Challenge to Prostitution Law lost in Federal Court goes to 9th Circuit on appeal.
Sadly on 3/31/2016, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA granted the States Motion to Dismiss, thereby upholding the prostitution laws. The case will now be appealed to the 9th Circuit.
Brief Highlights
1) There is no right to sexual privacy related to prostitution under the Due Process Claim. Lawrence v Texas does not extend gay privacy rights to prostitution.
Prostitution lacks an intimacy association:
"(Prostitution) lasts for a short period and only as long as the client is willing to pay the fee. . . . While we may assume that the relationship between them is cordial and that they share conversation, companionship, and other activities of leisure, we do not believe that a day, an evening, or even a weekend is sufficient time to develop deep attachments or commitments. In fact, the relationship between a client and his or her paid companion may well be the antithesis of the highly personal bonds protected by the fourteenth amendment."
Prostitution is illegal as it is rationally related to numerous legitimate government interests. These include a climate of violence against women, potential human trafficking, preserving public health and deterring the commodification of sex.
See, e.g., Coyote Pub., Inc. v. Miller, 598 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The federal government acknowledges the link between prostitution and trafficking in women and children, a form of modern day slavery.”); see also Love v. Superior Court, 226 Cal. App. 3d 736, 742 (1990) (finding that the legislature “identified sexual contact as a primary means of transmitting the AIDS virus and ‘prostitutes who pass on the infection to their clients’ as a specific group of concern”); United States v. Carter, 266 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted) (holding that “prostitution involved ‘a serious potential risk’ of contracting a sexually transmitted disease”);...
2) Prostitution is not freedom of speech and association. Cites many cases showing there is no constitution protection of speech related to illegal activity.
3) Prostitutes do not have a right to earn a living in an illegal activity. A protectable liberty interest in employment arises only “where not affirmatively restricted by reasonable laws or regulations of general application.” Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 941 (5th Cir. 1995).
The full 12-page decision and this summary I have at
http://phxlist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=18857
Dave notes:
This is why I enjoy Canada so much, although more for my intimacy interests - not the raw sex of most escorts which I discuss at lovetouch.info. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for more individual liberty. Which is why the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the law against incalls, and communication in public. The key issue was harm reduction. Having incalls and public communication illegal resulted in increased potential harm. Outcall prostitution has always been legal.
C-36, however, was then passed by the Conservative Harper Government to outlaw customers. Most police departments have stated they will not go after consenting adults, only cases of real harm (forced) and under aged. My sexworkcanada.com and sexworktoronto.com hasn't been updated since C-36 on legal issues but try and continue to post my trip reports.
Challenge to Prostitution Law lost in Federal Court goes to 9th Circuit on appeal.
