California laws and complications

[devonhunter]

So, one of the reasons I haven't been to CA for a long time is that I wasn't sure how the anti-sex trafficking laws were going to work. They got voted into place, but my understanding is that they are so vague and broad that they make seeing clients there extraordinarily risky and problematic (e.g. elevating misdemeanors to felonies, and making clients into sex traffickers). Is this true? Has anything noticeable changed in the environment in San Francisco? I was considering giving Los Angeles a try for the first time, too. But what insight can you guys in Cali offer when it comes to the logistics of seeing clients throughout that state?

[+ deej]

Huh? Got a reference for this?

[instudiocity]

So, one of the reasons I haven't been to CA for a long time is that I wasn't sure how the anti-sex trafficking laws were going to work. They got voted into place, but my understanding is that they are so vague and broad that they make seeing clients there extraordinarily risky and problematic (e.g. elevating misdemeanors to felonies, and making clients into sex traffickers). Is this true? Has anything noticeable changed in the environment in San Francisco? I was considering giving Los Angeles a try for the first time, too. But what insight can you guys in Cali offer when it comes to the logistics of seeing clients throughout that state?

I'm totally unaware of the laws. I'm fully aware of the traveling escorts in my area. But I do know that California is about to outlaw breathing because our air can give you lung cancer.

[maninsoma]

I have lived in California for three decades and assume you're referring to Prop 35 that passed last fall.

 

All I can say is that the law is very broad and, theoretically, could be used in a wide variety of horrible ways. Of course this does presume that local law enforcement decides to devote resources to entrapping sex workers and/or their customers. I noticed you posted a travel ad for San Francisco. I sincerely doubt you're going to be caught in a police sting here, but I do recall a local escort claiming he was set up for a sting a few years ago (before this proposition was approved by voters) when he agreed to take a call from an alleged female client in a hotel in the East Bay.

 

I assume that if you take normal precautions, your risk of legal problems is low. It isn't like prostitution is legal everywhere else in the U.S..

[devonhunter]

Deej: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_35,_Ban_on_Human_Trafficking_and_Sex_Slavery_(2012)

 

Maninsoma: Correct, but now the consequences in California are more severe than anywhere else in the country.

[instudiocity]

Deej: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_35,_Ban_on_Human_Trafficking_and_Sex_Slavery_(2012)

 

Maninsoma: Correct, but now the consequences in California are more severe than anywhere else in the country.

 

I don't know what the real story here is Devon but unless you're bringing you're entire cadre of rentboys here and planning to share them with us, I don't think you'd fall under the definition of trafficking!

The link you posted listed these items:

Proposition 35:

• Increases prison terms for human traffickers. I'm not quite sure that applies to one guy visiting the state.
  
• Requires convicted sex traffickers to register as sex offenders. I sorta want to go along with that one.
  
• Requires criminal fines from convicted human traffickers to pay for services to help victims. I sorta want to go along with that one, too.
  
• Mandates law enforcement training on human trafficking. I sorta want to go along with that one, two, too.
  
• Requires all registered sex offenders to disclose their internet accounts. I really along with that one.
  

 

But I'm not sure how this goes along with you traveling individually to California and possibly engaging yourself alone in discreet encounters. I think is law is more on the lines of our leaky border and the consequences immigrants find themselves enduring once they've arrived in our fair state. Now, there are some stories to be told.

[maninsoma]

Actually, the registration of internet accounts is the only part of this law that is currently on hold due to litigation. I haven't read the full text of the law, but apparently it requires not just sharing email addresses but also passwords for all internet accounts, for life, once one is convicted of any sex related crime. So anyone here who has hired an escort or provided escort services could, theoretically, forever lose his online privacy because law enforcement would have full access to your email accounts.

 

Hopefully this provision will end up being thrown out in court. I understand why, on the surface, it might seem like a good idea to some people, but I honestly don't think that any crime should result in someone losing his/her privacy for the rest of his/her life unless that person's sentence is the be incarcerated for the rest of his/her life. Otherwise, what's next? Law enforcement can enter your registered address at any time, unannounced and without warrant, just to see if they find something suspicious? Law enforcement can read your "snail mail" before it reaches you or is delivered to your recipients?

 

I agree that Devon needn't be concerned about this law unless he's planning to bring other guys with him to pimp out. And if you are, Devon, and they are all as cute as you, can you invite me to the party?

 

I don't know what the real story here is Devon but unless you're bringing you're entire cadre of rentboys here and planning to share them with us, I don't think you'd fall under the definition of trafficking!

The link you posted listed these items:

Proposition 35:

• Increases prison terms for human traffickers. I'm not quite sure that applies to one guy visiting the state.
  
• Requires convicted sex traffickers to register as sex offenders. I sorta want to go along with that one.
  
• Requires criminal fines from convicted human traffickers to pay for services to help victims. I sorta want to go along with that one, too.
  
• Mandates law enforcement training on human trafficking. I sorta want to go along with that one, two, too.
  
• Requires all registered sex offenders to disclose their internet accounts. I really along with that one.
  

 

But I'm not sure how this goes along with you traveling individually to California and possibly engaging yourself alone in discreet encounters. I think is law is more on the lines of our leaky border and the consequences immigrants find themselves enduring once they've arrived in our fair state. Now, there are some stories to be told.

[devonhunter]

But that is the problem: The vagueness of the law means that one person DOES constitute trafficking, and every client is now regarded as a trafficker. This is the problem with the language of the law. It applies standards concerning rape/slavery toward consensual activities. It lumps everything into one big ball and applies the same definitions to all situations, regardless of whether the sex worker in question is being exploited or not. They were discussing this on NPR, and these gaping holes in the language are exactly why professional escorts will be treated simultaneously as disempowered victims as well as pimps (which makes no sense), and the clients of professional escorts can be regarded as traffickers for enabling the transaction.

[devonhunter]

Here, this article explains some of the problems with Prop 35. But there was an injunction placed on Prop 35, and I have no idea if that is still in effect or not (so I don't know if Prop 35 is being enforced or not):

 

http://oaklandnorth.net/2012/11/19/california-voted-yes-on-prop-35-experts-police-and-sex-workers-disagree-on-impact/

 

 

No, Anton, I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. What they decide in California will be very important if Prop 35 stands, because this isn't just about internet privacy. This law would allow anyone who benefits from a sex worker's earnings to be tried as a pimp/trafficker (including the relatives of escorts who are financially supported by the arrested sex worker/escort).

[sfguy]

The fears about Prop 35 are valid, but also overblown.

 

This is the section that people are concerned about regarding pimps:

"Any person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to effect or maintain a violation of Section 266, 266h, 266i, 266j, 267, 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, 311.4, 311.5, 311.6, or 518 is guilty of human trafficking . . ."

 

The phrase "of another" means you can't be convicted of trafficking if it is just you. The law requires that you do something to another to be convicted of trafficking.

 

Section 266h is the section of the Penal Code that defines what a pimp is. It existed before Prop 35. It is not new. The potential that a roommate or relative being labeled a pimp existed before Prop 35. Prior to Prop 35, roommates and relatives were not being labeled as pimps. Section 266h was not amended so it is unlikely that those are financially supported by the sex worker will be labeled pimps now.

 

Under 266h, you are a pimp if you know that the person is a sex worker and you live off of or derive financial support from, the earnings, in whole or part (hence the roommate issue), of the sex work. If I know that my roommate is an escort and he uses that money to pay his half of the rent, then I'm a pimp now and I was a pimp before Prop 35.

 

The main concern about pimping is that the definition of pimp was already overly broad, and now Prop 35 relies on that broad definition. But police and prosecutors were not targeting innocent roommates and family members of sex workers previously so there's no reason to believe that they will do so now.

 

Under Prop 35, you are a human trafficker/pimp if you "deprive the personal liberty of another" in order to derive financial support from the money earned from the sex work. "Deprive the personal liberty" is defined as "substantial and sustained restriction of another's liberty accomplished through force, fear, fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, menace, or threat of unlawful injury." This is certainly a broad definition, and the statute actually said it "includes" that so deprivation of personal liberty is not necessarily limited to that definition. However, the law does take into account whether the sex worker is being exploited. It admittedly takes a broad definition of exploitation, but it does not ignore it. So with Prop 35, if I force my roommate to escort to pay his half of the rent, then I'm a pimp and a human trafficker.

 

I think it's a dumb law, and I voted against it (Why do we even keep voting on all these stupid laws anyway? Don't we pay people to make the laws so why am I doing their job for them?), but I don't think it's going result in innocent people being convicted as human traffickers. My main problem with the law is that it is just poorly written.

[rvwnsd]

I don't think you have anything to worry about. Although the law is vaguely-worded, the intent is to stop trafficking in minors. You aren't a minor. Theoretically, yes, it could be used against any sex worker of any age. The likelihood of a traveling escort actually being picked up on a human trafficking charge is slim to none. We don't have enough cops to chase down the actual crimes, let alone harassing a visiting escort. I voted against it because I typically vote against all ballot measures (I don't believe in the ballot initiative process nor do I care to support the ballot initiative industry)

[Jscott]

The similarly vague, ambiguous language of the Mann Act (what an apropos name for this discussion, though originally it targeted traffickers bringing young women across state lines for "immoral" purposes) permitted conservative zealots to criminalize consensual sexual behavior that offended their sense of decency.

From what I've read, I doubt that's the intent of Prop 35 (isn't it ultimately aimed at gangs supplanting drug trade with forced prostitution, especially of minors?), though again certain lawmakers could aggressively pursue selective prosecution.

 

Anyway, wasn't there an injunction halting the implementation of Prop 35 a couple of months ago?

[JoeyBryant]

Guys, come on. Let's not allow fear to overwhelm us. Number 1, visiting a state isn't a big deal. You go back home, you're not even in their jurisdiction anymore. Case closed. Assumimg anything even happens. Secondly, if you are going to a place on your own, by yourself...you are not trafficking. Trafficking is tricking women into 'jobs' and then turning them into sex slaves. You're not doing that.

 

The rules may be broad, but what they are looking for is specific. The cost of hotels is probably a bigger worry than possible stings in California. And jet lag. I was waking up at 7 am during my first visit. I usually get up at 10, yet I'm only 1 hour ahead. Odd...and apparently texting and driving is a large fine.

[Frequentflier]

I usually get up at 10, yet I'm only 1 hour ahead. Odd...and apparently texting and driving is a large fine.

 

I wonder if there are some benefits to sleeping later? Lower stress, better skin tone, longevity? I've never been able to do that. Its always been school, work, church, hobbies, coffee, paper, coffee (can't emphasize my french press coffee first thing in the morning enough) project around the house, etc.

 

I'm glad texting and driving is a large fine. Hopefully that will come soon to all states and the larger the fine, the better. Bad enough someone puts their own lives at risk, but that's not enough because other drivers, pedestrians and bike riders are at risk too. Not too mention you piss me off by driving like an idiot and not signaling, or not moving when the light turns, and all because you think whatever you're texting is more important than people's lives or my time. Would public flogging be too extreme ? Although some people may like that so maybe we should stick to monetary fines.

[JoeyBryant]

I wonder if there are some benefits to sleeping later? Lower stress, better skin tone, longevity? I've never been able to do that. Its always been school, work, church, hobbies, coffee, paper, coffee (can't emphasize my french press coffee first thing in the morning enough) project around the house, etc.

 

 

I think so. I personally see no benefit whatsoever, never did...in waking up before the light of day. Well, you get more things done throughout the day, but what's the point when you're groveling through it and teary eyed and then need to take a nap by noon? I know there's a saying about waking up before dawn. I used to have to get up at 5:45 am every morning to get ready for school when I was in High School. It was a great and glorious day when I didn't have to do that anymore. The earliest any job required me to arrive was 830 am...and even that was hard enough on me. I pull energy from the sun and the sun isn't usually bright enough before 9 am. And then the thought of doing it during snowy or below 0 weather...sends chills down my spine. Like those days of waiting for the bus in elementary in 30 and 40 degree weather (in Florida)

 

I rarely drink coffee, except to warm myself up. I find it doesn't even really keep me awake. I travel alot and find coffee to make me drowsy, but then I can't fall asleep! Worst feeling is to have driven for 8-9 hours, then get to bed and can't even go to sleep because I drunk coffee to stay awake. So I just avoid it. I just go to sleep when I'm sleepy and wake up when my natural rhythm wakes me up, which is about the same time everyday. If I have something important to do, I will wake myself up early...but otherwise, I hate the sight of dawn and birds chirping, unless I am still up from the night before. And that's not even on drugs because I don't do that.

 

Lately though, I like to get to bed before dawn, even on weekends when my friends are up til 5 and 6 am. There's a difference between sleeping a little later than normal versus wasting your life away sleeping in til 2 and 3 pm. I won't even let people over who think they are going to stay up and party all night and mess up my sleep schedule. You, you, you, you, you....get the fuck out, all of you! -Gordon Ramsay

[+ poolboy48220]

I'm glad texting and driving is a large fine. Hopefully that will come soon to all states and the larger the fine, the better. Bad enough someone puts their own lives at risk, but that's not enough because other drivers, pedestrians and bike riders are at risk too. Not too mention you piss me off by driving like an idiot and not signaling, or not moving when the light turns, and all because you think whatever you're texting is more important than people's lives or my time.

You took the rant out of my mouth.

[JoeyBryant]

You took the rant out of my mouth.

 

Well, I'm sure after texting, there will be another thing you can get a ticket for...like playing with your car's techy screen/gps/etc. Some of these newer cars virtually have a laptop in the dashboard. My favorite was the one where you could play music by bluetooth, SD card and USB plus Satellite. I must have spent more time looking at the screen than I did the road. In fact, I don't recall ever looking at the road. I think it just drove itself. I would get into the car, and the music would just play from my phone automatically, and turn off when I got out. And then I'd come back, it'd start up again. Some car's bluetooth responses are somewhat delayed. This one was on point.

 

On a serious note, I'm sure car dashboards are angled better so that you can see the road and the screen...and if people texted while holding their phones at that same level, it would be less accidents. You can use swype or speak the words into the phone while still looking at the road.

 

Years ago when GPS were expensive...I almost ran a red light and came to a screeching halt, because I got lost downtown and was trying to read the map.

[instudiocity]

Well, to fully hijack the thread - In California, holding a phone in your hand while driving is illegal. You must use a hands-free device to talk and you may not text - which is any touch of the phone while driving... not just using the messages app. All that said, I routinely walk around my neighborhood in LA - distances up to 20 miles a day - and I frequently see people holding their phones while driving, some even brazenly hold their phones up to their ear.

 

I've never seen anyone stopped for it. My brother had a Sheriff's Deputy tell him to get off the phone over his loud speaker, once though.

 

Lastly, First Offense is a $20 fine which with court costs runs to about $135. Second Offense is a $50 fine, so $165 out of pocket. Third Offense? You have to go see the judge.

[devonhunter]

Thank you, SFGuy. This is the information I needed. I feel better now.

[instudiocity]

Now can you come to Los Angeles make me feel better?

[sfguy]

Thank you, SFGuy. This is the information I needed. I feel better now.

You are very welcome!