The American Taliban have now decided to try to make a lot more people criminals:

Link to House Resolution (search for "2423A. Sex tourism"): http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h3887_ih.xml

Given the language in paragraph C ("induces", "facilitates") it's hard to see how sites like CH could continue to exist. If this passes, it wouldn't be much of a stretch for a prosecutor to argue that such sites facilitate sex tourism by providing info about it.

Combine this with the "Patriot Act", and they can just demand all Hombre's records, without a warrant, AND require that he never tell anyone they did so.

From what I have read on the link (not everything there mind you) this looks like an amendment to an already existing anti-human trafficking law. It does not appear to be relevant to anything related to this board.

Have I missed something?

I do believe you missed this part:



(g) Sex tourism.—

(1) Generally.—Chapter 117 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2423 the following:


Ҥ 2423A. Sex tourism



“(a) Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct.—A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

“(b) Engaging in Illicit Sexual Conduct in Foreign Places.—Any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

“(c) Arranging Travel and Related Conduct.—Whoever, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, arranges, induces, procures, or facilitates the travel of a person knowing that such a person is traveling in interstate commerce or foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

“(d) Increased Penalty for Offenses Involving Children.—If the illicit sexual conduct is with a child, the maximum term of imprisonment for an offense under this section is 30 years.

“(e) Attempt and Conspiracy.—Whoever attempts or conspires to violate this section shall be punishable in the same manner as for the completed violation.

“(f) Definitions.—As used in this section—

“(1) the term ‘illicit sexual conduct’ means—

“(A) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or

“(B) any commercial sex act (as defined in section 1591);

Here is a good writeup on it.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?9ad17680-ee86-435e-a622-a7cdf842c612

The Department of Justice currently focuses its efforts against "sex tourism" on overseas sex crimes that involve children.[18] These cases are, unsurprisingly, highly resource-intensive.[19] The TVPRA's new definition of sex tourism encom­passes adult travel to engage in adult prostitution where such prostitution is legal, thus diverting scarce federal resources from vitally important law-enforcement efforts against trafficking and sex tour­ism that involves children.


The TVPRA's provisions criminalizing inherently local commercial sex acts are also unnecessary. Except for several counties in Nevada,[20] prostitu­tion and associated crimes, such as pandering, pimping, and hiring a prostitute, are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment everywhere in the United States, including the District of Columbia and all U.S. territories.[21] In Virginia, for example, penalties run as high as 10 years imprisonment and $100,000 in fines for pimping and one year impris­onment and $2,500 in fines for hiring a prosti­tute.[22] These penalties are representative of those imposed across the country.[23]

What does "traveling in foreign commerce" mean exactly? Could that mean if I go on a diving trip, and monger incidentally, I'm "in commerce?"

I'm not sure about this, but based on a quick internet search, it appears as though Section 2423A was stuck out of the version of the bill that passed the House and went to the Senate. Sub-paragraph (c) seems, however, to have remained in the bill under a different section number. I think it is a stretch to suppose section C would impede this board, but it is probably not a huge stretch, particularly in the hands of an over-aggressive prosecutor.

Anyone with more definitive information on what was sent to the Senate, and what was discarded beforehand, please share.

I agree that the mere fact this apparently got through the first legislative stage (reported out of committee?) is scary indeed. Previously, a right-wing Republican nut job tried to get provisions like these passed, but got nowhere. In the present case the bill in its original form seems to have gotten support in committee from some rather mainstream Democrats, and section C apparently remains. We'll see what happens in the Senate.

(Message edited by LAguy on February 25, 2008)

I think you may be correct LAGuy!

Check this out:

There are four versions of the bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.3887:

The one that passed the House is Number 3.

3 . William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.3887.EH]

That version does not have a Section 2423A. But has a Section 2431.

Link to Bill Page:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110blvaUu::

Link to Section 2431:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:3:./temp/~c110blvaUu:e93037:

Sec. 2431. Sex tourism

`(a) Arranging Travel and Related Conduct- Whoever, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, knowingly arranges, induces, or procures the travel of a person in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in any commercial sex act (as defined in section 2429), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

`(b) Increased Penalty for Offenses Involving Children- If the commercial sex act is with a person under 18 years of age, the maximum term of imprisonment for an offense under this section is 30 years.';

(2) AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 117 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following new item:

`2431. Sex tourism.'.

(h) Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines- Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if appropriate, amend the sentencing guidelines and policy statements applicable--

(1) to persons convicted of offenses created by this section other than those created by subsections (f) and (g), to ensure conformity with the United States Sentencing Guidelines, sections 2H4.1 (peonage offenses) and 2H4.2 (labor offenses); and

(2) to persons convicted of offenses created by subsection (f) or (g) of this section, to ensure conformity with the United States Sentencing Guidelines, sections 2G1.1 (promoting commercial sex acts with persons other than minors) and 2G1.3 (promoting commercial sex acts or prohibited sexual conduct with a minor, and related offenses.

It would seem to me like Section 2431 is mostly aimed against tour operators or travel agents and not message boards. But like you said LAGuy. You never know.

It seems the law is aimed at under aged girls, and thats good.(see below)
So I don't think we have anything to worry about.
After all prostitution is legal in parts of nevada, so if you travel out to Vegas and visit the chicken ranch could you be charged?? I don't think so. So if prostitution is legal in say Costa Rica and you hire a woman of 18 or older, how could you be prosecuted. I don't see any worries here, unless you are a fucken scum bag chasing after underaged girls.


f) Definition. As used in this section, the term "illicit sexual conduct" means (1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A [18 USCS §§ 2241 et seq.] if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (2) any commercial sex act (as defined in section 1591) with a person under 18 years of age.

Maybe CH should be considering following the approach that Wikileaks.org took and setting up mirror sites outside of the U.S., or better, setting itself up outside of the U.S. beyond the reach of overly aggressive prosecutors or judges down the road (if it hasn't already). The government might be able to shutdown the clubhombre.com domain name, but as long as mirror sites are available, or the IP address is based outside the U.S. it would be harder to take action against it or gain records.

For those of you who don't know, Wikileaks.org is a website that was recently the subject of a lawsuit and a California judge tried to shutdown by ordering the site's DNS registrar to shut it down. Wikileaks is an anonymous webposting site that was set up initially by some Chinese dissidents as well as open government advocates in a number of other companies to get out leaked government documents on the web without traceability back to the leaker. For example, you can find the Guantanomo Base Operating Manual and Military Rules of Engagement in Iraq, as well as many other U.S. documents, plus those from countries all around the world including some very autocratic ones. What the judge didn't understand, is that only prevents people from now accessing the website by typing in "http://www.wikileaks.org" on your web browser, but you can still access it by its IP address (http://88.80.13.160) or one of it's mirror sites (www.wikileaks.be or www.wikileaks.cx).

The full story on Wikileak is available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/19cnd-wiki.html?ex=1361163600&en=be8a49b53a1c3791&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Sounds like it was changed to be much more targeted at the tour operator type. That would be a big step in the right direction. And if the term "illicet sexual conduct" was redefined to specifically apply only to "under 18", then this really doesn't change the status quo.

I can only imagine this legal manuevering having an impact if ...

If you were convicted in Mexico of a dastardly sex crime, sentenced to a Mexican jail ...

at that point you might be inclined to accept the Mexican fact version of what happened to get yourself into an American jail (via extradition).

Under ordinary circumstances, there are no witnesses available to USA law enforcement to convict you of anything.

Maybe?

From what I understand, this pertains to minors and illegally trafficed women. Not the willing ladies most of us seek...

The legislators behind this were probably heavily lobbied by the Citizens United to Negate Travel for Sex (CUNTS). That, or the local hooker lobby, who rightfully sees foreign hookers as a direct threat to their businesses. Unfortunately, the DC Hookers Association has a lot of clout in Congress, as they take names and photos.

I think many of you are missing a key point here. Even though what appears to have been passed in the house only currently impacts tour operators (sex with minors has long been illegal, so no change there), this sets yet another chilling precedent. First, the original law proposed criminalized ALL travel that involved commercial transactions of a sexual nature, which obviously is outrageous and should have any civil libertarian steaming. Just because it didn't make it so far THIS time doesn't mean it won't in the future.

Secondly, they did criminalize tour operators. For what? Taking adult men to countries where prostitution is legal (it is legal in quite a number, by the way), and showing them where to meet women of legal age for consensual sex, in which monetary compensation is provided. Why on earth should this be illegal? I don't know why some of you think this is a good thing. But it just goes to show you what people in congress think about freedoms. They will try to infringe on every aspect of people's private lives if they can.

>>>Why on earth should this be illegal?

Indeed, why should any prostitution be illegal? I have yet to see the country that was brought to ruin because they didn't outlaw prostitution. Now I can fully appreciate why families driving their kids to the playplace at McDonalds don't want to have to drive past a bunch of half-naked streetwalkers. But discreet transactions between consenting adults harm no one.

You also have to love the government mandated attempt at extortion coded into the law - in a nutshell "don't crack down like the US says you should and we won't give your country money." If an individual engages in extortion it's a crime, why is this any different?

>>>the local hooker lobby, who rightfully sees foreign hookers as a direct threat to their businesses

Damned offshoring, is nothing safe?

I never travel anywhere for sex.
If they ask why I'm going to Thailand I tell them I want to see the Eiffel Tower and the Taj Mahal and all that tourist shit.

Murasaki-

You are absolutely correct. Should this pass, we are on a slippery slope to criminalization of nearly any engagement in commercial sexual activity, whether it takes place in a setting where it's legal or non-criminalized or not. Ironically, this could mean that having paid sex in Brazil could land you in jail while doing so in certain places in Nevada would not. Hence my joke above about this being a protectionist act. But the bigger issue is not funny, because these types of issues bring together a "perfect storm" of religious kooks, social conservatives, dyke-feminists, and NGO liberals, each group with their own misguided reasons for wanting to interfere in the private decisions of consenting adults.

Sadly, it's become easy for politicians to give away our freedoms. Few paid any price for doing so as part of the Patriot Act. And few will take a principled stand against the groups mentioned above when such a stand will only garner support from whoremongers and civil libertarians (it's difficult to say which group is held in greater contempt by most Americans, who have zero appreciation of the erosion of their freedoms that has already happened and may yet occur).

Hey to all you LOSERS who pay for it cause you cant have a regular girlfriend. Soon you will be CRIMINOSOS (look it up if you aint fluent). So if you cant get any without paying for it you will all soon be locked up where you belong.

Sha chang, shi ching, cha chang ching ching

No GCL, the correct sound is "ka ching."

Now that I think about it, the law would apply to those who TRAVEL overseas for commercial sex. So what about Americans who RESIDE overseas? Since they already live there, no travel would be involved. Ergo, the law would not apply to them and it would be legal.

Relocation anyone?

Murasaki: You are a lost soul indeed. It is "Cha Shing" or alternatively "Sha Ching." "Ka Ching" has nothing to do with what GCL is trying, without much success, to talk about.

Couldn't the government substitute a law against professional asshole waxing for the sex tourism one? That would certainly be more effective in removing riff raff from our streets.

What about NAFTA??

Everybody is for free trade between the USA & Mexico/Canada if we're talking about food products and manufacturing, Yet American women with bitchy attitudes want isolationist trade barriers when it involves peddling their sexual favors.

Sounds like the USA is trying to "opt out" of the sex trade aspect of NAFTA.

Is this right?

Well I guess adult sex tourism will remain legal for another three years now.

That is, until this bill comes up for re-authorization in 2011. We'll see if some of the provisions mentioned above will return.

See the full text of the bill here....

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-7311

They seem to have taken out all the parts about illicit sexual conduct with prostitutes that would have effectively made travel to any foreign country for sex illegal for US citizens.

They also took out the part that would have made prostitution in the US a federal crime.

Thanks goodness for that. The bill passed both houses without objection on December 10th and Bush signed it December 23rd.

Well (as Ronald Reagan would say), Xenono has forced me to re-read some of the earlier posts in this thread. Upon noting GCL's reference to "CRIMINOSOS" (what's the problem GCL, can't speak English?) I now realize there is an illegal alien in our midst.

Now THAT is something that deserves Congressional action!