Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewstuart | Hacker News Reader

It's weird seeing this. In Australia prostitution is completely legal. There was actually a publicly listed brothel for a while. Strange to think other societies criminalise it.

I think being legal is best for the health and wellbeing of the sex workers and minimises the criminal involvement.

There are brothels all over the place but mostly they are pretty low key, often hidden in backstreets or warehouse areas with only a red light and a sign to indicate they exist.

I wish we had such an enlightened position on drugs, which remain almost completely criminalized, whilst other parts of the world move towards legalization of various aspects of drug law.

View on HN

Yep, the same in NZ. The other thing is that legalisation means that both the prostitute and the customer are protected by law. There was a case recently where a customer took a prostitute to the small claims court for not providing the services agreed to and of course prostitutes can call the police without fear of repercussions if a client is getting too rowdy.

They pay tax and get the government work related accident insurance and retirement saving schemes, they get health checks and are regulated to prevent unsafe behavior, they also are presumably subject to inspections to ensure that no drugs, human trafficking, or underage prostitution occurs.

That sounds nice, but as far as I can tell, in America even most above-board jobs aren't required by government to provide those kinds of protections. Prostitution needs it more than simple things like plumber or electrician, especially things like health checks and accident insurance, but legalizing without those around is kind of a half-baked scheme which could be more harmful than the present state of being illegal.

Yeah, consumer protection and general employment law in the US is a whole other conversation.

Australia and NZ both have prostitution legalized with a bunch of European countries.

When I came to US I was amazed that guns and weed were legalized but not prostitution. Even in Vegas.

I'm sure there is plenty of underground prostitution in US where the workers have little rights and are probably abused.

I have no hopes that this will ever happen in trump administration but hopefully in 2020+ this could be a possibility.

weed is not legalized in most of the country, and even where it is "legal", it's a complete gray area. It's illegal federally, which completely overrules the states' ability to legalize it. Basically all the legalization you see is that the local state/county police will not come after you for it, but the DEA is still perfectly within their right to come after you if they wanted to - which has happened to some dispensaries.

OSHA provides more protection to a wide range of jobs than you might think. FDA does a lot to prevent the spread of food born illnesses.

So, IMO there is nothing unusual about Prostitution regulations protecting both workers and customers, it's just striking because it demonstrates the value of regulation that's normally invisible.

PS: Track on the job deaths around the world and US workers are protected from a lot of harm even with relatively poor enforcement.

Haha, I could imagine an OSHA inspection at the brothel.

"I'm here to inspect your pipes"

saucy music plays

I imagine it would be similar to the sorts of inspections you'd find at a hospital.

Looks like the OSHA personnel weighed in with their votes...

I agree that worker protections need some work in the US, but to say that a black market brothel is somehow going to be safer than a regulated, above board one is simply madness. There is no way on Earth that sex workers are better off not having access to law enforcement. And that's just one facet of being in the black market.

Plumbing and electrician work is both heavily regulated and non-trivial.

I think they were saying that plumbing and electrical are easier jobs to perform and yet more heavily regulated.

Anyone who thinks plumbing and electrical are easy jobs has no idea how to do them

Huh?

Spreading your legs doesn't exactly require a detailed training regime. Electricians and plumbers have challenging jobs that require a lot of training. Changing out electric sockets doesn't make you an electrician.

FYI: Legalization and decriminalization are two different things. The first involves heavy regulation. The second involves making it not a crime, basically.

And making it a crime creates all kinds of problems. I support decriminalization.

Somehow The Netherlands, once a front-runner on legalisation of drugs and prostitution, seems to become more strict lately.

For example the local government of Amsterdam is trying to close the window brothels [0] in the cities' Red Light District and many cities now have a policy where they don't grant licences for new coffeeshops and wait for the current licenses to expire [1]. The cited reasons for wanting to close the coffeeshops (too close to schools, within 250 meters) are stupid since every Dutch student rides a bicycle and for my friends it was no big problem during a free hour to bike for a few kilometers to buy and smoke hash or weed. My friends did this many times (none became a worse person for it, either).

---

[0]: http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1763216/amsterdam-pro...

[1]: http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl/3485-amsterdam-coffeeshops-phas...

The problem with prostitution in NL is that it's not tightly regulated, it's still a bit of a private organization of sorts. There's problems with things like loverboys (pimps seducing / coercing young girls into prostitution) and human trafficking. Eastern-European women getting lured to NL with the promise of jobs and such.

Regulation is failing, so it's being banned instead. Which will only push things further underground.

I hope they dont ban it. although i dont like the concept it needs somewhere to go. i dont think a ban is on the cards. utrecht is still building brand new brothels. unfortunately in my neighbourhood. would be better if they used areas outside of city limits for this though. you dont want kids growing up near brothels.

The reasonable reason often cited is that it attracts drug tourists and prostitution tourists which all attract their own problems.

They wanted to restrict access to coffeeshop (not sure about brothel) to only Netherlands citizens but this raises constitutional problems.

They initially thought they would be at the forefront of a wave of legalization across Europe, but as it failed to materialize, their uniqueness brought their own issues.

I do have hopes for France though. Macron has the same political sense as Hollande, who just made a show of gay marriage legalization to prevent talking about other issues. I think they are keeping weed legalization as the next smokescreen.

On prostitution, the French liberals are a bit more divided. A lot of people actually associate human trafficking and prostitution and feel that criminalizing clients could be a way to make it go away. I tend to think that legalization would actually make the fight against sex-slavery much easier but I understand why people are more cautious about this issue.

Also the far-left shared some fake stories (but not totally implausible scenario) under which legalization of prostitution could mean that unemployed women could be forced by unemployment office to accept prostitution jobs or lose their unemployment benefits. They used the outcry to justify that prostitution is not a job like every other one.

It is a complicated issue, muddied by emotional bias and over-simplified solutions.

> Also the far-left shared some fake stories (but not totally implausible scenario) under which legalization of prostitution could mean that unemployed women could be forced by unemployment office to accept prostitution jobs or lose their unemployment benefits. They used the outcry to justify that prostitution is not a job like every other one.

It would be just as outrageous if an unemployed actress had to chose between shooting a pornographic movie or lose her unemployment benefits. I don't see anyone using that argument to outlaw pornography.

I'm sure some anti-pornographers would actually use that if they heard if from you...

But I totally agree that there is no need to go so far. I think it is generally accepted that not everyone is expected to accept every job:

- A muslim or jew and a job handling non-halal/non-kosher meat

- A "pro-lifer" in an abortion clinic

- A teetotaler at a liquor store

- An ideologue vegetarian or vegan handling meat, leather, etc.

- Washing/preparing bodies in a funeral home / crematorium

- A butchering job involving killing animals

Lists as such are, in fact, implemented in every "you have to accept job offers" situation, usually officially and with a procedure you can apply for to add a new one to the list or at least get a special exemption. Almost always, "personal service" jobs are exempt.

I'm sure no one would object if no job that required "no clothing", "skin on skin contact" or "insertion of anything into a body cavity" are exempt. I mean, one should never be forced to be a food taster either.

I am pretty sure that the French unemployment office is strictly forbidden to ask their religions to practitioners. And French law does not recognize any religion, so it would actually be a breach of our very strict secularity laws to give rights (to refuse a given job and keep benefits) to a believer of one religion compared to another.

Actually this office is widely criticized to propose absurd job offers to candidates as they are pressured to remove candidates from benefits lists, either by finding them a job (rare) or by having them refuse two jobs in a row (more common).

Their scenario was really not that implausible.

The French have been proud of having technical separate religion and state since 1905. But I question this - it was only 1993 when babies quit being required (by law) to be named after Catholic saints. Religion inserts its power in many ways.

Well, knowing first hand that some French-born nationals that were not names after saints I knew this was not true but you made me google it to see where this specific date comes from. So here is the whole thing.

The law (from the early 19th century) said that names for newborns should either be chosen in the calendars (plural, no religion mentioned) or from known people in history. So from the beginning, Mohammed was an acceptable name for instance.

A law from 1966 recognized that this was vague and not really applied, as usage varied (basically it was just used to deny too harmful names to kids) and decided to give a broader definition, allowing explicitly names from mythology, regional names, composed names, variation and abbreviated versions.

In 1981 the sole interdiction was to choose a name that "would not be judged ridiculous".

The 1993 version changes even that and says (more appropriately IMO) that the officer registering the names can delay the thing, if he judges that the choice of name is contrary to "the interest of the child". A judge then has to decide or deny. I remember a case involving a «Pikachu», a «Satan» and, I think, a «Jihad».

Names like Anakin or Gandalf were likely acceptable even under the 1966 law.

For more on how legibility (through naming, street grids, single-crop farms etc) acts a prerequisite for manipulation, check out Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes To Improve The Human Condition Have Failed.

https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-like-State-Certain-Condition/d...

An excellent recommendation which I unreservedly second.

Thanks! I too researched it, but did not find your sources. I appreciate the effort!

No one should be forced to take any job they don't want. The premise that it's ok to force anyone to take any job or lose their unemployment benefit is incredibly damaging to society. The whole system is a shambles. I would consider myself quite left oriented and I feel Europe has it all wrong. We really love to take the nanny state route rather than empowering people through education, opportunity and self-actualisation. Unfortunately this point of view seems to fall completely outside of the Overton window at the moment.

I think the premise is that you are not entitled to unemployment benefits in the first place. The government provides some aid but you have to be trying to help yourself first. It sounds fair to me that if you are offered a job and you refuse then you have breached that contract. Beggars can't be choosers and all that.

Having seen the real world consequence of this I disagree. I have some friends who were the typical starving artists. They had this ignominy of shitty job centre jobs forced upon them and suffered greatly. They opted to go the hard route and reject the job and lose their unemployment benefit. Now they have well enough paying careers in their area, are tax payers etc, as they dedicated their time to their craft rather than washing dishes or some such other pointless work. This brain dead approach of any job that pays is more valuable than one that doesn't sucks the life out of society and reduces innovation, artistic endeavour and creativity across the board. It's 2017, we have the world's library in our pockets, we can talk to friends on the other side of the globe instantaneously yet somehow we're stuck in the 1700's when it comes to jobs. We have so much over-productivity that we have to create fake jobs to keep people occupied [1] yet somehow we can't afford to allow poor people the option to follow the endeavour of their choice, invest in, and figure shit out for, themselves.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fake-jobs-at-fake-compani...

So...you're agreeing with the point you replied to? They went the hard route and became successful, that's great for them! Do you think it would be the case if they stayed on benefits that they would be where they are today?

It's hard to go back in time and do that experiment, but I'd say with certainty that some stress and pressure leads to a net gain in the long run. Clearly in the short run that's not the case.

They would have gotten there quicker... like my richer friends who where bank rolled by mum and dad.

Are you going to fund my passion for building model tractors? I would much rather build model tractors all day and support myself by charging admission to my museum. The above business is just as valid as your "starving artists" who made it after hard work. My family cannot afford to let me follow my dreams though so I work a standard job.

Sure. As another proponent of a guaranteed minimum income, I would be delighted if you could build model tractors all day, and even start a museum dedicated to them.

Would I pay for that through taxes? You bet.

(I'm a proponent of guaranteed minimum income even for people who want to drink beer and watch tv all day. I really don't care what people do with their money.)

A guaranteed minimum income is only solution to this problem I've ever heard of that doesn't have many large flaws. I'm not entirely convinced minimum income is something I agree with (there are always hidden downsides - thus I'm reserving my judgement until after we know what they are)

However the topic is unemployment, which is designed for those are choose to make more than the minimum income to keep a good income (not as good as before, but perhaps better than minimum). This is a different discussion with different pros and cons.

> However the topic is unemployment, which is designed for those are choose to make more than the minimum income to keep a good income (not as good as before, but perhaps better than minimum).

In EU countries, unemployment is not necessarily linked to the size of the salary you were making before. And actually, unemployment can be very limiting in many countries and a basic income would be preferable. The reason for that is that with unemployment, you immediately lose your benefits if you pick up any work, even if the work is low-paying or it’s not certain you’ll be able to stay with it long. UBI, on the other hand, is intended to be something you always keep regardless of what else you try to do to make some money. When the UBI trial was launched in Finland, several of the people involved (longtime unemployment recipients) said they were keen to start their own business or take on unusual forms of employment because there was no longer a risk in doing so.

Is this how the system really works in France? If a programmer is unemployed and some manager at McDonald's offers them a job flipping burgers, they have to either take the McDonald's job or they lose their benefits? Do the unemployed really have to accept the first job offer anyone gives them, no matter what?

Extrapolating from the Netherlands, it isn't an 'accept the job or go to jail'. Instead its an 'accept the job or lose your "unemployment benefit". Here "unempolyment benefit" is a lacking translation. This is basically the last safety net. As there is a freeloader stigma for people receiving these benefits, these requirements are a condition for receiving the benefits.

Doesn't that encourage coercive behavior from employers? It seems like they could lowball an unemployed individual because they know they'll be strongly penalized for not accepting even a bad job offer. The earlier comment also makes it sound like even if you don't apply for a job, someone could offer you a bad one and you'd be forced to either accept it or lose your benefits (which sounds ripe for abuse).

In the US there is a comparable work component. You are allowed to refuse any offer that isn't reasonable or comparable work. Sometimes you have to convince a judge, but there is an appeals process and so it isn't hard to argue that a bad job is beneath you.

Note that the above is about accepting a job. At times you may be required to fill out so many job applications (per week) and you are not allowed to refuse any interview offered. The result is people do apply for bad jobs and get an offer in the interview they have no intention of accepting.

Of course after a few months your benefits run out and then the low ball offer is more appealing as at least it gets you something. However even then a low ball offer isn't as common as you might think. Someone with no place to go will take it, but you cannot stop them from finding a new job next week. Offer someone too low and your risk they collect your money just long enough to become useful and then find a new job. You are paid for your first week of work even though you spend most of it learning and so you cost the company money in training, thus once a company hires you they need to keep you long enough for you to pay off that first week training time.

Note that in the US each state does things differently. The above is a generalization based on what I've seen in different states. The details are different and change.

> At times you may be required to fill out so many job applications (per week)

> and you are not allowed to refuse any interview offered.

We have this in Norway. If one has been unemployed for a while the state run employment agency will often force you to "voluntarily" agree to send 10 employment applications per week and you have to go to any offered interview.

Thus applicants are feared by everyone doing recruiting because no one wants to hire anyone that does not want to be hired. If you do the candidate may be totally unmotivated and even hostile to his new employer. This would be a very bad start for everyone.

In my experience candidates like this will often not show up for a scheduled interview, and if they do they will clearly state that they are there just to satisfy the state employment agency.

Well I imagine it's accept it, or loose your unemployment benefits.

You will be proposed job offers from «Pôle Emploi», the unemployment office. The job will be "within your abilities" and in a certain distance from your residence but in practice, Pôle Emploi is known to send pretty much random job offers to people. They have something like 50 categories for job seekers and job offers and make matches automatically.

After two refused job offers, your unemployment benefits will be discontinued.

Programmer and cook are probably in different categories, but there is no way for someone to say "I don't want to work with meat" like the comment I answered to suggested. As a programmer doing robotics, I made the choice to refuse military jobs but I know that in France that's more than 50% of the jobs in the field.

I would not be 100% sure that sex workers would be put in a different categories than "entertainers" making it plausible that an actress would be proposed a job in a porn studio.

Thing is, a member of a porn studio reacted to this scenario: he basically said "we know Pole Emploi does not filter offers at all. Porn acting is very specific, the last thing we want is to force people into it. It would be contrary to our work ethic and probably to the law."

They know they would be blamed for it, so the unlikely part is that they would post such an offer. If they did, however, it is likely that it would be send inappropriately.

Good point, seems a pretty straightforward observation, that a shady business will attract shady people. And that shady people would already be in that business and roll over into any new legal allowances. I remember a friend in the San Francisco area telling me about these Asian communities somewhere in Daly City or maybe SF itself who clamored to prevent Marijuana shops opening up in their area because it would attract shady characters and what not. Seems be an interesting division in California regarding legalization, some cities (the nicer ones from what I can tell) ban the dispensaries while the poorer ones wind up setting up multiple shops.

From what I understand the real reason they're trying to get rid of the brothels is they bring in considerably less tax money than high-end retail.

One of my big disappointments in visiting Europe the last time is how the major cities are all starting to look the same, with big shopping districts devoted to the same high end brands. It sounds like Amsterdam is heading in that direction as well.

Friends involved in prostitutes' rights groups in NL told me that the attempt to close the window brothels is not only motivated by humanitarian reasons but also because it's prime property. The same thing happened in Antwerp (BE) about 15 years ago.

EDIT: Not to take over the properties themselves, but to up-value the surrounding areas.

Yet another case of Bootleggers and Baptists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

Antwerp turned out the most pointless city in the Belgium so it's not like they're finding any use for that prime property by this example.

You now have to go to the zoo in Antwerp because otherwise there's no longer anything to see.

IMO, lines of shops selling brightly coloured and vastly overpriced pieces of cloth is even more miserable use for prime property than sex.

> My friends did this many times (none became a worse person for it, either).

Hardly a neutral observer.

Yeah. A bunch of my friends are sex workers. They make literally ten times as much money as me per hour and love their jobs.

How much money do you make per hour?

But do they work as many hours as you do?

(the answer is probably "they don't need to")

Says more about how little tech workers are paid in Australia, than anything else. Work for Google in US and earn more than a hooker!

> Work for Google in US and earn more than a hooker!

What a marketing claim

...and then spend 90% of it on rent ;). Costs of life matter.

Australia ain't cheap.

Have to account for stability of the job as well. How many people can work in sex markets in their 40s.

Sex work & the Valley, over 40? No job for you!

Hookers can probably avoid to pay much income tax, due to being paid in cash most of the time.

In countries like Poland prostitution is actually tax-free, because if government took any money from a prostitute it would act like a pimp, which is illegal.

Once upon a time it was the best excuse for those who had undisclosed income sources (other than prostitution). Recently tax offices started demanding proofs, like names of the clients.

Always fun to hear about these cat and mouse games of government vs. people who want to avoid taxes :)

> Recently tax offices started demanding proofs, like names of the clients.

Huh? That makes no sense. Why would naming a client proove anything? And why would sex workers know names of their clients?

I think it is more about getting the client's testimony confirming the deed. And you're right, prostitution is a business based on discretion, so most of the time prostitute would not know the name of her client. Bottom line is: they stopped taking a word for it and started demanding proofs.

Have you ever wondered why you have to provide receipts for reimbursement, despite the fact that the vast majority of people here could put together a forged receipt quite easily?

It's not because the receipt proves anything. It's because if there was ever any question, it gives a validator something to actually validate, to call up the putative place of business and confirm the transaction and the size.

It's one of those deals where the mere threat of being able to validate tends to keep the system humming along fairly well, even to the point that many of the participants have forgotten the justification for the system. Presumably there's someone out there routinely forging receipts for fun and profit but it must not be that big a fraud considered across the entire system.

Same thing here.

That "John Smith" really makes the rounds, doesn't he?

Why not take the money and hard redirect them to charity?

This is very much not true. In the US, prostitutes are very punctilious about paying their tax bills, because the having a discrepancy between declared income and visible consumption is a quick way to land yourself on an auditor's desk. Remember, they got Al Capone for income tax evasion.

The IRS is very open about this. A fellow HN commenter pointed me to this document [1], on which you should search for "Bribes" and "Stolen Property". Even if you don't want to trust to the IRS's confidentiality rules (for example, it won't share your tax return with law enforcement without a court order), it's still common practice to come up with another description for your income in order to pay tax on it.

[1] https://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch12.html#en_US_2016_pu...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_of_illegal_income_in_...

Not sure where in America is paying $300 per hour for software developers.

in the valley as an "rockstar" iOS developer.

With $299.95 per hour in rent.

I doubt they have 8 hour a day booked though :)

The number of hours you can practically work is an important factor, as are the risks (illness of various forms, exposure to dangerous customers, ...) that at best further reduce your earning potential for a while or at worse lead to complete curtailment and/or much pain (or even early death).

Simply comparing the hourly pay rate is pretty meaningless when comparing job options like these that differ so massively in other factors.

I'll keep my tech job if it is all the same to you.

(not that I imagine many being willing to pay a good rate for an hour with my physical form, so the choice might not really be mine!)

I can sit and code for 10 hours at a time without my genitals aching.

$600,000/yr isn't that outlandish. You just need 30+ reports or do really good IC work

>Work for Google

You do not work for Google though, you live for Google - work just happens to be the majority of your life.

You don't live for prostitution, it pays the bills like any other non-life-consuming job.

Are you differentiating Google from other employers here, or making a more general comment on 9-5 style careers?

I've always been curious where you take your career when you get too old or don't want to do it anymore. There'd be sudden drop off in income level, which applies pressure to any who don't plan well in advance. Makes me think of professional athletes who end up broke because they didn't plan properly and no longer have the body to perform.

I know some older people in the tech sector who can't find jobs for the same reason. It's not just athletes and sex workers. :)

Their pay would go down quite a bit if they were no longer part of a black-market economy.

Per hour probably isn't a good comparison. Developer per-hour is usually for a medium-large company that wants you for full-time hours and takes care of all risk and overhead for you. Sex worker per-hour is for a client who only wants a hour or whatever, and the worker takes basically all of the risk and overhead as far as rent/hotel rate, travel, supplies, advertising, etc.

Maybe a little more similar to a software consultant who has to spend a ton of extra time drumming up clients and setting up engagements and pays for their travel and any hotel fees out of their rate.

In Australia prostitution is completely legal ... There are brothels all over the place

It can vary from state to state.

Under Tasmanian law it has never been illegal to be a sex worker, however Current Tasmanian Legislation – Sex Industry Offences Act 2005

Provides that it is illegal for a person to employ or otherwise control or profit from the work of individual sex workers (brothels are illegal)

Allows two sex workers (but not more) to work together in a partnership arrangement, provided neither controls or manages the other;

Makes it an offence to offer or procure sexual services in a public place – making street prostitution illegal for both worker and client

1. https://www.justice.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1...

2. http://www.scarletalliance.org.au/laws/tas/

some sensible rules right there. pimping is not what you want. good for tasmania.

There are several public brothels in Nevada. Prostitution is on a state-by-state basis.

I hear it's most common in Washington D.C.

I think the key word there was "public."

I think the OP was being sarcastic.

OP means Original Poster, or the person who started the thread/posted the article. Do you mean GP (duncan_bayne)?

Yes. Thanks for the vocab word.

Nope, brothels are illegal in DC. There used to be loads of street walkers, but not so many as the city has gentrified, cleaned-up, and crime rates in general have gone down.

I was referring to the practice of political lobbying and revolving doors, not literal prostitution.

For example:

https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=787...

Prostitution is not 'completely legal' in Australia. Brothels are still illegal in some states and even those states which have decriminalised prostitution have brothels operating illegally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Australia

The thing with Australia is it's very difficult for the US to learn from Australian social experiments and determine if they will be effective. Australia has extremely tight border control and far more police powers. So while legalized prostitution has been a huge success in Australia, it may open avenues for human trafficking to thrive in the US.

While I generally agree with the notion that legalized prostitution reduces human trafficking, this wouldn't be a certainty from looking at the effects on Australia/NZ.

I suspect that legalising prostitution would actually make it much easier to prevent human trafficking for sex work.

I think that it would increase it, because contrary to what people seem to think here, prostitution is very low on people's ideal career choices. Increasing demand is going to increase the need labor, and I don't think anyone here is advising their sons or daughters to have sex with strangers for money. SO trafficking would increase.

If something is legal then workers have protection, can form unions and have rights. It's more difficult in a legal environment to have people who are coerced or forced to work.

If prostitution is illegal then it will be run by people who do not obey the law and will happily traffic people and have people people working illegally or forcibly.

http://humantraffickingsgp.weebly.com/amsterdams-red-light-d...

Current laws seem to penalize the sex worker and the buyer, not the traffickers. Legalizing this would let both parties involved feel safer, no repercussions from calling the police if something goes awry.

It seems only logical to me that legalising sex work will make it harder for human traffickers via reduced demand for illegal sex workers.

There is however less risk and lower operating costs. I think cost benefits are a bit more complex.

However I think germany's decriminalisation was a good testcase. The netherlands don't seem to have problems either.

Prostitution in Germany is definitely far from decriminalized. I am convinced that it is right to legalize it - but it still should be thoroughly regulated. The recently introduced laws are partially a step in the right direction. Other parts of it actually criminalize it to some extent. F.x. unprotected fellatio is now criminalized.

Of course it is. But who is to say that those legal businesses don't partake in human trafficking?

There are legal brothels in Australia found with links to international human traffickers. If Australia has this problem with far more police powers than American police have, who is to say that the problem won't be rampant in the US?

I am all for legal prostitution if it reduces human trafficking. My argument is just that you can't assume that what works in Australia will necessarily work in the US.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/national/legal-brothels-linked-to-inte...

I think it will reduce human trafficking in that it would be much easier to monitor for human trafficking whereas in the past with some sort of grey-zone criminalization, you would have to actively first detect for sex workers, convince them that you are not arresting them, and then figure out if there are human traffickers or crime involved.

Its one less step if you can more easily monitor and the sex workers can speak freely to police.

In fact I'm more about how they treated sex work in several historical governments in the past and that is only government-operated brothels are allowed.

Where are you getting this idea that Australian police have far more powers than US police? There are differences here and there but our legal systems are fairly similar.

For one Australia does not have a "bill of rights". In the US, the police require probable cause to even stop or question someone. In Australia there is no such requirement. While they can't just arrest or detain people at will, they have far more power over every day people.

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicious_Lawless_Association_Di...

This law would not be possible in the US due to the US constitution's protection of freedom of association, while it has been strictly enforced at times in the state of Queensland. These sorts of powers substantially weaken organized crime but at major cost to civil rights.

>In the US, the police require probable cause to even stop or question someone

They do not need probable cause, they need "reasonable suspicion"[1].

The same standard Aus had until around a decade ago (now reduced). There were nearly 700K stop and searches in NYC in 2011 alone[2] (vastly reduced now) which undermines your suggestion that the BoR provides solid protection in this particular respect. Although I agree there are some protections offered by codified rights.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

2. http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data

Your point is contradicted by the fact that Germany, where prostitution is completely legal are the single biggest destination for human trafficking victims. Literally dozens of thousands of them.

Legalising brothels removes the social stigma from prostitute clients increasing demand for prostitution by the order of magnitude. Which gives human traffickers additional incentive.

I think that the good solution is what we have in Poland: prostitution is legal for the clients and individual prostitutes but it is illegal for any third party (e.g. pimp) to interfere and make profit from prostitution. This gives a prostitute possibility to just go to the police and denounce her pimp, making it much harder to force her to sex work.

I see the German situation more a sign for completely negligent authorities. Pimps are illegal in Germany too. Prostitution is only legal as a contract between the client and the prostitute. But all of this only matters, if authorities perform regular checks which they often skip.

IMHO, the fact that Germany is surrounded by countries where prostitution is illegal is one of the causes of human trafficking victims. If legalization is generalized, this may reduce.

Where do you have that number from?

The numbers in the Wikipedia link is a couple of magnitudes lower.

Building construction is a legal trade in Germany. There are a lot of illegal immigrants working on that trade too. Maybe the relation is more to do with the "booming" economy.

> Literally dozens of thousands of them. Citation needed.

> increasing demand for prostitution by the order of magnitude A whole magnitude? Citation really needed.

In Germany a john has to report to the police if he suspects the prostitute is being coerced, if there are legal women, why would he seek an illegal one and risk jail time?

> report to the police if he suspects the prostitute is being coerced

but what would incentivize said john to report it? I don't think the john is going to make a difference in this case.

The problem with Germany is that Germany is now servicing not just Germany, but also its neighbours because it's an island of legalisation. As a result demand is higher than what the local workforce can provide, making human trafficking profitable. Also regulation is lax and mostly unenforced

Even if we accept what you say as true, it doesn't contradict the point. It is possible that even if trafficking to Germany increases, the global rate of trafficking decreases, which could be explained by a lot of people going to Germany instead of buying illegally locally. You show it concentrates the rate of buying and trafficking, but not that it increases on average. (I do understand that actually showing it increases on average would be extremely difficult given that it would require a continent level study.)

Not at all. Most prostitutes in Austria are foreigners.

From experience in New Zealand, where prostitution is also legal for citizens and permanent residents, it doesn't do much to increase human trafficking.

I'm not going to pretend it's all clean - certainly there's underage, trafficked and exploited people. However that's still the case when it's illegal, the difference is how we can find and protect those who have been exploited by others.

When prostitution is legal a prostitute can go to the police without fear of prosecution (but not persecution unfortunately - less of an issue here because the laws were loosely enforced). Additionally a legitimate business is more attractive to most customers, so a legal businesses subject to inspection and record keeping requirements are more likely to take business from the less legitimate ones.

My personal opinion is that prostitution is here to stay. We should focus on the safety of those involved. Giving them a criminal record is certainly not going to get them away from prostitution.

When I was in Dunedin, there were rumored to be some rather underhanded tactics that brothels used against each other. One burned down shortly before I left, and word had it that it wasn't an accidental fire.

But you know how rumors are - all it takes is one person to decide that "It's obvious, innit?" and they start repeating it as fact.

Well, Germany also legalitzed it and quickly rose up the ranks to be a top human trafficking spot in Europe, but it seems like everyone in this thread completely ignores it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Germany

I'm not going to argue against the facts, but I will argue that the results for victims are different. If a victim of sex trafficking is caught on the street when prostitution is illegal they're now a criminal and will probably be dealt with as such by police looking for easy numbers.

When they haven't committed a crime they should be able to get aid from the authorities and their pimps and traffickers arrested.

Unfortunately this isn't a perfect world and resources aren't always available for whatever reason. I don't like it, but I also don't like creating criminals out of victims.

Well, but the story doesn't seem to be over yet (02.07.2017):

http://www.dw.com/en/germany-introduces-unpopular-prostituti...

Your link doesn't say that Germany is a top human trafficking spot in Europe, or that it only became so after legalization. Do you have a better one?

When prostitution is legal a prostitute can go to the police without fear of prosecution

In theory, Sweden's approach of only criminalizing the clients (and pimps, I assume) should provide that too; a bit like the decriminalization of drug consumption. On the other hand, since every "john" is at risk if the prostitute does go to the police, it's much more likely that they'll avoid doing so. Even where drug use is decriminalized, users don't tend to go to the police if their dealer rips them off or physically assaults them.

If the johns are criminalized, there is still a disincentive to go to the police: if they know you as a prostitute, they'll know to watch you closely to catch some johns and that will impair your business.

Also I think that provides a side effect too: if a john is already committing a crime when going to a prostitute, he may be more likely to do so anonymously and with less trace, making it easier for them to add robbery or assault to their acts.

I think that hypocrisy never helps. If it is illegal to go to a prostitute, it should be illegal to be one, their existence would have no legal justification.

"I think that hypocrisy never helps. If it is illegal to go to a prostitute, it should be illegal to be one, their existence would have no legal justification."

I disagree.

Few are forced to visit and hire a prostitute. But we know people are forced to be a prostitute (trafficking), some do it for drugs, and some feel they have no other way to survive. While society understands not every prostitute is in one of these categories, it seems a cruel punishment to charge them with a crime. MOstly because it would be charging a rape victim with the crime of being raped.

Well some people are forced into gang violence. That does not give a good reason to legalize violence.

Some people are forced into working in sweatshops to sew t-shirts. That does not make a good reason to criminalize t-shirts.

Forcing someone into doing something is already illegal. The forced person is a victim, most laws are clear about it. If the issue we are talking about is fighting against human-trafficking, the only question should be to know if legalizing prostitution would help the police find human traffickers.

And this should be the top question of the debate IMHO. I don't care much to live in a society that answers differently than me to the question "Should prostitution be legal?" but I would love to be in a society where human-trafficking does not exist.

I do have the feeling that pimps do enjoy the hypocrisy and moral ambiguity of the laws: it makes their services invaluable and their activities under the radar. But this opinion mostly comes from anecdotes and common sense. I am inclined to change opinions based on facts.

Sweden also criminalises knowingly renting to sex workers. Women who've gone to the police about being raped by a client have been made homeless as a result after the police got in touch with their landlords and told them to evict. This was one of the major contributors to Amnesty International coming out so strongly as they did against the Swedish model.

Austria has lax gun laws and lose border controls and legal prostitution. You can also learn from us.

Its a mistake to re-criminalize, just look at Germany when they legalized prostitution they were able to focus efforts on slavery and human trafficking, by separating the issues of human trafficking and slavery from prostitution they saw a 75% increase in prosecution of human traffickers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com