Quote:
Originally Posted by Jannisary
Owner of the board? Oh hell no!. While I strongly believe that St.Louis Co PD is over-reaching in their interpretation of the "promoting" statute and relevant case law, I really have no desire at all to be the test case for that argument either.
|
I beg to differ with you; the Missouri promoting statute (last time I looked, which was about when a certain STL area board owner had her run-in with the county mounties) is written broadly enough that rendering any knowing assistance to a prostitute and the conduct of her business would constitute promoting prostitution; running an board like ECCIE where prostitutes are allowed to advertise their availability and services is most certainly "assisting" them as far as the statute would be concerned. (And don't get me started on the potential Mann Act liability for individuals--possibly including mere board members--who are involved in arranging for a prostitute or a john to cross state lines to do their thing.) And Missouri isn't the only state with such a broadly drafted statute.
I have been asked multiple times to be a mod here. No thanks; I think the Missouri promoting statute (and similar statutes in other states I have regular presence in) is broad enough that it ain't just board owners at risk; any board staff could be charged with promoting. I ain't gonna risk it, thankyewverrahmuch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jannisary
It would be an interesting case and mostly likely draw at least some limited national attention. The Electronic Freedom Frontier and similar organizations would hopefully take an interest as well. It would be an interesting time for sure.
|
"Interesting" as that word is used in that legendary ancient Chinese curse. And I think it's a battle that any charged board owner/staff would lose.
Cheers,
bcg