Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpalmson
I've heard through the grapevine that someone with a legal background has stated that we put ourselves at some risk when mentioning a donation amount in our reviews. This risk is both to the guys as well as the providers. The theory is that it is "proof" of some sort of quid pro quo for services. What does everyone else think? Should reviews even mention the donation? I'm just curious to see what others think.
|
I think there are two questions here, and these are my short answers:
Question No. 1. CAN information in a review be used against the hobbyist who provides it, or the provider who's the subject of the review?
Answer: Yes.
Question No. 2. IS information in reviews used against hobbyists and providers?
Answer: Generally, no.
Nearly all my criminal law practice is in north Texas, so I can speak to Texas law and the practices of police, judges, and prosecutors in north Texas only. Criminal laws vary state-by-state, and criminal justice practices vary city-by-city and county-by-county. So the following analysis may not apply to other states or other areas of Texas.
Question No. 1. CAN information in a review be used against the hobbyist who provides it, or the provider who's the subject of the review?
Under Texas law, a person can commit the offense of prostitution by:
(1) making an offer,
(2) accepting an offer, or
(3) soliciting a person in a public place
to engage in sexual conduct for a fee, or
(4) engaging in sexual conduct for a fee.
See
Texas Penal Code § 43.02.
Assuming the state can prove the review is authentic, and that the defendant wrote the review, the defendant stating that he paid a fee of a certain amount is proof of the fourth way the state can prove the crime of prostitution -- i.e., "engaging in sexual conduct for a fee" -- because the defendant/reviewer stated a fee. Of course, the state would also need to prove sexual conduct occurred. If the defendant/reviewer described sexual activity in his review, the fee plus the description COULD meet the elements of the offense. This same analysis woulds apply if the state was prosecuting a provider for prostitution.
As an aside, I'll note something I've written about before. In my opinion, using terms for money in ads or reviews such as "roses," "hearts," "$$," "an Airwick Solid," or whatever, doesn't lessen the chance of being held criminally liable for prostitution. If the finder of fact, be it a judge or jury, believes that whatever euphemism was used was money, then the elements of the offense can be met. If anything, a lawyer making a ludicrous argument that a rose was really a rose will just piss everybody off and make it harder to defend his or her client. The same is true for using euphemisms, acronyms, or abbreviations such as "K9," "AMP," or "BBBJ." If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, the finder of fact will probably conclude it's a duck.
Question No. 2. IS information in reviews used against hobbyists and providers?
I've practiced criminal law in Texas for more than 26 years. I've handled hundreds of prostitution cases. Lawyers like to talk and hang out with other lawyers. I share stories with colleagues nearly every day and I belong to a number of groups for criminal defense lawyers.
I all my experience, I have NEVER handled a prostitution case, representing either a hobbyist or a provider, in which the state attempted to use a review as evidence -- NOT ONCE. Nor has a colleague ever told me about such a case, nor have I attended a professional function and heard of such a case, nor have I ever read about such a case in a legal opinion or in an article or book. -- NEVER.
Of course, this doesn't mean it's never happened. I'm sure in some city in some state an eager-beaver cop used a online review to bust a provider or hobbyist. But what I'm saying is, in my opinion, a review being used as proof in a criminal trial is about as likely as Prez O starting to shit solid gold bricks for the Treasury Department to sell to cure the federal budget deficit.
From a practical standpoint, I can say that more than 90% of prostitution busts that I've learned of involved undercover sting operations, either undercover fake SWs busting johns, undercover fake johns busting SWs, or, by far the most prevalent within our little community,
undercover fake johns answering ads, the provider is sloppy, lazy, or desperate for cash and doesn't screen properly or maybe not at all, and The Laws haul her ass to jail.
But what about reviews being used in a civil case, such as in a hobbyist's a divorce case? That's another matter. I don't practice family law, but I am personally aware that reviews here or posted on other sites have been used in divorce trials. Of course, no hobbyist who ever posted a review expected that his words would come back to haunt him in a divorce trial. But life is full of surprises, isn't it? So if you're a risk-averse hobbyist, don't write reviews. It just wouldn't be worth the risk, especially when premium access can be purchased here so cheaply.
I am also personally aware of reviews (and ads and provider web sites) being used by baby daddys of providers to try to gain an advantage in child custody cases. So if you're a provider with a kid and a crazy baby daddy (a description which may fit 90% of providers -- haha, j/k), then don't run ads, have web sites, or allow reviews. It's that simple. But if you want to earn a living as a provider (which is illegal, in case you haven't heard), you may want to be less risk-averse and allow reviews, have a web site, and post ads.
A Final Thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpalmson
I just wanted to get the take from both guys and gals about certain info that goes into reviews. Maybe even get a lawyer or a few lawyer wannabes to chime in as well.
|
I wouldn't suggest asking "lawyer wannabes" to offer legal advice. The most potentially harmful information I read on ECCIE is from amateur lawyers giving uniformed opinions on the legal risks of certain conduct. Oftentimes, words in statutes have a very specific meaning to lawyers that isn't evident to non-lawyers.
For example, I once read a thread here about a judge reviewing photos
in camera. All the posters wondered why the judge wouldn't just print the photos to look at rather than looking at small images on a camera's LCD screen. I laughed when I read the thread, knowing that an
in camera inspection means a judge reviews something in his or her chambers (i.e., their office). "
In camera" is Latin for "in chambers," and any shutterbug knows old cameras had chambers.
You wouldn't read
Gray's Anatomy and think you're qualified to perform surgery, right? Well, don't read an article on Wikipedia on a legal topic and think you're qualified to render legal advice, either.
Why post rates at all? do hobbyist need to know..yes.
Fleeting Pleasure
My Bio Page - Arkansas
