Info in reviews....

[pipefitter73]

I think the rates and activities should be posted under the ROS section where the general public can't see them.... just saying.

[Chica Chaser]

So ladies, let me play devils advocate here for a minute. Someone tell me just what real tangible difference it makes whether the activities are listed in a general public area or in the ROS.

The bad guys are well aware of the ROS section and can get access there just as easily as any of us, so that argument hold very little water. If they want to see ROS, they can and will.

Plus there is a decent argument to be made for the guys with no PA yet (maybe new to site or hobby). They need to be able to see something of the activites to help them decide if they have an interest in seeing you. That is the only spot they can see for activities.

[ShysterJon]

Something I forgot to put in my earlier post is an explanation of WHY I think the state doesn't use reviews in prosecuting prostitution cases. The reason is they have better evidence and don't need to. Without exception, in every prostitution case I've handled, my client, either a provider or hobbyist, made a critical error, such as discussing a specific sex act or agreeing to pay or accept a specific amount of money while bantering with an undercover officer.

Also, I noticed today the topic of this thread was covered awhile back in the legal forum:

"LE and Reviews"

[Sweet N Little]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

So ladies, let me play devils advocate here for a minute. Someone tell me just what real tangible difference it makes whether the activities are listed in a general public area or in the ROS.

The bad guys are well aware of the ROS section and can get access there just as easily as any of us, so that argument hold very little water. If they want to see ROS, they can and will.

Plus there is a decent argument to be made for the guys with no PA yet (maybe new to site or hobby). They need to be able to see something of the activites to help them decide if they have an interest in seeing you. That is the only spot they can see for activities.

ok your right, (that was hard for me to say CC) but you still don't have to make it easy for them PA may not be in the budget lol
Totally agree with Shyster Jon as well.

[awl4knot]

This thread comes at an interesting time since just yesterday I received an email from an escort who was very happy with my detailed review that included the fee and a list of intimate acts. She was certain that it would generate more business for her.

ShysterJon has covered the legal ground quite well but this fussing over review details misses some major points. If you look at the numbers, there are hundreds if not thousands of reviews posted daily on review boards. There are thousands of acts of paid sex occurring each day, yet only an infinitesimal number of mongers or providers are prosecuted. As ShysterJon points out, almost all who are prosecuted made incriminating statements to undercover cops. And what is the most incriminating part of those statements? Discussing the fee, of course. So there is a very good reason why websites and reviews are reasonable places to list the financial aspects of the exchange of time and companionship for cash - it avoids those incriminating discussions about the exchange of money.

Another point is that if any law enforcement wanted to prosecute based upon a review or an internet presence, they wouldn't limit it to one review. Nope, they would cull all of your posts, subpoena your email providers and scour the internet for anything that would link you with prostitution. They would create a tableau of communications that would show a pattern of communicating about and engaging in illicit conduct so your one little post would just be part of the evidence against you.

Now the good thing is that LE doesn't have the resources or interest to do this for what is generally a misdemeanor. They have bigger fish to fry. But if they wanted to target you, and you have any sort of internet presence, then they will have a lot to work with.

So, the die is largely cast once you make the decision to let the internet carry your communications about the hobby. If you want to be safe, get off the internet, but unless you are linked to some UTR referral groups, you won't be doing much hobbying on either side of the client/provider divide.

I keep seeing this "what I write is fantasy" line being spouted like it is some magical shibboleth that will repel prosecution. It is nonsense. No police officer, prosecutor, judge or jury will believe that. Likewise, "I don't sell sex, I sell my time" is a waste of breath or bandwidth for providers. It fools no one.

So, what are the solution? For the ladies, it is screen like your freedom and fortune depended on it. For the guys, do your form of screening and patronize only well-reviewed providers and avoid the sketchier elements on BP.

Just some random thoughts,

Awl4knot

[Sweet N Little]

Well said awl4knot , true true true

[PODarkness]

Thanks SJ! You have a way of explaining that brings better understanding.

I'd like to speculate on the reason reviews are not used, even though doing so isn't out of the realm of evidence.
The review is written days after the session. If the provider was a cop, one would think that the hobbyist would know by then, would be arrested by then. If the hobbyist was a cop, the review would be a rehash of his arrest notes. Not much to gain by writing it, or using it as evidence. If neither was a cop, linking the review to the provider might not be very hard, with links to pics, and phone numbers, but linking the review to a hobbyist might be a stretch.

I would imagine that proving the defendant is the author would be difficult without confiscating their computer / back-ups. Getting a search warrant over a solicitation charge would, I hope, prove difficult unless the suspect is believed to be more than just a customer. In a civil case I'd imagine the info to link author to review comes from the spouse or SO.

Jon, How sure do they have to be before it can be used as evidence? Can they just say the defendant is the author, and leave you to prove it isn't?

On the issue of asking wannabes for legal advice...
IMO
It says a lot about where we are as a nation, when the laws are so numerous, so complicated, and so contradictory, that it takes a professional to explain them, and those who don't ask, or ask the wrong person, might end up in prison. It's past the point where ignorance of the law should be considered a defense.

[Cpalmson]

Originally Posted by PODarkness

Jon, How sure do they have to be before it can be used as evidence? Can they just say the defendant is the author, and leave you to prove it isn't?

On the issue of asking wannabes for legal advice...
IMO
It says a lot about where we are as a nation, when the laws are so numerous, so complicated, and so contradictory, that it takes a professional to explain them, and those who don't ask, or ask the wrong person, might end up in prison. It's past the point where ignorance of the law should be considered a defense.

As a non-lawyer, I can tell you this. The prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the author of a review. Sure, they can say to a jury that a) there is a defendant and b) there is a review and c) their theory is that the defendant wrote the review. If that is all that they present, there is reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove the theory. They have to present evidence. The review alone is not enough evidence. They will need computer records and forensics to actually prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant wrote the review. We saw this in the Casey Anthony case. The prosecution claimed Casey used the web to search for chloroform. They had to get records to prove this. They just can't claim so-and-so did this without the evidence.

As for your comment on our status as a nation. I agree 100%. We have too many stupid laws on the books. The government is way too intrusive. We need to go back to the basics. Don't murder-- pretty plain and simple. Don't steal-- pretty clear and simple. Don't beat anyone up-- pretty simple as well. We've gone way off tangent with our drug and sex laws. I don't do drugs; never have done drugs; never will do drugs. I find it ridiculous that we lock people up for decades b/c they happen to have some drugs in their possession. Also, who cares about what 2 consenting adults do in private. I might not personally agree, but as long as nobody is getting hurt, what's the big deal. We could reduce the burden of our prison population by tens of thousands by not having so many dumb laws on the books.