this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
264 points (92.0% liked)

News

22595 readers
4057 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In January, a 23-year-old woman sat in Phoenix Municipal Court listening to a prosecutor lay out the evidence against her. On the night of her arrest, she was scantily dressed, the prosecutor told the judge. She also had condoms in her purse and got into a car with a man.

In Phoenix, that was enough to charge her with a crime.

“Given the way the defendant was dressed, as well as a statement as to a date, and her getting in the vehicle with this witness — there is evidence of manifesting prostitution," a prosecutor told Municipal Court Judge Alex Navidad.

Or, more specifically, “manifesting an intent to commit or solicit an act of prostitution.” An obscure city ordinance in Phoenix makes this act a crime with a mandatory sentence of at least 15 days in jail.

The woman, whose name Phoenix New Times is withholding to protect her privacy, is one of more than 450 people in Phoenix who have been charged with manifestation of prostitution over the past eight years. The ordinance, which has been called unconstitutional by the ACLU of Arizona, allows the act of flagging down a car or wearing provocative clothing to be used as grounds to cite someone.

In 2014, the city’s prosecution of Monica Jones under the ordinance drew national outcry. Civil rights organizations condemned the arrest of Jones, a transgender activist and social work student. Even celebrities spoke out against the city’s use of the law.

But Phoenix has not stopped using the ordinance, according to data obtained by New Times.

A review of the data showed that hundreds of people — including 90 in 2022 — have been charged with manifesting prostitution since Jones' case. Over the last two years, the majority of those charged were Black

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s Phoenix. She’s lucky the cops didn’t execute her on the spot.

Y’all remember that time they did that? I remember.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The time? It's only happened once? I remember it a bit differently.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

Wait, you’re telling me police officers in Phoenix have executed a random person more than once?

Next you’re going to tell me they’ve recently kept slaves in air-conditionless tents in one of the hottest counties in the country.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 year ago

I believe that the totalitarian government in Iran also polices dress codes.

[–] meat_popsicle 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Man, don’t you just love thoughtcrimes? They don’t even need to wait for you to actually do anything - they can just guess you intend to do something and jail you.

“No reasonable person would dress scantily” they say in a place that gets over 110f in the shade. “No reasonable person would carry condoms” they say when we have XDR Gonorrhea, HIV, and Hep C. “It was a known prostitution area” they say, assuming Google Maps publishes known prostitution areas so we can all know where to avoid. “It’s manifesting an intent…” but an intent is not a crime - there’s no injured party with a thought - what damages/punishment could possibly be awarded/inflicted to make a party whole?

It’s fucking farcical how lawyers will defend laws like this, yet also claim to follow logic and reasoning.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but an intent is not a crime - there’s no injured party with a thought

In this case there's no injured party even if the "real" crime happens. It's a whole new level of victimless crime.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, prostitution CAN be a victimless crime, it is not always the case though. Sex trafficking is a thing after all.

Aside from that, jailing the "prostitute" is somewhat brainless though because you have no idea what the circumstances are to begin with. The logic totally falls flat on itself.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Prostitution is not human trafficking. Human traffickers force their victims into numerous occupations, but somehow prostitution is the only one where the job itself is illegal, and the only one where the trafficking victim is treated like a criminal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I didn't say human trafficking! Human trafficking like you said is a very wide range of work which can go so far as to include illegal organ trade. I'm referring specifically to "pimping" so to speak.

[–] Tb0n3 -1 points 1 year ago

Soliciting a prostitute wouldn't require going through the entire process first.

[–] LopensLeftArm 32 points 1 year ago

What an absolute shithole.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

On this logic, I'm looking forward to laws that criminalize buying firearms because they "manifest an intent to commit murder".

Checkmate, SCOTUS!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Too bad they have the ultimate checkmate of being able to decide the law means whatever that want it to mean.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We REALLY need to decriminalize and destigmatize sex work. Society has not collapse after pot and gambling legalization. All of us will be better off with sex work being just a part of the world.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I agree but I don't want it near my home.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago

Real theocracy o'clock hours

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

Sexy with intent to fuck is a crime now?

That makes me like Pablo Escobar.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seems like a free speech issue to me if you can be charged for wearing the wrong thing. The Supreme Court has determined that clothing can be speech for first amendment purposes.

[–] Tb0n3 1 points 1 year ago

Yes but context matters too.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I thought I'd never say this, but America is looking really like a third-world country lately. Of course that's too much of a generalization, but shit like this, and school shootings, and etc etc...makes you really wondering if you get what I mean.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I get we have problems, but holy shit. Stop saying this.

We are not a third world country, and someone even comparing us to one just shows they've never been to a 3rd world country, outside of maybe an enclosed resort.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know 3rd world countries aren't all alike, right? I've been to one—not even in a touristy area—and it was fine.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And which country was this?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mexico isn't a third world country. They're developed and have a very solid economy.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Sounds like you don't know what a third world country is.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Always be carrying filming equipment and release forms apparently.

[–] FierroGamer 9 points 1 year ago

Every time I read about American police I think of that policeman from jojolands.

load more comments
view more: next ›