Sex for sale is not a constitutional right, court rules

[Disir]

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling that declared a constitutional right to “intimate conduct” such as gay sex didn’t apply to sex for sale, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in upholding California’s 146-year-old ban on prostitution.

Three former prostitutes, a would-be client and the Erotic Service Providers Legal, Educational and Research Project had argued that the high court, in striking down state laws against gay or lesbian sexual activity, recognized an adult’s right to engage in consensual sex without state interference. They maintained that the ruling extended to adults who consent to sex for a price.

A panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco seemed receptive to that argument at a hearing in October, suggesting that the 1872 state ban might need closer scrutiny.


One panel member said prostitution had been historically subjected to the same sort of moral disapproval that had once condemned gay sex, and might be more acceptable under the Supreme Court’s current view of individual rights. Another asked why it should be “illegal to sell something that it’s legal to give away.”
Sex for sale is not a constitutional right, court rules

Nobody saw that coming.

 

[BulletProof]

California should legalize prostitution and start throwing prostitutes in prison when they refuse to sex with anyone, just to be a kosher faggot state.

 

[DGS49]

Obviously, there is no Constitutional problem with legalizing prostitution; look at Nevada.

Recent precedents make it a legitimate question whether the USSC would strike down convictions against prostitutes on Constitutional grounds, citing the fictitious "Right of Privacy."

 

[Vastator]

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling that declared a constitutional right to “intimate conduct” such as gay sex didn’t apply to sex for sale, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in upholding California’s 146-year-old ban on prostitution.

Three former prostitutes, a would-be client and the Erotic Service Providers Legal, Educational and Research Project had argued that the high court, in striking down state laws against gay or lesbian sexual activity, recognized an adult’s right to engage in consensual sex without state interference. They maintained that the ruling extended to adults who consent to sex for a price.

A panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco seemed receptive to that argument at a hearing in October, suggesting that the 1872 state ban might need closer scrutiny.


One panel member said prostitution had been historically subjected to the same sort of moral disapproval that had once condemned gay sex, and might be more acceptable under the Supreme Court’s current view of individual rights. Another asked why it should be “illegal to sell something that it’s legal to give away.”
Sex for sale is not a constitutional right, court rules

Nobody saw that coming.

What happened to “my body, my choice”?

 

[Disir]

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling that declared a constitutional right to “intimate conduct” such as gay sex didn’t apply to sex for sale, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in upholding California’s 146-year-old ban on prostitution.

Three former prostitutes, a would-be client and the Erotic Service Providers Legal, Educational and Research Project had argued that the high court, in striking down state laws against gay or lesbian sexual activity, recognized an adult’s right to engage in consensual sex without state interference. They maintained that the ruling extended to adults who consent to sex for a price.

A panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco seemed receptive to that argument at a hearing in October, suggesting that the 1872 state ban might need closer scrutiny.


One panel member said prostitution had been historically subjected to the same sort of moral disapproval that had once condemned gay sex, and might be more acceptable under the Supreme Court’s current view of individual rights. Another asked why it should be “illegal to sell something that it’s legal to give away.”
Sex for sale is not a constitutional right, court rules

Nobody saw that coming.

What happened to “my body, my choice”?

It's more NIMBY than anything else. That ban came about only after there were enough "civilized" people to make their way there. Had no problem with prostitutes out there while they were trying to get the area settled.

What I find almost hysterical is that many women that engage in prostitution don't make the kind of money that people assume they make. Most of them don't look like models. The major players of the social reformers of the 1880s were acutely aware that the women that engaged in prostitution did so because of a lack of opportunity. That is many times true for those today.

 

[BulletProof]

Recent precedents make it a legitimate question whether the USSC would strike down convictions against prostitutes on Constitutional grounds, citing the fictitious "Right of Privacy."

Libtards believe that when you sell something, you give up all rights. But, libtards are also total hypocrites, so maybe they'll defend legal prostitution by appealing to a right.

 

[anotherlife]

There is something wrong with the title of this thread. Do you need legal permission to do everything you want to do? Sounds Soviet. I though the American way was that you can do anything you want to do as long as it is not illegal. Big difference.

 

[anotherlife]

California should legalize prostitution and start throwing prostitutes in prison when they refuse to sex with anyone, just to be a kosher faggot state.

Services can be sold to members only. In every industry. So if a whore doesn't want every client, she can do it members only. Most service sector businesses operate that way.