Prostitution laws need to address online solicitation: chief

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

Ha! Gotta love that last quote!! Wow, I better go check my lawn, now...

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Yeah, the Sudbury police chief obviously thinks that he's living in the States. Thanks for your concern Chief Eisner, but prostitution is legal in Canada and always has been. You can blame that little nugget of reality, not supposedly outdated laws, for why you can't stop online advertising. No need to scratch your head over that particular area - it isn't grey.

[backrubman 64800]

He's been watching too much American TV.

 

Prostitution is not now and has never been illegal in Canada.

 

While I agree soliciting for the purpose in a "public place" is, several court cases has established a prescient that a web site is not a "public place" as it relates to this section of the Criminal Code. Emails, telephone calls and any other method of communication were there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" also do not apply. I have noted that many ladies misinterpret the law in this regard in that they state on their web site they won't discuss anything on the phone, but as they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" they are free to discuss anything on the phone they like.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Of course, there are reasons other than the communication law which may influence a provider's choice about what subjects they choose to discuss or not discuss with a stranger over the phone.

[fortunateone 156618]

Of course, there are reasons other than the communication law which may influence a provider's choice about what subjects they choose to discuss or not discuss with a stranger over the phone.

 

 

To a certain extent yes, but a vast majority seem to be convinced that it is illegal for them to do so, and they use the standard US clause of money spent is for time and companionship only deal. I can know established sps don't want to do a set menu of expected services, but the ones referred to are usually the ones who won't even admit sexual services are provided lol

[parkershellby45 678]

If Stevie and his crew get a chance they will try to pass their " don't need a warrant for Email law" and there would go your reasonable expectation of privacy, keep an eye on that crowd.

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

If Stevie and his crew get a chance they will try to pass their " don't need a warrant for Email law" and there would go your reasonable expectation of privacy, keep an eye on that crowd.

 

yes true true, they want to monitor our movement on the web, so how will this affect us? It still would be " not public" right?

[backrubman 64800]

If Stevie and his crew get a chance they will try to pass their " don't need a warrant for Email law" and there would go your reasonable expectation of privacy, keep an eye on that crowd.

 

Oh I am watching him alright! Of course just because he doesn't need a warrant to read my email, it still doesn't make it a public place or even take away an expectation of privacy, certainly could take away the privacy in reality but not the "reasonable expectation".

 

And actually he would need a lot more than a warrant to read anything from my Internet as it is all encrypted until off shore and out of his reach anyways. Should he want to go to the trouble of bothering a foreign government to get access to my internet traffic, well, aside from my posts on CERB, which he is more than welcome to read now, I think he'd find a copy of War and Peace more interesting.

 

But my wife does sometimes find some good recipes or a great deal on new curtains on the Internet, he might intercept them.

[Guest N***he**Ont**y]

Actually I have met the Lovely Erin Porter. She is a very fine lady and is very intelligent. She knows how to market herself very well and she is to be commended. Gentleman she is very hot and knows how to please a man!

[etasman2000 15994]

To a certain extent yes, but a vast majority seem to be convinced that it is illegal for them to do so, and they use the standard US clause of money spent is for time and companionship only deal. I can know established sps don't want to do a set menu of expected services, but the ones referred to are usually the ones who won't even admit sexual services are provided lol

 

I actually advocate the same wording especially if there is a remote expectation of said SP visiting the US. Helps reduce border crossing issues.

[Shelly Lane 13856]

Im sorry , but this thread is not a reco thread its about the laws.

 

xoxo

[Andee 220524]

Actually I have met the Lovely Erin Porter. She is a very fine lady and is very intelligent. She knows how to market herself very well and she is to be commended. Gentleman she is very hot and knows how to please a man!

 

There are many fine, intelligent ladies who know how to market themselves and have been doing so for years on the Internet on various sites and boards such as CERB and all perfectly legal. I also believe most of them know how to please a man too, or they wouldn't still be in business.

 

On another note, when referring to paraphernalia on the lawn, they were referring to used condoms, etc. left behind by street walkers. I used to rake nasty things up from behind the hedges bordering my dad's property which backed onto a cul-de-sac in Vanier where some of them would take their johns. I don't think this applies to anyone advertising online unless they're working outdoors.

[fortunateone 156618]

There are many fine, intelligent ladies who know how to market themselves and have been doing so for years on the Internet on various sites and boards such as CERB and all perfectly legal. I also believe most of them know how to please a man too, or they wouldn't still be in business.

 

On another note, when referring to paraphernalia on the lawn, they were referring to used condoms, etc. left behind by street walkers. I used to rake nasty things up from behind the hedges bordering my dad's property which backed onto a cul-de-sac in Vanier where some of them would take their johns. I don't think this applies to anyone advertising online unless they're working outdoors.

 

 

 

I think the chief is using the example as a terrific case of fear mongering. It is highly unlikely that online ads will result in drug paraphenalia on people's lawns, but somehow he makes that connection lol.

[Guest N***he**Ont**y]

Actually he is not a bad fellow for being Cheif of police in Sudbury. He does alot of fundraising in our communnity.

[backrubman 64800]

I actually advocate the same wording especially if there is a remote expectation of said SP visiting the US. Helps reduce border crossing issues.

 

I don't get that. When I enter the US for anything to do with working (or in any way receiving compensation) I have to obtain a special temporary work visa just be be allowed to consult for 3 days or swear I am just a "tourist" or visiting relatives. I either have to prove that I am the only person in the world that can do this job (and get permission by proving no US citizen can) or am visiting Disney Land/World.

 

So if an SP is crossing the border, and wants the border guards to think she is a paid companion as opposed to a prostitute wouldn't she have to prove there are no paid companions with her skills capable of doing the job in the US already? There problem is you aren't allowed to enter and be gainfully employed in any way (including self employment) unless you have a green card or a temporary work visa. So if an SP was going to cross into the US for gainful employment I doubt she'd be able to get the temporary work visa as there are already US citizens with the right to work there that can do whatever she is claiming she is going to be doing. Just curious about your take on this?

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

I think one point might be that persons who are engaged in prostitution will generally be considered ineligible for admission to the United States (whether they say they plan to actually work in the States or not).

[backrubman 64800]

I think one point might be that persons who are engaged in prostitution will generally be considered ineligible for admission to the United States (whether they say they plan to actually work in the States or not).

 

An obvious threat to national security. Seriously, I can't imagine on what basis this would be so? Perhaps I haven't had enough coffee yet today? If they were denied entry based on the suspicion that they might choose to engage in such activities, then equally they'd have to keep me out on suspicion that I might engage any that were already there in such activities :)

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Inadmissible Aliens (United States Code - Title 8 Ch. 12 Sub Ch. II Part II Sec. 1182):

 

"Any alien who-- (i) is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status...is inadmissible."

 

Punishment: Denied admission into US

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

[backrubman 64800]

Inadmissible aliens (Title 8 Ch. 12 Sub Ch. II Part II Sec. 1182):

"Any alien who-- (i) is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status...is inadmissible."

Punishment: Denied admission into US

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

 

Oh I get that, thank you! If she declares the purpose of her visit is "to engage in prostitution" then we have a person that is declaring that they intentionally intend to violate US law. But unless that is clearly her stated intention (or by extension has previous demonstrated a lack of compliance with US law by being convicted in the US within last 10 years)...

 

I still don't get how a meaningless disclaimer on her web site could make border crossing less troublesome.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Title 8 does not state that any actual conviction is required in order to deny admission. Without being alarmist about this particular situation (or any situation), every bit of discretion lessens the risk. Each lady should judge herself accordingly, and each lady should be respected in her choices surrounding discretion.

 

Further reading on ladies' experiences:

 

http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=45463

[Andee 220524]

Oh I get that, thank you! If she declares the purpose of her visit is "to engage in prostitution" then we have a person that is declaring that they intentionally intend to violate US law. But unless that is clearly her stated intention (or by extension has previous demonstrated a lack of compliance with US law by being convicted in the US within last 10 years)...

 

I still don't get how a meaningless disclaimer on her web site could make border crossing less troublesome.

 

I actually know an SP who was going to the States to visit (not work) and she was denied entry because when asked if she had ever been arrested or convicted of a crime, she admitted to them she had been arrested once for prostitution (even though she doesn't have a criminal record). She is now blacklisted from entering the States.

 

That's what telling the truth got her. If she had kept her mouth shut, they would have none the wiser, but she did not know what kind of information they had in their computer system.

[etasman2000 15994]

I still don't get how a meaningless disclaimer on her web site could make border crossing less troublesome.

 

If the exchange of money is only for non-sexual companionship it isn't considered prostitution. Hence the disclaimer.

[fortunateone 156618]

If the exchange of money is only for non-sexual companionship it isn't considered prostitution. Hence the disclaimer.

 

 

I think they would have a hard time proving that it is only for non-sexual companionship. But reality is at the end of the day, they don't have to prove anything. They simply flag the name, and turn her away at the border. They don't have to let anyone in, and if she decides to contest it, how is she going to prove she is not a sex worker? And why would she go to that trouble and exposure, knowing that she is one, and if they wanted to it would be fairly easy to find reviews on her services as well.

[backrubman 64800]

I think they would have a hard time proving that it is only for non-sexual companionship. But reality is at the end of the day, they don't have to prove anything. They simply flag the name, and turn her away at the border. They don't have to let anyone in, and if she decides to contest it, how is she going to prove she is not a sex worker? And why would she go to that trouble and exposure, knowing that she is one, and if they wanted to it would be fairly easy to find reviews on her services as well.

 

Good point. Oh course having run out of pages in my passport, the only Country that has denied me entry (temporarily) was my own country, Canada. But I think there is danger lurking in this facial recognition stuff. I doubt the border guards are surfing the web for SPs, except perhaps for their own personal purposes :)

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

I know little about the maze of US prostitution law.

 

But I can't help thinking of all those domestic United States escorts and their use of such standard disclaimers on their websites. Either the disclaimer means something, or it doesn't. For everyone who has the potential to brush up against the US legal system.