Senate Bill 94

Here is the definition of "Promotion of Prostitution"

§ 43.03. PROMOTION OF PROSTITUTION. (a) A person commits an offense if, acting other than as a prostitute receiving compensation for personally rendered prostitution services, he or she knowingly: (1) receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement to participate in the proceeds of prostitution; or (2) solicits another to engage in sexual conduct with another person for compensation. (b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.I could see selling an ad as being covered if, and only if, you knew that you were being paid by the proceeds of prostitution being covered. But it's hard to really see that as being "pursuant to an agreement to participate in the proceeds of prostitution." Hard to prove. Might be a you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride sort of deal.

But even then, it doesn't encompass posting a review.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/43.03.00.html

Could they force BP to hand over CC information? That is a direct link to those posting ads....

So how can they figure out who is who to prosecute? Originally Posted by Blaze

You start taking depositions. But who is going to pay the lawyer to do all this. Yeah, BP has deep pockets and somebody MIGHT take that case on a contingent basis. But based on what I see, selling an ad isn't covered.

Could they force BP to hand over CC information? That is a direct link to those posting ads.... Originally Posted by Blaze

Yes. But one supposes that it is the provider herself who is posting the adds. She can't sue herself. Now, if she has a pimp, that's another matter. Frankly, I don't have a problem with a girl being able to sue a pimp. I'd hate to have to try to collect on the judgement, however.

TTH, it's the Section 2 immediately before the discussion of "purchasing" advertisement that is leading people to conclude that reviews could be construed as "promotion of prostitution":

"(2) knowingly or intentionally engages in promotion of
prostitution or aggravated promotion of prostitution that results
in compelling prostitution with respect to the victim; "

Update: I posted this after your last several submissions, so I may have missed the point on what defines "promotion of prostitution".

2nd Update: could it be argued that a review is a tool for promotion, since oftentimes more favorable terms are offered in exchange for a review?

Likewise, I don't see how posting a review is covered. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I should think, from a hobbyist standpoint, they would have to establish credibility in order to pursue reviews. We all know that reviews are fiction (some obviously so) and it could well be argued that their sole purpose was to obtain PA.

I should think, from a hobbyist standpoint, they would have to establish credibility in order to pursue reviews. We all know that reviews are fiction (some obviously so) and it could well be argued that their sole purpose was to obtain PA. Originally Posted by daty/o

Of course, if they get a friendly judge to allow discovery, and reviewers are found and forced to testify in a disposition...well, for most guys that would mean they have already lost the war.

Your point is well taken, TM. I guess the real question is, how difficult would it be to connect the dots?

The other question I have not seen discussed is the involvement of big brother. They have, as we already know, tasks forces for human trafficking and under-age involvement. And, as we all know, big brother has relatively deep pockets and enormous resources (NSA activities in the news, and if you believe they are not using those assets and resources I have a bridge to sale!)

So, while the locals and state may not have the time, resources and assets to drill down to point zero, big brother does! Especially if the state invokes the human trafficking and/or under-age task forces for assistance. And nothing says that the state won't play that card to get assistance, which, to me, is the worrisome part.

I'd be more concerned about that, boo-boo bear, if this was criminal instead of civil law being discussed in this case.

The more I think about it, the more I believe the law was written as a means for victims and families of victims to go after pimps who profit from these activities. They are the ones purchasing ads on sites like BP. If the criminal courts fail them, or as an "add-on" to criminal penalties, they can pursue them in civil court.

It may be that this got attached to Eccie solely because one of the sponsors of the bill saw an opportunity to promote it when Channel 11 was doing its report on this site. If the law works as intended, then it indeed would have a dampening effect on online promotion of prostitution.

But if pimps aren't afraid of jail time, what is a little thing like a judgment to them?

Either everybody got a law degree over the July 4th weekend or we've got a lot of armchair lawyers here.

I recommend reading the house committee report (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs...l/SB00094H.HTM) and this should put you more at ease. Worry all you want, but SB94 does not apply to the vast majority of us.

Also, listen to Shyster.

It is what it is. You risk picking up an STD every time you slip your condomless dick anywhere inside a Provider. Add this to the list along with the fact that Texas is a conservative state Hell bent on dictating what's good & unacceptable behavior. Now that Perry's decided not to run for Governor perhaps he'll have a sex change operation and get himself to a better place; namely bent over arm waiting some deep n' hard satisfaction.

Thanks, omakase. That is very helpful information.

The "armchair lawyering" is a natural response for paranoids like myself who are trying to avoid wrong decisions as circumstances change. Well, other than the initial wrong decision of seeing hookers in the first place.

Now that Perry's decided not to run for Governor perhaps he'll have a sex change operation and get himself to a better place; namely bent over arm waiting some deep n' hard satisfaction. Originally Posted by txcwby6

We can only hope.

The "armchair lawyering" is a natural response for paranoids like myself who are trying to avoid wrong decisions as circumstances change. Well, other than the initial wrong decision of seeing hookers in the first place. Originally Posted by TinMan

I suppose a little paranoia is good for the forum.