Will this spill over to eccie

I ran across this in yesterdays news. It seems like this could affect us as well if it passes.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/texas/art...ds-4439908.php

It's very early in the legislative process, so there's no need for concern yet. A quick check revealed that Nevada banned ads for brothels, a federal appellate court upheld the law, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision.

but if i am wrong is this not a place of a disscusion group

The internet is international, and prostitution is legal in places like Canada. This may closedown backpage, but will give established sites like P411 ad boards a big boost.

but if i am wrong is this not a place of a disscusion group Originally Posted by skirtchaser79411

Umm... Could you please restate that in English?

could eccie not be called a chat and or disscusion group or am i wrong

could eccie not be called a chat and or disscusion group or am i wrong Originally Posted by skirtchaser79411

Well, sure. But I'd bet you my autographed Vince Young UT jersey that the ads are the most browsed area here.

Way too early in the morning for this type of discussion.... but, imo, the Nevada law barring brothels from buying ads is a law regulating brothels, not a law regulating general advertising.

Plenty of SC decisions allowing "commercial" ads etc.

Backpage is not "local" to Nevada, unless maybe hosted on servers there, and not in Texas either.

Federal law trumps state law in most instances.... so the hosting company is protected no matter what the advertiser posts.

Which is why the attorneys general failed in their attempt to coerce Backpage to dump the ads.... although CraigsList capitulated, mainly because the escort ads were not a big part of CL's revenue stream. Sheriff of Chicago lost in federal court, too.

So while the Texas bill may well become law, enforcing it would be very problematic in prosecuting Backpage. Prosecuting individuals might be attractive since individuals don't have the legal resources that Backpage would have.

Review/discussion boards have 1st Amendment protection, but, again, financial resources have limits although there might be some "free" resources such as the ACLU or EFF.

I'm not sure I agree with you, ck, regarding your First Amendment analysis. The Ninth Circuit emphasized regulation of speech, not regulation of brothels, in its opinion regarding the Nevada law. And while there's generally First Amendment protection for commercial speech, there isn't when the commercial speech promotes an illegal activity. In the Nevada case, the Ninth Circuit wrote: "Central Hudson [Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980)] specifies that if the regulated speech concerns illegal activity or is misleading, the First Amendment extends no protection and the analysis ends." Thus, there's no First Amendment protection for prostitution ads in those places where prostitution is illegal (i.e., all of the U.S. but two counties in Nevada).

Here's a link to the opinion:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...1/07-16633.pdf

Just a few quick thoughts after reading the article:

1. I'm not sure the state can make a good case that a typical BP ad solicits prostitution. Most ads do not mention money or an explicit sex act. If all LE has is the ad, then I think that's a tough case.

2. The article states the proposed law would make it a felony to buy an ad soliciting prostitution. It seems odd to me that the proposed law would not also include selling an ad soliciting prostitution. I don't see how the 1A could bar one but not the other. Perhaps that's just poor reporting. But, if correct, then BP and eccie can sell ads without fear of criminal prosecution under the proposed law.

3. The law makes it a felony to buy an ad soliciting prostitution. That just seems crazy that buying such an ad would be a felony, yet most cases of actual prostitution would only be a misdemeanor. I can't think of any example where soliciting a crime carries a higher penalty than committing the crime.

4. If LE is ever successful shutting down backpage or eccie, there will be some internet site beyond the reach of Texas state subpoena power and criminal jurisdiction to quickly replace it.

5. I don't see how the 1A would be a defense if the statute is limited to soliciting prostitution. The 1A would not protect speech soliciting prostitution any more than it protect speech soliciting murder.

Shyster makes some valid points...but the 9th Circuit has a spotty track record with the Supremes. No telling how or if this case is accepted upstairs.

Definitely gonna be interesting.

It is another chapter in a never ending story by the Keystone Cops.

LE will always be looking for nooks and crannies to poke in and attack.

. . . You can never mandate morality. Hell, you can't even define it, but opinions will always abound!

If they passed this, would standing on the street saying, "Hey baby, you wanna date?" be illegal? It seems to be a semantically irrelevant effort.

These ads are not for prostitution. They are simply ads by lonely ladies willing to sell their time. What occurs afterwards is between consenting adults

Just what might be a couple of extraneous thoughts here....

IF, law enforcement cannot convict (although prosecutions are certainly possible, especially for underage materials):

Publishers, distributors, sellers or buyers of books on

-- bomb-making
-- illegal drugs making and distribution
-- how to torture
-- how to avoid and evade taxes and launder money

and other illegalities (except for the pedo)

How does the Texas Lege expect to get around that on prostitution?

Maybe I drank too much coffee this morning. LOL!