Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Your Rights Online

Proposed Posting of Clients List In Prostitution Case Raises Privacy Concerns 533

Posted by samzenpus
from the staying-off-the-list dept.
An anonymous reader writes "An interesting case touching on privacy in the Internet age has erupted in Kennebunk, Maine, the coastal town where the Bush family has a vacation home. When a fitness instructor who maintained a private studio was arrested for prostitution, she turned out to have maintained meticulous billing records on some 150 clients, and had secretly recorded the proceedings on video files stored in her computer. Local police have begun issuing summons to her alleged johns, and have announced intentions to publish the list, as is customary in such cases. Police believe such publication has a deterrent effect on future incidents of the kind. However, the notoriety of the case has some, including newspaper editors, wondering whether the lives of the accused johns may be disproportionately scarred (obtaining or keeping a job, treatment of members of their families within the community) for a the mere accusation of having committed a misdemeanor. Also, the list of names will be permanently archived and indexed by search engines essentially forever."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Proposed Posting of Clients List In Prostitution Case Raises Privacy Concerns

Comments Filter:
  • by NotQuiteReal (608241) on Sunday October 14, 2012 @05:18PM (#41651935) Journal
    John Smith
    Bob Jones
    Mickey Mouse
    John Doe
    I.P. Freely
    Rosie O'Donnell
    Robert Jones
    Jim Johnson
    I.M. Sparticus
    Mayor Quimby
    Dave Smith
    John Johnson
    ...
  • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Sunday October 14, 2012 @05:20PM (#41651953)

    John Cooper
    John Smith
    John Baker
    John Howard
    John Davis
    John Brookhead
    John Wilson
    Juan Mendez
    Juan Morales
    Johen Schmidt
    Jean Billet
    Jean Claude

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14, 2012 @05:59PM (#41652241)

    Seems to me that if I find some hot chick on the streets, and offer her (by, for example, gesturing towards my groin with a number of folded-up negotiable instruments, such as $100 bills,) and she proceeds to perform sexual acts upon my person, and then upon completion I hand her the aforementioned stack of bills, that no crime has been committed should this act have taken place in anywhere in the United States, provided the acts were between consenting adults, and occur in a private place where we were both permitted to be. The law that makes these acts of pandering and prostitution legal, in my NAL opinion, is the US Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.

    The way I understand it, the exchange of money for anything, (to wit, in that case, the giving of money without any meaningful or timely accounting of who gave it, to whom it was given, how much was given, what was promised or agreed in exchange for it, or what was ultimately done with that money, which could easily include actions that any sane society would consider election tampering, vote-buying, influence pedaling, and interfering with the good order and function of a democratic republic's most vital political organs,) is considered inviolable "free" speech, protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. I have even toyed with the idea of going out and hiring prostitutes, hoping to find an undercover officer to proposition, just so it can be brought to court, so that I can defend myself with the first amendment's newly endowed power (given by the Citizens United ruling,) to protect anything for which some money changes hands as "speech".

    I would say I "told" her (by handing the whore the cash,) that I would like her to suck-start my dick, then take it for a spin, bouncing her ass up and down on me until I'm ready to nut. I would argue that her taking the money constituted her "listening" to my constitutionally protected speech.

    I imagine the judge would then shoot me down, saying that that was not an allowable defense, to which I would reply, (and most likely be held in contempt of court for saying,) "so it's okay for whores in Washington D.C. to get paid to fuck people over, and somehow that's protected speech, but somehow when I do it, it's a misdemeanor? What kind of freeze-dried fucking bullshit is that, you pretentious bitch?

    If I'm going to jail for contempt, fuck, I say, might as well show it... why not piss on the judge's face? It's not like it's going to change what happens!

    OTOH, I've heard bad things about jail, and I like being able to go for walks and not being stuck in a fucking cage, so I'll let someone who's more of a tough-guy take this idea and run with it. Post back on /. how it works out! I'll check back from time to time.

     

  • Re:ban it (Score:2, Funny)

    by Surt (22457) on Monday October 15, 2012 @01:56AM (#41654849) Homepage Journal

    If you don't know, I really recommend having sex. Or maybe sex with a more skilled partner.

Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982

Working...