Boycott Hits Sex Site Where It Hurts

heimdall,

  I agree with you. I think for police, government and society it would be much easier if sex  labour was accepted  as a legal activity : regular doctor examinations, taxes- so may be society becomes more tolerant towards sex workers

I think it's legal in Australia, if that helps.

No, I'm sorry I can't concur that a business license is needed to work as a sex worker. Plenty of bawdy houses  here in Vancouver have business licenses, but are liscensed as "massage parlours". Many others are not and the newspapers report occasional arrests. Sometimes these places just work out of an apartment.Walk down Cordova street in my city in the evening and you'll see plenty of streetwalkers, none of whom are liscensed.

These people, mostly woman and a few men, pay no income tax on their earnings and are checked by doctors only it they choose to do so.

The massage parlours advertise in two of the free circulation papers, and I don't recall have ever reading of any of them getting busted for their extra services.

I believe it is still unlawful to "communicate for the purpose of prostitution" and to give directions to a bawdy house.

There are no federal or privincial licensing laws, so we're opening an enormous can of worms. There is no specific statement I could make that will be true in every case.(Plus enforcement of whatever laws there are vary.)

With that proviso, you do need a business license to conduct business as a sex worker and there are requirements in order to obtain a license for that type of business.  Would you concur with that?

Hi RufusJones,  I haven't kept up with changes in laws in this area, but I'm quite certain that sex workers in Canada are not licensed, that their industry is not regulated, and that no provinces require medical examinations. Great ideas and and many have called for them to be introduced . Unless this has recently been changed almost everything related to prostitution is illegal, not that this stop prostitution.

Any company can decide not to advertise with-- or hold stock in-- a company whose behavior they find morally objectionable. Any group can decide to pressure advertisers or stockholders to stop.

What I do find ridiculous is the complaints that Backpage.com is to blame for this problem. The protesters, almost without exception, make it possible for children to be used as prostitutes.

Canada (to name one of several countries) permits the sale and purchase of sexual services. Sex workers are licensed; some provinces require background checks and medical exams. They're permitted to advertise; they can conduct their business in their own home on in a hotel. (If a recent decision by the Ontario Court of Appeals stands, brothels will be permitted to open.) Workers are even taxed on their income.

Children can be still kidnapped and used as sex workers-- but because prostitution isn't illegal, there is some degree of oversight. A buyer can ask to see the seller's license, or report suspicious activity to the police without risk of also being arrested. Landlords and media companies can perform due diligence; legal providers can report suspicious setups.

In the U.S., none of that is possible. Anyone connected with sex for hire is a criminal, who can have assest confiscated and their reputation destroyed even before conviction. (Rent an apartment to a tenant who turns to prosititution to pay her bills and you can end up in jail.) So Backpage, CraigsList, et al have two alternatives: accept ads without checking, or don't accept any.

Ask the people who want to punish sites who take advertising if they support legalization and licensing-- which removes the criminal element-- and you will find they have no interest. The children are a marketing tool for the cause of banning sex for hire. It's an odd combination-- the religious right arm-in-arm with feminists. But that's what it is.

I am skeptical that clamping down on any particular channel for sexual solicitations will bring them to an end.  They'll just move down the street.  But of course advertisers can vote with their feet.  Rush Limbaugh, anyone?

I absolutely support the right to a free press, and I am absolutely against prior restraint - which means I am totally opposed to goverment actions against VVM.

I do however see a fairness in free market pressures on advertisers.

Put as simply as possible: Two wrongs don't make a right. Freedom of speech is one thing, violating human rights and abetting criminal activity is another.

I am a strong advocate of our 1st amendment rights. If sponsors chose to abandon VVM due to the content in which they provide, it is certainly their prerogative.

I also believe in the 4^th Amendment that applies by way of the 14th amendment that protects due process. It appears The NY times Niclas Kristof might have gotten some facts wrong. I also see that the VVM is asking support to sponsor US Bill 596 which calls for grants to provide millions of dollars to provide housing and mental health services for victims.

Under the heading "The Truth Behind Sex Trafficking" VVM's Voice has done an investigative series looking into Backpage.com and the Kristof's column.  The series is worth reading and may clear up some issues that sometimes get twisted in the media.  I can safely say that in MHO there is no grey area when it comes to child abuse under any circumstance.

I do no know enough about the alleged 2003 incident to make a judgment. I do know that public safety and in particular the public safety of children must supersede trying to hide behind the veil of freedom of the press.