ACLU Supports Legalized Unregulated Prostitution

STOP THE ACLU BLOG ^ | 19-May-05 | Jay777

[Jay777]

The ACLU's Policy 211 is straightforward. "The ACLU supports the decriminalization of prostitution and opposes state regulation of prostitution". They base their argument on several points, including that existing laws are discrimination against women, and the right of individual privacy. They argue that what two consenting adults in private do is their own business. Prostitution is private? But isn’t the prostitute engaging in business, isn’t she providing a service? Would we not regulate and license a business? You wouldn’t want a general contractor to work on your house without a license would you? That would be unsafe as is an unregulated prostitute.

However, the ACLU doesn't believe in that philosophy. The question of privacy comes in if the government is allowed to regulate the oldest profession.

As for it being a privacy issue, it seems a contradiction to me when they also state that the "public" solicitation of prostitution is "entitled to the protection of the First Amendment". "It's not just the bedroom that the ACLU wishes to make off-limits to public censure, but also the local street corner, presumably even if that corner is regularly used by school children crossing the street

[Kenny Bunkport]

I wasn't my intention to address the question of prostitutes, who should remain as the law views them, but to respond to the specific comment of another poster who was addressing the regulation of professions and services, generally.

[Kenny Bunkport]

I understand your point. I just disagree. Your position makes sense in an ideal world, but in an ideal world, we wouldn't need laws.

[Kenny Bunkport]

I don't see anything wrong with using the law to sort out costs imposed on other users of a shared resource.

And some of those costs might be in the form of required emission controls from point or mobile sources. While I've seen the concept trashed both here and on conservative talk radio (and some talk show hosts, frankly, are prime examples of "too stupid to be free"), the concept of saleable emission credits, as pioneered by the South Coast air district in LA, is an innovative, market-based approach to reducing air pollution, and far less coercive than a "one-size-fits-all" approach to reducing pollution. Interestingly, industries could have "freely" gotten together to implement such a system, but it required a regulation to actually make the market work, and give regulated industries the incentive to be involved.

[Kenny Bunkport]

For the record, I believe that American business, and Americans in general, are over-regulated. But that doesn't mean that I favor total elimination of all regulations. Government has a role, whether it's assuring adequate training and qualifications of physicians, or by leveling the playing field to assure that some large business doesn't stick it to some small business competitor through their unfair business practices, or by establishing building standards such that some 20 story building doesn't come tumbling down with the first stiff gust of wind. I know that position doesn't go down well here, but so be it...that's my view.

[New Orleans Slim]

"Why yes I would. Its called freedom."

Hear, hear!

Let the market decide.