MyRedbook Shut Down

[Poker_Babe]

So the site myredbook.com was shut down a few days ago and the site owners arrested. I posted about it on my blog.
So why do you think that sites like backpage and others are still operational? Or do you think it's just a matter of time before those sites get shut down too? In some places, what camgirls do is considered prostitution according to the law. Do you think it may be a matter of time before sites like MFC and SM get shut down as well?
I personally think that the owners of myredbook most likely weren't paying their taxes and paying off the right people. Had they been "greasing the right pockets", they most likely would still be in business. Also, the resent case about the former fire chief that murdered his girlfriend who also worked on MRB might have jump started the shut down of the site too.

 

[Gen]

Anti-prostitution groups are constantly trying to get Backpage down, and will probably succeed like they did with Craigslist's adult section. MyRedBook was used not just for advertising (at a cheaper rate than many other escort ad sites), but for bad date lists for workers to share info about bad clients. Shutting down a cheap ad site a few days before the end of the month in an expensive city pretty much guarantees a lot of workers will be moving from inside to the street. I think it has more to do with trying to make a statement against prostitution than tax evasion. Were they for sure not paying taxes?

Camming may legally be a gray area in some places but I haven't seen any indication that anyone's going after camsites. Maybe one day though.

 

[mutantdonut]

If i can recall correctly, i remember Backpage had an issue with child prostitution to which they now closely monitor any potential child exploit services, yet continue to run the escort links as usual. I always figured Backpage was a Craigslist knockoff with it's own escort connection setup, which is the only illegal part of Backpage, unless there's more to the website that i don't know about.

 

[Poker_Babe]

Well according to news reports and a few other people, it seems the street corners are full of street walkers again. One person said he thought he hit a time warp back to the 1980's, then he got on his computer and found out the MRB was gone.
Nice job at keeping everyone safer and prostitution off the streets feds. :roll:

 

[Bocefish]

Well according to news reports and a few other people, it seems the street corners are full of street walkers again. One person said he thought he hit a time warp back to the 1980's, then he got on his computer and found out the MRB was gone.
Nice job at keeping everyone safer and prostitution off the streets feds. :roll:

When politicians run out of other people's money and new things to tax, they will eventually legalize the oldest profession in the world just as they're doing with pot. Gonna be a while though.

:twocents-02cents:

 

[Poker_Babe]

The state loves that prostitution is illegal so they always have a source of "criminals" to bust. Local cops loved mrb because it made their jobs easier. I can't foresee prostitution being legalized anytime soon either.

 

[yossarian]

How is camming prostitution? :/ I can't see any way it would fit the legal definition, at least in the U.S.

Here's one definition I found, from New Mexico:

"Prostitution consists of knowingly engaging in or offering to engage in a sexual act for hire. As used in this section "sexual act" means sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, masturbation of another, anal intercourse or the causing of penetration to any extent and with any object of the genital or anal opening of another, whether or not there is any emission. Whoever commits prostitution is guilty of a petty misdemeanor, unless such crime is a second or subsequent conviction, in which case such person is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Seems like physical contact is required. As far as I know, every state has a definition similar to this one.

 

[mutantdonut]

How is camming prostitution? :/ I can't see any way it would fit the legal definition, at least in the U.S.

Here's one definition I found, from New Mexico:

"Prostitution consists of knowingly engaging in or offering to engage in a sexual act for hire. As used in this section "sexual act" means sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, masturbation of another, anal intercourse or the causing of penetration to any extent and with any object of the genital or anal opening of another, whether or not there is any emission. Whoever commits prostitution is guilty of a petty misdemeanor, unless such crime is a second or subsequent conviction, in which case such person is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Seems like physical contact is required. As far as I know, every state has a definition similar to this one.

Just to play a wee bit of devil's adv, I've heard of conservative minds (think FOX news) who consider nude modeling for Playboy as forms of prostitution. They defined it as anyone willing to sell themselves in a sexual manner, whether it's solo or coming in contact with another. Perhaps that's what PokerBabe was referring to.

It's worth noting how people will stretch terminology beyond the official definition just to satisfy a condition, as long as people see enough gray area.

 

[yossarian]

How is camming prostitution? :/ I can't see any way it would fit the legal definition, at least in the U.S.

Here's one definition I found, from New Mexico:

"Prostitution consists of knowingly engaging in or offering to engage in a sexual act for hire. As used in this section "sexual act" means sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, masturbation of another, anal intercourse or the causing of penetration to any extent and with any object of the genital or anal opening of another, whether or not there is any emission. Whoever commits prostitution is guilty of a petty misdemeanor, unless such crime is a second or subsequent conviction, in which case such person is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Seems like physical contact is required. As far as I know, every state has a definition similar to this one.

Just to play a wee bit of devil's adv, I've heard of conservative minds (think FOX news) who consider nude modeling for Playboy as forms of prostitution. They defined it as anyone willing to sell themselves in a sexual manner, whether it's solo or coming in contact with another. Perhaps that's what PokerBabe was referring to.

It's worth noting how people will stretch terminology beyond the official definition just to satisfy a condition, as long as people see enough gray area.

Yes, but what people think and what the law actually says are two different things.

 

[SaffronBurke]

There are a few states that include self-stimulation for the pleasure of another in their definition of prostitution, so in those places, camming would be considered prostitution. :twocents-02cents:

 

[yossarian]

There are a few states that include self-stimulation for the pleasure of another in their definition of prostitution, so in those places, camming would be considered prostitution. :twocents-02cents:

In person or on camera? I think you'd have to be able to prove it wasn't a recording.

 

[LilyEvans]

There are a few states that include self-stimulation for the pleasure of another in their definition of prostitution, so in those places, camming would be considered prostitution. :twocents-02cents:

In person or on camera? I think you'd have to be able to prove it wasn't a recording.

Unless the law specifies, it is probably open to interpretation by courts; I doubt many (if any) camgirls will be arrested for it, however, and if they are they are probably more likely to be charged with obscenity than prostitution.

 

[Poker_Babe]

The law in California says prostitution is "a lewd act for money or other consideration," which is "the touching of breast, buttocks or genitals for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal." Notice that it doesn't say who touches whose breast, buttocks or genitals in order for it to be lewd conduct. The vagueness of the law allows the act of masturbation to be included in the definition of prostitution if the other person (who is paying) becomes aroused or achieves sexual gratification while watching you and that is what they are paying for. So, whether you masturbate yourself, or, if you have a girl-girl show where you touch the breasts, buttocks or genitals of a third party, if the individual who is paying you gets aroused, etc. technically, in California, you have broken the law.

 

[LilyEvans]

The law in California says prostitution is "a lewd act for money or other consideration," which is "the touching of breast, buttocks or genitals for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal." Notice that it doesn't say who touches whose breast, buttocks or genitals in order for it to be lewd conduct. The vagueness of the law allows the act of masturbation to be included in the definition of prostitution if the other person (who is paying) becomes aroused or achieves sexual gratification while watching you and that is what they are paying for. So, whether you masturbate yourself, or, if you have a girl-girl show where you touch the breasts, buttocks or genitals of a third party, if the individual who is paying you gets aroused, etc. technically, in California, you have broken the law.

Question: how is this law applicable in California since in Cali production of porn is specifically distinct from prostitution?

For example, I found this in the California penal code:

653.20. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions
apply:
(a) "Commit prostitution" means to engage in sexual conduct for
money or other consideration, but does not include sexual conduct
engaged in as a part of any stage performance, play, or other
entertainment open to the public.

 

[mutantdonut]

The law in California says prostitution is "a lewd act for money or other consideration," which is "the touching of breast, buttocks or genitals for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal." Notice that it doesn't say who touches whose breast, buttocks or genitals in order for it to be lewd conduct. The vagueness of the law allows the act of masturbation to be included in the definition of prostitution if the other person (who is paying) becomes aroused or achieves sexual gratification while watching you and that is what they are paying for. So, whether you masturbate yourself, or, if you have a girl-girl show where you touch the breasts, buttocks or genitals of a third party, if the individual who is paying you gets aroused, etc. technically, in California, you have broken the law.

Question: how is this law applicable in California since in Cali production of porn is specifically distinct from prostitution?

For example, I found this in the California penal code:

653.20. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions
apply:
(a) "Commit prostitution" means to engage in sexual conduct for
money or other consideration, but does not include sexual conduct
engaged in as a part of any stage performance, play, or other
entertainment open to the public.

I was curious myself and found this:

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/03/1 ... hy-is-not/

From what i gathered, it's the first amendment creating a barrier separating porn from prostitution. While porn is a form of prostitution by definition, it's also seen as "expressive material" as an entertainment medium, and entertainment mediums (tv shows, movies, music vids, etc) are first amendment protected. Proclaiming porn as illegal prostitution infringes on the first amendment's integrity, according to its ruling

 

[LilyEvans]

The law in California says prostitution is "a lewd act for money or other consideration," which is "the touching of breast, buttocks or genitals for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal." Notice that it doesn't say who touches whose breast, buttocks or genitals in order for it to be lewd conduct. The vagueness of the law allows the act of masturbation to be included in the definition of prostitution if the other person (who is paying) becomes aroused or achieves sexual gratification while watching you and that is what they are paying for. So, whether you masturbate yourself, or, if you have a girl-girl show where you touch the breasts, buttocks or genitals of a third party, if the individual who is paying you gets aroused, etc. technically, in California, you have broken the law.

Question: how is this law applicable in California since in Cali production of porn is specifically distinct from prostitution?

For example, I found this in the California penal code:

653.20. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions
apply:
(a) "Commit prostitution" means to engage in sexual conduct for
money or other consideration, but does not include sexual conduct
engaged in as a part of any stage performance, play, or other
entertainment open to the public.

I was curious myself and found this:

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/03/1 ... hy-is-not/

From what i gathered, it's the first amendment creating a barrier separating porn from prostitution. While porn is a form of prostitution by definition, it's also seen as "expressive material" as an entertainment medium, and entertainment mediums (tv shows, movies, music vids, etc) are first amendment protected. Proclaiming porn as illegal prostitution infringes on the first amendment's integrity, according to its ruling

Seems to me then that camming should be the same, since it is broadcast. Even though it is interactive one could totally make the argument that it's a performance and is protected under the first amendment.

 

[Poker_Babe]

Seems to me then that camming should be the same, since it is broadcast. Even though it is interactive one could totally make the argument that it's a performance and is protected under the first amendment.

But what about states other than California? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the production of porn only "legal" in California? Why should the first amendment only give protection in one state, and not the other 49? I mean, the constitution/bill of rights is supposed to be the law above all other laws of the land right?!

It's all kept vague, contradicting, and all around confusing for a reason! So that the state will always be able to find some kind of "legal loophole" to be able to press charges against someone if they ever need to. And there's no great public outcry for the decriminalization for any of this, because people in the adult entertainment/sex worker industry are looked down upon by society. The general public feels like it's not their problem so why should they care? If they didn't want to risk going to jail, then they should have just gotten a "real job".
Aside from the fact that this is indeed a "REAL JOB", the general public fails to realize, that this is much more than just us wanting to protect "sex workers right"... It's actually a case of HUMAN RIGHTS! You can't cherry pick what rights should be protected based on morality. If we as a country, want to remain a free country, we have to protect ALL RIGHTS! Sadly, not enough people understand this.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I find it hard to believe that any prosecutor would bother trying to twist prostitution laws to make them cover camming, when they are so many actual illegal acts that are going on on a site like MFC everyday. Illegal drug use, underage drinking, rebroadcasting of copyrighted material, gambling, not mention at least 1/2 the girls are running illegal lotteries.

 

[yossarian]

I find it hard to believe any prosecutor would bother going after MFC at all. It would likely have to be done on a federal level, and that would open up such a Pandora's Box. The feds seem to have mostly given up on prosecuting MOST obscenity involving adults. Every once in a while they go after somebody who produces fetish films or something, but it's a far cry from the days when they were busting photo shoots and porn film productions left and right (read Legs McNeil's "The Other Hollywood" if you're interested in that history). This isn't the Reagan era anymore, and the Moral Majority doesn't have the power it used to. Even under Bush, they really only went after a few isolated obscenity cases (such as when they went after John Stagliano--and those charges were dropped).

Keep in mind the way the Feds have generally gone after obscenity is to order a video or magazine they believe to be obscene and have it sent to a state or community where it would be illegal. In those cases, they can go after you for violating postal regulations. Since MFC is operating on the web, they'd have to justify how this one site was worse than the millions of others. It's just not worth it, or feasible. Even if some cowboy decided to do it, he'd be laughed out of court. The Feds are going after kiddie porn, and the local authorities are busting actual prostitution. They aren't about to run at this particular windmill.

If MFC is vigilant about its performers being of age (and they seem to be), then they have nothing to worry about. The reason they went after the website you describe is that it was facilitating actual, real live prostitution (by the generally accepted definition), not some politician's fantasy of what prostitution is. Sure, it could happen that somebody decides to try a cam site for prostitution, but I don't think it's going to be the widespread, gestapo-at-the-camgirls'-doorsteps thing people seem to be worried about, and it will never pass Constitutional muster.

 

[Bocefish]

Camgirls have nothing to worry about unless new laws somehow get passed. Money laundering, tax evasion and RICO charges are what site owners like Leo need to be concerned with.

Child porn and human trafficking are way too much of a priority before some dimwitted politician commits career suicide by trying to pass new legislation outlawing what consenting adults do in their own homes.

:twocents-02cents:

 

[Poker_Babe]

I find it hard to believe any prosecutor would bother going after MFC at all. It would likely have to be done on a federal level, and that would open up such a Pandora's Box. The feds seem to have mostly given up on prosecuting MOST obscenity involving adults. Every once in a while they go after somebody who produces fetish films or something, but it's a far cry from the days when they were busting photo shoots and porn film productions left and right (read Legs McNeil's "The Other Hollywood" if you're interested in that history). This isn't the Reagan era anymore, and the Moral Majority doesn't have the power it used to. Even under Bush, they really only went after a few isolated obscenity cases (such as when they went after John Stagliano--and those charges were dropped).

Keep in mind the way the Feds have generally gone after obscenity is to order a video or magazine they believe to be obscene and have it sent to a state or community where it would be illegal. In those cases, they can go after you for violating postal regulations. Since MFC is operating on the web, they'd have to justify how this one site was worse than the millions of others. It's just not worth it, or feasible. Even if some cowboy decided to do it, he'd be laughed out of court. The Feds are going after kiddie porn, and the local authorities are busting actual prostitution. They aren't about to run at this particular windmill.

If MFC is vigilant about its performers being of age (and they seem to be), then they have nothing to worry about. The reason they went after the website you describe is that it was facilitating actual, real live prostitution (by the generally accepted definition), not some politician's fantasy of what prostitution is. Sure, it could happen that somebody decides to try a cam site for prostitution, but I don't think it's going to be the widespread, gestapo-at-the-camgirls'-doorsteps thing people seem to be worried about, and it will never pass Constitutional muster.

I'm in no way predicting a "widespread gestapo at the camgirl's doorsteps". And the main reason that Red was busted, had to do with M-O-N-E-Y! But the Feds threw in the prostitution part to make themselves look good in the mainstream media, and demonize the site owner in the eyes of the public. If you read the court papers, you'll see that all of the charges have to do with money transfers. Look at Heidi Fleiss... In the end, what did she eventually go to prison for??? It wasn't pandering, it was tax evasion. And I would bet my left boob that if Leo wasn't paying his taxes, MFC would share the same fate as MRB. Red wasn't "greasing the right pockets". They saw that he was worth 5 million in cash and assets from what he made off of that site, and they swooped in and ceased it from him. I'm sure that MFC has made waaaaaaay more than 5 million. Do you really believe for one second that if Leo wasn't giving "Uncle Sam" his cut, that they wouldn't be all over his assets like white on rice, and then demonize him in the media while making themselves out to be on some holy crusade at the same time?
The point I'm getting at is... No, the gov. doesn't "really" want to put a stop to the sex worker/adult entertainment industry. Do you realize how many politicians, law enforcement officers, and federal agents there are who are customers themselves?! The laws against consenting adult sex workers are nothing but a farce. Forced prostitution and child sex trafficking has always been a crime. They don't need to make prostitution illegal to stop child trafficking. If anything, it's counter productive to stopping trafficking, because it forces everything father "underground". Prohibition always brings in the "Al Capones", cartels, and other gangsters/bad guys because it creates such a big black market.
And now I'm starting to ramble, so I guess I should just leave it here... I was just told dinner was ready, so... to be continued... LOL

 

[yossarian]

So are you saying the government's real problem with Al Capone and Heidi Fleiss was that they weren't paying taxes? Both of them were FLAGRANTLY breaking the law, in different ways. Tax evasion was a means to catch them because they couldn't get the other stuff to stick. In the 80s, when the Feds were coming down on the porn industry, they went after porn performers like Ginger Lynn and Tom Byron for tax evasion as a way to scare them into testifying (falsely) that their bosses knew that Traci Lords was underage. They were going after the industry for political reasons, not because they wanted more tax dollars. Trust me, if it was all about money, every CEO in America would be in prison because many of those companies pay ZERO taxes.

Plus, is Leo even American? I thought he was Russian or something. If his company isn't based in the U.S., that's a way around most U.S. tax laws.

 

[Poker_Babe]

Of course it's political. But it's also about money too. The one's who "aren't paying taxes" are the ones in the "good old boys" club. Just because someone's a millionaire, doesn't make them a part of it. Usually, if you're smart enough to make a million as an entrepreneur, then you're smart enough to pay your taxes and have a lawyer on retainer. IMHO, they could have put Al Capone away for other crimes, but they cared more about going after the money.

 

[camstory]

Well, off topic is clearly not an issue, as this thread has wrapped around, its weave loose, separated. I might give my opinion, on all topics pro-tem thus far - that could be a classic Cam post - will I? fraid knot! One tho did stoke passion & ire.

IMhO, every key stroke, every minute goggling rule, relationship, relevance, and/or relevance of president while discussion the criminal act of prostitution, is wasted time!!!

Why wasted time? B/C, anything, that in any way, supports the idea that proposition be a criminal act, supports the unjust rule, and continuation of the morass of our puritan past. Lets not lend relevance, to that which is so clearly a construct of fear, and prejudicial judgment, and not give equal energy to the fundamental problem. Much of the argument that whoring should be a crime, is either inaccurate, or in fact is acerbated, if not created, by making it a crime. But that too, in just as irrelevant as the rest, b/c there is no power justified in dictating the actions of the other where those actions don't cause harm.

We should all try to love each other as best we can, and love does not oppress and judge, - its power is not authoritarian, but rather caring.

 

[Gen]

There is a very large possibility that I'm misunderstanding Cam, but discussing the law and regulations about prostitution is far from a waste of time.

In Canada last year, the sanctions surrounding prostitution were ruled unconstitutional and new frameworks are being put into place, and those are being challenged too. It wasn't like the government decided to loosen the reins by their own accord, it followed a court case in which a group of sex workers challenged the laws and took it to the Supreme Court. That would never have happened if people just said "oh well" and didn't discuss it further.

It's vital to view the idea of proposition as a criminal act and to taken into account the puritanical views that make up our current laws, because even if you disagree, most of the world still views sex work that way and we can't fix what we don't acknowledge. Even if power isn't justified, it's still there - if I got arrested for solicitation, I couldn't just say "we'll you're not justified in this" and walk away.

I agree that many of the arguments against prostitution are wrong or exaggerated, but that's not irrelevant. Peoples livelihoods and lives are affected by these laws so it's unfair to dismiss the opposing side as if it doesn't matter.

 

[camstory]

On once yesterday to see 1 post after mine, and having no time, just read the first line, that went something like, 'Maybe I don't understand cam, but I think...'

I understand the sentiment, I had two long paragraphs that addressed those concerns, but deleted them before I posted thinking the post was too wordy. I will try to summarize - it went something like this.

I realize in the practicality of our RW existence we need to work with the program in place, not one we might think is better. Though a huge part of why I come here is to share my grandiose notions of how the world should be. (Whether or not those notions are grand or not is debatable.) Sometimes I find it hard to find inspiration, and piratical or not discussions that slip in to debits of state and fed law, can feel a bit stuffy. This should be (IMO) a place to imagine what is now impractical, but someday may be a world much more right than the one we live in, as well as the practical.

That's the jist of it. I was frustrated. My frustration was not so much about the discussion of current law about prostitution, but rather that there was no mention at all of the fundamental problem. IMhO, any law that aims to dictate the actions of anyone, where that someone is harming no one, is straight Bull Shit!!!

Certain jobs carry certain job related risk, both physical and mental. Fire fighters, and cops are high on that list, but there are many others. We like to think we do our best to intact laws that serve to protect these ppl. Why do we not treat prostitutes as well as we do cops? Because their whores, and our puritan past, and cultural biases create an attitude that devalues these ppl. It, in fact, puts them in the same file as true criminals. (True criminal is IMO someone that causes hurt or harm to some other/s.) We not only, don't protect these ppl, but we aim to punish them for no crime. I am of the opinion that prostitution is victimless. (Victimless: denoting a crime in which there is no injured party.) I am as sure that victimless crime laws and not free of victims, as the victims are those the laws target.

I had just wanted to point out in all our practicality that we also need to keep in mind that beyond what is today practical, there is often a more just world, if only imagined. We must look to where we need to go, and keep that vision lit for others, if we ever hope to get there.