FWIW, I believe prostitution should be legal (not a moral judgment either way, just a belief in individual rights), but until it is and mechanisms are set in place to regulate the safety and free will of the participants, when you go to a prostitute, you are tacitly accepting the fact that you may be paying for sex from a person who does not freely consent.
That's extreme.
It's the reality.
You're a sex worker?
Don't have to be one to know that many aren't by personal choice.
And many are.
Neither Omar nor I said otherwise. The point is that when it is an illegal trade, you can never be sure of the circumstances, even when you think you are.
You've turned the Venn diagram of sex work and sex trafficking into one perfectly overlapping circle with the argument "you never can be sure." It seems disempowering and infantilizing. _________________ Under New Management
That doesn't apply to this as the parlor was being investigated for women being forced into sexual servitude.
And I'm not sure if it is legal or not in Florida/that county but if it's not then he shouldn't get a pass because the law he broke "shouldn't be a law" or he didn't know about the law. He still solicited sexual acts from an establishment that allegedly was forcing women to do those acts, even if they acted like they were consenting.
Well, you're right, whether I agree with something being a crime or not, doesn't change the fact that solicitation is a crime and he knows that it is and so he should be punished accordingly.
However, my original post simply stated that I don't understand why solicitation of prostitution is a crime at all. It seems archaic to me from the old puritannical days. Now, as JMK said, I did say 'this' instead of specifically referring to the thread title, so I could see how that might have seemed like I was referring to sex trafficking, but I wasn't, just the crime in which Kraft was arrested for.
Gotcha. I agree. In this instance it's a bit more complicated with the coercion that seems to be involved by the people in charge.
But in general, yes I agree that a consenting adult should be able to sell that service to another adult if they choose to.
One note on the solicitation charges - IMO, even if prostitution was legal where this happened, since the girls were coerced into prostitution I think that even if the services were bought by someone who doesn't know about that, they should still be charged because they are still involved in criminal activity. Having no idea that you're breaking the law shouldn't give you a pass.
That is going to open up a huge can of worms if you do that and people by the millions would be charged with crimes, and, potentially, even every single citizen.
Is it though? Adults can get charged with statutory even if they don't know the person is under the age of consent.
Sure. But that’s usually only the case when the person’s age is reasonably determined. You might not KNOW if a person is 11 or 12 but its clear they aren’t 18 or whatever the age of consent is.
I mean, if you got spam emall for make money quick or something and you clicked the link and it went to a page with underage girls, should you get charged for possession?
If you buy an item on eBay for a reasonable price and it turned out to be stolen, should you be charged?
Its just not as simple as saying “having no idea you’re breaking a law shouldn’t give you a pass”. There is context and nuance at play here.
Sometimes it should give you a pass. Sometimes it shouldn’t. Context matters.
FWIW, I believe prostitution should be legal (not a moral judgment either way, just a belief in individual rights), but until it is and mechanisms are set in place to regulate the safety and free will of the participants, when you go to a prostitute, you are tacitly accepting the fact that you may be paying for sex from a person who does not freely consent.
That's extreme.
It's the reality.
You're a sex worker?
Don't have to be one to know that many aren't by personal choice.
And many are.
Neither Omar nor I said otherwise. The point is that when it is an illegal trade, you can never be sure of the circumstances, even when you think you are.
You've turned the Venn diagram of sex work and sex trafficking into one perfectly overlapping circle with the argument "you never can be sure." It seems disempowering and infantilizing.
You can also never be sure if the Louis Vitton bag you tried to buy on Amazon wasn’t counterfeit and you know many of these counterfeiters use illegal sweatshops, child labor, etc.
Should it be a crime to offer money in exchange for a Louis Vitton bag? Because you can never be sure.
(Ehh maybe it should for a bag that expensive)
Last edited by ringfinger on Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:32 pm Post subject:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
FWIW, I believe prostitution should be legal (not a moral judgment either way, just a belief in individual rights), but until it is and mechanisms are set in place to regulate the safety and free will of the participants, when you go to a prostitute, you are tacitly accepting the fact that you may be paying for sex from a person who does not freely consent.
That's extreme.
It's the reality.
You're a sex worker?
Don't have to be one to know that many aren't by personal choice.
And many are.
Neither Omar nor I said otherwise. The point is that when it is an illegal trade, you can never be sure of the circumstances, even when you think you are.
You've turned the Venn diagram of sex work and sex trafficking into one perfectly overlapping circle with the argument "you never can be sure." It seems disempowering and infantilizing.
No, we have pointed out that absent legality and regulation, there is a large overlap of those two spheres, and that the individual cases are hard to differentiate. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:43 pm Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
FWIW, I believe prostitution should be legal (not a moral judgment either way, just a belief in individual rights), but until it is and mechanisms are set in place to regulate the safety and free will of the participants, when you go to a prostitute, you are tacitly accepting the fact that you may be paying for sex from a person who does not freely consent.
That's extreme.
It's the reality.
You're a sex worker?
Don't have to be one to know that many aren't by personal choice.
And many are.
Neither Omar nor I said otherwise. The point is that when it is an illegal trade, you can never be sure of the circumstances, even when you think you are.
You've turned the Venn diagram of sex work and sex trafficking into one perfectly overlapping circle with the argument "you never can be sure." It seems disempowering and infantilizing.
You can also never be sure if the Louis Vitton bag you tried to buy on Amazon wasn’t counterfeit and you know many of these counterfeiters use illegal sweatshops, child labor, etc.
Should it be a crime to offer money in exchange for a Louis Vitton bag? Because you can never be sure.
(Ehh maybe it should for a bag that expensive)
Maybe you should just give the OT section a break. At some level your kindergarten level of logic and your transparent wish to be a dishonest troll are gonna wear the staff to their last nerve. That point was last week. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
If Robert Kraft would have had someone film it and post it on the internet, it would have been legal
Well that’s the funny thing about solicitation. I can’t offer you money for sex but I can offer you money for sex if I mention there’s a camera involved.
You can also never be sure if the Louis Vitton bag you tried to buy on Amazon wasn’t counterfeit and you know many of these counterfeiters use illegal sweatshops, child labor, etc.
Should it be a crime to offer money in exchange for a Louis Vitton bag? Because you can never be sure.
(Ehh maybe it should for a bag that expensive)
Maybe you should just give the OT section a break. At some level your kindergarten level of logic and your transparent wish to be a dishonest troll are gonna wear the staff to their last nerve. That point was last week.
I'm not trying to troll. I really just disagree with pretty much everything most of the leftist mods + DMR say. Like, basically everything, except our shared disdain for Ann Coulter.
But I get what you're getting at. At the very least, I'll slow my roll.
But I hope you realize I'm not just coming in posting to no one. Every discussion I'm involved in involves replies. I do agree it gets a bit tiresome though, I feel it myself. But it takes more than one to tango is all I'm saying.
FWIW, I believe prostitution should be legal (not a moral judgment either way, just a belief in individual rights), but until it is and mechanisms are set in place to regulate the safety and free will of the participants, when you go to a prostitute, you are tacitly accepting the fact that you may be paying for sex from a person who does not freely consent.
That's extreme.
It's the reality.
You're a sex worker?
Don't have to be one to know that many aren't by personal choice.
And many are.
Neither Omar nor I said otherwise. The point is that when it is an illegal trade, you can never be sure of the circumstances, even when you think you are.
You've turned the Venn diagram of sex work and sex trafficking into one perfectly overlapping circle with the argument "you never can be sure." It seems disempowering and infantilizing.
No, we have pointed out that absent legality and regulation, there is a large overlap of those two spheres, and that the individual cases are hard to differentiate.
Do you work in this area? NGO? Law enforcement? The courts? I'm curious as to your confidence in your expertise on this. If you have data to back up your claims about that large overlap along with the difficulty of parsing out the difference between women trafficked into the sex trade and sex workers, it would be really helpful.
Because I'm not confident or sufficiently well-informed on the issue, but I see people who study the industry, who do work for advocacy groups, and who are sex workers push back against that popular conflation, which has led to the terrible bi-partisan FOSTA/SESTA laws that lead to more harm for sex workers and has been followed by a noticeable uptick in sex trafficking in some cities (though its early in the lifespan of those laws and correlation can be difficult to prove).
Moreover, my instinct (which I betrayed earlier in this thread, shame on me) is to not trust cops. I'm also instinctually wary of America's harmful Puritanical history of shaming, shunning, and punishing sex and women's sexuality. And so a focus on sex trafficking seems to be an easy way to build bipartisan, broadbased support for Vice squad crackdowns on all prostitution that has echoes of the War on Drugs for me. But if you have data that supports that large overlap and the difficulty of parsing out trafficked women and sex workers that would go a long way toward assuaging my paranoia about the pigs.
Of course, I'll be spending time to do the same. It could end up being an illuminating discourse. _________________ Under New Management
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:16 pm Post subject:
Omar Little wrote:
No, we have pointed out that absent legality and regulation, there is a large overlap of those two spheres, and that the individual cases are hard to differentiate.
I think the bigger question becomes how much responsibility we assign to those that are indirectly contributing to the problem. It makes me think of the current sitcom "The Good Place". On the show, they discover there is a point system to determine who goes to the "Good Place" in the afterlife and who ends up in the "Bad Place". They then learned it had been decades since anyone earned their way into the "Good Place". After investigating the reason, they figured out the point system was outdated for modern times. For example, (and I am making up the example) the rules were created during a time when a man would grow his own wheat with his own labor, use the wheat to bake his own bread to feed his family and others.....all resulting in positive scores. In contrast, today a man would buy a loaf of bread which was made by a large corporation that uses low cost foreign ingredients farmed by poor underpaid villagers, and the corporation employed practices that created large amounts of pollution and cheated on their taxes. Hence the man in modern time was just buying a loaf of bread, but patronizing this business had countless indirect negative consequences resulting in him having a negative score.
It is not apples to apples, but is an extreme case of how simple actions we each take without any intended malice can have negative consequences to others. In my experience, we often choose to take the moral high ground on practices that we do not participate in, while seeking to justify the ones that we enjoy. For example, someone who does not seek services from prostitutes can claim soliciting prostitution is morally wrong because of the chance that it promotes human trafficking among other crimes against people.....but the same person will seek infinite excuses to justify their weekly purchase of a nickel bag and club drugs even though we know there is often indirect connections to organized crime and cartels that practice many inhumane acts utilizing drug sales to finance their operations.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:27 pm Post subject:
It’s funny, I was going to use buying drugs as an analogue to frequenting prostitutes in terms of you know going in that there’s a significant chance you are supporting another, deeper level of criminal activity, even if you believe the main activity should be legal. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:35 pm Post subject:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
FWIW, I believe prostitution should be legal (not a moral judgment either way, just a belief in individual rights), but until it is and mechanisms are set in place to regulate the safety and free will of the participants, when you go to a prostitute, you are tacitly accepting the fact that you may be paying for sex from a person who does not freely consent.
That's extreme.
It's the reality.
You're a sex worker?
Don't have to be one to know that many aren't by personal choice.
And many are.
Neither Omar nor I said otherwise. The point is that when it is an illegal trade, you can never be sure of the circumstances, even when you think you are.
You've turned the Venn diagram of sex work and sex trafficking into one perfectly overlapping circle with the argument "you never can be sure." It seems disempowering and infantilizing.
Talk about being extreme. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:37 pm Post subject:
Omar Little wrote:
It’s funny, I was going to use buying drugs as an analogue to frequenting prostitutes in terms of you know going in that there’s a significant chance you are supporting another, deeper level of criminal activity, even if you believe the main activity should be legal.
and to be clear, I do not know where the proper place for the line is.....I am not sure there is a right and wrong answer. It can become complicated. I will say that the line may depend on how close you actually are to the problem....as in if you frequent a day spa with young Asian or Slavic females that do not speak English, are routinely rotated out and replaced between visits, etc. etc. and are offering sexual services....then logic would suggest something is not right, and patronizing the business while indirectly supports crimes such as trafficking, your actions are close enough to bear responsibility?
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:40 pm Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
You can also never be sure if the Louis Vitton bag you tried to buy on Amazon wasn’t counterfeit and you know many of these counterfeiters use illegal sweatshops, child labor, etc.
Should it be a crime to offer money in exchange for a Louis Vitton bag? Because you can never be sure.
(Ehh maybe it should for a bag that expensive)
Buying a purse isn't a crime in the first place. But under our current laws, whether or not those laws are reasonable, soliciting sex is. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:50 pm Post subject:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
As long as it was with a consenting adult...
If Robert Kraft would have had someone film it and post it on the internet, it would have been legal
It's a loophole that has definitely been exploited. I am familiar with someone who used to run a "porn studio" that was essentially a brothel where you would pay a "Producer" to make an amateur porn movie where you were co-star and owned the "exclusive rights" to the movie. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Wonder what the NFL will/can do to him? I was in Atlanta during the week of Super Bowl this year and there were NFL sponsored anti-human trafficking media up in just about every hotel lobby. Little did they know the team that would win the SB is owned by a man who actively engages is human trafficking.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:03 pm Post subject:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Buying a purse isn't a crime in the first place.
I think it may be in a few places. I recall NYC tried to pass a law to make it illegal to knowingly purchase counterfeit items a few years ago and it failed. One reason it failed was claims that would be impossible to enforce....while supporters pointed to places that have those laws on the books. (I am thinking it was other US locations....but I do not recall....nor do I recall exactly what any of the laws actually stated. It was a while ago...back during Bloomburg).
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:07 pm Post subject:
ExPatLkrFan wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Wonder what the NFL will/can do to him? I was in Atlanta during the week of Super Bowl this year and there were NFL sponsored anti-human trafficking media up in just about every hotel lobby. Little did they know the team that would win the SB is owned by a man who actively engages is human trafficking.
Lol Atlanta, no hookers there.
isnt there some data out there that suggests that the Super Bowl host city during Super Bowl week has the largest amount of trafficking victims in one US location than any other location for the entire year? (or something like that...not sure the exact phrasing)
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:14 pm Post subject:
adkindo wrote:
In my experience, we often choose to take the moral high ground on practices that we do not participate in, while seeking to justify the ones that we enjoy. For example, someone who does not seek services from prostitutes can claim soliciting prostitution is morally wrong because of the chance that it promotes human trafficking among other crimes against people.....
I don't personally participate in prostitution because I have always found it counterproductive to the whole point of the sex (as I chose to experience it) in the first place. But I am fully aware that there others who feel differently for a variety of very valid reasons and have no problem with those that do. So there's no attempt in taking a "moral high ground" in discussing the realities and implications of prostitution as it exists in a country where it is illegal.
The point is that because it is illegal, the profession opens itself up to a whole bunch of exploitation that leads to an inherent amount of immoral activity to support it even if the actual practice may not be immoral in many people's eyes. The immoral part of the trade that is exploitation exists across all levels of prostitution, whether it be know sex slaves trafficked on the black market or seemingly willing high end escorts. That doesn't mean everyone in the business is an unwilling victim. But there are people in all facets of the business who are not involved purely by their own choice. More importantly, the nature of the illegality of the business often means there are people who "choose" to be in the business who really aren't making a choice of their own doing, but a choice of perceived necessity for their own well being. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:27 pm Post subject:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
FWIW, I believe prostitution should be legal (not a moral judgment either way, just a belief in individual rights), but until it is and mechanisms are set in place to regulate the safety and free will of the participants, when you go to a prostitute, you are tacitly accepting the fact that you may be paying for sex from a person who does not freely consent.
That's extreme.
It's the reality.
You're a sex worker?
Don't have to be one to know that many aren't by personal choice.
And many are.
Neither Omar nor I said otherwise. The point is that when it is an illegal trade, you can never be sure of the circumstances, even when you think you are.
You've turned the Venn diagram of sex work and sex trafficking into one perfectly overlapping circle with the argument "you never can be sure." It seems disempowering and infantilizing.
No, we have pointed out that absent legality and regulation, there is a large overlap of those two spheres, and that the individual cases are hard to differentiate.
Do you work in this area? NGO? Law enforcement? The courts? I'm curious as to your confidence in your expertise on this. If you have data to back up your claims about that large overlap along with the difficulty of parsing out the difference between women trafficked into the sex trade and sex workers, it would be really helpful.
Because I'm not confident or sufficiently well-informed on the issue, but I see people who study the industry, who do work for advocacy groups, and who are sex workers push back against that popular conflation, which has led to the terrible bi-partisan FOSTA/SESTA laws that lead to more harm for sex workers and has been followed by a noticeable uptick in sex trafficking in some cities (though its early in the lifespan of those laws and correlation can be difficult to prove).
Moreover, my instinct (which I betrayed earlier in this thread, shame on me) is to not trust cops. I'm also instinctually wary of America's harmful Puritanical history of shaming, shunning, and punishing sex and women's sexuality. And so a focus on sex trafficking seems to be an easy way to build bipartisan, broadbased support for Vice squad crackdowns on all prostitution that has echoes of the War on Drugs for me. But if you have data that supports that large overlap and the difficulty of parsing out trafficked women and sex workers that would go a long way toward assuaging my paranoia about the pigs.
Of course, I'll be spending time to do the same. It could end up being an illuminating discourse.
I actually got a lot of my information from a volunteer I work with whose background is in a sex workers rights group (she supports legalization btw). She hasn’t given me statistics, but she has given me a fairly grim and believable narrative:
When you ban something people want to have or do, you don’t eliminate it, you drive it into the black market. And because the black market does not by definition operate under the law, it is instead ruled by Darwinian rules. The survival of the fittest. This is why drug trade, and prohibition era liquor trade, are and were heavily controlled by ruthless, violent crime organizations.
The same applies to prostitution. Prostitutes have no workplace rights, because their work is a crime, and thus they are and always have been heavily organized and coerced by violent men, be it pimps, local gangs, or organizations like the Italian and Russian mafias. Drug addiction and physical intimidation have been the stock tools of keeping the workers in line. Importing workers who are already at your mercy is a particularly good way to maximize your control, and thus women from Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America have always been brought in and exploited. Exploiting prostitutes has historically comprised a huge profit center for organized crime groups. And those groups have penetrated clientele all the way up to the very high level of premium escorts.
So my assumption isn’t based on the police. In fact, the illegality and the way police treat prostitution have a lot to do with why trafficking is possible and lucrative. Legalization would do for prostitution much what the end of prohibition did for liquor. it would create the simplest of things, a legitimate, regulatable workplace with workers who legally exist. Lacking that, you are dealing with a black market heavily penetrated by organized crime, organizations for whom trafficking is good business. And with limited exceptions, you can’t be entirely sure you aren’t dealing with coerced workers. In many cases, such as massage parlors, you can be fairly assured that you are. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Wonder what the NFL will/can do to him? I was in Atlanta during the week of Super Bowl this year and there were NFL sponsored anti-human trafficking media up in just about every hotel lobby. Little did they know the team that would win the SB is owned by a man who actively engages is human trafficking.
Lol Atlanta, no hookers there.
isnt there some data out there that suggests that the Super Bowl host city during Super Bowl week has the largest amount of trafficking victims in one US location than any other location for the entire year? (or something like that...not sure the exact phrasing)
Atlanta activley promotes itself as a destination for conferences and big national conventions. The invisible hand of the market is working as providers of desired services make them selves available to potential customers.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:37 pm Post subject:
DaMuleRules wrote:
adkindo wrote:
In my experience, we often choose to take the moral high ground on practices that we do not participate in, while seeking to justify the ones that we enjoy. For example, someone who does not seek services from prostitutes can claim soliciting prostitution is morally wrong because of the chance that it promotes human trafficking among other crimes against people.....
I don't personally participate in prostitution because I have always found it counterproductive to the whole point of the sex (as I chose to experience it) in the first place. But I am fully aware that there others who feel differently for a variety of very valid reasons and have no problem with those that do. So there's no attempt in taking a "moral high ground" in discussing the realities and implications of prostitution as it exists in a country where it is illegal.
call it as you choose, but I am guessing those people have all kinds of reasons to justify what they are doing is not morally wrong, even though we know it can be difficult to engage with prostitutes and be sure there are no negative indirect consequences from the action such as promoting human trafficking. I would also expect if interrogated long enough, we could identify multiple actions that they do not take part in, and speak of the negative implications those actions can have directly and indirectly from a position of moral high ground.
it has nothing to do with the people you speak of....most of us take part in this game on some level.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:58 pm Post subject:
adkindo wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Buying a purse isn't a crime in the first place.
I think it may be in a few places. I recall NYC tried to pass a law to make it illegal to knowingly purchase counterfeit items a few years ago and it failed. One reason it failed was claims that would be impossible to enforce....while supporters pointed to places that have those laws on the books. (I am thinking it was other US locations....but I do not recall....nor do I recall exactly what any of the laws actually stated. It was a while ago...back during Bloomburg).
Come on dude . . . seriously? Buying a handbag is absolutely a legal activity. The fact that people chose to knowingly buy counterfeit ones doesn't change the legality buying a handbag. It merely reflects on the circumstances of how some people chose to acquire the handbag. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
