Joker in Houston wants to get serious.

I am no attorney. But certainly not an idiot. Starting a discussion on our city's reputation. Let's see where this goes.




Allow me to get serious. Does anyone listen to NPR? Houston public radio? Apparently we have more brothels than Starbucks.

This is an old subject or topic of discussion, but while I was listening today I heard the latest.


Pioneering Lawsuit About Human Trafficking And Sexual Exploitation Filed In Houston


The multiple defendants include highly recognizable names of the hospitality industry

So, I’ve seen this posted in various forums with some interesting comments.

Backpage has, at times, acted in a way that probably didn’t do as much as it could to prevent the use of their publication for sex trafficking. Will their actions, or lack thereof, rise to the legal standard that they knew? I don’t know. I do think that if they knew, then they could and should be held civilly accountable.

Next, the hotels and truck stops. If the victim can prove that employees at this places knew she was being trafficked, then what do you think should be done? The new law provides for a remedy if they were knowingly profiting from trafficking. That, to me, seems like a rather high standard. It reminds me of the mandatory reporting requirements in a way - with a financial profit aspect added.

In a nutshell, if you see something, say something or else you may get drawn into court.

Thank you for replying.

Will their actions, or lack thereof, rise to the legal standard that they knew? I don’t know.

. . . the hotels and truck stops. If the victim can prove that employees at this places knew she was being trafficked, then what do you think should be done?

In a nutshell, if you see something, say something or else you may get drawn into court. Originally Posted by LimitlessJD

The Backpage question:

Don't they have plausible deniability? One would think the website wouldn't be informed exactly what is going on.


The hotels and truck stops:

Unless the hotel staff and management are in on it, they could only assume what was happening. Same with the truck stops.


This wreaks of a witch hunt. As awful as this sounds, do these entities have an obligation to ask what is happening on their property? And therefore have the right to refuse their services on a mere suspension?

When do ethics outweigh the law?

For the record, I am not trying to justify anything of the sort. I love listening to great conversations and getting into the semantics of language and words. As a humorist. Playing with words is fun. Wether in politics, the law, medicine or the psyche.

The businesses don’t have a duty to report per se (like a doctor reporting suspected abuse), but they can (now) be held liable (civil) if they know trafficking is happening and that trafficking leads to a profit for their business. The knowing prong is the hard part to prove. But my opinion is that if truckers are buying gas or people are renting rooms, that’s enough to prove the profiting prong.

This is totally new law, so it’s hard to say what ultimately might happen but it’s not as far fetched as others are making it seem. Hotel workers at major chains now undergo anti trafficking training because they do have the ability to identify possible victims.

I’m definitely a libertarian and a proponent of decriminalization, but people turning a blind eye to suspicious trafficking behavior, especially like what is described in this case, is a totally different story.

Businesses can refuse service as long as it’s not to a protected class, like based on race or sex. In this type of case, it would be more prudent to accept the business but call law enforcement with the suspicion.

Did you notice in the story, it mentions how she goes after the executives atBP but is more deliberate with naming the defendants at the hotels and truck stops? That’s what is interesting me the most. Like perhaps they have some really specific details.

I really need to read up on this and report back. (But I’m off to the Swingers club now lol)

Swing on bro.


The phrase "if you see something, say something" brings up my witch hunt comment. Makes me think of a society of narcs (my vernacular: rats/stoolies/tattle-tales).

Oh, and the execs at BP can afford better attorneys. So she takes more care with her words.

I'm a little sleepy so I will think of some good discussion questions later.

Thank you for replying.

The Backpage question:

Don't they have plausible deniability? One would think the website wouldn't be informed exactly what is going on. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Well to ME, if backpage is liable for crimes committed by posters, who advertise hookers, THEN SO TOO SHOULD YOUTUBE and the like, be liable when THEIR posters put up videos SHOWING THEM COMMITTING Crimes...

Why didn't you put this in the Houston sandbox?

I'm getting massage ads in Facebook Marketplace now. Seems like Zuck doesn't want to stop "Russian collusion."

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/CP.98.htm

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE
TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT
CHAPTER 98. LIABILITY FOR TRAFFICKING OF PERSONS

Sec. 98.002. LIABILITY. (a) A defendant who engages in the trafficking of persons or who intentionally or knowingly benefits from participating in a venture that traffics another person is liable to the person trafficked, as provided by this chapter, for damages arising from the trafficking of that person by the defendant or venture.

(b) It is not a defense to liability under this chapter that a defendant has been acquitted or has not been prosecuted or convicted under Chapter 20A, Penal Code, or has been convicted of a different offense or of a different type or class of offense, for the conduct that is alleged to give rise to liability under this chapter.
...eff. June 19, 2009.

....

Sec. 98.006. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION. This chapter shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purpose to protect persons from human trafficking and provide adequate remedies to victims of human trafficking.

.. the operative words ... "intentionally or knowingly benefits"

The overly broad and vague wording would cast a net over the MacDonalds or gas station at which the "defendant" or ______?________ stopped to buy something to eat or refuel their vehicle while "on the road."

Sec. 98.005. JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY. A person who engages in the trafficking of persons or who intentionally or knowingly benefits from participating in a venture that traffics another person ....

"witch hunt" is a good phrase to apply.

The lawsuit will generate discomfort and inconvenience to the named defendants and generate a lot of unwanted press for the establishments that will no doubt encourage responsible businesses to make settlements to avoid the continued negative publicity (which for the most part already exists in the community by virtue of publicized busts and rumors.

The lawyers will make some good money off the settlements and the poor "victim" will get victimized again by the system when, like in the instant case, the alleged victim is now an adult.

Why didn't you put this in the Houston sandbox?

I'm getting massage ads in Facebook Marketplace now. Seems like Zuck doesn't want to stop "Russian collusion." Originally Posted by gnadfly

That is why i refuse to sign up for Farcebook.

Why didn't you put this in the Houston sandbox?

I'm getting massage ads in Facebook Marketplace now. Seems like Zuck doesn't want to stop "Russian collusion." Originally Posted by gnadfly

A free market society. Deal with it.

The Sandbox-Houston

The Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here. If it's NOT hobby-related, then you're in the right place!



Coed Discussions - Houston

Hobby-related discussions belong here. Let's keep these discussions on-topic, thought-provoking, and more importantly...entertaining!

Well . . . I'm off to have some fresh Thai.

I think that stems from a case in Baytown

I am no attorney. But certainly not an idiot. Starting a discussion on our city's reputation. Let's see where this goes.




Allow me to get serious. Does anyone listen to NPR? Houston public radio? Apparently we have more brothels than Starbucks.

This is an old subject or topic of discussion, but while I was listening today I heard the latest.


Pioneering Lawsuit About Human Trafficking And Sexual Exploitation Filed In Houston

The multiple defendants include highly recognizable names of the hospitality industry












Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Jim

More brothels than Starbucks is ridiculous.
All the ones I know of have a Starbucks in them.

Jocular enough for ya' Jimmy?