Voter Guide: Proposition 35 - Human Trafficking

[Barry]

From the Pacific Sun:

Yes - It's not often a state ballot opposition is written by an "erotic service provider," but Maxine Doogan seems to be one of the few people coming out against Prop. 35, which would establish longer prison sentences and larger fines for people convicted of human trafficking crimes, and require them to register as sex offenders. Sex industry spokespeople, such as Doogan, argue that it also broadens the definition of human trafficking—it appears to be aimed at both larger networks of human trafficking, online child pornographers, as well as the common street pimp—which could suddenly make legal sex workers, and those they may support financially, guilty of human trafficking.

There may be some gray areas regarding whether certain erotic services cross the line but, as the initiative's supporters write, this is about "preventing the sexual exploitation of children," not about harassing sensual masseuses.

CA Democratic Party: Yes - Increases penalties for human trafficking

CA Green Party: No position - Read about about why they are conflicted about it here.


What do you think?

[phredo]

What do you think?

I agree with the ACLU (check out KPFA, Wed. morning, approx. 7:30 am): Vote NO, because it would just end up affecting low level sex workers, the big pimps will go free, as usual, and the cops will have more control in the future over people who have already "paid their debt to society."

Unfortunately, from my viewpoint, anyway, it's sure to pass, since both "progressives" and the "tough on crime" people are in agreement.

[Valley Oak]

Please vote NO on Prop. 35. It is a clear violation of people's Constitutional rights and it simply must not pass. This is a typical situation where a highly sensitive issue is exploited to take away people's rights. We have to be stronger than this kind of non-reasoning and say NO to 35!

The ACLU is very clear on its position AGAINST Prop. 35. Please visit their website and it explains that this horrible initiative, if it becomes law, will place undue burdens on people along with other serious consequences such as a clear violation of our 1st Amendment rights:



https://www.aclunc.org/legislation/c...ns/index.shtml

Proposition 35 - Oppose

"Proposition 35 increases criminal penalties for sex offenses and imposes new restrictions on registered sex offenders. For example, the measure requires that registrants provide online screen names and information about their Internet service providers to law enforcement - even if their convictions are very old and have nothing to do with the Internet or children. This provision essentially eliminates the ability of registrants to engage in anonymous online speech and imposes a substantial burden whenever a registrant wants to use a new online platform to speech, infringing on registrants' First Amendment right to free speech."

Edward

["Mad" Miles]

Prostitution, Pimping, Trafficking and Child Trafficking, Child Molestation/Rape are all illegal with lots of existing laws focused on them. This proposition is opposed by former prostitutes with convictions, and sex worker activists (some of whom have convictions and are current sex workers) because the ambiguities in it could put anyone convicted of prostitution, on the Sex Offenders List.

Also, it defines pimping as any gain/benefit from the proceeds of prostitution. Stretching the point, it means that if your friend, boyfriend/girlfriend or housemate, who turns tricks, buys you lunch, or pays part of, or all of, the rent, with funds from their prostitution, you can be declared their pimp.

Vote NO.


Personal note: I find Prostitution icky, have never paid for or sold sex. That's not my idea of Love or Eros, quite the opposite. I won't use dating services because I don't want to commodify myself, or others.

I support Prostitution's decriminalization and regulation for safe working conditions, health and collective bargaining rights. If someone chooses to sell their sexual services, that's their right, so long as they have control over the exchange and process.

Of course I absolutely oppose slavery, abuse, forced drug use, psychological domination, child abuse, rape, torture and all of the other evils associated with sexual, and other, human trafficking.

[Philip Tymon]

No one supports human trafficking, child porn or child prostitution. That is not the real issue here. This is a very flawed proposition which should not be accomplished as a proposition at all, but through legislation, if anything, where it can be properly tailored.

Lots of responsible folks have come out against this--- below are links to Daily Kos and the Sacramento Bee, both of which oppose Proposition 35.

https://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/24/48...awed-well.html

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...an-Trafficking

["Mad" Miles]

So, Barry... Based on the additional info presented, are you still endorsing Prop 35?

[Barry]

So, Barry... Based on the additional info presented, are you still endorsing Prop 35?

I wasn't advocating support for 35. The "We recommend YES on Proposition 35." was in the original Pacific Sun article. I knew I should have changed that!

I'll go back and edit all those posts yet again...

I do not support Prop 35 based on the info above.

[EmeraldMatra]

VOTE NO ON 35! This is important! This bill further criminalizes sex workers. Read the argument against this in the ballot book or contact Maxine Doogan who wrote it at https://www.facebook.com/maxine.doogan.5. I can give you her phone number if you need to speak with her directly.

The voter guide to follow is from the ACLU: https://www.aclunc.org/legislation/c...ns/index.shtml

The undemocratic party didn't even review this before they made a decision to support 35. The ACLU has looked into this thoroughly. But you can make up your own mind by reading it and then reading the argument against it.

NO ON 35! This is a very bad thing.

Emerald

[EmeraldMatra]

The voter guide to follow is from the ACLU: https://www.aclunc.org/legislation/c...ns/index.shtml