×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Proposed Posting of Clients List In Prostitution Case Raises Privacy Concerns

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the staying-off-the-list dept.

Privacy 533

An anonymous reader writes "An interesting case touching on privacy in the Internet age has erupted in Kennebunk, Maine, the coastal town where the Bush family has a vacation home. When a fitness instructor who maintained a private studio was arrested for prostitution, she turned out to have maintained meticulous billing records on some 150 clients, and had secretly recorded the proceedings on video files stored in her computer. Local police have begun issuing summons to her alleged johns, and have announced intentions to publish the list, as is customary in such cases. Police believe such publication has a deterrent effect on future incidents of the kind. However, the notoriety of the case has some, including newspaper editors, wondering whether the lives of the accused johns may be disproportionately scarred (obtaining or keeping a job, treatment of members of their families within the community) for a the mere accusation of having committed a misdemeanor. Also, the list of names will be permanently archived and indexed by search engines essentially forever."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

533 comments

Alter ego, fake name, alias etc. (1)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651607)

I am so happy I pay by wire and never use my real name! Yay, go me!

I recall... (5, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651741)

Somehow, I recall George Carlin's words on the topic:
I don't understand why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?
If selling fucking were legal (as in some other jusrisdictions [thestar.com] of the world), the criminal in question would not be a criminal, and the perpetrators of the misdemeanor in question would not have committed a misdemeanor.

Re:I recall... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651757)

And if murder was legal, suddenly the murderers wouldn't be criminals. All I'm saying is that trying to validate your argument on that idea is flawed. I do agree with your argument overall though.

Re:I recall... (4, Insightful)

moosehooey (953907) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651771)

What are you talking about? What two other acts, only when taken together, constitute murder?

Re:I recall... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651839)

1) Holding a butchers knife
2) walking into your husband

I think there is a verse in a song about that.

Re:I recall... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651971)

I think a better argument against making prostitution illegal is that no one is harmed by it. And it's purely consensual. The cases where it isn't consensual are already covered by other laws (slavery, human trafficking, etc).

Re:I recall... (2)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652019)

Here in Rhode Island, consensual prostitution was legal until someone decided to conflate it with human trafficking, and got it an anti-prostitution bill passed that way.

Sure, a lot of the "asian spas" were human trafficked, but it also makes the "craigslist escort" illegal too.

--
BMO

ban it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41652165)

Prostitutes are routinely victimized by johns, thus creating a need for pimps. Who also victimize prostitutes, but in a way where the prostitutes at least can still make money. It's a fucked up system that has existed for centuries and there should be no reason to continue tolerating its existence.

If you want to make a crappy living off your body, do some exotic dancing. Where the bar owner can victimize you, but typically to a lesser extent.

Re:I recall... (5, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652059)

What are you talking about? What two other acts, only when taken together, constitute murder?

Well, there is driving your car forward and telling someone to stand in front of it. Or stuffing someone in a large room and filling the same room with poison (or flame or vacuum). I could go on, but the thing you are missing is that two actions, taken together, become something different than either of them separate. Murder is lethality + against a person, and prostitution is selling + sex, and an argument that the two individual actions together are legal makes the action as a whole legal is deeply flawed. Having sex is legal, and so is being in public. Is that a good argument that sex in public should be legal? No, because society has decided that when you put those two things together, you get something that is fundamentally different from either in isolation. Same with prostitution. You can argue that society is wrong, and I think make some good arguments for that, but George Carlin's argument is, quite frankly, a bad argument.

Re:I recall... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651789)

How are they even similar? One creates life and is pleasurable, the other takes life away and is painful. You went full retard man, full retard.

Stupid logic (0)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652015)

So since drinking lots of alcohol is legal and driving a car is legal then drink driving should be legal? Voltaire is correct but the absurdity here is your argument.

Stupider logic (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41652051)

So since drinking lots of alcohol is legal and driving a car is legal then drink driving should be legal? Voltaire is correct but the absurdity here is your argument.

Drinking is legal. Driving is legal. Having had drinks prior to driving is also legal, up to a limit. That's because after that limit you're a danger to yourself and also society. How is having sex a danger to society?

Re:I recall... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41652123)

I completely agree with you. Also, drinking is legal, driving is legal. Why the fuck isn't drinking and driving legal?!

Someone else's name? (2)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651931)

I am so happy I pay by wire and never use my real name! Yay, go me!

The problem with this is what happens when the pseudonym that you use happens to be someone else's name? That person will be completely innocent of any crime but will probably have their name dragged through the mud because it is included on a list. A similar thing happened in the UK a few years ago when the police busted a child pornography ring. They then went around and very publicly arrested all the people whose credit cards had been used. While they undoubtedly exposed and arrested several child molesters they also tarnished the reputations of completely innocent people who had had their credit cards stolen.

My feeling is that they should not release something like this until all those on it have at least been charged with the associated crime. Even this can lead to mistakes - as seen in the UK - but at least then there will be a clear record of the mistake and the possibility of consequences for truly incompetent ones that should motivate police to act carefully. After all if they have sufficient evidence to convict someone of a crime in a law court then surely they have a duty to do so? If they don't have that much evidence then they should not be trying to convict someone in the court of public opinion instead - it's unprofessional and potentially wide open to abuse.

Re:Alter ego, fake name, alias etc. (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651997)

I am so happy I pay by wire and never use my real name! Yay, go me!

We've traced you through your slashdot ID. Expect a heavy knocking on your door in one minute.

Publish them all (4, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651611)

The more names of 'important' people who are on the list, the more it should be published. Maybe then someone will actually decide that prosecuting consensual crimes like this isn't generally worth the risk.

Though, waiting until she and her partner are found guilty might be a good plan.

Re:Publish them all (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651671)

consensual crime

ROBBER: Do you mind if I rob your bank?
BANKER: Not at all, the safe is right over there. Feel free to take all the money.
ROBBER: What's the code to the safe?
BANKER: 10-14-12
ROBBER: Hey....that's the same combination to my luggage!

Re:Publish them all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651875)

consensual crime

ROBBER: Do you mind if I rob your bank?
BANKER: Not at all, the safe is right over there. Feel free to take all the money.
ROBBER: What's the code to the safe?
BANKER: 10-14-12
ROBBER: Hey....that's the same combination to my luggage!

You think thats funny, but my friend who works in a bank says that they are specifically told to cooperate with robbers. Its not like they have a whole lot of money on site anyway, the insurance company will cover it, and they are not supposed to take any risks.. I wondered if this means that if you go in and ask nicely for all the money from the safe, they will give it to you.. and then since it was consensual, you can't be prosecuted.. right?

Re:Publish them all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41652075)

It's because LAWYERS will get far more money if the lowly bank employee gets a customer hurt. The Robbers only get 5 minutes to rob you... Lawyers get years!!!

Re:Publish them all (1)

sound+vision (884283) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652115)

It's not consensual if it's done under threat of being shot, stabbed, blown up with C4, etc.

I could walk into a bank in my Star Wars shirt and a propeller hat, and ask them to please grace me with $900,000, no I don't have an account here, but I'd like $2 mil please, and I doubt they would comply. It also wouldn't be attempted robbery.

Re:Publish them all (4, Insightful)

CanadianRealist (1258974) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652161)

As long as all the money in the safe is the property of the banker then your example seems fine.

However as the money is usually the property of other people, your example is ridiculous, unless all those other people also consent. Good luck with that.

Re:Publish them all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651773)

Why the list? Heck... Post the videos online!

Re:Publish them all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651791)

that prosecuting victimless crimes like this

FTFY

Re:Publish them all (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651855)

Though, waiting until she and her partner are found guilty might be a good plan.

That's the problem here, the consequences for people who are still innocent until proven guilty. Even in this seemingly straight forward case it is possible that some of them really are innocent, for example like all the people caught up in the Operation Ore paedophile cases whose credit cards had been stolen.

The media always publishes the names of people accused of murder, rape, paedophilia and various other crimes that will ruin their lives. When they are found innocent the same level of coverage is rarely given. Naturally they lose their jobs and probably most of their friends. The law could require that their employer gives them their job back, but often it takes years or even decades for them to be proven innocent.

Re:Publish them all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651899)

Why do you think it's a good idea to wait until the prostitute is found guilty, but don't have any need to wait until the names on the list have actually been confirmed?

Even if you wait until she's found guilty, then all you'd have is a convicted criminal who accused a bunch of high profile people of also committing a crime, with no evidence.

I say don't release anything to the public unless every name released has been thoroughly investigated, which would be a total waste of tax revenue. So just keep it quiet instead.

Re:Publish them all (2)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651923)

What really needs to happen is not only the publishing of the names, but the "items" they ordered. So if Olympia Snowe got a Cleveland Steamer on months ending in "r", we'd be better informed voters come election day. (Okay, I don't know many politicians from Maine).

Re:Publish them all --- NOT (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652005)

This appears to be extra legal punishment.

If the authorities take it in their own hands to humiliate and punish the "johns"
it leaves the door open for damages. A high profile exec could see is finances
crushed and for some it is BIG bucks.

Someone will pay, some shield laws exist but not from willful illegal acts.

.

Re:Publish them all (3, Interesting)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652027)

Maybe then someone will actually decide that prosecuting consensual crimes like this isn't generally worth the risk.

That's not what would happen. What would happen is that other "important" people who happen to be political or otherwise enemies of those on the list would attack them for their own advantage while secretly thanking God that their own favorite prostitute wasn't the one raided.

Re:Publish them all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41652031)

List of names was already leaked:

Bill Clinton

William Clinton

William Jefferson Clinton

Slick WIlly Clinton

If she videotaped it.. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651615)

wouldn't it be pornography and be legal?

Tough (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651619)

No sympathy for the johns. The prostitute was arrested and her name is in the public domain, why not the johns who also broke the law? Could be pretty funny, too, if the Bush family turns up on that list...

Re:Tough (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651663)

The bush family would be removed! Including anybody with a 'name'.

Re:Tough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651713)

Indeed, people with a 'reputation' and a lot to lose can't be named or prosecuted as it would be an inconvenience and damaging to their aforementioned reputation.

We need only prosecute those with no public profile who have little to start with, so they can lose it all. That'll teach 'em.

Re:Tough (1)

bbelt16ag (744938) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651851)

Anonymous needs to get this list and publish is on pastebin for all the world to see. I am tired of these money bags getting away with everthing they do! Everyttime somebody is arrested their name is plaster on the 6 o colock news, why should they be any freaking different? the post claims they cant get ajob if theyare sumoned? seriously if spend a night in jail for being intoxicated, i would loose my freaking job if they ever found out. They should hanged by public opion in my book.

Re:Tough (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651797)

Is this standard procedure for EVERY criminal case? Are the names of other defendants published for every trial to come out of that court? I know most cases are public record that anyone can access if they care.

Re:Tough (2)

pla (258480) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652143)

Is this standard procedure for EVERY criminal case? Are the names of other defendants published for every trial to come out of that court? I know most cases are public record that anyone can access if they care.

Yes. And not just those charged, but pretty much every adult appearing in the police blotter for any reason that day. Pretty common practice at small-town papers across the country.

I absolutely think we need to pull our heads out of our asses when it comes to puritanical prohibitions on consensual sex (even for pay), but we don't live in that world. These guys committed a crime and got caught, and now they get to suffer all the associated consequences (such as getting their five minutes of (in)fame in the local paper) of that crime. Simple as that.

Re:Tough (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651805)

This. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re:Tough (1)

sound+vision (884283) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652167)

The problem is that this is good for nobody except a police commissioner who gets good PR, and maybe the Maury-watching drama queens who feed on gossip and wrecked lives.

Re:Tough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651837)

I wonder if your opinion would change if your name was on the list?

Even if the bush name does turn up on the list, it doesn't prove anything. You say that would be "pretty funny". I think it would be absolutely disgusting if it comes out that their name is on the list and the police did not bother to check for actual evidence before releasing the information.

She is (allegedly) a criminal. You think she's above lying? Half the list could be fake.

WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651639)

What's this bullshit?

How about legalizing prostitution like civilized countries?

Anyway, those guys are idiots for giving out their real names.

Re:WTF? (1)

agm (467017) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652065)

Indeed. It's hard to believe it's illegal to pay someone for sex. What kind of arse-backwards country is that anyway? Time they were dragged into the 21st century. <dons my flame retardant suit>

Has there been a trial? (4, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651665)

I guess that whole silly "innocent until proven guilty" is so outdated.

Re:Has there been a trial? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651737)

if it were really the case then why hide the name at all?

Retired escort blog (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651669)

I'm just going to leave this here for everyone who hasn't stumbled across it already:

http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com [wordpress.com]

It's one of the few blogs I keep up with consistently, and though I don't entirely agree with her on every facet of her worldview, I do agree prostitution should be de-criminalized/legalized.

Hypo-what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651675)

>Police believe such publication has a deterrent effect on future incidents of the kind.

Easy to say that when you aren't on the receiving end. Yet how many times have cops buried investigations under mountains of secrecy because another cop was the one under investigation? Next you'll be telling me that I'm a coward, and if I don't have anything to hide I should not be hiding behind anonymity.

Re:Hypo-what now? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651925)

You're a coward. If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't be hiding behind anonymity.

I almost never post anonymous, but this was too good to pass up. I'll be laughing in my head for hours even in nobody else does.

Invasion of privacy? (1)

bugnuts (94678) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651687)

She was charged with invasion of privacy, among other things.

Sounds like the cops would be guilty of the same. If the Johns had an expectation of privacy, they still have that expectation. The videotapes she made will undoubtedly be used against the Johns, as the cops would have to prove their cases.

In any case, I agree with the article. If misdemeanors are regularly published, then publish it. If not, they should not. However, the list will be published one way or another, in full or piecemeal, unless they decline to charge the Johns because those charges will be public record.

Re:Invasion of privacy? (1)

Gorobei (127755) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651957)

If the Johns had an expectation of privacy, they still have that expectation.

They can have whatever expectation they want, doesn't mean anyone else agrees.

You sit at home at home and JOAC - you have a good expectation of privacy.

You walk a public street, enter a prostitute's apartment, pay on a credit card, rely on her not to film the encounter: you have lost all claims to privacy. At best you have a civil lawsuit against the women and the right to claim in public that you were just there to "save souls" or "help the fallen" or many of the classic defenses.

Immorality, the pot and the kettle (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651693)

I don't get it. So these characters had sex with a presumably "hot" gym instructer. So what!!!!

That they paid for it - well again, So what???

That the instructor kept records- Good practise in case of communicable disease - again, so what???

That it's immoral - O.K. - cool - that's a personal call that's been made in to law - stupid but then many laws are.

What in God's (and I use that word intentionally) name gives these people the right to compound a legally unlawful act (yet, yes, immoral) with an immoral act? (that of publishing the list of names) Can someone explain to me how the "Land of the free" has become a theocratically conservative state?

this whole story is just sad... (5, Insightful)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651697)

just make prostitution legal (and regulated) like most of Europe. You can even tax the income, while ensuring the safety of the workers and the clients. For bonus points, I grew in Wells, ME, about 10km south of Kennebunk ... and this kinda of ridiculous attention to foolish stories/details like this is one of the reasons I left (small town politics, anyone?) A john's life destroyed? Hardly, especially not by an "employer" with half a brain.

Re:this whole story is just sad... (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651843)

A john's life destroyed? Hardly, especially not by an "employer" with half a brain.

You're going to employ someone with a history of hiring prostitutes, and risk a sexual harassment suit (real or made up) where they'll claim that it's all your fault because you hired this man knowing he had dubious morals and therefore you should pay them millions of dollars in damages?

Re:this whole story is just sad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651887)

You're going to employ someone with a history of hiring prostitutes, and risk a sexual harassment suit (real or made up) where they'll claim that it's all your fault because you hired this man knowing he had dubious morals and therefore you should pay them millions of dollars in damages?

And while he's at it, he needs to buy gremlin insurance, because gremlins might come crawling out of the sewers and destroy his business!
  (Or maybe he should worry about things that are actually likely to happen instead of made-up scaremongering scenarios gleaned from popular media.)

Re:this whole story is just sad... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651901)

The fact that the person, uses prostitutes should be evidence against likelihood of sexual harassment. If they have no compunction paying for it why even bother with co-workers who would undoubtedly cost more.

Re:this whole story is just sad... (2)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651917)

If morals are the problem, then it should be illegal to hire anyone who you know to have committed any felony, misdemeanor, or traffic ticket, since they are obviously of dubious moral character. In reality, there's nothing that correlates hiring a prostitute with harassment at the workplace, just like there's nothing that correlates forgetting to use a blinker when changing lanes to higher incidences of bad business decision making.

Re:this whole story is just sad... (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651967)

Pimping is still illegal in most (all?) of Europe. So the result would have been the same. The fitness instructor would have still been arrested for pimping. His client list would still be made as evidence and be published.

Re:this whole story is just sad... (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651987)

Actually I take that back. She was not pimping, and it does not apply here at all.

Now I'm more curious... (0)

thejuggler (610249) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651707)

Now I'm more curious as to who's names are on the list. Which party or parties is trying to hide something? I find it odd that a newspaper reporters are worried about the privacy of anyone these days. Makes me wonder if some of the reporters or someone higher up at a newspaper is on the client list.

Next, were the payments for the Zumba lesson or sex? Maybe the sex was the free choice of adults that just happened to be conducting other legal business at the time? Just wondering here.

I remember the old days when crimes had victims. (1)

trout007 (975317) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651723)

Ahhh memories.

Re:I remember the old days when crimes had victims (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651849)

The "victim" is the prostitute of course! We need to send her to jail for self harm.

Re:I remember the old days when crimes had victims (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652055)

I remember the old days when crimes had victims.

Witchcraft? Blasphemy? Heresy? Capital cases back in the old days.

Time to legalize it already (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651725)

The reasons for this 'outing of johns' is meant to keep young impressionable women from being exploited by more worldly men of low moral character, I'm all for that, and history usually judge's a society by how well it treats it's women. In Maine everyone pretty much knows everyone else. This posting of names would have defamation of character lawsuits occuring constantly, if the state does not have complete proof that the accused is the actual john. Presently, letters do get sent to the addresses linked to license plates of cars seen in areas of prostitution. Perhaps it's time to legalize and regulate prostitution instead of ruining lives.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651817)

history usually judge's a society by how well it treats it's women.

Wha-wha-WHAT?!? Are we living on the same planet? This is humanity we're talking about right?

Handle The Crime (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651727)

If there is a criminal, prosecute them. Think no further and go no further. It is not anyone's place to preempt in such a manner. Just stay in your own lane.

Personally, I feel that people need to stay out of someone else's pants. Prosecuting people for selling sex is a lazy approach to human rights and a sign of the populace sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong in the first place.

This thread should be removed. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651733)

The whole concept of "having sex with a woman" is just too horrifying and bewildering for the average slashdot member!

Re:This thread should be removed. (1)

Mabhatter (126906) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652147)

This is the "fantasy" portion of Slashdot.... Most nerds here couldn't talk to a girl, if they were paying her!

legalize it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651739)

then you dont have to waste time on shit like this.

Temptation to lie (1)

BlueCoder (223005) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651749)

The lists may be 99% true but I know if I were in that business and I went down I would want to take others down. Specifically those in power be they in government, police or influential businessmen. 80% of those people probably are already customers so that would only be a few names would need to lie about.

It sends a message to those that publicly persecute prostitution that their names will be dragged through the mud as well.

Re:Temptation to lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651941)

Especially because you couldn't even be accused of any wrongdoing - you just put names in your files, you didn't show the files to anyone, the police just came in and refused to take no for answer and you told them that list wasn't a list of your clients and they didn't believe you. How do we know this hasn't already happened?

Public record (1)

JThaddeus (531998) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651753)

Unless they involve minors, misdemeanor charges--DUI, shoplifting, simple assault, etc--are matter of public record. Why should these charges be an exception?

needs to be quiet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651765)

It's really simple. This needs to be kept quiet for three reasons:

  * it will cause actual harm to the lives of many people on the list
  * most of the people who had sex with a prostitute did so expecting the act to remain private. they had a clear "expectation of privacy" as a lawyer would put it
  * there is no proof that the list is accurate. it could theoretically contain names of people (especially celebrities/etc) who did not have sex with a prostitute

I'm OK with posting a summary of the information, perhaps even times/dates, but names should be kept out of the public. And I think anyone who does leak names on the list should be charged with defamation unless they back it up with proof (video surveillance, etc).

Re:needs to be quiet (0)

Gorobei (127755) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652067)

  * most of the people who had sex with a prostitute did so expecting the act to remain private. they had a clear "expectation of privacy" as a lawyer would put it

Yeah, same complaint here: when my girlfriend broke up with me and "vanished" 24 hours later my name appeared in all the local papers. My lawyers totally agreed that I had a clear "expectation of privacy" because I expected the act to remain private.

I even dismembered her and sealed the parts in a barrel in a private warehouse. Can't get more private than that!

robots.txt, seriously (1)

Lally Singh (3427) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651769)

It's 2012, why does this search engine stuff come up all the time, when it's *so* easy to fix? If they want to publish the names, but not have them come up when people are searching for individual people, shove the list in robots.txt. Not complicated. A moron can figure out robots.txt

Re:robots.txt, seriously (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651915)

Because the second they put it online, someone else will rehost it and make it available for search.

Re:robots.txt, seriously (1)

dcollins (135727) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651979)

Those are competing interests coming from different parties.

The police who have the policy of regularly publishing this stuff are interested in maximizing the damage, not reducing it.

I just want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651783)

Why is it ok to give it away, but not ok to sell it?

"...the case has some...wondering..." (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651803)

....why the hell this is any of the government's business at all.

Re:"...the case has some...wondering..." (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651863)

...and why is it legal if a camera's rolling tape on the sex act? Then, it's called "art".

Re:"...the case has some...wondering..." (2)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652009)

Only if the person filming isn't having sex.

California fought and lost the case so now many other states who have laws making it illegal are afraid to prosecute and become centers for porn production as California has.

Personally- when are we going to get past this sex/money thing. Even this sex thing.

How many conservatives need to be found having gay sex before they stop trying to make it illegal? How many people of both political persuasions need to be found having sex for money before they make it legal.

Not everyone is attractive enough to get sex.

And if you are really rich, and give the sex partner on a car and keep an apartment for them to live in- somehow it's suddenly not prostitution and is legal again.

Now that women are using prostitutes more, perhaps they'll get behind legalization. However, most vice squads are still focused on female/male and male/male prostitutes and ignore male/female and female/female prostitutes.

Publish the list... (3, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651835)

...so we can deter future johns. Otherwise they'll just victimize more -- oh, wait, are the johns the victims? Or is it the johns who victimize the prostitutes? Both?

OK, let's publish the list so that future johns will be deterred from victimizing themselves. Or something.

Recorded the sessions? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41651861)

Sounds like they were making legal pornography to me.

Here in Minnesota, that's all you see on Adult Friend Finder. Legal prostitution under the guise of making pornography. As long as you record it, you can pay her for it.

If I were the defense attorney I'd be harping on this crucial fact. IANAL and I do not know if making pornography is illegal in Maine.

Re:Recorded the sessions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41652013)

Do you film yourself while you anal?

Re:Recorded the sessions? (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652035)

I'd be careful of that. The way the law usually reads is that

A&B can have sex if C is paying them to have sex and filming them.

If C gets involved, it's prostitution.

And B giving the money to "C" ahead of time is some kind of additional crime (tho hard to prove).

police (1)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651919)

Police believe such publication has a deterrent effect on future incidents of the kind.

Police should not base their actions on belief, but on evidence. There are studies in almost everything, I'm sure there are studies on this. If not, it's time one was made. I'm not at all convinced it has much of an effect, but convince me otherwise.

Until then, I think we can leave the pillory in the dark ages. I thought we had.

It's Illegal? (1)

echusarcana (832151) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651921)

Being Canadian, I am surprised prostitution is actually a crime in the United States. Strictly speaking, it isn't here.
Seems kind of parochial, just sayin'.

Sound like certain Journo's are on the list. (1)

BatGnat (1568391) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651939)

Sound like certain Journo's are on the list.

Normally they would be begging for the list...

I actually got a leaked copy-- here it is... (3, Funny)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651953)

John Cooper
John Smith
John Baker
John Howard
John Davis
John Brookhead
John Wilson
Juan Mendez
Juan Morales
Johen Schmidt
Jean Billet
Jean Claude

Why should we care if someone gets a BJ? (1)

kawabago (551139) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651965)

If someone wants to pay for anonymous sex and someone else wants to be paid for providing it, why is the government sticking it's nose in? What is wrong with selling sex? Sex doesn't kill you like cigarettes will but you can legally buy cigarettes everywhere, but most places you'll be arrested for trying to buy sex. Prostitution is illegal because the law is part of the mechanism men implemented to control women. Prostitution is illegal because men made the law to oppress women. Don't let them get an education, don't let them have men's jobs, don't let them vote, don't let them sell themselves. The law is meant to keep women dependent on men.

Re:Why should we care if someone gets a BJ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41652139)

Actually all you have to do is film it. Then you can say you are filming a porn movie. : )

My opinion (1)

kiriath (2670145) | about a year and a half ago | (#41651977)

Publish the names, but only in connection with each of the 150 charges that would be brought against the Johns... Don't just publish the list and disallow them an attempt at defense.

Sure they are on tape, and their names are on record - but they STILL have rights, and are still innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

A list doesn't wholly prove guilt. A tape doesn't wholly prove guilt. The court decides who is guilty and it is based on ALL the evidence presented.

Remember the "DC Madam"? (1, Troll)

FudRucker (866063) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652045)

she had quite a clientele, many were politicians in high places in washington, she was mysteriously suicided (murdered?) and i think she had a clientele book that mysteriously disappeared too, probably had some important washington politician's names in it and their fetishes and favorite whores...

They treat rich people different? (1)

darkonc (47285) | about a year and a half ago | (#41652073)

Publish them all - including the newspaper publishers on her client list (if any). Perhaps they'll finally stop criminalizing prostitution, and regulate it properly.

No Privacy Right for Crimes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41652175)

I don't see that this is much of an "internet" story. Yes, records will be available by search engines for the foreseeable future. That's in minor contrast to the practice of keeping them in hardcopy files and newspapers available to any member of the public who wants to come and take a look.

The records shouldn't be released until each individual is proven to have been a customer. After that, I don't care. You don't have a right to demand that your crimes be kept secret.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...