peters cites to Hess v. Indiana (1973). In Hess, the Supreme Court determined that a remark by an anti-war protestor could not be punished as disorderly conduct because, as the protestor's words were not directed to anyone in particular, there was no evidence that the protestor's words were intended and likely to produce "imminent disorder." That holding does not aid Peters. Here, by contrast to Hess, Peters' speech—detailed reviews meant to serve as advertisements and referrals to specific sex workers—was intended to and was likely to produce imminent violation of prostitution laws.

Because Peters' speech was both intended to produce and likely to produce unlawful activity, prosecution based on this speech does not violate the First Amendment.

I think this analysis is likely mistaken, because from the facts it appears that he wasn't encourage imminent unlawful activity, which is generally understood as calling for action within hours or at most days; rather, his speech was "advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time," which is precisely what Hess says doesn't qualify as incitement.

But it might well be specific enough (because it identifies particular prostitutes) to constitute solicitation of crime, a separate exception recognized by the Court in U.S. v. Williams (2008). Though the boundaries of that exception are unclear, it might well cover such speech; for more, see pp. 993-97 of my The "Speech Integral to Criminal Conduct" Exception article. Encouraging someone to kill a particular person or bomb a particular building may well be solicitation, even if the plan is to do it some time later; likewise for encouraging someone to patronize a particular prostitute. I think that prostitution ought to be legalized, but so long as it's illegal, speech soliciting such transactions can likely be made illegal as well.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: February 24, 1930

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He connected people. Those are acts, using speech.

    1. You like Yiddish tongue twisters? Try saying “Svelte shiksas slobber Shlomo’s shlong” six times.

      1. Pavel would love that. He should go comb his payos.

        1. Hey, don’t be so picky

  2. I don’t really get this crusade against two consenting adults doing what they want with their bodies in an age where SSM and kids mutilating themselves with sex change drugs is supposed to be fine and dandy.

    1. Control freaks want to control. Government provides a handy way to do that. Even simple busybodies, who might otherwise not be rabid control freaks, find the temptation hard to avoid, and so sic government on people who annoy them, with a shrug of their shoulders and “well he shouldn’t have been doing something illegal” as if that absolves them of any role in the matter.

      1. You don’t have to explain this to Amos, he’s quite familiar with the sort of people who might object to, say, people married another person of the same sex or obtaining competent medical treatment for transgenderism even though neither one involves him and is therefore none of his damn business.

        1. “obtaining competent medical treatment for transgenderism”

          competent medical treatment would be therapy to treat and cure them of the delusion they suffer.

          Instead they get powerful drugs and castration.

          1. Actual competent medical practitioners disagree.

            1. I’ve seen too many gangrenous neo-vaginas on to believe you are serious.

              1. Not to kink-shame you, but fuck off.

                1. You will never be a woman. Your parents will use your birth name when they bury you.

                  1. Back to your weird porn, dude.

              2. But it is easier to dig a hole than build a pole.

                1. Depends on what you start with, and what you’re trying to do.

            2. Witch Doctors are considered “competent medical practitioners” in some cultures — and do not forget the fate of Sodom & Gomorrah…

              1. Oh, so we’re now invoking works of fiction.

                1. Not fiction — the ruins of Sodom & Gomorrah have been found in southern Jordan — and it is clear that they were destroyed by sudden intense heat, speculation is the airburst of an asteroid.


                  1. My undergraduate degree is in biology rather than physics or astronomy, but I strongly suspect that the airburst of an asteroid would have destroyed a whole lot more than two cities.

                    1. It would depend on the size of the asteroid, I’d think.

                      Ed’s link doesn’t say anything about an asteroid. Searching for ‘sodom asteroid’ finds speculation about an asteroid in Jordan in 1700BC (that was in Newsweek from 2018) and another site called universetoday dot com that reads “A Cuneiform clay tablet that has puzzled researchers for over 150 years is now believed to describe an asteroid impact in 3123 BC in Austria. Researchers believe the tablet, which seemingly describes a cataclysmic event, may account for the biblical tale of Sodom and Gomorrah.”

                      So 1700BC, 3123 BC, Jordan, Austria…I think my interest level will remain quite low until something more definitive turns up :-).

                    2. Even if you find two cities that were destroyed by an asteroid, how would you show that they were the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, or that God had anything to do with it? Stuff happens; a comet did in fact wipe out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

                    3. “Even if you find two cities that were destroyed by an asteroid, how would you show that they were the biblical cities”

                      Perhaps find some woman size and shape salt inclusions in the relatively recent overlying strata. Look for this on the outskirts of town.

                      The guy who discovered the site:
                      ‘Collins is a professor at Trinity Southwest which is an institution that states that biblical scripture is the “divinely inspired representation of reality given by God to humankind, speaking with absolute authority in all matters upon which it touches”‘

                      Don’t you think that Mr Ed is just so cool defaming the work of modern medical practitioners by not so subtly calling them witch doctors while embracing obvious historical quackery? Yes, there are indeed infinitely many things that Mr Ed is foolish about.

                    4. As I understand it, there was an intense blast of heat sufficient to turn mud into glass — heat in the range of a nuke.

                      As to knowing it is Sodom, it’s like knowing Troy is Troy — you find things laid out the way that historians (including Biblical ones) say they were laid out. If future archeologists find stuff laid out the way our records say that Washington DC is, then they can conclude that they have found Washington, DC….

                      Do not forget that Troy was long considered to be a mythical city until someone found it.

                    5. And Stella, slicing & dicing healthy tissue is considered a violation of the Hippocratic Oath…

                      No surgeon would remove my left arm because I wanted it gone…

                    6. ” slicing & dicing healthy tissue is considered a violation of the Hippocratic Oath…”

                      If you are an American male of a certain age, I suggest you look down. I am told that the practice was pretty much “universal” in the US back in the day. Never was any valid justification for it, and it was almost always done by a licensed medical professional.

                    7. ” slicing & dicing healthy tissue is considered a violation of the Hippocratic Oath…”

                      As long as we’re talking about slicing and dicing healthy tissue, who do you think performed Trump’s scalp reduction surgery? Or the surgeries on his wife and daughter (both, not the same person).

                    8. “Even if you find two cities that were destroyed by an asteroid, how would you show that they were the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah”

                      Check Google Maps?

                    9. ” I strongly suspect that the airburst of an asteroid would have destroyed a whole lot more than two cities.”

                      Compare to Tunguska.

                  2. Unless it was in the middle of a Gay Pride Parade, your implied thesis remains unproven.

                  3. Call me when they find a pillar of salt shaped like a disobedient wife.

                    1. Punished for looking back, Lot’s wife may fall forward

                      There is in fact a vaguely human shaped pillar of salt near where Sodom and Gomorrah are believed to have been.

                      And before you latch on to the “vaguely”, it’s been subjected to at a minimum several thousand years of weathering.

                    2. *psst*

                      You used the anchor tag, but forget to put in the HTML reference.

                    3. Also, does it look like a disobedient wife? Not just a wife, but a disobedient one. That she was disobedient and deserved to be murdered by God for looking behind her is a very important part of the tale. Can’t let women thinking they’re allowed to look over their shoulders at loud noises or something. They might know to dodge.

                  4. “Not fiction — the ruins of Sodom & Gomorrah have been found in southern Jordan”

                    Which supports your claim about as well as the fact that the ruins of Macchu Picchu were found proves that they were right about the world ending in 2012.

              2. That’s impressive, repudiating and invoking superstition in one sentence, that’s a bona fide acheivement right there.

              3. When you comment on the subject of the medical management of gender dysphoria, do you do so on the basis of any relevant knowledge, let alone expertise? If you do, please identify the source(s) of the knowledge or expertise you claim. Or for you does it all come down to the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which you say is borne out by solid archaeologic evidence, but which you surely realize is a very different sort of “evidence” from that reported and discussed in peer-reviewed medical and scientific journals. (Do the “witch doctors” you speak of publish their knowledge of these conditions in medical and scientific journals?)

            3. “Actual competent medical practitioners disagree.”

              Bullied into submission.

              Not their reproduction being destroyed.

            4. And other actual competent medical practitioners disagree with those actual supposedly competent medical practitioners.

              1. “I agree with THESE guys, so THEY’RE the competent ones.”
                Good luck with that.

      2. Progressive libertarians who want equity in society are not “control freaks”.

        1. And you aren’t invisible, Harvey the Rabbit, although some of your trolling is so rushed that it may as well be.

    2. It is another example of the patriarchy utilizing capitalism to exploit women’s bodies. I don’t object to women living a sexually liberated lifestyle but if money is exchanged, I pause and ask if the encounter really is consensual. Thankfully, feminist countries like Sweden have legalized the act of selling sex but not buying sex so the women are always not guilty while the men can be charged with a crime for being incels who think they have the right to purchase a woman’s body for pleasure.

      1. Yet what is buying sex? In one sense, you’re saying that women shouldn’t be paid for sex, they should go the traditional route and accept a nice dinner, a show, and some jewelry instead. Same basic result but no cash involved.

        1. I’m not saying it. The Swedish government is saying that women who receive money for sex cannot be prosecuted but men who attempt to purchase sex will be prosecuted. Consenting adults but only one party is doing something illegal because of feminism’s influence on government policy. Thankfully, Sweden will likely be under Shariah in the next 50 years.

          1. And would the good Rabbi object to a similar policy towards illegal drugs — i.e. we don’t prosecute those selling them, only those purchasing them?

            Hasn’t our policy for the past 50 years been the exact opposite?

            1. If Biden creates the Department of Social Justice, that just might happen. We’ve all learned that rioting and looting are acceptable actions if done under a BLM flag while defending yourself or your property is an exercise in white supremacy. Spike Lee’s movie ‘Do the right thing’ shows that we should value Black lives more than some racist wop’s pizza parlor.

              1. As a rule of thumb, yes, you should value lives over property.

                It takes a particular mindset to find that controversial.

                1. But what if it’s YOUR life vs. MY property, Commie?

        2. “Same basic result but no cash involved.”

          Does the average woman have “a nice dinner, a show, and some jewelry” with 15 or more men a week?

          1. I’m not sure that’s relevant. The semi-retired attorney with only one client is just as much an attorney as the biglaw associate who works 60 hour weeks.

            If you’re taking something of value for sex, you’re a prostitute.

            1. He said one sex partner after a date was the same as being a prostitute.

              “a nice dinner, a show, and some jewelry” does not always lead to sex either. Lots of people are virgins at marriage or at least at the “committed” stage.

              1. I’m not really saying it’s the same as being a prostitute, just that moralistic statements about the horror of sex for money ignore something similar that’s quite common in society.

            2. AND the big-law attorney working 60 hour weeks on just one client’s one case is every bit as much an attorney as the real estate attorney doing 15-20 closings a week, or the public defender juggling heaven only knows how many clients.

              A woman sleeping with just one man for financial consideration is every bit as much a prostitute as one sleeping with fifty for financial consideration.

              1. And those things YOU do for all those men is not any different.

          2. Bob, have you been on a college campus recently?

            I don’t know about 15 a week, but there absolutely are women selling their bodies for non-cash benefits from numerous men (concurrently), not to mention those with “sugar daddies.”

            Conversely, there was the Marcus Camby incident where the agent agreed to waive back rent from one of his tenants if she agreed to go up to UMass and sleep with Camby. Was that prostitution?

        3. It is a dispute over price. Good looking, young woman marries ugly old billionaire, gets the estate.

          The Equity Theory has the certainty of the laws of physics. It matches members of a couple on value, which can be quantified.

      2. Why to you think that johns are all incels?

        1. Johns are smart. Anyone getting seriously involved with an American woman is a suicidal fool. They are overly entitled. The entire lawyer profession is feminist, and in pursuit of the productive, to plunder their assets. They are out to destroy the American patriarchal family, to replace it with big government.

          If I were dating, I would put a filter on my dating preferences, “Must be a Recent Immigrant.” English optional. The sign language of a fat wallet will be enough.

          1. By this argument, gay men are smarter then straight men. All the known long-term benefits of settling down, way more sex, and don’t have to get “seriously involved with an American woman”.

            It’s not an argument I would make personally, but I won’t complain about you making it.

          2. ” The sign language of a fat wallet will be enough.”

            So you’ll be fine if she accepts coupons?

      3. So men are incels for agreeing to a women’s terms to exchange sex for money, but you are enlightened for demanding all women only give sex to men for free or allow the police to turn the women’s body into a crime scene under the swedish model, then go running to daddy government to arrest adults who don’t agree with you?

        How advanced and feminist of you.

    3. I don’t see the distinction between him *discussing* what consenting adults are doing and *discussing* what other consenting adults are doing, i. e. slicing & dicing their sexual organs.

      It’s like writing a book on how to commit suicide, I believe that’s legal while *assisting* or even *encouraging* a suicide is not (in most states). It’s legal for a Chemistry professor to ask his grad students to describe *how* to make a controlled substance as an exam question while it would be highly illegal for him to encourage them to actually do it.

      And there have been numerous jokes (and at least one movie) about assassinating a President, along with a quite successful movie (Independence Day) depicting the total destruction of the US Capitol — all protected speech while it would be a serious criminal offense to advocate actually doing any of this….

      1. OR medical advice to IV drug users constituting “advocacy” of illegal drug use…

    4. Absolutely. Even if this is assumed to be constitutional (and I have serious doubts which I will put in another comment), it’s still an enormous waste of governmental resources.

    5. It’s complicated.

      Do you see anything wrong with a person who isn’t a medically trained doctor calling themselves something like a doctor, and performing surgery on people for money, while giving them prescription drugs.

      Why or why not?

      1. This is tangential to AmosArch’s idiotic point, but I’ll bite.

        I think there should be room in America for people who are not licensed doctors to present themselves as purveyors of “alternative medicine” and what-not.

        To the degree that this would include “surgery”, I think that (A) sufficient informed consent, (B) insurance providers not covering it, and (C) being open to civil lawsuits, would keep abuses to regrettable but acceptable levels.

        As far as prescription drugs go, I’m very libertarian on that one and think the only purpose of a doctor’s prescription should be to get your insurance provider to cover it. But if you, on your own cognizance, think that drug A is going to make you better, and you want to buy it for yourself? I’d have no problem with that.

        All that said, that I think America should permit such a quack does not mean I think there is nothing “wrong” with such a quack. Peddlers of snake-oil are odious, even when we let them in the gates. But I do not think they are sufficiently “wrong” that they cannot be allowed to exist, even if I would prefer that people were smart enough that there was no market for them.

        1. And what do you think of people who are not members of a state (or DC) bar practicing law?

          1. Unconcerned.

            If a professional association is worthwhile, then it will survive without government meddling. If it can only survive with government meddling, then it shouldn’t survive.

            1. Well,
              you’ve proved yourself a fool if you actually think that a medical license is worthless

              1. And you’ve proven a lack of reading comprehension if you think that’s what I was saying.

        2. (A) sufficient informed consent, (B) insurance providers not covering it, and (C) being open to civil lawsuits, would keep abuses to regrettable but acceptable levels.

          And what exactly is a “regrettable but acceptable” level?

          1. As a rule of thumb, you would weigh that based on expected outcomes and risks.

            For example, it’s been known for years and years now that doctors perform many unnecessary knee surgeries that have no medical value. The doctors presumably sincerely believe that the surgeries are medically necessary, the patient presumably believes likewise. But we know that, for a great many people, both are simply wrong.

            However, the cost, in time, labor, dollars, recover time and so-on, is low enough, and the risk of serious long term harm is similarly low enough, that while these unnecessary surgeries are regrettable, they are still acceptable.

            Another example: the vitamin and homeopathic medicine shelf at any given pharmacy. For some people, specific vitamin supplements are worth it. They have some imbalance or disorder that means they dont’ produce/can’t absorb/whatever enough of something, and need more. For most people, it’s very expensive pee. For homeopathic medicine, it’s all very expensive pee.

            But the costs in health (few vitamins will cause harm is used incorrectly†) and dollars is low enough that the vitamin and supplement industry is, compared to true pharmeceuticals, lightly regulated.

            Or how about faith healers? For the most part if you want to go to a faith healer instead of a doctor, that’s your perogative. If you fall unconcious in a public place, however, you are giong to still wind up in an ER. And if you have a severely ill child, then you can be prosecuted for child abuse if you refeuse to take them to a doctor.

            This kind of calculation, risk vs cost vs expected outcome, is not new.

        3. “To the degree that this would include “surgery”, I think that (A) sufficient informed consent, (B) insurance providers not covering it, and (C) being open to civil lawsuits, would keep abuses to regrettable but acceptable levels.”

          Technically, tattooing is surgery, and so is ear-piercing. You don’t need a doctorate to do either one.

      2. Almost all medications should be over the counter. The exceptions are highly addictive ones, and others where the lethal dose is close to the therapeutic dose, like cancer chemotherapy. Most people should take a shot at treating themselves. See a doctor and start generating costs if that does not help. This will also motivate people to prevent problems, such stop smoking, lose weight, exercise more, eat fewer carbs. You see your blood glucose go up from what you ate, and cannot control it with your insulin, you get motivated to stop eating like that.

        People should be able to set most broken bones, suture most skin injuries, treat their bad acne, drop their elevated blood pressures, treat their asthma wheezing, their acid reflux to prevent a stomach or esophagus ulcer, treat your PTSD (best treatment is to avoid trauma). When you have to clean up your messes, you become more careful about spilling your drinks. When the butler does it, you don’t care. This avoids the ER, with its 4 hour waits, and its $1000/hour cost. The majority of patients are sent home with no treatment anyway or the advice to “See your Family Doctor.” You can do that yourself for less than $15000 cost.

        1. Just so we are all on the same page it needs to be noted that the vast majority of $US1500 Emergency Room bills are not paid; at least by the person getting treated there. The feds, and to some extent some states, pick up part of the tab but basically hospitals get stiffed for their bills; emergency room or not.

  3. This case easily has sufficient nexus to criminal conduct to pass First Amendment muster and is no more mere abstract advocacy than what Trump did.

    Peters did not simply advocatr prostitution in general. He promoted specific prostitutes and organized a group to facilitate assignations.

    First Amendment principles don’t depend on whether you like the underlying law or not. If a specific time and place has to be mentioned before solicitation to commit a crime can be legalized, then anyone can legally arrange a contract killing just by leaving it to the hitman decide when and where to do the deed.

    It’s a sufficient nexus that one promote an illegal act not in general but with a specific individual.

    And this is without even getting into 4th Circuit cases like Palladin Publishers (Hit Man book is sufficiently detailed to be promotion rather than mere advocacy of contract murder) or Lesbian and Gay Students’ Association c. Virginia Commonwealth University (While school cannot ban association or abstract advocacy of sodomy, “peer counseling” is sufficiently specific to constitute promotion of sodomy unprotected by First Amendment and school can prohibit association from engaging it.)

    1. “Peters did not simply advocatr prostitution in general. He promoted specific prostitutes and organized a group to facilitate assignations.”

      Meh. Grey area. Did Peters facilitate having sex with specific individuals, or facilitate the prostitution of those specific individuals? There isn’t enough detail to firmly establish this without seeing his actual reviews. On the other hand, his publishing of ads from the various agencies is fairly clear-cut.

  4. Pretty misleading headline, there’s a lot going on besides this guy posting reviews. But yeah, I don’t see how this qualifies as *imminent* in the slightest. Plus, for crying out loud, let consenting adults do what they want with each other.

    1. But if you let consenting adults do what they want with each other, you undermine the foundations of family structures that serve society. Or some bullshit like that. Or something something human trafficking.

      1. Don’t forget that prostitution is an exploitation of the means of reproduction by bourgeoisie men.

        1. Prostitution is an exploitation OF men.

          1. You’d better explain that claim to everyone, James.

            1. Who has the money BEFORE the prostitution and who has it AFTER the prostitution?
              Too complicated for you to work out on your own?

  5. Good thing the First Amendment protects adult entertainment films from prostitution laws. Prostitution and pornography are totally morally different from each other.

    1. The legal answer is that pornography is itself protected speech whereas prostitution is conduct; I agree it’s a BS distinction.

      1. If I purchase some time with an escort but record the “acts” on a cell phone, am I engaging in protected speech or prostitution? Do I have to have intention to distribute the video to be covered by First Amendment protection?

        1. I think the recording would be protected but the prostitution itself would not be. And the recording would be evidence of the crime of prostitution if it were to be discovered.

          But you’re right; people who make porn are being paid for sex so it really is a form of prostitution, and the only thing that distinguishes it from other forms of prostitution is the camera.

          I also think that there is a lot of conduct that, if examined closely, looks a lot like prostitution. A man takes a woman out for an expensive dinner and show, with the expectation that she’s going to sleep with him later. Is that prostitution? Legally probably not, but morally I don’t see much of a difference.

          1. If he buys her an alcoholic drink, the conduct is technically rape.

            1. Only if she’s underage.

            2. Only if she says yes.

        2. “If I purchase some time with an escort but record the “acts” on a cell phone, am I engaging in protected speech or prostitution?”

          You’re doing both, and making the mistake of assuming it can’t be both. Same result if you make a real-life snuff film.

    2. Porn is the depiction of prostitution. Is the recording of a crime protected speech? Probably, like a video of a robbery. The robbery is not protected speech. The payment for sex to be recorded is probably not either.

      Prostitution should be legalized, taxed, and regulated, of course.

      1. Porn, the depiction of prostitution, has policy value. It promotes the growth of new technologies, from cave paintings to the next virtual reality, holographic glasses and human like robots.

        Machines are all 100 times better than living beings, or they would not be made. Compare commuting to work in a car to on a horse, on a snow day. The exception is the medical record. It is still not as good as paper. That is probably on purpose, to slow down care, and to decrease payments for it.

        1. What exactly do you mean by “medical record?” A lot of healthcare is slow because it relies on slow or insecure technology. Faxing is still common, even when it’s not useful. A lot of healthcare professionals are not technically-minded, even younger ones, and I see that only getting worse as consumer tech gets easier and easier, requiring less know-how.

          1. I am in pain. My doc is fucking typing with 2 fingers, looking for keys, back spacing to redo his mistakes. I am going to throw his laptop out the window. I am not going to sue him. He does not have to document me, except that the lawyer is forcing him to, “Doc. Stop typing. Help me.”

            1. He’s typing things into the computer so that the nurses know what they’re supposed to do, and you get the right medication(s).

      2. So what do I say to avoid persecution? “Hey Baby, you wanna be a movie star in my motel room?” *wink wink*

        1. Take a pic. It makes it porn, not prostitution.

        2. “So what do I say to avoid persecution?”

          The answer is, of course, “let’s get married!”

      3. “Porn is the depiction of prostitution.”

        You need to broaden your consumption, if that’s the only porn you’re familiar with.

    3. But only the California Supreme Court and perhaps a few other states have actually held that. The US Supreme Court hasn’t.

      1. The US Supreme Court won’t have anything to say about it, because there is not much federal law regarding prostitution, which means there isn’t much reason for federal courts to opine on the subject. Prostitution is mostly a state-level offense.

    4. “Good thing the First Amendment protects adult entertainment films from prostitution laws. Prostitution and pornography are totally morally different from each other.”

      Not to mention drugs. You might think the court is going to now go after “High Time” Magazine, but it appears the Appeals Court believes “imminent threat” is not a matter of timing and location, but things related to sex. For too long we have used the same definition protected speech consistently. I like the idea of an entirely different standard for speech when it relates to sex.

      A major step froward. We are finally moving beyond courts willing to protect unpopular speech.

      Good to see they agree speech they think is wrong should be illegal.

    1. Your vehicle warranty is about to expire.
      Would you like to renew it? Press 1.

      1. Ten times a day, instead of five times a day, before the lawyer remedy.

    2. ” You refused to listen to the advice to add 10 cent tax to each call”

      Because that’s stupid advice.

      What we need is to declare that phone spamming is economic terrorism, and deploy Seal Teams to extract the people doing it from the foreign countries they operate in. This is the sole campaign promise my campaign for President in 2024 will use.

      1. They can drop the income tax by the amount collected if you are too cheap to pay 10 cents to avoid robocalls. You make 100 calls a month at 10 cents extra. They make 10 million calls a month. You do the math.

        1. Being repetititive about your bad idea doesn’t make it less off a bad idea.
          What enforcement mechanism are you going to attach to my phone to collect your spam tax? And how do you condition Republicans to prevent them from reflexively cutting the tax the next time they run Congress?

  6. Good conviction.

  7. ENB article choices reduced by half.

  8. Anyone remember the Jake Baker case? (United States v. Alkhabaz, 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997))

    He was writing snuff stories about murdering women, including one specifically-named woman who actually was a real student in one of his classes — and posting them on usenet. The judge threw out the prosecution on the grounds that there was no evidence that he actually intended to do any of this, no evidence that it was anything but a fantasy.

    How is this any different?

    1: Where is the proof (i.e. convictions) that those women actually *are* prostitutes?

    2: Where s the proof (i.e. convictions) that the the men actually were their clients?

    3: And then where is the proof that *he* was the person who connected them, and encouraged the prostitution?

    1. I’m gonna hazard a guess that the cop, on this guy’s recommendation, slept with many prostitutes in order to make sure they had a solid case. Have to be thorough, you know.

  9. I don’t buy this as either incitement or solicitation. This is personal narrative. Personal narrative about crimes is FULLY protected by the First Amendment under the Simon & Schuster v. New York Crime Victims Board case. Doesn’t matter if it encourages someone else to commit crimes. It’s still fully protected speech.

    I get it. Washington hates these bulletin boards. But what they can do, based on the boards, is charge people for actually having sex with prostitutes. Their posts, after all, contain confessions of what they did. I would still dislike that, because Washington has more important things to worry about than sex work. But it would be constitutional. This is not.

    1. The reason you get federal law enforcement involved is because they fight the sex-trafficking, among with the other stuff they have so much time to chase after.
      They’ll wipe out the sex trafficking right after they get all the kiddie porn off the Internet. Any day now.

  10. Would it also be illegal for a website publisher to publish specific products to boycott, after having signed an antiboycot agreement with the government?

  11. Putting aside the question of whether or not prostitution should be legalized…

    I’m wondering if the guy would have been fine with merely publishing “Yelp”-type reviews. Even if using the actual names/working-names of the prostitutes. This would seem to be squarely under First Amendment protection. Even if it included contact information, just as Yelp reviews can contain links to the restaurants’ (for example) websites, menus, etc., can and do include the phone, email, and physical addresses.

    [The website name for this should, obviously, be “Moan” rather than Yelp. Feel free to steal. (“Is the oral sex good? Well; she got 5 stars on Moan.”) ]

    1. I think this particular court is simply prudish and moralistic. They hate sex worker review sites, think they encourage prostitution, and therefore just decided to write them out of the First Amendment. There wasn’t going to be any form of site describing of sex with a sex worker that they were going to acknowledge was protected speech.

      I also think that if this goes to a higher court, or goes to a federal court on a habeas petition, this law and this sentence are not long for this world.

  12. Criminalizing Men’s restroom graffiti.

      1. For a good time call….

  13. I have no argument against the legal reasoning.

    But the cops involved, the prosecutor, and the judge? Are all knowingly supporting and enforcing unethical and unjust laws, and as such are unethical and unjust themselves.

    So this may be the right “legal” answer. But every person that helped secure this “win” is a miserable little shit-stain of a human being.

    1. You shouldn’t insult shit-stains like that.

  14. Under the trial court’s reasoning, a book collecting the personal narratives of Vietnam era draft resisters who went to Canada and whose lives turned out well could have been criminalized as “incitement” during the Vietnam War.

    The personal narratives of criminals simply cannot be treated as incitement. They don’t constitute incitement under the Brandenburg test, and they are protected anyway under Simon & Schuster. Son of Sam could publish his book even IF he intended other people become serial killers- it’s his personal narrative.

    1. The case you are looking for — yes, it’s a real case – is Rice v. Paladin Enterprises. And that case held that when a book combines exhortation to engage in an illegal activity wirh specific details on how to do it, it is not protected by the First Amendment.

      1. That’s not a personal narrative case.

    2. Under your reasoning, it would be very easy to order a contract hit. Mafia dons never order anyone to kill anyone. They merely state abstract opinions that things would be better off if someone wasn’t around. They merely reminesce about past ways that hits were conducted, or abstractly describe new ways.

      All mere abstract advocacy and personal narrative.

      The first Amendment doesn’t change depending on whether you like the underlying law or not. If the First Amendment protects Peters, it protects mafia dons regarding murders. If mafia dons can be prosecuted for soliciting or promoting murder, Peters can be prosecuted for using the same methods to solicit or promote prostitution.

      1. A contract hit is a verbal act. It’s not incitement. Totally different First Amendment exception.

  15. The guy was providing a public service. I think he should get an award not a conviction.

    1. did he say nice things about your mother?

  16. Personally, I think this was a great outcome. I’m all for the government outlawing immorality.

  17. “imminent lawless action”

    In some cases more imminent than others, am I right, ladies?

Please to post comments