Why can't "right to privacy" be used to force legalization of prostitution?

[Derec]

It would seem right up the privacy alley really. I mean if it can be used to legalize abortion, a much less private act, why not prostitution?
From a legal standpoint I can't think of any reason why right to privacy should apply to one, but not the other. From the ideological standpoint, of course, what passes for "liberal" in US these days opposes prostitution due to its alliance with radical feminism so I can't believe the likes of Sotomayor or Kagan would vote for it, although I do think Ginsburg and Breyer could be principled enough to extend right to privacy to consensual commercial sex.

 

[Jayjay]

I would imagine that it depends on the the exact circumstances of the hypothetical case and the laws involved.

 

[laughing dog]

It would seem right up the privacy alley really. I mean if it can be used to legalize abortion, a much less private act, why not prostitution?
From a legal standpoint I can't think of any reason why right to privacy should apply to one, but not the other. From the ideological standpoint, of course, what passes for "liberal" in US these days opposes prostitution due to its alliance with radical feminism so I can't believe the likes of Sotomayor or Kagan would vote for it, although I do think Ginsburg and Breyer could be principled enough to extend right to privacy to consensual commercial sex.

Go for it. I look forward to your landmark SCOTUS case.

 

[SimpleDon]

It would seem right up the privacy alley really. I mean if it can be used to legalize abortion, a much less private act, why not prostitution?
From a legal standpoint I can't think of any reason why right to privacy should apply to one, but not the other. From the ideological standpoint, of course, what passes for "liberal" in US these days opposes prostitution due to its alliance with radical feminism so I can't believe the likes of Sotomayor or Kagan would vote for it, although I do think Ginsburg and Breyer could be principled enough to extend right to privacy to consensual commercial sex.

As so often you ask a question and then answer it in the very next sentence. The "radical feminism" involved is the idea that prostitutes are the victims of prostitution. You would have to change this perception before you could legalize prostitution.

 

[RavenSky]

It would seem right up the privacy alley really. I mean if it can be used to legalize abortion, a much less private act, why not prostitution?
From a legal standpoint I can't think of any reason why right to privacy should apply to one, but not the other...

Go for it!

Then maybe you will be so busy taking your case to the USSC that you will stop littering this board with your vile anti-woman anti-minority crap

 

[Derec]

Then maybe you will be so busy taking your case to the USSC that you will stop littering this board with your vile anti-woman anti-minority crap

Just because I do not think women and so-called "minorities" should have special rights I am not anti-them.
Besides, what do these personal attacks have to do with legalization of prostitution?

 

[Derec]

As so often you ask a question and then answer it in the very next sentence. The "radical feminism" involved is the idea that prostitutes are the victims of prostitution. You would have to change this perception before you could legalize prostitution.

I doubt very much the perceptions of radical feminists can be changed - they are very dogmatic and extreme. A better course of action would be to try to appeal to Democrats to drop their support of radical feminism in favor of more individualistic, classical liberalism, but as we can see from the response of the Obama administration to the made-up "rape culture" nonsense - to severely restrict ability of accused male students to defend themselves - that is not very likely either. Best course might then be the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, as unlikely as that seems.

 

[RavenSky]

Then maybe you will be so busy taking your case to the USSC that you will stop littering this board with your vile anti-woman anti-minority crap

Just because I do not think women and so-called "minorities" should have special rights I am not anti-them.
Besides, what do these personal attacks have to do with legalization of prostitution?

There is no "personal attack" in my comment, just a truthful observation of the content of your posts, including your ridiculous assertion that anyone is asking for "special rights" and your vile language ("femifisting" for instance).

 

[Derec]

There is no "personal attack" in my comment, just a truthful observation of the content of your posts, including your ridiculous assertion that anyone is asking for "special rights"

- Affirmative action is special rights
- claiming that blacks can't be racist and women can't be sexist is special rights
- claiming that a black perp who is shot by police is automatically victim of "police brutality" or assuming that a black woman who kills herself in jail must have been murdered by those "racist pigs" is special rights.
- demanding that college girls who drink before consensual sex are automatically "rape victims" while their male partner who drank just as much is automatically a "rapist" is special rights.
and many more.
And finally, and relevant to this
- claiming that women are, by definition, victims of prostitution even if they engage in it voluntarily and earn good money (which is radical feminist dogma) while men who buy services or prostitutes are a bunch of oppressors (also radical feminist digma) is special rights.

and your vile language ("femifisting" for instance).

I do not think that ridiculous, extremist, misandrist forum needs to be given any respect whatsoever.

 

[RavenSky]

- Affirmative action is special rights
- claiming that blacks can't be racist and women can't be sexist is special rights
- claiming that a black perp who is shot by police is automatically victim of "police brutality" or assuming that a black woman who kills herself in jail must have been murdered by those "racist pigs" is special rights.
- demanding that college girls who drink before consensual sex are automatically "rape victims" while their male partner who drank just as much is automatically a "rapist" is special rights.
and many more.

none of those are "special rights" - they are only your twisted exaggerations to further your anti-women, anti-minority postings on this board.

And finally, and relevant to this
- claiming that women are, by definition, victims of prostitution even if they engage in it voluntarily and earn good money (which is radical feminist dogma) while men who buy services or prostitutes are a bunch of oppressors (also radical feminist digma) is special rights.

More baseless twisted exaggerations on your part.

and your vile language ("femifisting" for instance).

I do not think that ridiculous, extremist, misandrist forum needs to be given any respect whatsoever.

Had you limited yourself to saying "I do not think that ridiculous, extremist, misandrist forum needs to be given any respect whatsoever", I would have no objection whether I agreed with you or not.

It is your CONTINUOUS vile vicious disgusting language with regard to women and minorities. It is the CONSTANT use of words like "feminazi" and "thug" to refer to "women" and "black men". And don't try to pretend that you only use such anti-women, anti-minority language in select situations, because you use it in EVERY thread that remotely touches on any issue pertaining to women or blacks.

Back to the topic, I happen to agree that prostitution should be legal (and highly regulated) and that "privacy" might be a valid avenue to argue for it. Unfortunately, due to your very very very long history on these boards of the very same vile disgusting anti-women, anti-minority language I just commented on, I can't take your advocacy for legalized prostitution as coming from a place of caring about the women.

It is a FACT that too many women are forced into prostitution, and/or forced to stay prostitutes. It is a FACT that the sex worker trade is full of violence against women. It is a FACT that most prostitution is not actually truly "consensual". I think all of those issues could be addressed in sensible legislation that would necessarily include financial aid to women (and gay men) to allow them to chose NOT to prostitute themselves because they have no other financial options. Other civilized countries have done it. The U.S. could too.

The problem is not, in my opinion, liberals "in US these days opposes prostitution due to its alliance with radical feminism". The problem is people like you who want prostitution legalized, but ignore/deny/don't give a shit about the very real anti-women issues involved in the industry. And before you try to whine that the previous sentence was another attack on your character, it wasn't. It was an observation of your comments - starting with the OP - in this thread. It was all a bunch of frothing at the mouth about "radical feminists"; but not even a single observation of the horrors women do IN FACT experience in the sex worker trade with any ideas on how to protect women in this push for legalization.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It would seem right up the privacy alley really. I mean if it can be used to legalize abortion, a much less private act, why not prostitution?

Because it's not a private act. You can privately fuck anyone you want, but if it's an act of commerce, different state agencies get involved.

And no one's ever managed to figure out where to put the tax stamp on prostitution goods and services.

 

[Derec]

It would seem right up the privacy alley really. I mean if it can be used to legalize abortion, a much less private act, why not prostitution?

Because it's not a private act. You can privately fuck anyone you want, but if it's an act of commerce, different state agencies get involved.

And no one's ever managed to figure out where to put the tax stamp on prostitution goods and services.

Women pay abortion providers as well, and abortions are done in abortion clinics with signs and Yellow Pages ads (at the time of the ruling, more like websites now) and stuff.
Yet, right to privacy was still used to legalize it.
So why not prostitution (other than ideological bias)?

 

[laughing dog]

Because it's not a private act. You can privately fuck anyone you want, but if it's an act of commerce, different state agencies get involved.

And no one's ever managed to figure out where to put the tax stamp on prostitution goods and services.

Women pay abortion providers as well, and abortions are done in abortion clinics with signs and Yellow Pages ads (at the time of the ruling, more like websites now) and stuff.
Yet, right to privacy was still used to legalize it.
So why not prostitution (other than ideological bias)?

To get your definitive answer, SCOTUS will have to rule. So, again, I look forward to your landmark SCOTUS case.

 

[Jayjay]

Because it's not a private act. You can privately fuck anyone you want, but if it's an act of commerce, different state agencies get involved.

And no one's ever managed to figure out where to put the tax stamp on prostitution goods and services.

Women pay abortion providers as well, and abortions are done in abortion clinics with signs and Yellow Pages ads (at the time of the ruling, more like websites now) and stuff.
Yet, right to privacy was still used to legalize it.
So why not prostitution (other than ideological bias)?

Has anyone ever tried to appeal a prostitution case on basis of anti-prostitution laws being unconstitutional? I think the reason might be that neither the prostitutes nor their clients have the inclination to go through the legal process to correct this perceived injustice.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I think that prostitution should be decriminalized and regulated. If a woman wishes to provide sexual intercourse as a paid service, it is her decision, her body, and her choice to make. That is why it should by decriminalized. Due to the abuses that historically have been suffered by women practicing prostitution, it needs to be well regulated. In rural counties in Nevada, it is already legal.

Will right to privacy be the path to legal sex for pay? Probably not.

" Sexual surrogacy has been legal in all of the United States since 2003, provided the surrogate works under the supervision of a licensed therapist."

I would assume that sex for pay for recreational use would more likely follow the path of marijuana legalization for recreational use. Gain acceptance as a medical practice and then when the world doesn't end, people will rethink their position.



Will right to privacy prove the argument that will bring about decriminalization? Probably not.

 

[credoconsolans]

From what I read of the red light districts in the Netherlands, Amsterdam specifically, while legalizing prostitution made the job safer, it didn't make it less sleazier, nor did it stop illegal prostitution. So it's a tossup between proving legal, safe jobs, making another source of taxable income, while driving up bureaucracy costs and lowering property values around brothels while not really curbing the profession as a crime.

 

[Achwienichtig]

Because it's not a private act. You can privately fuck anyone you want, but if it's an act of commerce, different state agencies get involved.

And no one's ever managed to figure out where to put the tax stamp on prostitution goods and services.

Women pay abortion providers as well, and abortions are done in abortion clinics with signs and Yellow Pages ads (at the time of the ruling, more like websites now) and stuff.
Yet, right to privacy was still used to legalize it.
So why not prostitution (other than ideological bias)?

Abortion is a medical procedure, and medicine is given a special treatment in privacy law. You'll have a hard time arguing that prostitution is a medical procedure.

 

[arkirk]

Women pay abortion providers as well, and abortions are done in abortion clinics with signs and Yellow Pages ads (at the time of the ruling, more like websites now) and stuff.
Yet, right to privacy was still used to legalize it.
So why not prostitution (other than ideological bias)?

Abortion is a medical procedure, and medicine is given a special treatment in privacy law. You'll have a hard time arguing that prostitution is a medical procedure.

I have a hard time figuring Derec. He seems to always play the MCP role and seems to be pushing to expand prostitution..... It is almost as if he were saying no society can be really healthy without a significant prostitution factor in it. In many parts of the world it is just "sex work." Somehow those places (Thailand for example) are not really an improvement over our country.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Abortion is a medical procedure, and medicine is given a special treatment in privacy law. You'll have a hard time arguing that prostitution is a medical procedure.

I have a hard time figuring Derec. He seems to always play the MCP role and seems to be pushing to expand prostitution..... It is almost as if he were saying no society can be really healthy without a significant prostitution factor in it. In many parts of the world it is just "sex work." Somehow those places (Thailand for example) are not really an improvement over our country.

It is about legalizing prostitution, stopping a ban on it and letting people do what they want, not encouraging or subsidizing it... thought that is another interesting idea.

 

[Achwienichtig]

The issue still remains, in what way does privacy factor in? Sexual activity is considered private because it is considered personal. But once you make it a business, it loses its personal statis. Abortion is private because it is medical. But prostitution is not medical. So in what way can we make a privacy based argument in favor of prostitution?

I actually believe legalizing prostitution is a good idea. I just don't think privacy has anything to do with it.