Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (241725)	3/12/2008 10:58:53 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 794257

Every time some politician or celebrity gets into sex or drug trouble, why must there be a public conversation about whether whatever should be illegal? The fact is that the laws against prostitution are on the books, and everyone knows it, especially a guy like Spitzer who prosecuted people under that law and even signed a tougher version as Governor. If people believe the prohibitions are inappropriate, the way to address it is through legislative action, not self-help, civil disobedience, arrogant disregard, or after-the-fact hand-wringing. What Spitzer did was stupid, as well as arrogant. His disgrace stems from that more than the fact that it's a prostitution scandal. It's the same thing that happens in sex harassment cases. I don't know how many times I've listened to whining executives who just can't believe that that woman took his harmless jokes in such a negative way. "Harmless jokes" don't sound so funny years later when repeated on the witness stand. Nor does talking about prostitution as a victimless way for consenting adults to fulfill basic desires change the fact that malum prohibitum laws can still be enforced. If people want to take a chance by flouting them, the standard should be act-at-your-own-risk, not a hands-on-the-hip, foot stomping insistence that the law was wrong in the first place. Yes, I understand about civil disobedience. But I hardly think that prostitution laws are a place to take a principled stand.

To: unclewest who wrote (241725)	3/13/2008 1:46:11 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 794257

let him have all the sex he wants but to go through organized crime to get it, seems wrong for d.a. or gov. How come he closed down two hooker agencies and at the same using another service. did they already have control over him? this is more than sex.. it is a lawyer, d.a. trying to beat the law and pass payments under the wire of $10,000. transfers.. he committed other illegal acts. screw him!

To: unclewest who wrote (241725)	3/13/2008 8:43:43 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794257

What is the only thing they haven't been able to figure out how to tax? Do you imagine the "Freedom to be Natural and have Fun" act will legalize prostitution and be done with it? No sir. There will be volumes of regulations and of course taxes. There will be a national registry set up for prostitutes and johns (purely for health reasons mind you). And when prostitution is more lucrative for government then sex between man and wife, which do you think government will encourage, in subtle and overt means? Do you see how much fun people have on TV playing the state lottery? Do people give you a dirty look if you tell them it is insane to waste your money on the lottery? I can just see the ad - bent over old guy with cane and pants up to his arm pits totters by building where good looking young people are having a party. Old guy looks at the camera, grins, throws away his cane, does three back flips, drops his pants half way down his butt, winks at the camera and struts into the party. In the name of letting people do what is natural, you are inviting bureaucrats into the bedroom. Oh, and destroying the foundation of our civilization.