Senate Bill 94

[Sir Octogram]

On May 25, 2013 Gov. Perry signed into law SB 94, that was written to be used against the users of this and other websites like it.

Text as Follows here: http://legiscan.com/TX/bill/SB94/2013

AN ACT
relating to civil liability for compelled prostitution and certain
promotion of prostitution.
(1) "Advertisement" means any communication that
promotes a commercial product or service, including a communication
on an Internet website operated for a commercial purpose.

Goes into effect on September 1, 2013. This is just an FYI for Texas residents.

[WTM]

S.B. No. 94 is a very troubling law to me.

It is a civil liability law, and not a criminal law; but it does take some of its definitions from Chapter 43 of the Texas Penal Code dealing with "PUBLIC INDECENCY."

For the benefit of a "victim of compelled prostitution[,]" S.B. No. 94 imposes civil liability on "[a] defendant . . . if the defendant . . . [among other things,] knowingly or intentionally engages in promotion of prostitution . . . that results in compelling prostitution with respect to the victim . . . ." The successful "victim" can then recover "actual damages, including damages for mental anguish . . .; court costs; and . . . [most importantly] reasonable attorney's fees . . . ."

From the Penal Code, "promotion of prostitution" is defined in S.B. No. 94 as "solicit[ing] another to engage in sexual conduct with another person for compensation . . . ." One wonders whether writing a positive review of a "victim" might constitute "promotion of prostitution" for purposes of S.B. No. 94 ?

Anyway . . . .

There is no doubt already a "victim" (a/k/a the plaintiff / provider) out there with her civil lawyer (or a hundred of them), with 9/1/2013 highlighted on their calendars, and with a Plaintiff's Original Petition and related discovery already drafted and ready to be filed; and this could wreak all sorts of mischief if one of these civil cases gets hot and heavy into the discovery process. But in civil litigation, money can usually get things resolved; it is just that visit from the process server that is such an annoyance (and the legal bills as well).

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. My days of writing reviews, however, at least positive ones, might now be over. And don't ask me anymore who I would recommend for this or that particular playtime activity either.

WTM

[TinMan]

One of my questions is, given how expensive civil litigation can be, and the limited resources of most providers, how likely is it that an attorney will take up such a case? I can see the family of some young woman who was the victim of trafficking having the means and motivation to invest in such a pursuit, but I don't know that a lot of lawyers are going to be interested in expensive fishing expeditions when neither the plaintiff or defendants are known to have deep pockets.

Of course, BP might be the big fish that appeals to a lawyer inclined to take a case on contingency.

I started a thread in Legal Matters regarding this subject prior to the bill being passed. There was little comment on it, which surprised me given the number of lawyers and would-be legal experts we have on this board. Hopefully, this thread will get more attention (although it probably needs to be moved to CoEd).

[WTM]

I'm purely speculating here, TinMan, but I would guess that there are some "politically connected" attorneys (i.e., friends of the bill's sponsors) who are already lined up to take on this fight.

Finding an appropriate post-September 1st "victim" who is ready and willing to be the "face" of the litigation might be the bigger challenge.

But if the main purpose of the litigation is to attract publicity (and not to redress an actual harm suffered by the "victim") then any warm body might do. After all, any fool with a filing fee can commence a civil lawsuit.

[*GoddessDallas*]

Wow...

[Guest022315]

Thanks Shyster for this nugget you pm'ed me. http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=202

[TexTushHog]

I certainly haven't carefully read, much less spent the several hours it would take to fully analyze the bill. However, the advertizing angle doesn't seem too disturbing at first blush.

Sec. 98A.002. LIABILITY. (a) A defendant is liable to a victim of compelled prostitution, as provided by this chapter, for damages arising from the compelled prostitution if the defendant:

(3) purchases an advertisement that the defendant knows or reasonably should know constitutes promotion of prostitution or aggravated promotion of prostitution, and the publication of the advertisement results in compelling prostitution with respect to the victim.

That only seems to apply if the Defendant purchases the advertisement.

Seems like this site is in the business of selling advertising. Likewise, hobbyists are not in the business of purchasing ads, either.

[Chaz76040]

I have been out of the game for a while but seems to me that going after how we advertise and communicate......that is a real big hurt......?

[Whirlaway]

------

[Sir Octogram]

This isn't pending legislation, it was signed into law May 25, 2013 and goes into effect on Sept 1, 2013. The Alert comes into play because under this new law, all postings and reviews done on here become fair game under this new law as "promoting prostitution." Technically, it means that by posting and reviewing, the state has the right to sue the poster, which in turn means both providers and hobbiests.

[Blaze]

So how can they figure out who is who to prosecute?

[TinMan]

Originally Posted by Blaze

So how can they figure out who is who to prosecute?

Well, if TTH is right, they'll be pursuing websites publishing ads. With Backpage, at least, finding the owners will be easy.

Eccie's ownership seems to be a bit murky at the moment, based on recent news reports.

[ManSlut]

Blaze, that's the million dollar question and the answer may be, who has a bone to pick or who can we shakedown?

TinMan, it is not uncommon for civil litigation plaintiff attorneys to work for a percentage of the settlement.

If you must write a review be very careful how it's worded.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by TinMan

Well, if TTH is right, they'll be pursuing websites publishing ads. With Backpage, at least, finding the owners will be easy.

Eccie's ownership seems to be a bit murky at the moment, based on recent news reports.

Again, it would take several hours to read, research, and understand all the implications, but I don't know that the web site purchases ads. It sells ads. I don't see that selling is covered by the statute.

Likewise, I don't see how posting a review is covered.

Am I missing something?

[TinMan]

Is the real reason this bill got passed is because BP refused to back off allowing provider ads, unlike CraigsList? Will the new law finally force them to comply, or risk substantial legal bills and potential civil penalties...and more bad press?

BP has deeper pockets than mom and pop operations like this one, and then there is the problem of not knowing who owns this place....