Senate Bill 94

[Guest092216]

I don't know what y'all are talkin' about..
..I just like to fcuk.....

[Tx Noob]

Bump. Take two in 3.....2......1.........

[Tx Noob]

Originally Posted by txcwby6

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.

That would be really nice, but we all know he's headed straight for the "Campaign 2016: Perry for President" train.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by TinMan

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?

It's not promotion because 1) a reviewer doesn't "receive money or other property" nor does he "participate in the proceeds of prostitution"; and 2) we're not soliciting any one to have sex with another.

See 43.03 Texas Penal Code.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by omakase

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.

Not sure why you find this comforting. Sounds like this provides some legislative history to suggest that the bill is partially aimed at web sites that accept advertising as well as third parties who purchase ads.

[omakase]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Not sure why you find this comforting. Sounds like this provides some legislative history to suggest that the bill is partially aimed at web sites that accept advertising as well as third parties who purchase ads.

Do you have an ownership stake or business interest in ECCIE? No.
Do you purchase, broker, or have any involvement in advertisement? No.
Are you a pimp? No (hopefully).

Then I'm pretty sure that it doesn't apply to the vast majority of us.

Could somebody seek civil remedy under the new law that is inconsistent with legislative history? Yes, but unlikely.

How concerned should you be? Not much unless you piss off a provider so much that she's willing to take you to court. But she didn't need SB94 to do that.

[Guest092216]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

2) we're not soliciting any one to have sex with another.

See 43.03 Texas Penal Code.

Two words: "Recommendation: Yes"

Not that I would ever pull some bs like taking a hobbyist to court. Whoever decides to be that stupid is in for wayyyyyy more than they bargained for. I'd rather dig my eyes out with a rusty spoon than give one red penny to a lawyer.

[WTM]

You have summarized the issue very well Miss "t h n."

The question is this: Does a client's positive review of a provider/"victim" constitute solicitation under Sec. 43.03 of the Texas Penal Code ?

And the answer to that question turns on the answer to this question: Does the phrase "for compensation" as used in Sec. 43.03(a)(2) apply to the client or the provider/"victim" ?

If "for compensation" applies to the client, then the risk to the client of a positive review is significantly lessened, if it exists at all (see TinMan's post #20 above). If "for compensation" applies to the provider/"victim," however (which is how I read it), then a client's positive review of a provider/"victim" constitutes solicitation under Sec. 43.03, and "promotion of prostitution" under S.B. No. 94.

omakase's advice, however, is absolutely spot on. Everybody always treat the ladies like princesses, and then there would be no "victims" willing to sue anybody in the first place.

WTM

[SD2011]

There are several problems for both sides of this issue. There is no firm protection on this website for reviewers, providers and the actual user data associated with site activity is available so despite the protests, do realize you're not really as anonymous as you would like to think. I think we all do (or should) realize that privacy protection in our country has been relegated to a seat on the back of the short-yellow political bus (both parties) driving our nation. That's unfortunate for everyone.

That being said, this bill and the wider legal leverage it provides LE investigative/prosecute activity is even more problematic for sites like date-check or p411. Without going into a lengthy dissertation about why, it is just prudent for all users to understand that there are inherent risks in this and all sites devoted to the hobby due to the technology itself and the archival record of activity, confirmation and of course promotion.

Now, does any of this mean websites like eccy will be definitely targeted for exploration of legal recourse? no, it doesn't. Anyone (caveat: "with common sense") who engages in the "hobby" understands there's both personal and legal risks involved and each proceed according to their own level of acceptance (for those risks).

Play safe, have fun!

[GinaXXX]

That being said, this bill and the wider legal leverage it provides LE investigative/prosecute activity is even more problematic for sites like date-check or p411.

P411 is a 100% Canadian owned and operated company, and subject only to the laws of Canada.

Always,
Gina

[SD2011]

Originally Posted by GinaXXX

P411 is a 100% Canadian owned and operated company, and subject only to the laws of Canada.

Always,
Gina

Do you really believe that p411 and information contained therein would be off limits to a U.S. sponsored LE investigation and would have no liability due to Canadian ownership?

Respectfully, we will have to agree to disagree.

[GinaXXX]

While America is a powerful country, it does not rule the entire world.

Just as Canada (or any other country) could not convince America to get involved in a investigation into something that is not a crime in the America... the possibility of America being able to convince Canadian authorities to spend their time and energy on something that is not a crime in Canada, is likewise a real stretch.

Not to mention, all that is contained on P411 is a bunch of client ids and email addresses. They would have to exert a great deal of effort to retrieve that information from another country, when the reality is all they have to do to get that information is post a few fake ads on BP. No private information resides on the P411 servers, and there is nothing illegal (even in the US!) about being a member of an adult industry focused site.

However, I don't blame anyone for having heightened concerns, particularly when living in an environment where Big Brother thinks he should be able to tell grown adults who can have sex, and for what reasons.

I feel very blessed to not have to live with that fear.

Always,
Gina

[SD2011]

Originally Posted by GinaXXX

While America is a powerful country, it does not rule the entire world.

Just as Canada (or any other country) could not convince America to get involved in a investigation into something that is not a crime in the America... the possibility of America being able to convince Canadian authorities to spend their time and energy on something that is not a crime in Canada, is likewise a real stretch.

Not to mention, all that is contained on P411 is a bunch of client ids and email addresses. They would have to exert a great deal of effort to retrieve that information from another country, when the reality is all they have to do to get that information is post a few fake ads on BP. No private information resides on the P411 servers, and there is nothing illegal (even in the US!) about being a member of an adult industry focused site.

However, I don't blame anyone for having heightened concerns, particularly when living in an environment where Big Brother thinks he should be able to tell grown adults who can have sex, and for what reasons.

I feel very blessed to not have to live with that fear.

Always,
Gina

I could agree with that if it (what we are discussing) weren't actually a crime in Canada. It is.

While the act of sex between two consenting adults for benefit (payment) is legal in Canada, the lawmakers in Canada cleverly made the actual advertisement, communication of service, management (pimp), or the operation of an establishment or brothel supporting prostitution illegal. Couple that internal Canadian legal catch-22 with the international extension and distribution of that same information into the U.S. to in effect support the trade/commerce and it becomes a bit of a legal beast and either or both countries could prosecute. Thankfully, it looks like that scenario is off the radar so far unless some zealot in the US or Canada decides to make an example out of e-commerce/promotion related hobby focused activities.

I wasn't trying to specifically hurt your business and was just being realistic about the overall potential risk profile to all hobby related websites based on the wider interpretation of the SB94 and the flexibility that it unfortunately provides for future investigation and prosecution which can be further extended under RICO. For example, considering general hacker/security levels, this site (eccy) is built on vbulletin. Not the safest horse to ride. Add to that site login by mobile access, and it becomes even worse. User data is user data which can be in many forms for interpretation/use. Hacking scenarios aside, the ability for a legal agency (US or Canada) to assess and track usage, users and activities is very significant. I'll leave the data/privacy issue alone as there's already enough going on these days to worry people about privacy in general.

As to America and power, I'm not sure ruling the world is really worth it anyway. You see, it's become quite obvious that we can't even manage our own country.

Best wishes!

[GinaXXX]

The laws that cover "bawdy houses" were struck down in Ontario some time ago.

The other laws you mention are currently being argued before the Supreme Court, and while still on the books, are clearly in place to deal with street prostitution and pimps. Incall and outcall providers operate and advertise openly. Advertising never has been considered "communication for the purpose of", even prior to the current debate surrounding these laws.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06...lization-foes/

Advertising is wide open here, with providers listing specific services and prices in the weekly newpapers. After spending every single day for the past 29 years, working in the industry in both Canada and the US, I feel very confident in my knowledge of what is a reasonable fear and what is paranoia. If you don't agree, that's perfectly okay with me. I respect your opinion, and I also feel my opinion and contribution to the discussion is worthwhile.

Always,
Gina

[Guest092216]

Miss Gina, you are far and away my official hobby-idol!